Tower Humidor Help!

[PigFish]

Another great post. Just wondering if you have any charts or excel sheets that show the relationship between temperature, rh, and moisture content in tobacco. Thanks.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

This was asked on another thread and I am working on a response. Cheers! -Piggy

[irratebass]

Well yesterday Dijit came over and installed some fans another BOTL had custom made for me, and we put a Hydra in there. The fans are on a timer...they kick on for 15mins every 2 hours.

Seems to be working pretty great....I'll try and post a video tonight.

[irratebass]

Here ya go

https://vimeo.com/153861139

Hope this works

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

[WhiteMamba]

That's a nice setup!

[irratebass]

Thanks Mike

[PigFish]

Circulation is always a good thing. Here are a couple of hints.

Don't blow air directly at your humidifier. This will cause excess evaporation and eventual over humidification.

If you can change the timing, I would. I would reduce the overall period in favor of shortening the duty cycle and running it more often. I prefer a 25% duty cycle to the 12.5% but that is a matter of choice.

These fans look pretty big. I am pretty sure that this size of fan will be running at least 30 to 40 cfm (and could be a lot more). This means that they don't have to run all that long to move through all the air and water (vapor) in your system. You therefore could get a system that almost mimics a full time fan system, running your 12.5% duty cycle by running the fans 60/480 seconds... Just food for thought! I see one minute on, to 8 minutes off superior to letting the system stagnate for 1 hour and 45 minutes.

My 2 cents!

Cheers! -Piggy

[Fugu]

Another great post. Just wondering if you have any charts or excel sheets that show the relationship between temperature, rh, and moisture content in tobacco. Thanks.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

This was asked on another thread and I am working on a response. Cheers! -Piggy

I’d be very much interested in that, too!

PigFish, you are usually stating that there is an equal or similar importance of relative humidity and temperature on the water content of a cigar. Is that really so, I'll ask?

Because usually, for hygroscopic materials the relative humidity of the storage-environment is a much more important determinant of the equilibrium moisture than it is temperature. That is, because there is a temperature-dependent balance between adsorption and desorption of water to said material. And the parameter “relative humidity” rH already contains a factorial component of temperature.

Therefore, there are two counteracting effects:

With higher temperatures, the desorption rate of water molecules is gradually prevailing over the adsorption rate. This effect alone would lead to the material losing water, becoming dryer. At the same time, while keeping rH in the atmosphere (=humidor) constant the absolute amount of water in the atmosphere will rise with higher temps, thereby partially (or completely?) compensating for the increasing desorption effects and its related loss of water to the material. The particular “behaviour”, i.e. the shift or non-shifting of that equilibrium point with temperature will then likely be depending on the material concerned.

Now, my question would be: Which are the exact circumstances for the material tobacco?

Has such been investigated somewhere before? I haven’t been able in years to find proper information on that. So, any input that you or other members might be able to give is much appreciated!

Thanks,

Paul

[PigFish]

I’d be very much interested in that, too!

PigFish, you are usually stating that there is an equal or similar importance of relative humidity and temperature on the water content of a cigar. Is that really so, I'll ask?

Because usually, for hygroscopic materials the relative humidity of the storage-environment is a much more important determinant of the equilibrium moisture than it is temperature. That is, because there is a temperature-dependent balance between adsorption and desorption of water to said material. And the parameter “relative humidity” rH already contains a factorial component of temperature.

Therefore, there are two counteracting effects:

With higher temperatures, the desorption rate of water molecules is gradually prevailing over the adsorption rate. This effect alone would lead to the material losing water, becoming dryer. At the same time, while keeping rH in the atmosphere (=humidor) constant the absolute amount of water in the atmosphere will rise with higher temps, thereby partially (or completely?) compensating for the increasing desorption effects and its related loss of water to the material. The particular “behaviour”, i.e. the shift or non-shifting of that equilibrium point with temperature will then likely be depending on the material concerned.

Now, my question would be: Which are the exact circumstances for the material tobacco?

Has such been investigated somewhere before? I haven’t been able in years to find proper information on that. So, any input that you or other members might be able to give is much appreciated!

Thanks,

Paul

I don't really have the time to really go item by item and pick apart this statement (or agree with it). I have bolded an item, and I 'believe' that this is a gross generalization and therefore inaccurate.

The real problem with discussing this on-line, will be the time it will take. Furthermore, we will likely end up agreeing somewhere in the end, based on facts, but we will likely 'argue' over what will amount to be the "language" used.

I see you as one who understands this process, yet you have not yet been swayed by the fact that water activity of a substrate needs to be empirically proven and is not theoretical. You just need to lay down for this, because it is a fact...

Water activity is the most important aspect of a hygroscopic substance. Water activity is a measure of a materials hygroscopicity. Since by definition, water activity is a ratio of the partial vapor pressure of the water in a material verses water, one must understand that correlating hygroscopic materials directly to water would mean that every hygroscopic material would have the same water activity... And that is not true!

... I just found myself, rewriting a definition of relative humidity and promptly edited it out. This is what I am afraid of when entering this conversation... -LOL

Liquid water and tobacco are not the same. The 'process' is the same however. What vapor pressure of water is necessary to break a water bond to tobacco? The bond strengths are not the same, therefore there is no liner correlation to water bonding back to water.

So, for a simple understanding one must ask one's self. Does temperature of water play a role in its vapor pressure? If the answer is yes, then it must also be yes for tobacco. You need to clear your mind of the premise that the definition of rH contains all the factors necessary to correlate it directly to tobacco, and I must emphasize, so that one can ignore temperature.

Okay... I have now written my third analogy and promptly threw it away! Sorry, I cannot really come up with one that I believe is really accurate. While I see it clearly in my mind, any explanation other than empirical testing and proving will be a point to argue, and again I am not into it...

I did respond to this question on this thread:

http://www.friendsofhabanos.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=125808

post #28.

I can take that data, assuming that I can find the work I have done in the past, and get specific numbers. Whether or not they correlate to cigars is explained in the post.

One last quick answer. Is temperature as important as rH? That is not for me to answer, it is for you to answer for yourself. I know that it is a factor as is rH. The question is, does it affect the PMC enough for you to taste? Temperature does affect PMC, substantially, but substantially is a subjective term.

Read the post and perhaps you can understand my position better. As an absolute, yes, temperature matters. Subjectively, it may mean precious little to you and other smokers. That is not up to me!

Cheers! -Piggy

[Fugu]

I don't really have the time to really go item by item and pick apart this statement (or agree with it). I have bolded an item, and I 'believe' that this is a gross generalization and therefore inaccurate.

The real problem with discussing this on-line, will be the time it will take. Furthermore, we will likely end up agreeing somewhere in the end, based on facts, but we will likely 'argue' over what will amount to be the "language" used.

I see you as one who understands this process, yet you have not yet been swayed by the fact that water activity of a substrate needs to be empirically proven and is not theoretical. You just need to lay down for this, because it is a fact...

Water activity is the most important aspect of a hygroscopic substance. Water activity is a measure of a materials hygroscopicity. Since by definition, water activity is a ratio of the partial vapor pressure of the water in a material verses water, one must understand that correlating hygroscopic materials directly to water would mean that every hygroscopic material would have the same water activity... And that is not true!

... I just found myself, rewriting a definition of relative humidity and promptly edited it out. This is what I am afraid of when entering this conversation... -LOL

Liquid water and tobacco are not the same. The 'process' is the same however. What vapor pressure of water is necessary to break a water bond to tobacco? The bond strengths are not the same, therefore there is no liner correlation to water bonding back to water.

So, for a simple understanding one must ask one's self. Does temperature of water play a role in its vapor pressure? If the answer is yes, then it must also be yes for tobacco. You need to clear your mind of the premise that the definition of rH contains all the factors necessary to correlate it directly to tobacco, and I must emphasize, so that one can ignore temperature.

Okay... I have now written my third analogy and promptly threw it away! Sorry, I cannot really come up with one that I believe is really accurate. While I see it clearly in my mind, any explanation other than empirical testing and proving will be a point to argue, and again I am not into it...

I did respond to this question on this thread:

http://www.friendsofhabanos.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=125808

post #28.

I can take that data, assuming that I can find the work I have done in the past, and get specific numbers. Whether or not they correlate to cigars is explained in the post.

One last quick answer. Is temperature as important as rH? That is not for me to answer, it is for you to answer for yourself. I know that it is a factor as is rH. The question is, does it affect the PMC enough for you to taste? Temperature does affect PMC, substantially, but substantially is a subjective term.

Read the post and perhaps you can understand my position better. As an absolute, yes, temperature matters. Subjectively, it may mean precious little to you and other smokers. That is not up to me!

Cheers! -Piggy

Thank you very much for taking the time, PigFish, and for your prompt response.

Just a quick reply without having yet read the link you are referring to (will do!).

Well, I think I do concur with most what you are saying, essentially you are supporting my view, or say, my questioning:

I see you as one who understands this process, yet you have not yet been swayed by the fact that water activity of a substrate needs to be empirically proven and is not theoretical. You just need to lay down for this, because it is a fact...

No, I absolutely agree with that – this does not in any way differ from what I was trying to say.

What I am saying is: There is a huge influence of rH on equilibrium moisture in tobacco. And there is also, but perhaps much less (or even none) influence of temperature on said equilibrium. The relative importance between the two is what lets me wonder. And the extent of that will obviously be substrate dependent.

Water activity is the most important aspect of a hygroscopic substance. Water activity is a measure of a materials hygroscopicity. Since by definition, water activity is a ratio of the partial vapor pressure of the water in a material verses water, one must understand that correlating hygroscopic materials directly to water would mean that every hygroscopic material would have the same water activity... And that is not true!

Agreed again! That is exactly what I wish to gain more info on. You may look at it this way, again, two facts, as you say it:

1. Keeping rH constant and elevating temperature will lead to higher absolute humidity in the atmosphere (absolute water content)
2. Elevated temperature leads to the water desorption rate rising over adsorption rate (this is a thermodynamic principle, reflected in vapor pressure; holds for fluid water, as well as for hygroscopically adsorbed water in solid matter)

Now, we just don’t know which of both effects will gain the upper hand. And that – and I think we both concur in this aspect – is dependent on the particular material concerned. As you say it, the “specific” hygroscopicity of tobacco.

Now again, imagine that effect 1. will be more effective over effect 2.. Then, rising temperature while keeping rH constant will lead to water loss = dryer cigars. Assuming effect 2. will be more important than 1. will lead to water gain = higher moisture content in a cigar. Will both be absolutely balancing each other, there will be no influence of temperature on the moisture equilibrium in tobacco at all (my first, a bit undifferentiated statement in the previous post).

This latter scenario, however, seems rather unlikely, as this would be a big coincidence. But the concerted effects 1. and 2. could principally act in both directions, and I still think, that the temperature effect rather is a small one compared to the influence of rH.

What we still just don’t know is: What is factum? And – in agreeing with you again – that only seems to be possible figuring out by an empirical study.

So my core question remaining: Has this been done before, or is this particular property of tobacco yet being known?

I could imagine something along the lines of an experiment, where one would make a test trial with a set of tobacco/cigars, maintained at the exact same relative humidity but kept at different temps: For instance, starting with the same moisture content (set of cigars initially stored and acclimatized identically) and then continually being stored at constant rH but divided into subsets of different storage temperatures. The mass differences of cigars between start and end of such an experiment would tell us about the actual change in tobacco moisture due to the temperature effect alone (leaving beetle growth aside… ).

Ok, that much for the moment. Will check your other post and perhaps get back to you on that tomorrow.

Thanks again,

Paul

[PigFish]

Nice post mate.

I have been working on a number, but I really should redraw all the curves. You really need to read that post to understand.

I have a number (actually) but I want to work more on the extrapolated data before I spring it. Extrapolating the data from a logarithmic graph is not the easiest thing to do... Read the post and you will understand!

Oh, and call me Ray!

[Fugu]

Thanks again, Ray, much appreciated!

Read it meanwhile, and I guess I understand (technically so to say), but it still doesn’t give answers yet, if I understood correctly.

So, what you have is an extensive literature on tobacco properties and behaviour, but mainly from the cigarette industry, as it seems (better than nothing, I’d say, although I get your point of taking comparability with a grain of salt).

Using those, you did some modelling and/or curve fitting to the published data in order to be able to extrapolate from known figures to those extending out of that range? Is that correct?

It might be obvious, but may I ask for what PMC stands for? Is it something like particulate moisture content…?

Cheers

Paul

[PigFish]

Pretty much...

There are two real problems. One is redrawing the data and trying to preserve any accuracy (which is really kind of a joke) when you consider how (potentially) far fetched this whole proposition is.

Look, lets not kid ourselves here... This project might really be out-to-lunch, and not being a charlatan by nature, I am not going to pawn this off as any panacea! On the other hand, it might be very accurate!!! One must judge for themselves and test it empiracally.

Next, the logarithmic scale of the graph really means that I should factor in a compression of data according to the logarithmic scale. That is assuming that the data was compressed in the first place, verses simply compressing one axis. I don't know the answer to that! The more I think about this, when I look at the picture, I am thinking that my algorithm (a radial linear progression) is probably wrong.

Letting the cat out of the bag, I am comfortable saying that the rH/Temperature F˚ ratio is 2 (to 4) to 1. 3 to 4 to 1 likely more accurate. But frankly I was looking for better data than that and that is why all the secrecy. My testing (non scientific leans more to 2 to 3 to 1, but that is not what the charted data reflects...

This is a sample of what I am looking at... Jesus... the more I look at it, the more I am thinking about trashing a couple of hours worth of work here and start looking to compress the data differently. I hate guessing...

Everything is logged against PMC (percent moisture content). That is the constant in any equation.

Cheers! -R

PS... That should answer your question somewhat. There is a relationship. The relationship is not "negligible" and I have suggested that from the beginning. The relationship is not linear, but considering the envelope that most of us are interested in, linearity can be assumed.

[Fugu]

Ray, many thanks for answering that, but you see me left more mazed than before....

The plot is rather obscure to me without scaling and labelling, but perhaps you do not want to disclose that, I see.

What I was wondering - what is the data basis kind of (seems an older paper - would you mind disclosing that? I'd fully understand and accept if not), and what is the problem of the logarithmic scale? I understand you have to retrieve the data 'visually', so to say, from a logarithmic plot (I suppose) and you are not in hold of the underlying numeric data base (because its a published paper, just presenting the plot alone)?

A technical question here, I was surprised to learn that you are using AutoCAD to curve fit data. Didn't know that the package contains a curve fitting tool, and are you happy with it? So just in case there were difficulties, and if you don't mind giving it away, you may consider dropping me any raw data and I could do the curve fitting of the function for you with tablecurve. Please, as we don't know each other personally, don't see this an inapt try to take something away from you, just an honest offering of my help (if I can be of it at all...).

Cheers

Paul

[PigFish]

Yeah, I get that. I am not in the plot reproduction business. If you have suggestions for software to curve fit, that might be of some help. I am not a biologist and I study tobacco as a hobby and as a part of my CigarClimatology business. I appear to be about the only guy who makes humidors who cares whether my assumptions about tobacco adsorption are correct!

AC does not fit curves. I fit the curves! Comical, right? Go ahead, I can take it!! When I don't have the right tools, sometimes I just make them. It was a way to find a specific point in the data (some years ago) and for me to get a handle on the PMC that I favor. It turned into something more, because people asked. Specifically you and Orion. I went looking for answers for you guys! Knowing what I wanted to know (back when I was researching this), the data was factored in my brain and I have moved on. I understand that this is new data to a lot of people, and therefore there may be some enthusiasm for it. This is why I have taken the effort to answer it.

This was overlaid in an old computer, the files on a backup that I scratched around on. I found the CAD file, but the underlying XRef file I could not find. I forgot what I named it, if I named it at all... I may have Xref'd the whole page taken from a study. The study did not tabulate the data, (from my memory) they charted it... Ultimately, the purpose was not to make a scientific paper out of another's data... but to get it out there because you guys asked for it. I can only put so much effort into the data due to time.

If I can find the XRef, I will send it to you. Email your EM addy to my CigarClimatology address. I would also appreciate knowing what software you will use to fit and redraw the chart. Just curious... Again, recreating the data of others is not my specialty... Creating my own is of more importance to me, however the work of others sets us in the right direction, and this is the right direction! Yes?

You are taking nothing away from me mate... I see this (your offer) as an offer to help. I don't 'own' the data, I possess it! Corroborating with another who loves seeking knowledge is a pleasure not a problem. If it advances the smoking community, that is a big part of the reason that I post here, I say, lets go for it!

I like educating people about how to care for cigars. However, I don't really go around attempting to prove anything to anyone! Attempting to win arguments over the adsorption of tobacco with people over the net does not really appeal to me and I am satisfied knowing the facts and sharing them. I share the facts where applicable, to a receptive audience. If that audience does not approve or argues, I laugh to myself and am comfortably smug! One can argue opinions (for fun and foolishness) but facts speak for themselves. I have studied enough papers on the hygroscopicity of tobacco to know the truth about the stuff. After being misled for years, reading the myths professed by "laypersons," clueless people in the smoking realm, I set out to learn the truth myself and did my own research on the questions that I had.

This is not ground-breaking data, but if you are a layman smoker, humidor administrator, I feel the data is pretty relevant. I hate to answer questions about some of the things that I know so vaguely, but not knowing the 'exact' numbers, I am reticent to start more myths, untruths and promote bad or inaccurate data. This is the reason behind the post with all the caveats...

The AC pic was a tease... -LOL Sorry. I normally draw on a PC but since I was at my Mac desk posting, I opened the file in my Mac and simply did a screen grab of all the little lines... Using the right product for job (software) would have helped, but I mechanical draw for my humidor business and I just enjoy drawing in CAD (it is just a skill I have acquired, an avocation). Sometimes I just make work for myself and draw something when I am in the mood. This was one such case!

That is the story mate. I work with the tools I have, until I get better ones. I have never, I mean never looked to get tabular data from another's graph... This is a new realm for me!!! -LOL

TEACH ME! -LOL I will scrap around more for the original work.

Thanks for your help. -R

[PigFish]

Just did a little searching online and found some open source software called Engauge Digitizer. I might just download it and try it out.

The internet is a dream, and yet a nightmare for those who are knowledge hungry! -Piggy 2016

[mygar]

Do you ever allow yourself to just sit back and enjoy a cigar piggy? Lol

[PigFish]

Do you ever allow yourself to just sit back and enjoy a cigar piggy? Lol

... my friend, cigars are cerebral. A lot of these brilliant ideas are manifestations from smoking cigars. Perhaps you might want to ask instead, "Piggy, you should consider drinking!"

-the Pig

[mygar]

Haha!! Keep enjoying cigars and thinking then! It helps us all when considering things regarding our storage environment

[Fugu]

Ray, thanks again for replying so frankly.

I’d be happy to check the data for its best / most suitable curve fit. Agreed, it might be much more rewarding if one could do this on one's own data, of course. But as long as we need to rely on published ones that are getting as close as we can get to our material - cigar tobacco - it at least seems worth trying. It would be not much work for me (unless it's hundreds of entries...haha) anyhow and I could quickly feed it in and let the analysis run. I am using a math-software called Tablecurve. AFAIK there is no free-version, unfortunately. Perhaps there are other freeware options on the web, but I am not up to date on that.

You are taking nothing away from me mate... I see this (your offer) as an offer to help. I don't 'own' the data, I possess it! Corroborating with another who loves seeking knowledge is a pleasure not a problem. If it advances the smoking community, that is a big part of the reason that I post here, I say, lets go for it!

Excellent, happy that youre taking it that way!

I like educating people about how to care for cigars. However, I don't really go around attempting to prove anything to anyone! Attempting to win arguments over the adsorption of tobacco with people over the net does not really appeal to me and I am satisfied knowing the facts and sharing them.

I'd feel the same – it's not about who's being right or wrong - it is about gaining knowledge.

I share the facts where applicable, to a receptive audience. If that audience does not approve or argues, I laugh to myself and am comfortably smug! One can argue opinions (for fun and foolishness) but facts speak for themselves. I have studied enough papers on the hygroscopicity of tobacco to know the truth about the stuff.

Guess that’s what we are diggin for, isn’t it? (!)

This is not ground-breaking data, but if you are a layman smoker, humidor administrator, I feel the data is pretty relevant. I hate to answer questions about some of the things that I know so vaguely, but not knowing the 'exact' numbers, I am reticent to start more myths, untruths and promote bad or inaccurate data. This is the reason behind the post with all the caveats...

Absolutely, I get and I do appreciate your standpoint.

As I said, as little as it might be, I'd be happily providing any input and assistance where I might be able to and where it will be welcome!

Cheers

Paul

[Guest scsi]

If a tower design is inherently flawed for humidor design, what would be the most advantageous design?

[PigFish]

If a tower design is inherently flawed for humidor design, what would be the most advantageous design?

I say flawed in an absolute sense. If you run a non-contact thermometer over a tower humidor, and use two synchronized hygrometers at the top and bottom you will find a non-homogenous environment. That is why they are flawed!

Look, mates, I live in the real world like you do. An upright humidor where there is access to your cigars without digging too hard is the real world. I use them too...

The good Lord gave us the fan! With that, I make ducted fans! I constantly move top air (water) to the bottom and vice versa. That is the solution, not giving up on the tower humidor. However, it is all a trade off. Now that you have fans and homogenization, what do you do with the heat that the fans make...?

The bottom line is compromise from some "ideal." We all have to do it. My panacea is control and humidor design, but that is not for everyone, nor does everyone need it, nor want it. I was talking from the perspective of a humidor designer and builder. As a smoker I deal with it just like you do. Well, likely lesser so in my case because I build precision humidors... but you get the picture.

If you pull a cigar from your tower humidor and like the way it smokes, ignore my "idealistic" views and move on. I am here to help people with problems, not create them where they don't exist (for you)...

Differentials exist in the real world. Whether the differentials are 'problems' or not is up to you. As a precision humidor builder, differentials are a problem. Circulation is the only solution. Rest assured however, there is no perfect humidor.

Cheers! -Piggy