Talk:Gravity bong

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article does not cite any references or sources. (August 2006)
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.
A mortarboard This article is part of WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants, an attempt to improve Wikipedia's coverage of hallucinogens. Feel free to participate by editing this article or by visiting the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

I hear them as "pressure bongs." It's only got a few decent hits (heh) on Google, and makes more sense than "gravity," if you're interested in physics, I guess.

Contents

[edit] Terminology

The term gravity bong is very loose and means different things to different geographic areas and people in those areas. I believe the only way to represent this properly is by referring to both types as gravity bongs and denoting their differences in discussion. To not do this will lead to edit waring between the two types of gravity bong in this article as each side attempts to update the article to their view. This is not consistent with the reality of the situation however, so I believe this compromise is the best way. I'm reverting the recent changes to convert this article to only being a bucket bong. Triddle 19:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Italic text== Greater control in a bucket bong ==

I don't think that the nomenclature debate section is a good place to argue the benefits of one of the types against another. With that comment made I think this sentence is incorrect:

The bucket method allows for a variable flow rate by manipulating gravity's influence,

That is not a property that is unique to the bucket version. By placing your finger over the exit hole on a waterfall bong you could reduce the flow to a trickle. I'll do my best to clean up that section. Triddle 00:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

No, the sentence is most certainly not incorrect. It never said the property was unique the bucket version. Nice try, but try paying attention before you suddenly decide you know what you're talking about.

[edit] carb on bucket

There is no need for a carb on a bucket bong. Infact, using a carb destroys the whole purpose of it. You are supposed to just push the bottle down so it forces it all into your lungs. If you breath in with a carb it negates the gravity effect. If no one disagrees with valid arguements then I will be editting it. 72.136.215.125 23:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The carb does serve a useful purpose: It allows the user to inhale the contents of the bottle without fear of having water enter your mouth; mild suction while pressing down on the bottle forces the smoke into the lungs, but the influx of air from the carb keeps the same from happening with the water 207.161.47.221 00:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop vandalism.

Information must be verifiable; if you continue to alter the article without citing appropriate references and verifiable information you will be reported to Wikipedia for vandalism. This will restrict your access to Wikipedia. Thank you all for your continued help in documenting cannabis culture and expanding the free encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msbergin (talk • contribs) 17:45, 22 April 2006

[edit] Waterfall method

Near the end of the article, it states "As with the waterfall method, the bucket method uses gravity to create a vacuum." Waterfall Method is linked, but it just points to the same Gravity Bong article. It seems there is no explanation of the waterfall method. I don't really smoke marijuana, so maybe I'm just being ignorant, but shouldn't there be a paragraph explaining (or at least defining) the waterfall method? --BennyD 14:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The waterfall section was removed in this edit, apparently for no good reason and without discussion on the talk page. If there are no objections, I'll put it back. --Mr2001 02:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Just ran into the same self-referential link; I support restoring the deleted section. -- Hiplibrarianship 16:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] invention in '96

This is not true, the filtered g-bong is at least 12 yo. Thats when i built my first and they were well-known at that time.(they work too slowly and stale the hit though.)-anon

Yeah, and 1996 was 12 years ago. Pay attention.

That post has been there for a LONG time,bro.--71.97.143.232 (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that the technology involved in the gravity bong is ancient and that some ur-people somewhere used the technology to smoke whatever they then smoked. -Kode (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sobe Method

Does there really need to be a reference to the fact that a sobe bottle can make a good gravity bong? In my experience there are a lot of bottles that make better gravity bongs and since you can make them out of just about any kind of bottle, why should there be a specific type of bottle listed? Also since sobe bottles are made of glass(at least the ones I have seen), wouldn't this make it more difficult to use than a plastic 20oz Coke bottle, for instance?

[edit] Toilet method citations

Hi there, I just added the Toilet method paragraph but couldn't locate any sort of verifiable references or citations for it, I hope this doesn't violate the Wikipedia policy? I guess its one of those things that just gets spread by word of mouth. For anyone who thinks I'm joking, I can confirm that this is a clean, novel and fun method of smoking. Cornbb 22:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not Cited or Relevent

The following 2 sections are not cited and don't seem to be 'common knowledge' to me. The brewing section seems to be one persons way of labeling the smoke in a gravity bong, but I'm not exactly sure why. Also to make claims that the color of the smoke will change how much a person coughs is a little absurd. I have smoked with many people that just don't cough, regardless of the color of the smoke, while I have a tendency to cough during long smoking sessions. As for the bucket trick, this seems unneccessary as well. Why do we want to put a trick that an experienced person can do with a gravity bong on this page? Should we put how to blow smoke rings on this page as well, and for that matter, every other page dealing with smoking? Just my opinion, but if no one has any problems with it I'm going to take these sections down. 66.253.204.6 17:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Brewing

There are many ways to classify the smoke inside a bucket or (gravity bong as commenly known) if the smoke is white then it is known as a whitewall and is usually smooth and creamy. If the smoke is yellow it is a yellow wall and is usually harsh and will cause you to cough. The next step up is a brown wall which is when the smoke near the top of the bottle is tinged a light shade of brown this will more then likely make you cough and will leave a bad taste in your mouth. The last stage is a golden wall, this is when the smoke is slightly golden. These will usually force a person to cough and will always leave a bad taste in your mouth that will last for a few minutes.

Bucket Trick

There is a way to pull the bottle out of the water that will make a small stream of smoke "fall" from the top of the bottle to the water. This is acheived by pulling slowly to begin and then speeding the pull and slowing down again. Once the right speed is acheived the trick can be preformed. If done correctly the smoke appers as a "waterfall" falling from the top to the bottom of the bucket. It is quite the thing to see an experienced person do the trick.

[edit] Removed Brewing Section Sentence...

I have edited out the sentence " It is quite the thing to see an experienced person do the trick." From the BREWING subheading as it connotes POV. --Frenk Melk 16:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Information removal.

A while ago someone removed the vast majority of the information from this page without so much as a topic added here in the discussion forum. I've returned the information. Personally I find the information useful and relevant. (Obviously not very often as I've not accessed the page in a few weeks to notice the removal.) It's hard to cite this information as the means and methodology is shrouded by the stigma associated with marijuana in many areas. A simple google reveals that much of this information is available in a great many other locations. (Although, much of that info is from wikipedia itself and thus would create a circular reference.) I challenge those who would delete the information to instead take a moment and try and find some citations for it instead. -Kode (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)