Silk Road forums

Discussion => Shipping => Topic started by: frogwithADD on October 12, 2011, 07:23 am

Title: 2x/3x vac sealed? Your shipping methods have been wrong. Improved version inside
Post by: frogwithADD on October 12, 2011, 07:23 am
Note: This is a first post on a new account, to keep myself even more anonymous...

The general consensus here is that 2x or 3x vacuum sealed bags for shipping drugs is the correct method(particularly relevant to weed). This is in fact not true. If we model the vacuum bag as a porous membrane through which odor molecules can slowly pass through, adding extra layers do little more than using a thicker bag to begin with. In fact, it'll just crush up the weed.

My proposed method is using a low pressure - high pressure 2 layer bagging. See attached image.
##: rigid container with a small hole facing the vacuum, prevents weed from being crushed.
---: Airtight vacuum sealed bag
==: Pressurized bag.

======================================
=                         high pressure region                                 =
=   +-------------------------------------------------+        =
=   |       ########################        |         =
=   |       #          low pressure region               #       |          =
=   |       #                                                        #       |         =
=   {      hole                  WEED                         #       }        =
=   |       #                                                        #       |         =
=   |       #                                                        #       |         =
=   |       ########################        |         =
=   +-------------------------------------------------+        =
=                                                                                          =
======================================


This system ensures that air only flows into the blue bag, which means significantly less odor particles will escape. All other packaging methods (like making it look like documents) are still compatible. This may only apply to large volume dealers as I am not sure how much this would cost. I am happy to provide further consultation, answer questions, or hear your criticism. I have degrees in related fields.
Title: Re: 2x/3x vac sealed? Your shipping methods have been wrong. Improved version inside
Post by: rake on October 12, 2011, 07:58 am
Excuse my ignorance but the red high pressure bag would have the same porous issues as the vac sealed bag wouldn't it?  If it doesn't then you might as well low pressure seal with that type of bag instead.
Title: Re: 2x/3x vac sealed? Your shipping methods have been wrong. Improved version inside
Post by: frogwithADD on October 12, 2011, 04:13 pm
Excuse my ignorance but the red high pressure bag would have the same porous issues as the vac sealed bag wouldn't it?

Yes. Airflow through the ## pressure bag would be outwards, but airflow through the --- vac bag would always be inwards, which is the point of having pressure gradient. The idea is to let ~0 odor molecules escape the vac bag in the first place.

Edited for new ascii art.
Title: Re: 2x/3x vac sealed? Your shipping methods have been wrong. Improved version inside
Post by: Holland_SR on October 14, 2011, 12:10 pm
Not sure if a high pressure bag on the outside is practical. Would take a lot of extra space and to me the most important things is keeping it to a small bubble envelope. Also imagine the envelope with 10kg of other post on top, it would still have to hold.

I use a medium vacuumed bag with the weed and then a completely vacuumed outer bag. Some air in the inner bag keeps the weed looking good. More importantly, it also prevent sticky bits from penetrating the plastic either immediately or in transit. Very common if you completely vacuum weed.

I dont think you'll ever beat a dog right above you envelope. But in reality dogs might pass your package within a few meters and you can win that by having double airtight plastic (vacuum doesnt matter) and packaging on the day of sending so particles dont have the time to collect in the outer envelope.

I haven't had a single problem to the us so I am not going to change anything yet.
Title: Re: 2x/3x vac sealed? Your shipping methods have been wrong. Improved version inside
Post by: frogwithADD on October 19, 2011, 11:13 am
Holland_SR:
It's true that 2x vac bag is reliable in general. In fact, I received product recently in single vac bag and it seemed fine. I was throwing this idea around for larger shipments, when security is #1 priority. The other bag would have to be something to be able to handle a little pressure (since it's a pressure bag), so 10kg wouldn't be a problem.

What are some large orders of weed you have shipped? And did you take any additional precautions for them? I am interested.
Title: Re: 2x/3x vac sealed? Your shipping methods have been wrong. Improved version inside
Post by: dutchshop on October 19, 2011, 12:05 pm
Hi,

i was reading about shipping methods here on the topic  :).

Vacuum sealing method doesn't beat the dog because u only slow the process of the odor particles going outside the package.

The best solution and method is to neutralize the oder outside  ;).With my solution /method i neutralize the process of the odor particles going outside....THINK ABOUT THAT.

For the rest I can't talk about the details what i use or do to secure the package but in short terms ......MY METHOD OR SOLUTION  .....BEATS THE DOG....EVEN IF HE SHIT ON THE ENVELOPE HE CAN'T SMELL IT.

FACTS:
All the packages i ever send in the past are never seized by customs ..but only lost during the shipment and that is circa 1 % of the 100 shipments.


Greets DutchShop,




Title: Re: 2x/3x vac sealed? Your shipping methods have been wrong. Improved version inside
Post by: frogwithADD on October 27, 2011, 04:12 am
The best solution and method is to neutralize the oder outside  ;).With my solution /method i neutralize the process of the odor particles going outside....THINK ABOUT THAT.

"Neutralizing the process of the odor particles going outside" is exactly what my method aims to do.

Does your method do that or "neutralize the odor outisde?" I suppose you can fill the outer bag with ozone to neutralize the odor particles, but i am not sure of how fast the ozone would neutralize the bag.

Why do you keep your shipping method so secretive when if anyone can just buy from you to find out?
Title: Re: 2x/3x vac sealed? Your shipping methods have been wrong. Improved version inside
Post by: anarcho47 on October 27, 2011, 06:01 am
If you get vapor-lock vac-seal bags they don't let any odor through.  The pores in the bags are small enough that odor cannot break out.

I have had zero issues using these bags.  I even had packages sit for over a MONTH in a canada post depot (some going to US) and all but one went through, and I'm pretty sure that was just random canada post workers rifling through mail to find shit since they were making only a few hundred bucks a week on strike pay.
Title: Re: 2x/3x vac sealed? Your shipping methods have been wrong. Improved version inside
Post by: mito on October 27, 2011, 10:47 pm
coffee.

/thread


:)
Title: Re: 2x/3x vac sealed? Your shipping methods have been wrong. Improved version inside
Post by: ConcernedCitizen on October 28, 2011, 04:00 am
I am not so sure that the principle of "keeping the airflow in one direction" entirely addresses the problem here. Firstly, modeling the inner container as a porous membrane means that there will be a small decaying airflow from the high pressure region into the low pressure region. From Fick's law of diffusion:

dV/dt = A/T * D * (P1 - P2)

dV/dt = volume flux of an individual gas species
A = surface area of membrane
T = thickness of membrane
D = diffusion coefficient
P = partial pressure of an individual gas species

That is to say, the transport of a gas depends on the pressure gradient of its own species, not others. As the air in the high-pressure region does not contain any odors from the goods, the partial pressure of the odor gases is zero in the high-pressure region initially. Thus, Fick's law states that there will be a flux of odor gases from the inner compartment to the outer.

This same law causes the airflow into the inner container, as the individual gases that make up air will have higher initial partial pressures in the outer container.

However, there will still be *some* transport of odor gases back into the inner container with the air gases. This is much more complicated to model, and I am not sure on the magnitude of this flux relative to the pressure gradient flux. This effect will be due to momentum transfer and convective transfer.

So in short, your method may not be more effective than multiple vac sealing, as multi vac sealing effectively increases T (thickness) in Fick's equation.





Title: Re: 2x/3x vac sealed? Your shipping methods have been wrong. Improved version inside
Post by: dutchshop on October 30, 2011, 12:35 am
BINGO.. ;D ;) 8)..".the transport of a gas depends on the pressure gradient of its own species, not others"...

This is the research i did before i become Vendor on Silkroad...you are on the right way bro... ;)

Fick's Laws: the Mathematics of Diffusion

Diffusion, the movement of a chemical species from an area of high concentration to an area of lower concentration, is one of the two major processes by which chemical species or dopants are introduced into a semiconductor (the other one being ion implantation) .  The controlled diffusion of dopants into silicon to alter the type and level of conductivity of semiconductor materials is the foundation of forming a p-n junction and formation of devices during wafer fabrication. The mathematics that govern the mass transport phenomena of diffusion are based on Fick's laws.

Fick's First Law
 

Whenever an impurity concentration gradient,  ∂C/∂x, exists in a finite volume of a matrix substance (the silicon substrate in this context), the impurity material will have the natural tendency to move in order to distribute itself more evenly within the matrix and decrease the gradient.

Given enough time, this flow of impurities will eventually result in homogeneity within the matrix, causing the net flow of impurities to stop.  The mathematics of this transport mechanism was formalized in 1855 by Fick, who postulated that the flux of material across a given plane is proportional to the concentration gradient across the plane.


Thus, Fick's First Law states:

J = -D ( ∂C(x,t)/∂x )

where J is the flux, D is the diffusion constant for the material that is diffusing in the specific solvent, and ∂C(x,t)/∂x is the concentration gradient.  The diffusion constant of a material is also referred to as 'diffusion coefficient' or simply 'diffusivity.'    It is expressed in units of length2/time, such as µm2/hour. The negative sign of the right side of the equation indicates that the impurities are flowing in the direction of lower concentration.
   

Fick's Second Law

Fick's First Law does not consider the fact that the gradient and local concentration of the impurities in a material decreases with an increase in time, an aspect that's important to diffusion processes.

The flux J1 of impurities entering a section of a bar with a concentration gradient is different from the flux J2 of impurities leaving the same section.  From the law of conservation of matter, the difference between J1 and J2 must result in a change in the concentration of impurities within the section (assuming that no impurities are formed or consumed in the section).

This is Fick's Second Law, which states that the change in impurity concentration over time is equal to the change in local diffusion flux, or

∂C(x,t)/∂t = - ∂J/∂x

or, from Fick's First Law,

∂C(x,t)/∂t =  ∂(D∂C(x,t)/∂x)/∂x.

If the diffusion coefficient is independent of position, such as when the impurity concentration is low, then Fick's Second Law may be further simplified into the following equation:

∂C(x,t)/∂t = D ∂2C(x,t)/∂x2.






I am not so sure that the principle of "keeping the airflow in one direction" entirely addresses the problem here. Firstly, modeling the inner container as a porous membrane means that there will be a small decaying airflow from the high pressure region into the low pressure region. From Fick's law of diffusion:

dV/dt = A/T * D * (P1 - P2)

dV/dt = volume flux of an individual gas species
A = surface area of membrane
T = thickness of membrane
D = diffusion coefficient
P = partial pressure of an individual gas species

That is to say, the transport of a gas depends on the pressure gradient of its own species, not others. As the air in the high-pressure region does not contain any odors from the goods, the partial pressure of the odor gases is zero in the high-pressure region initially. Thus, Fick's law states that there will be a flux of odor gases from the inner compartment to the outer.

This same law causes the airflow into the inner container, as the individual gases that make up air will have higher initial partial pressures in the outer container.

However, there will still be *some* transport of odor gases back into the inner container with the air gases. This is much more complicated to model, and I am not sure on the magnitude of this flux relative to the pressure gradient flux. This effect will be due to momentum transfer and convective transfer.

So in short, your method may not be more effective than multiple vac sealing, as multi vac sealing effectively increases T (thickness) in Fick's equation.
Title: Re: 2x/3x vac sealed? Your shipping methods have been wrong. Improved version inside
Post by: dutchshop on October 30, 2011, 12:42 am
I add more of my research...If you take the time like i did and read this very careful then u see the solution..this is far as i can go because i invest so many times and sacrifices to develop some solution to stable the gasses going outside the package. 


"Henry's Law

When a gas is in contact with the surface of a liquid, the amount of the gas which will go into solution is proportional to the partial pressure of that gas. A simple rationale for Henry's law is that if the partial pressure of a gas is twice as high, then on the average twice as many molecules will hit the liquid surface in a given time interval, and on the average twice as many will be captured and go into solution. For a gas mixture, Henry's law helps to predict the amount of each gas which will go into solution, but different gases have different solubilities and this also affects the rate. The constant of proportionality in Henry's law must take this into account. For example, in the gas exchange processes in respiration, the solubility of carbon dioxide is about 22 times that of oxygen when they are in contact with the plasma of the human body."

Link:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/henry.html

In physics, Henry's law is one of the gas laws formulated by William Henry in 1803. It states that:

    At a constant temperature, the amount of a given gas that dissolves in a given type and volume of liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas in equilibrium with that liquid.

An equivalent way of stating the law is that the solubility of a gas in a liquid at a particular temperature is proportional to the pressure of that gas above the liquid. Henry's law has since been shown to apply for a wide range of dilute solutions, not merely those of gases.

An everyday example of Henry's law is given by carbonated soft drinks. Before the bottle or can is opened, the gas above the drink is almost pure carbon dioxide at a pressure slightly higher than atmospheric pressure. The drink itself contains dissolved carbon dioxide. When the bottle or can is opened, some of this gas escapes, giving the characteristic hiss (or "pop" in the case of a champagne bottle). Because the pressure above the liquid is now lower, some of the dissolved carbon dioxide comes out of solution as bubbles. If a glass of the drink is left in the open, the concentration of carbon dioxide in solution will come into equilibrium with the carbon dioxide in the air, and the drink will go "flat". Note that the pressure acting above the drink in the sealed must come from the partial pressure of carbon dioxide. If the gas is only air it would not produce the same effect even if the pressure value is the same.

Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry%27s_law

Greets DutchShop,