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

[Fugu]

Right there, I actually have to specify my previous statement - substance D is acting like a water reservoir - sealed by a lid. It will behave intertial and do just nothing in the rH-ranges prevailing in cigar storage. This is pretty much, well..., a desiccant - being active and reaching saturation at very low rH values - exactly what an efficient desiccant should do.

So, unless specifically engineered for our purpose (dunno if such is existent), humidors working 'like charm' with it will most probably do so because they'll as well work like charm without it. Does not do any harm, but appears to be a waste of space and resources, I have to concur with Piggy.

[Nattyboh74]

This is where I bought mine from:

 

https://na.dmecompany.com/Catalog/CatalogListing.aspx?CatalogId=DME&CatalogDetailId=154&NSM=Y

They sell all sizes and its the same thing just WAY cheaper. They do sell by the pound and shipping isnt too bad. I dont know why mine creep up in RH but my OLDDDDD silica beads from CigarMony ( anyone remember that guy? Mark Neff. ) are still PERFECT 8-9 years later at 63% RH. Crazy....

 

I guess that is what an engineered bead does versus something else that were trying to MAKE work.

[Hurltim]

The graph represents the amount of water each material type can hold at a certain rH. At some pont, they all reach saturation. MS hold less water per gram than the others but that does not necessarily mean they desorb at 20%. Lets take a closer look at that graph for a second.
How was this graph built? Well, we don't really know but here are two possibilities.
1) All dessicants started at zero moisture content in a completely dry chamber. The humidity is increased to say 10% humidity at which point each dessicant is weighed (any weight added would be water). The process is completed through the rH band until enough points can be plotted to draw a curve.
2) Each sample starts at zero and is placed in a chamber with 10% rH for a time then weighed. The process repeats for each rH point tested.
In either case, the graph represents the storage capacity of each desiccant type at the given rH. Efficiency if you will. MS is more efficient at low rH. This does not necessarily mean it can't work well at higher rH's you would just need more of it to raise it's overall storage capacity. An MS will desorb in an atmosphere with an rH less than the one that it became saturated at (like most dessicants.) The main advantage to MS is their speed of adsorption.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[Fugu]

6 hours ago, Hurltim said:

The graph represents the amount of water each material type can hold at a certain rH. At some pont, they all reach saturation. MS hold less water per gram than the others but that does not necessarily mean they desorb at 20%.

But yes, Tim, that's exactly what it means. Look, you have to consider this graph as a plot of different states in equilibrium (between adsorbent material and atmosphere). Equilibrium state is what you have to look at - and what we are aiming at - in our humidor storage. Absolute saturation values in g/g are rather irrelevant in this consideration (as this is simply a matter of pure mass), instead it is the course of those curvilinear functions being essential in their meaning for the interpretation of the material's actual behaviour:

Material D (be it a model MS or whatever) will only start desorbing, i.e. supplying water to the atmosphere below a rH in the gas phase of 20%. Above that value it will be saturated and will not release any moisture over a wide range of atmospheric humidities. Of course this is a flux balance, and adsorption and desorption processes will occur all the time. But in equilibrium, both processes run at the same rate = zero net flux. At the range around rH 65%, where we tend to store our cigars, it will neither be able a) to supply any moisture when rH falls, nor will it be able to b ) adsorb any further moisture when rH rises, therefore will not be able to act in c) stabilizing the humidity in any way. It simply is inept means.

I'll not exclude that there might be other beaded materials that might be engineered in a certain way to be able to accomplish that. But this particular material D here, from the plot, surely is useless for humidor operation.

[Hurltim]

1 hour ago, Fugu said:

But yes, Tim, that's exactly what it means. Look, you have to consider this graph as a plot of different states in equilibrium.

But it's not. It is simply water content (or water capacity) at a given rH. Lets follow this out to the nth degree here. based on the graph below, it appears, if we follow the equilibrium theory, that silica hits it's equilibrium at almost 100% humidity. Given that there are may people out there that use silica gel beads(hearfelt), does the anecdotal evidence support an equilibrium point for silica gel at almost 100%?

Also, MS are used primarily for removing water and impurities from gases and solvents in a low rH environment. Why? Because they have a larger capacity for water retention at low rH. If it desorbed below 20%, it would be useless in this capacity, would it not? 

 

[jazzboypro]

This site also has interesting info.

https://www.sorbentsystems.com/desiccants_types.html

[Fugu]

Sorry Tim, seems I can't help any further here. All said what I could say.

Your new graph does show essentially the same as the one of Piggy. You're mixing up the terms equilibrium and saturation. All curves are at any given point of the graph in equilibrium, otherwise a reading taken would be meaningless.

[Hurltim]

Sorry Tim, seems I can't help any further here. All said what I could say.

Your new graph does show essentially the same as the one of Piggy. You're mixing up the terms equilibrium and saturation. All curves are at any given point of the graph in equilibrium, otherwise a reading taken would be meaningless.

We can agree to disagree--no harm done

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[MahDooRow]

As I pour through this thread (as well as other threads of discussion about the regulation of rH within a humidor) it seems that the dominant assumption about desiccants is that they are 2-way systems that adsorb or release water molecules based on the rH set-point of the desiccant material being used.  However, as I look at the charts in this thread and explore the links provided I get the impression that all of the referenced desiccants act primarily as 1-way systems.  They adsorb water molecules at different rates and to differing levels of saturation within a range of temperatures that are common to most humidors (i.e. 60F - 70F) regardless of rH level in the ambient air.

Per the info in this link (https://www.sorbentsystems.com/desiccants_types.html) it seems that temperature (not rH) is the trigger for the release of water molecules held by the desiccant.  For clay it is at 120F that water will be released; and for silica gel it is 220F.  Below these temperatures water is only being adsorbed until the desiccant reaches saturation, at which point the desiccant will cease to function and the rH in your humidor will begin to rise.

For those with more knowledge than I on the mechanics of desiccants, is my interpretation correct or am I missing something?  Thanks in advance. 

[PigFish]

2 hours ago, Hurltim said:

But it's not. It is simply water content (or water capacity) at a given rH. Lets follow this out to the nth degree here. based on the graph below, it appears, if we follow the equilibrium theory, that silica hits it's equilibrium at almost 100% humidity. Given that there are may people out there that use silica gel beads(hearfelt), does the anecdotal evidence support an equilibrium point for silica gel at almost 100%?

Also, MS are used primarily for removing water and impurities from gases and solvents in a low rH environment. Why? Because they have a larger capacity for water retention at low rH. If it desorbed below 20%, it would be useless in this capacity, would it not? 

 

I fully understand where you are coming from here Tim, but you are reading the 'meaning' of the chart on a partial basis and not seeing the full picture.

Sometimes we get locked into a view, and I think this is the case here. I have been known to do this with mathematics... Ask Goo...-LOL

Maybe this will help. Lets look at this a bit differently. Lets use your assertion that 100 rH is the capacity limit. I want to work with your interpretation that 100rH means capacity. While it does very much mean capacity, it is not the only representation of capacity on the chart. I think you are stuck on it because it says 100%.

What is 100% here? 100% is the saturation of water in space at a given temperature. Furthermore, it means that at 100rH the reflected weight of the substrate g/g will be lets say 22g/g. In other words the substrate at 100rH is full up at 22g/g...! Am I right?

Now lets look at another number, say 60rH. Lets apply the same logic, let just cut away in our minds that 100rH even exists just of a brief moment. Now lets look at the number again. What is that number? I don't know, I will call it 21.5g/g. But lets not argue over the number, that is not really the point, yet.

We cannot see anywhere beyond the right side of the chart any longer, we have blinded ourselves to it. What does it say?

It says that at 60rH, the capacity of the substrate is 21.5g/g.

That is how you have to read the chart. Each point in the line represents a saturation capacity (100%) of what the substrate can adsorb at that given rH and temperature. Every point therefore represents 100%... Not 100% at 100rH, but 100% at any given rH.

So when a system is in equilibrium, it reflects 100% capacity, even though the rH may be far less than 100rH.

Now simply look at the delta of each capacity (any two points on the line)! If your substrate is at 100% capacity at 60rH and 100% capacity at 100rH and the delta of the numbers is very small, there is no room for, new water, and/or too much bond strength for the substrate of surrender water (depending on your perspective) and the substrate is largely closed or resilient to change. The delta of the real number represents the resilience or affinity for change. If a substrate cannot change in varying conditions it cannot buffer anything. It is static, stuck and useless.

Imagine replacing your shock absorber on your truck with a solid bar, a total resilience to change. Is it a shock absorber anymore?

The chart then tells you more than capacity. It gives you an indication of the affinity for change. A buffering agent must have affinity for change or it is useless as a buffering agent.

Don't get caught up in 100% saturation. Each point represents 100 saturation at a given rH...!!!

There is no difference in opinion here. There is a correct and incorrect way to read the chart and you are only seeing the part of the chart you want to see.

The substrate then has little capacity g/g when compared to other substrates (when water is the agent for change) and furthermore it resists change in the area of rH that we are interested in. It therefore takes up space, costs money and returns nothing to our project of value.

Spend your money on the silica instead. It is a better agent for change, and it even holds more water.

I hope that helps... -Ray

 

[PigFish]

5 minutes ago, MahDooRow said:

As I pour through this thread (as well as other threads of discussion about the regulation of rH within a humidor) it seems that the dominant assumption about desiccants is that they are 2-way systems that adsorb or release water molecules based on the rH set-point of the desiccant material being used.  However, as I look at the charts in this thread and explore the links provided I get the impression that all of the referenced desiccants act primarily as 1-way systems.  They adsorb water molecules at different rates and to differing levels of saturation within a range of temperatures that are common to most humidors (i.e. 60F - 70F) regardless of rH level in the ambient air.

Per the info in this link (https://www.sorbentsystems.com/desiccants_types.html) it seems that temperature (not rH) is the trigger for the release of water molecules held by the desiccant.  For clay it is at 120F that water will be released; and for silica gel it is 220F.  Below these temperatures water is only being adsorbed until the desiccant reaches saturation, at which point the desiccant will cease to function and the rH in your humidor will begin to rise.

For those with more knowledge than Ion the mechanics of desiccants, is my interpretation correct or am I missing something?  Thanks in advance. 

... I am not going to read all that you have read and 'debug' it so I am not going to argue points about what may or may not be written on some vendor website. I will however try to help you understand what the vendor has likely confused you about.

You are confusing issues (from how I interpret your writing). Purging or recycling a desiccant is an important part of the cyclical life for a desiccant in industry. The energy to 'purge' the desiccant is a cost of using it. I think you are reading that into the operational aspect of the desiccant itself and confusing it with the economic aspects of using a desiccant.

In the preceding, I have made a vastly simplified general statement. If you are talking other aspects than what I am describing, my analysis of what you have written can be totally wrong! That is just how I read it.

A desiccant in industry is to be judged on many levels. It typically is a refining agent. It starts empty, it is used until it becomes inefficient, it is taken out of service, purged (heated, dried, or evacuated, at cost) then put back into service once regenerated or recycled.

One should not confuse the aspects but use them to an advantage.

Hope that helps. Cheers! -Piggy

[MahDooRow]

23 minutes ago, PigFish said:

... I am not going to read all that you have read and 'debug' it so I am not going to argue points about what may or may not be written on some vendor website. I will however try to help you understand what the vendor has likely confused you about.

You are confusing issues (from how I interpret your writing). Purging or recycling a desiccant is an important part of the cyclical life for a desiccant in industry. The energy to 'purge' the desiccant is a cost of using it. I think you are reading that into the operational aspect of the desiccant itself and confusing it with the economic aspects of using a desiccant.

In the preceding, I have made a vastly simplified general statement. If you are talking other aspects than what I am describing, my analysis of what you have written can be totally wrong! That is just how I read it.

A desiccant in industry is to be judged on many levels. It typically is a refining agent. It starts empty, it is used until it becomes inefficient, it is taken out of service, purged (heated, dried, or evacuated, at cost) then put back into service once regenerated or recycled.

One should not confuse the aspects but use them to an advantage.

Hope that helps. Cheers! -Piggy

Your interpretation of my comments is correct.  My primary question was/is... by what mechanism is the desiccant purged?  The answer you provided matches the info I found at the referenced web page... heat.  

[PigFish]

1 minute ago, MahDooRow said:

Your interpretation of my comments is correct.  My primary question was/is... by what mechanism is the desiccant purged?  The answer you provided matches the info I found at the references web page... heat.  

Yet, as I see it, you also wrote that equilibrium at a fixed temperature (isothermal behavior) is unimportant. That heat is the change agent and equilibrium moisture content is not. Am I correct in that?

If so, you have left out the primary 'working aspect' of a desiccant. The adsorption and desorption of the substrate at equilibrium (at any given temperature) is what makes it useful to us, as it does in industry.

No one stores, to my knowledge at 200F+. Therefore the purge process for industry has nothing at all to do with how we use a desiccant. Unless you are purging desiccant at home (which I sometimes recommend) there is no relevancy to it for our storage needs.

Again, perhaps I have confused what you wrote... But desiccants are bilateral change agents. In industry there is one primary need for change, their ability adsorb, yet their ability to desorb costs energy (in order to reuse them) and it is therefore also studied for the economic aspect of their use.

-Piggy

[MahDooRow]

16 minutes ago, PigFish said:

Yet, as I see it, you also wrote that equilibrium at a fixed temperature (isothermal behavior) is unimportant. That heat is the change agent and equilibrium moisture content is not. Am I correct in that?

If so, you have left out the primary 'working aspect' of a desiccant. The adsorption and desorption of the substrate at equilibrium (at any given temperature) is what makes it useful to us, as it does in industry.

No one stores, to my knowledge at 200F+. Therefore the purge process for industry has nothing at all to do with how we use a desiccant. Unless you are purging desiccant at home (which I sometimes recommend) there is no relevancy to it for our storage needs.

Again, perhaps I have confused what you wrote... But desiccants are bilateral change agents. In industry there is one primary need for change, their ability adsorb, yet their ability to desorb costs energy (in order to reuse them) and it is therefore also studied for the economic aspect of their use.

-Piggy

I made no claims in my original post.  I am simply asking a question based on the information I was able to access in an effort to better understand the mechanics of desiccants.  At the referenced web page https://www.sorbentsystems.com/desiccants_types.html it states:

CLAY: "Clay is a good basic desiccant that works satisfactorily below 120°F (approximately 50°C). Above 120° F, there is a possibility that the clay will give up moisture rather than pulling it in, so anticipated storage and transportation conditions should be considered.

SILICA GEL: "The silica gel will pull in moisture at temperatures up to 220°F (105°C). As temperature goes above 100°F, the rate of moisture pickup will slow down but the silica gel will still work. Silica gel performs best at room temperatures (70° to 90°F) and high humidity (60 to 90% RH) and will drop the relative humidity in a container down to around 40% RH."

My question is: With clay and silica gel at temperatures below 120F and 220F respectively, will either substance release water back into the environment when rH in the ambient air drops below a certain level?

Based on your response below it is my understanding that the answer is "no".  Did I misunderstand/misinterpret?

36 minutes ago, PigFish said:

It starts empty, it is used until it becomes inefficient, it is taken out of service, purged (heated, dried, or evacuated, at cost) then put back into service once regenerated or recycled.

 

[PigFish]

29 minutes ago, MahDooRow said:

I made no claims in my original post.  I am simply asking a question based on the information I was able to access in an effort to better understand the mechanics of desiccants.  At the referenced web page https://www.sorbentsystems.com/desiccants_types.html it states:

CLAY: "Clay is a good basic desiccant that works satisfactorily below 120°F (approximately 50°C). Above 120° F, there is a possibility that the clay will give up moisture rather than pulling it in, so anticipated storage and transportation conditions should be considered.

SILICA GEL: "The silica gel will pull in moisture at temperatures up to 220°F (105°C). As temperature goes above 100°F, the rate of moisture pickup will slow down but the silica gel will still work. Silica gel performs best at room temperatures (70° to 90°F) and high humidity (60 to 90% RH) and will drop the relative humidity in a container down to around 40% RH."

My question is: With clay and silica gel at temperatures below 120F and 220F respectively, will either substance release water back into the environment when rH in the ambient air drops below a certain level?

Based on your response below it is my understanding that the answer is "no".  Did I misunderstand/misinterpret?

 

Yes, you misunderstood!

[MahDooRow]

Never mind.  Did some more digging for info and figured it out.

[TomF]

On 11/11/2016 at 0:21 PM, 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

What are lines A, B, C and E?

EDIT: Oops! I should have read the rest of the thread...

 

[Orion21]

 

I used to use beads and from what I am reading (or misunderstanding ) these bead products are good at absorbing moisture, but not releasing it back into a sealed environment.  So explain this, how is it that they dry out over a 3-6 month period in a "sealed" humidor and need to be recharged?  When I used to use beads this is what would happen.  I assumed it was because they were "working" and releasing stored moisture when the rh fell.  Is this not the case?  Would they take in water and just release it over a period of time and the rh of the humidor didn't matter?  

Another observation.  I noticed my beads became discolored over time.  I'd assume this was because they were holding onto the "impurities" from the water used. 

[Bohn007]

3 hours ago, Orion21 said:

 

I used to use beads and from what I am reading (or misunderstanding ) these bead products are good at absorbing moisture, but not releasing it back into a sealed environment.  So explain this, how is it that they dry out over a 3-6 month period in a "sealed" humidor and need to be recharged?  When I used to use beads this is what would happen.  I assumed it was because they were "working" and releasing stored moisture when the rh fell.  Is this not the case?  Would they take in water and just release it over a period of time and the rh of the humidor didn't matter?  

Another observation.  I noticed my beads became discolored over time.  I'd assume this was because they were holding onto the "impurities" from the water used. 

From what I gather, and to be clear, I will always defer to @PigFish regarding these matters and I also have not taken the time to read all of this current thread, but that being said and in my experience with HF beads, some types of beads work differently than others. I use HF beads and have been very happy with them. What I understand is that the discoloration has nothing to do with impurities with the water. Of course, it is expected that you are using distilled water so there should not be any impurities in it. The discoloration is simply a case where the beads are drying out and when they are clear, they are "filled" with water. Your beads should never be either all clear or all "off white" but 50-75% clear. I like to try and keep life simple and the environment that my cigars are stored in is not that challenging so I have not made the science out of it that others have. 

[PigFish]

There will always be a shift in hysteresis, meaning a lag moving either direction, to adsorb or desorb and the hysteresis may not be the same in both directions.

I have written the above to be technically correct, or Gooey will just come back and correct me!!! -LOL

Now forget about it for a moment.

The fact is that the hysteresis' of your cigars are not likely the same either. Cigars will probably have dissimilair hysteresis (adsorption vers. desorption) as well. While I don't know it for fact, it has alway appeared easier for me to get cigars wet than to dry them. Placebo? Maybe, but I would swear to the effect, none the less.

So lets just look at your desiccant as 'additional cigars' for a moment. Lets pretend that you had one box of cigars in a space called X. Lets say there are no additional hygroscopic materials in there, just 25 cigars. So what would an air exchange net you? Weill it will either increase the rH, decrease the rH, or do nothing depending on the ambient and the amount of air(water in air) exchanged.

Lets then ask ourselves what would the cigars do? Well, the cigars will follow the microclimate... Right? The climate will dictate what ErH the cigars change to, right? Yes, they will.

The desiccant is no different. Forget for a moment that they are technically called desiccants (to desiccate, or to dry). They are first and foremost hygroscopic elements just like cigars.

Now lets expand our contents of your humidor to 100 boxes. Will the air exchange in the X humidor have the same effect? Well, no it won't. It won't because there is 100 times the cigars in the humidor now and 100 times the water, and 100 times the ability to adsorb water!

Why then do we need desiccants at all? Well, in our example we have increased our capacity to adsorb or desorb air exchanges over the number of cigars. To get the greater buffer, we increased the cigars, or the hygroscopic material. Well, we can do the same thing with a desiccant. Again, you may asks why use it at all? Well, it is cheaper than cigars for one thing. Furthermore at the ErH that we prefer to store our cigars, desiccants can hold 3 to 4 times the water. So, what they do in actuality is something like making the humidor bigger! It creates a 'greater hygroscopic' material effect in a humidor. Furthermore, if you expose the desiccant and conceal the cigar (as in keep it in a box) you increase the odds of affecting the desiccant first and leave the cigars themselves largely unaffected by small changes. Plus desiccants are consider sacrificial. You can simply bake them to dry them and further affect change in your humidor. You can wet them, again directly (some anyway) and again affect a change. Are you ready to 'spritz' your cigars?

Now equilibrium catches up with all systems eventually. This is why I store at smoking conditions. I want cigars ready to smoke. It is also why I preach stability... yet there is a certain swings, rH plus and rH minus that are not going to be seen by the cigars at all (depending on amplitude and duration) and that is an advantage to hysteresis.

Now, coming full circle, desiccants are bidirectional just like cigars. Unlike cigars we leave them open in a humidor. Furthermore they can contain and attract (given the right desiccants, not like the examples shown for Molecular Sieves) 3 to 4 times the water that the cigars can contain. This makes them a super sacrificial cigar (rhetorically speaking), ones that reside with your cigars in order to protect your regular (smoking) cigars from rH swings.

Close enough ambient, small or no air exchanges, large keeps of cigars, you don't need a desiccant buffer at all. It all depends on your situation and your ambient, your air exchanges and the like.

Cheers! -Piggy

 

[BarryNY]

15 minutes ago, PigFish said:

There will always be a shift in hysteresis, meaning a lag moving either direction, to adsorb or desorb and the hysteresis may not be the same in both directions.

I have written the above to be technically correct, or Gooey will just come back and correct me!!! -LOL

Now forget about it for a moment.

The fact is that the hysteresis' of your cigars are not likely the same either. Cigars will probably have dissimilair hysteresis (adsorption vers. desorption) as well. While I don't know it for fact, it has alway appeared easier for me to get cigars wet than to dry them. Placebo? Maybe, but I would swear to the effect, none the less.

So lets just look at your desiccant as 'additional cigars' for a moment. Lets pretend that you had one box of cigars in a space called X. Lets say there are no additional hygroscopic materials in there, just 25 cigars. So what would an air exchange net you? Weill it will either increase the rH, decrease the rH, or do nothing depending on the ambient and the amount of air(water in air) exchanged.

Lets then ask ourselves what would the cigars do? Well, the cigars will follow the microclimate... Right? The climate will dictate what ErH the cigars change to, right? Yes, they will.

The desiccant is no different. Forget for a moment that they are technically called desiccants (to desiccate, or to dry). They are first and foremost hygroscopic elements just like cigars.

Now lets expand our contents of your humidor to 100 boxes. Will the air exchange in the X humidor have the same effect? Well, no it won't. It won't because there is 100 times the cigars in the humidor now and 100 times the water, and 100 times the ability to adsorb water!

Why then do we need desiccants at all? Well, in our example we have increased our capacity to adsorb or desorb air exchanges over the number of cigars. To get the greater buffer, we increased the cigars, or the hygroscopic material. Well, we can do the same thing with a desiccant. Again, you may asks why use it at all? Well, it is cheaper than cigars for one thing. Furthermore at the ErH that we prefer to store our cigars, desiccants can hold 3 to 4 times the water. So, what they do in actuality is something like making the humidor bigger! It creates a 'greater hygroscopic' material effect in a humidor. Furthermore, if you expose the desiccant and conceal the cigar (as in keep it in a box) you increase the odds of affecting the desiccant first and leave the cigars themselves largely unaffected by small changes. Plus desiccants are consider sacrificial. You can simply bake them to dry them and further affect change in your humidor. You can wet them, again directly (some anyway) and again affect a change. Are you ready to 'spritz' your cigars?

Now equilibrium catches up with all systems eventually. This is why I store at smoking conditions. I want cigars ready to smoke. It is also why I preach stability... yet there is a certain swings, rH plus and rH minus that are not going to be seen by the cigars at all (depending on amplitude and duration) and that is an advantage to hysteresis.

Now, coming full circle, desiccants are bidirectional just like cigars. Unlike cigars we leave them open in a humidor. Furthermore they can contain and attract (given the right desiccants, not like the examples shown for Molecular Sieves) 3 to 4 times the water that the cigars can contain. This makes them a super sacrificial cigar (rhetorically speaking), ones that reside with your cigars in order to protect your regular (smoking) cigars from rH swings.

Close enough ambient, small or no air exchanges, large keeps of cigars, you don't need a desiccant buffer at all. It all depends on your situation and your ambient, your air exchanges and the like.

Cheers! -Piggy

 

Now that's a good summary of the "mechanics" of what is taking place within the closed environment.  Thanks.

[Blazer]

Great discussion if you are an intellectual with plenty of time to read these tombs. How about a simple answer for us simpleton's. What desiccant & how much should I buy to keep the RH at 65% in my 28 bottle wineador that has 5 drawers and 1 shelf full of singles????????????? Barring one, I guess I stay with Wal-Mart kitty litter cause this stuff makes my head hurt.

[PigFish]

3 hours ago, Blazer said:

Great discussion if you are an intellectual with plenty of time to read these tombs. How about a simple answer for us simpleton's. What desiccant & how much should I buy to keep the RH at 65% in my 28 bottle wineador that has 5 drawers and 1 shelf full of singles????????????? Barring one, I guess I stay with Wal-Mart kitty litter cause this stuff makes my head hurt.

My solutions and explanations are not right for everyone. I hope you find a more suitable solution for your issues, whatever they may be.

Best of luck on your project! -tP

[BarryNY]

7 hours ago, Blazer said:

Great discussion if you are an intellectual with plenty of time to read these tombs. How about a simple answer for us simpleton's. What desiccant & how much should I buy to keep the RH at 65% in my 28 bottle wineador that has 5 drawers and 1 shelf full of singles????????????? Barring one, I guess I stay with Wal-Mart kitty litter cause this stuff makes my head hurt.

I got about 20 boxes and 50 singles stuffed into a 28 bottle winedor.

I'm at a constant 62% using 65% HF beads at 65 degrees F.

I'm using about 1.25 lb divided into 2 nylon stocking balls...I hardly ever open the door as I have a desktop for the smokers.

[RickHendeson]

So I ran across this post looking for some other stuff and think I understand the nature of the debate correctly.  At one point Piggy suggested that maybe (or maybe not) my success with MSs may have been short-lived.  Let me update now about 2 years into it and MSs continue to work great for me.  My coolidors all maintain generally at the desired equilibrium, though as I stated back then every once in a great blue moon (6 mos or so) I find I have to introduce a little water into the system via a small sponge.

If I follow the discussion correctly, Piggy and Fugu at least are saying that, per their charts, this is basically dumb luck.  I could take the MSs out and it wouldn't make a difference.  One of these days, perhaps I'll work up the stones to actually try it for a few months.  "One of these days." 

In the meantime, what I also seem to glean from them is that MSs are no better or worse than other dessicants on the market and that they are all basically a placebo, because none of them readily exchange water in cigar lovers' desired range (60% or so).

That being the case, and assuming arguendo they are right, I'm still gonna recommend MSs if you are going to use a dessicant if for no other reason than that (as Timhurl points out) if you buy them from the right sources they are pound-for-pound WAY cheaper than any other dessicant on the market.  So if all of these products placebos be, might as well get them really cheap.