Beads: Bulk vs "Name" brand....

[Nattyboh74]

I know this has to pop up every now and then, but I havnet seen a comparison similar to this via searching. Im sure there is going to be someone else to prove me wrong, so be it.

 

Anyway, I bought beads while ago form Mark ( on another forum ) and Ive been running them for a WHILE. Working great... But many are colored and cracked etc. Now what Im wondering is, in the end they are silica beads. What differentiates CigarMony beads, HF beads ( name brands )  from say the Exquisicat.

The litter is just generic beads, and the Hf and marketed towards cigar storage... Isnt salt, salt?  Also I have some HCM generic beads here 4A grade, and I cannot for the life of me get them to maintain 63-ish RH. They get there and then slowly creep up to 65% or higher. I throw the OLD CigarMony beads in there and solid... I have two hygrometers in the same places and the only thing that changes is the beads ( HCM or Silica ). So the hygrometers are constant at all times...

 

All in all,I want to get new beads since mine are looking sad, should I pay more for the name branded silicas, HCMs ( Scotts ) or just go generic silica?

[jazzboypro]

I usee both HF and HCM beads without any issues. I suspect that the cracking and discoloration or your beads is due to the fact that you spray water on them. In the case of HCM beads, it is documented that you should not wet the beads. Beads a made to adsorb water vapor and not liquid water. The way i go about it is simply put my beads in a tupperware container along with a container of DL and an hygro. I just let the beads to their job until i get the desired RH. It takes some time but it does work well and it preserves the beads from being damaged.

[Nattyboh74]

I do not add any water with HCM beads. Nor the Cm ( CigarMony ) beads that I have. I USED to add water directly to the CM beads, but learning that it cracks them, I now and always mist the door. I allow it to absorb naturally.

 

My problem is that the HCM beads ARE at 63% but then some how some way creep up. VERY weird.

[Nattyboh74]

Maybe too many beads lol

[Bohn007]

I use HF beads that I bought at 65% and they stay right on the money. I haven't noticed any cracked beads but really haven't checked that closely but overall they seem to look as they should and perform right on the money. I buy them in the 1 pound bulk packages and then use the nylon bags. I use a mister to add water but I haven't really noticed much need to even do that. As I add new boxes, the beads are probably absorbing the excess moisture. 

[PigFish]

I know a lot about beaded desiccant products. I have historically sold them with my humidor products. I am biased!

There are many types, yet two broad classes of desiccant products. There are similarities and difference in the may types. Yet there are engineered and then junk desiccant and there is a huge difference, not only in price, but performance.

While some laugh at my analogy, cat litter products are not designed for bilateral humidification. They are not really designed to hold water. They are designed for cats to piss on!

Before you sideways on me, you should understand the physical aspects of desiccant products. These large pour, smaller surface area products are designed to be cheap, to hold larger molecules and odorous materials and to free water, not really hold it.

I don't have time today to go on and on about desiccants, not today anyway... But there is a difference and I don't care if they are my products or others. Furthermore some desiccant products are actually considered 'bedding quality' products (like mine). This means that they are water and crush resistant.

You have to weigh different options and cost is one such option. If price is a problem, and space is not, there is rational for cat litter. If space is a problem and cost is not, then an engineered desiccant will be best.

What are the differences? Well, desiccants are judged on two major factors. One is surface area, and the other is pore diameter. Since a desiccant is a physical product, you don't really always get it all in any desiccant. It is a tradeoff.

Then there is the physical nature of the substrate product and what molecules it will attract and hold and at what bond strength...

For me, water residency, crush strength, surface area and isotherm all play a role in what I choose.

Unfortunately most sellers don't really know what they sell. They may hype one thing or anther not really understanding what they sell. I doubt that if you asked what the desiccant surface area density is, you would get an answer at all, much less a correct answer!

Hope that helps.

Oh, for further explanations, you can search many of my posts that are desiccant related. -Piggy

[Hurltim]

Molecular Sieves--3 Angstrom. 700g (1.5 lbs) for 60 bucks shipped.

https://www.amazon.com/Molecular-Sieve-mSORB-Mesh-Bead/dp/B00C9GIC6C

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[Nattyboh74]

Thanks guys!

[BarryNY]

16 hours ago, Bohn007 said:

I use HF beads that I bought at 65% and they stay right on the money. I haven't noticed any cracked beads but really haven't checked that closely but overall they seem to look as they should and perform right on the money. I buy them in the 1 pound bulk packages and then use the nylon bags. I use a mister to add water but I haven't really noticed much need to even do that. As I add new boxes, the beads are probably absorbing the excess moisture. 

BINGO - like a brother from a different mother!

[Bohn007]

1 hour ago, Hurltim said:

Molecular Sieves--3 Angstrom. 700g (1.5 lbs) for 60 bucks shipped.

https://www.amazon.com/Molecular-Sieve-mSORB-Mesh-Bead/dp/B00C9GIC6C

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
 

How do you set their humidity level?

[jwr0201]

7 hours ago, PigFish said:

...While some laugh at my analogy, cat litter products are not designed for bilateral humidification. They are not really designed to hold water. They are designed for cats to piss on! 

Agreed.  I tried the cat piss litter and it really is inferior to beads.  

BTW, love your analogy!  

R

 

[Hurltim]

How do you set their humidity level?

Technically, there no such thing as a preset bead. They are supposed to be "pre-conditioned" to a set rH. You can do the exact same thing yourself with molecular sieves or higher humidity beads.
You can't spray water directly on to the molecular sieves (MS) or at least you shouldn't. Let the MS acclimate to your ambient rH first for a few days (so you don't have to leave the water in the humidor for a long time-- think of it as pre-charging the MS's) then set them in your humidor with a water source---say a dish of water. Keep an eye on your rH and when it hits your desired rH, take the water out. Make sure it stabilizes where you want it and adjust accordingly.
I do the same with kitty litter. Works like a charm.
You can take 70% beads and dry them back in the oven, follow the above procedure and you can set them to whatever you want.

I think Piggy has 50 posts or so explaining this very thing.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[Bohn007]

7 minutes ago, Hurltim said:

Technically, there no such thing as a preset bead. They are supposed to be "pre-conditioned" to a set rH. You can do the exact same thing yourself with molecular sieves or higher humidity beads.
You can't spray water directly on to the molecular sieves (MS) or at least you shouldn't. Let the MS acclimate to your ambient rH first for a few days (so you don't have to leave the water in the humidor for a long time-- think of it as pre-charging the MS's) then set them in your humidor with a water source---say a dish of water. Keep an eye on your rH and when it hits your desired rH, take the water out. Make sure it stabilizes where you want it and adjust accordingly.
I do the same with kitty litter. Works like a charm.
You can take 70% beads and dry them back in the oven, follow the above procedure and you can set them to whatever you want.

I think Piggy has 50 posts or so explaining this very thing.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
 

I saw Piggy's prior posts but didn't know if these beads behaved the same way. Good to know

[Hurltim]

Here's an even cheaper place to buy them. 24.95 a lb. 3A or 4A.

 

https://www.deltaadsorbents.com/

[Bohn007]

2 hours ago, Hurltim said:

Here's an even cheaper place to buy them. 24.95 a lb. 3A or 4A.

 

https://www.deltaadsorbents.com/

A 5 lb pail for $41 dollars. Wow, that is good for another 600 quarts of storage! Time to buy more cigars

[PigFish]

Molecular sieves are 'generally' more specific in their nature and use as catalysts. Understand please that I am not telling anyone not to but them, but suggesting that you attempt to get some isothermal data on them before dumping a bunch of money into them. Molecular sieves (zeolites) are more typically used in liquid purification where they actually exclude the liquid and catch the sub-liquid sized molecules. These small pore zeolites might well be very poor for your needs to hold water and support cigars. If you cannot obtain isotherms for your product, you should consider studying them yourself and determining their worth.

You may well find that they saturate with water far below an ErH that is your storage preference. Furthermore you may also find that their capacity for water, and water bonding is what you are after, as in kilogram/kilogram might not be what you expected.

While I suggest that one invests in an engineered desiccant product as a cigar buffer over 'junk' chipped silica, unless you understand the engineering aspect of 'engineered' desiccant, you might just be spending your money on things that don't work well. 

Considering that a water molecule is about 2.6A, there is little room for the water molecule in the first place. This is just food for thought and a basis for your own research.

Best of luck on your search for products. -P

[Hurltim]

The only question that really matter is...do they work? I believe there is a thread here by Rick Henderson who uses them and the seem to work great according to him.
There are plenty of topics out there on Google. Inform yourself and pick which ones you want. At this price you can experiment all you want.
There is a lot of hoopla when items are made for a specific purpose. For an example, an active humidifier is simply an expanded paper filter and a cpu fan. Not rocket science.
Buyer beware


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[Hurltim]

8 hours ago, Hutch said:

Are you seeing an option other than 5 x $24.95 ?

There are 1lb containers as well.

[scap99]

Nothing of value to add, but I'm so excited to see Angstrom discussions outside of work. 

 

The company I work for reps an energy recovery unit that uses a 3 Angstrom molecular sieve on the enthalpy wheel.  

The competition uses a silica gel wheel.

 

[PigFish]

39 minutes ago, Hurltim said:

The only question that really matter is...do they work? I believe there is a thread here by Rick Henderson who uses them and the seem to work great according to him.
There are plenty of topics out there on Google. Inform yourself and pick which ones you want. At this price you can experiment all you want.
There is a lot of hoopla when items are made for a specific purpose. For an example, an active humidifier is simply an expanded paper filter and a cpu fan. Not rocket science.
Buyer beware


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
 

That is the gist of my post in a nutshell. Do your own work if you have ideas and test for yourself.

I would only add that 'says it works' is something I am very cautious about. Yes, I understand that I 'say a lot about' what works and what does not. Yet I have been known to test 'stuff,' and more importantly, perform due diligence and research! I am one of the very few that I know on the internet discussing cigar climatology (I invented that term, by the way) that distinguishes when I am guessing or speculating from when I have proven or evidenced something.

The internet suffers from a phenomenon I call, 'the lifespan of legacy errors.' People who claim success on day one, may find that their day one results failed or were erroneous when tested over time. Yet the 'day one' post lives on while the original poster has moved on and failed to disclose that the 'day one' posts were totally flawed.

I am not saying that this is the case here, do your own work, but I would be careful about referencing the work of others (even mine) unless you are willing to gamble on the data being sound.

So in the midst of writing this I went looking for facts, because I know that I have them in a cache of data saved here and there and low and behold here is what I found.

Now I have personally passed on zeolites for several reasons. This is a chart from a bellwether textbook on sorbents who's author escapes me at the moment. (sorry Professor X!)

Well friends, line D happens to be zeolites... Zeolites, generally are not designed around the efficient collection of water vapor. Look at line D...

Line D saturates early, below 20rH with what water vapor it will take. It therefore reflects an almost zero change in saturation, not taking water nor returning water at the range we like. Furthermore the saturation level is about 20% reflecting that it holds very little water. So guess what. You add this zeolite to your humidor, it holds 20% water, takes up space and is almost completely inert at 60rH and a total waste of money and space.... When the rH of your humidor drops below 20, well the generous zeolite will give up some water.

Now folks, do what you want, there is no need to listen to me, but I will take the word of a scientist that designs and works with sorbents for a living over my speculating.

Frankly I knew this when I posted above, but sometimes I come off as a spoiler and it bugs people. I have a problem with my habit coming out and correcting people all the time. I have a lot of friends here and i am here to make friends, not be a schoolmarm so I don't alway just blurt out when I see bad data... Sometimes I speak cryptically to politely hint... Zeolites would not be my choice!

Again, for what it is worth!!! Enjoy your experimenting and do your research!

-Piggy

[Orion21]

Great information Ray.  Some people will choose to understand it and use it and others will just disregard it because they would rather just continue to think their methods actually work because they haven't ruined their cigars . . . yet.  I thank you for yet more valid factual data.  

[Hurltim]

4 minutes ago, PigFish said:

That is the gist of my post in a nutshell. Do your own work if you have ideas and test for yourself.

I would only add that 'says it works' is something I am very cautious about. Yes, I understand that I 'say a lot about' what works and what does not. Yet I have been known to test 'stuff,' and more importantly, perform due diligence and research! I am one of the very few that I know on the internet discussing cigar climatology (I invented that term, by the way) that distinguishes when I am guessing or speculating from when I have proven or evidenced something.

The internet suffers from a phenomenon I call, 'the lifespan of legacy errors.' People who claim success on day one, may find that their day one results failed or were erroneous when tested over time. Yet the 'day one' post lives on while the original poster has moved on and failed to disclose that the 'day one' posts were totally flawed.

I am not saying that this is the case here, do your own work, but I would be careful about referencing the work of others (even mine) unless you are willing to gamble on the data being sound.

So in the midst of writing this I went looking for facts, because I know that I have them in a cache of data saved here and there and low and behold here is what I found.

Now I have personally passed on zeolites for several reasons. This is a chart from a bellwether textbook on sorbents who's author escapes me at the moment. (sorry Professor X!)

Well friends, line D happens to be zeolites... Zeolites, generally are not designed around the efficient collection of water vapor. Look at line D...

Line D saturates early, below 20rH with what water vapor it will take. It therefore reflects an almost zero change in saturation, not taking water nor returning water at the range we like. Furthermore the saturation level is about 20% reflecting that it holds very little water. So guess what. You add this zeolite to your humidor, it holds 20% water, takes up space and is almost completely inert at 60rH and a total waste of money and space.... When the rH of your humidor drops below 20, well the generous zeolite will give up some water.

Now folks, do what you want, there is no need to listen to me, but I will take the word of a scientist that designs and works with sorbents for a living over my speculating.

Frankly I knew this when I posted above, but sometimes I come off as a spoiler and it bugs people. I have a problem with my habit coming out and correcting people all the time. I have a lot of friends here and i am here to make friends, not be a schoolmarm so I don't alway just blurt out when I see bad data... Sometimes I speak cryptically to politely hint... Zeolites would not be my choice!

Again, for what it is worth!!! Enjoy your experimenting and do your research!

-Piggy

You aren't raining on anybody's parade Ray, but this isn't rocket science either. 

These charts are readily available online. D is usually molecular sieves, C is silica gel, B is clay, A is CaSO4 and E is CaO. Any point on the graph represents the amount the material can adsorb at a given rH. Add more material and you add more water storage capacity. You can  maintain the speed of adsorption and buffer it's storage capacity by adding more of it. It's a tradeoff--speed vs. storage capacity. 

   If you want something a little more moderate with better storage capacity, get a silica gel based product or any of the other ones. Almost all of these are cheaper than $100 a pound.

MS are more efficient at lower rH but does not mean they do not work at 60-70% rH. You just might need a bit more. 

[Fugu]

Yep, this graph illustrates it pretty much to the core of the matter. D is nothing else than a water reservoir. E is controlling / stabilizing rH. E is what you'd want - though, preferably with the inflection point of the function shifted towards > 60%.

[Hurltim]

I tend to lean towards clay or the MS's. Good old kitty litter works just fine for me. I haven't looked at them for awhile as they aren't part of my larger humidor build. We aren't siphoning off methane here, we are attempting to control rH for cigars via desiccant use. There aren't that many options to stew over. 

Heart felt and RH beads are bought in bulk from somewhere. Skip the middle man and go directly to the source and save some coin for more cigars.

 

[PigFish]

I tend disagree with some of the analysis that I have read.

First let me say that I have no idea what is being bought by people, so I won't pretend that this is an actual analysis of what is 'being purchased' by anyone.

If I direct my attention at chart Item D, regardless of how much you buy, it does not work as a bilateral buffer for cigars. That is what the chart shows... The chart indicates a near zero delta of EMC between say 60 to 70rH. This makes it, as Gooey mentioned a 'pool' where the ErH must decline to less than 20rH to utilize the water in the pool. This is totally useless for cigars. MHO.

Unless one has a more vertical isothermal line, the whole goal of a bilateral buffer is lost.

I am looking for something completely different than what is represented here as a generic MS. I would not be spending a dime on this stuff, as someone has done the research for me. YET again, I am more keen on automation and will leave the passive elements to those who require them.

One thing I wholeheartedly agree with. There is no magic desiccant being sold or programmed by retailers. You can buy the same stuff they use if you find the same sources! It is pretty simple. Buy more, cut out the middle man and save yourself some money. While I do sell desiccant, it is why I don't compete in this arena. It is so hyped with BS and junk science, where one pretends that 4 oz. of the stuff will work miracles, it is not worth attempting to convince many people that they are following a herd of unicorns, and not the trail to success!

The answer from the desiccant seller is always the same when the stuff does not perform as promised. Buy more desiccant!

My suggestion has always been that one should, if reliant on a desiccant buffer, make certain that it is the dominant source of water in the humidor. From a numerical perspective then, I have always estimated that one should consider the use of about one third the weight of their cigars in a buffering agent.

Good discussion one and all!

-Piggy