Correct. Closer than I'd like but technically correct. I'm just a vaper that has read a bit so I'd suggest asking someone that knows a lot more than me.
About 2 weeks is average.
Last edited:
***The Vapers Lounge***
- Thread starter Devrij
- Start date
- Status
Correct. Closer than I'd like but technically correct. I'm just a vaper that has read a bit so I'd suggest asking someone that knows a lot more than me.
About 2 weeks is average.
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2009
- Posts
- 1,938
- Location
- Rotherham. S.Yorks
That's the answer I was hoping to hearand i'll be very interested in some samples.
let me know what u want to try and ill come up with a reasonable price mate
Permabanned
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 10,263
- Location
- UK
UKV Classifieds. There is a V2 of the GUS out too. I've noticed some minor discrepancies one which is due to design and another which is down to personal preference.
1. When holding it in 18350 mode you can accidentally cover up the air hole on the atty.
2. In 18350 mode the top spring doesn't connect very well with the battery producing a weak vape. I've ordered some GP Paps parts to rectify this anyway.
I will be ordering a top firing mech mod in the future though, if I can't get to grips with the new holding posture with a bottom firing mechanical. Also you have to be very concious to lock it too, otherwise if you place it on a table it will continue to fire.
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2009
- Posts
- 1,938
- Location
- Rotherham. S.Yorks
here is a query for allnamestaken who has the dingo, what kind of ohms do i need to be at ideally with my spheroid for it to work well on it? i know nothing about mech mods
Its a balancing act. Higher the ohms the longer battery will last but produces a weaker vape, the lower the ohm the more battery it will use, but better vape. Problem with mech mod is battery drop off, at 3.7volts remaining charge anything around 2.0ohms will produce a very weak vape. I aim for around 1.3ohms.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Apr 2010
- Posts
- 5,298
- Location
- Ipswich
Well Scorch I normally run a 1.0 Ohm coil on my Dingo in my DID atomizer.
How ever today ive wrapped a tripple twisted 0.65 Ohm coil lol.
I dont know how long the battery will last with this Ill let you know as I vape.
As to your original question bud 1 Ohm to 1.3 is the norm unless you want to try sub ohms in which case 0.9 Ohms would be a safe but not to low choice.
"BBC News 10/11/2013 0845am; A man has been found dead in what police believe to be an explosive suicide. The man, locally named as "Allnamestaken", was found slumped at his computer by concerned neighbours clutching the remains of what appears to be a pipe-bomb like device..."
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2009
- Posts
- 1,938
- Location
- Rotherham. S.Yorks
rofl brennan. quality 
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2008
- Posts
- 11,114
"BBC News 10/11/2013 0845am; A man has been found dead in what police believe to be an explosive suicide. The man, locally named as "Allnamestaken", was found slumped at his computer by concerned neighbours clutching the remains of what appears to be a pipe-bomb like device..."
"... and smelling faintly of custard."
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Apr 2010
- Posts
- 5,298
- Location
- Ipswich
I'm scared of the power I may be unleashing.
Scared
Scared
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Apr 2010
- Posts
- 5,298
- Location
- Ipswich
It would seem that with an IMR 18350 and .65/7 Ohm atomizer, internal battery resistance is probably(average) 150 Ohms. The mod will probably introduce another 150 Ohms through connections and contacts. Total resistance is going to be .7 Ohms for the atomizer plus .3 Ohms extraneous for a total of 1 Ohm. With fully charged cell at 4.2 Volts, current load will be 4.2 Volts divided by one Ohm which is 4.2 Amps. That's within tolerance of the cell.
That's assuming there is much resistance in my mod and batt............ if not my head will implode soon.
I'm scared..... but I live on the edge...
That's assuming there is much resistance in my mod and batt............ if not my head will implode soon.
I'm scared..... but I live on the edge...
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2008
- Posts
- 11,114
Two positive MEP responses this morning assuring that both Liberal and UKIP MEPs will be voting against the medicalisation of e-cigs.
Still awaiting Conservative and Labour feedback.
For what it's worth, here's my letter that went out to each (spoiler tag so it isn't Wall o' Text Time all up in here):
Still awaiting Conservative and Labour feedback.
For what it's worth, here's my letter that went out to each (spoiler tag so it isn't Wall o' Text Time all up in here):
Dear Politician,
First and foremost, I would like to thank you in advance for taking time out of your undoubtedly busy schedule in order to entertain my concerns -- concerns which are related directly to the content of the proposed Tobacco Products Directive (TPD), and specifically Article 18 of such.
I currently count myself as part of the approximately 1.3 million e-cigarette users, referred to colloquially as 'vapers', in the UK, and have done so for roughly the past three years. The difference that this technology has made to my life, both personal and professional, cannot be understated and it is because of this that I feel I really must get involved with what is shaping up to be a healthcare disaster for not only Great Britain, but the EU in its entirety.
To provide the history: My first introduction to electronic cigarettes came in the form of the standard "cig-a-like" that one would tend to see in the media -- all tubular shape and little glowing end -- foisted on me by a wife sick and tired of being dragged out into the cold when visiting a recreational establishment, or enduring the stench of a freshly nicotine-filled husband crawling into bed next to her and quite literally stinking up the place. Of course, the persistent cough and wheezing respiration after ten years of tobacco use also weren't particularly pleasant things to be around. Regardless, she loved me, and I loved her enough to give it a go. Hey, I could still smoke tobacco at home and save the little e-cig for nights out, right?
Well, two days later I put the rolling tobacco on a shelf, and never looked back -- entering the world of a brand new hobby and massive consumer market that I didn't even know existed. My current device couldn't appear any less like a cigarette, and I wouldn't have it any other way. I'm no longer a smoker -- the lack of pursuant stink on both my person and around our home, naked flame, hot (or cold) ash, smoke-filled eyes, rasping throat and wheezing breath are simple testament to such -- yet it would appear that there are still some out there that attribute the very act of recreational nicotine use to be directly synonymous with the burning of tobacco. A fallacy of the simplest order that is easily dismissed with a modicum of cognitive ability, and that is why I was so deeply shocked to notice an Article referencing e-cigarettes (or Personal Vapourisers, as the better term may be when the device physically resembles a cigarette in no way at all) within a directive seemingly designed to discourage the use of products containing tobacco. It's even in the name: Tobacco Products Directive. So what does this article pertain to, I wondered.
Article 18, in fact, will force the medicalisation of e-cigarette products, requiring sufficient licensing for every product (at an astronomical cost to the supplier), and for all devices to conform to approved specifications and a measure of nicotine content that would prove completely ineffective to any current smoker. In short, it would prove to be a de facto ban on just about every single device and flavoured nicotine solution (a huge draw for the 'vaping' scene, as the choice is astronomical -- from the great, to the really rather disgusting -- yet almost all entirely preferable to the ashtray flavour of a tobacco cigarette) and would prove the single hammer blow that would bring an end to a burgeoning industry that is really starting to take off. The destruction of such a market seems a rather strange action to take in a time when British enterprise is being actively encouraged as an essential piece of steady economic recovery.
More mind-boggling, however, is that Article 18, by its very nature, flies in the face of everything that the TPD and its proponents, including author Linda McAvan claim to be its prime directive: The protection of public health.
Electronic cigarettes are already proven, via reputable, peer-reviewed studies from various highly qualified scientists worldwide to be several degrees of magnitude safer for the user than a traditional tobacco cigarette, and of absolutely no danger to bystanders who may passively inhale the vapour. Many appear to be more informed by knee-jerk panic, personal opinion and media cherry-picking than they are the actual facts, but even brief time sent researching papers online would bring anyone with the ability to read coherently to the conclusion that e-cigarettes are, quite literally, a life saver. What they are not, however, is a medicine.
People who enjoy, and are addicted to, nicotine -- a perfectly safe, and legal, substance when used responsibly (as, for example, the much more socially destructible yet widely used utility that is alcohol) -- are not sick. Shall we medicalise coffee with a slightly lower caffeine content in case people want to wean themselves away from that steamy morning black in order to quit being so darned angry until they've had their fix? Of course not, and there is no logical reason to do the same for the nicotine experience that vaping provides. The only outcome that this bill offers is for pharmaceutical companies to, very literally, take absolute control of the one thing that is geared up to take tobacco manufacturers and conglomerates head on, and in the process render it completely ineffective, and far less accessible to those who may want it. The logic in this is absolutely non-present. It is sheer insanity to claim that this bill seeks to protect health while putting a bullet in the head of the first invention in a long time that holds the true power to deal a massive blow to tobacco use not only within the UK, but on a global scale. Leaving Article 18 active within this Directive is disingenuous to the extreme and renders the entire thing nothing more than a cynical attempt to remove this competitor from the reach of the majority of smokers, veiled between reams of further seemingly positive approaches to tobacco presentation. Determined smokers will continue to smoke regardless of whether the package is covered in glitter, or a plain white box. Where is the logic in removing the safer alternative for them, and rendering it ineffective from the mere few outlets that they may be able to procure it? You and I both know exactly what will happen: The smoker will simply walk into the local shop and purchase a pack of cigarettes. It's simpler, easier, and takes less time and effort. This bill condemns that smoker to a proven life of sickness and eventual death -- and will do the same to many of the millions of vapers that currently populate this land.
Proponents of this bill and the removal of e-cigs from the open market like to claim that the industry is completed unregulated. This, again, is absolute fallacy -- any item for sale on the open market within the UK is already regulated by bodies designed to protect the consumer, and "e-liquid" (the flavoured nicotine solution for use within personal vapourisers) must conform to strict standards. I couldn't point you towards a single vaper out there who wouldn't welcome legislation to tighten these standards and ensure absolute compliance -- of course that would be welcome, but medicalisation is far and away not the method by which to do so.
Rather than throw a ton of links at you ad nauseum, I would urge you to please take a look over the website and articles of ex-ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) director Clive Bates' website, which acts as an admirable bastion of common sense regarding the treatment of e-cigarettes, the true horrors hidden away in Article 18 of this bill, and details of the various studies and the qualified individuals who have performed them proving, without a doubt, that e-cigarettes are something to be embraced as the strongest weapon again tobacco-related illnesses that we have today, and not something to be feared, quashed, and stamped into submission. The site address is:
http://www.clivebates.com/
Infographics are a rather fun, and modern, way to get points, figures, and facts across these days and so I would also like to draw your attention to the following "The 'Dark Truth' Behind E-Cigarettes" infographic, which should hopefully act as a positive witness for the benefits of vaping, and highlight the true value that it offers modern society:
http://visual.ly/“dark”-truth-behind-e-cigarettes
Of course, what vaping doesn't benefit is the coffers of a tobacco industry hell-bent on keeping people addicted to, and using, their proven harmful products. Neither does it benefit the coffers of a pharmaceutical industry profiting exponentially from the treatment of prolonged sickness caused by the previous. The two are indelibly intertwined -- and so we see the public's greatest weapon against this demonised, attacked, and for all intents and purposes should this Directive pass -- shut down.
To allow this Directive unchanged is corrupt in the extreme, and unashamedly so -- to pass law claiming to be in the interest of public health that plainly, and without conscience, hands the technology that proves to be its own greatest ally straight over to the very enemies of the Directive that would seek to see it quashed for their benefit -- and the suffering of millions -- is perverse in the extreme.
Voting on the Tobacco Products Directive has been delayed until early next month (October), and I would personally urge you as a constituent and human being to please vote against the adoption of this proposal in its current form. Should Article 18 be excised, this bill has potential public health benefits -- however, with it, is nothing but a thinly veiled coup designed to take a competitor out of tobacco's marketplace.
I hope you can see the sense in this, and see through the fog of misconception, disingenuous statements, ill-informed rhetoric and in some cases outright lies that those of us seeking to keep our health are facing at this crucial moment. Please do not allow this to pass. Please don't sign the death warrants of millions, and the liquidation papers for pioneering business all across the United Kingdom. There's a real chance here to let health, science and personal freedom prevail over deception, money, and the continuous peddling of suffering and misery -- I beseech you to stand on the side which benefits the people and not the tobacco industry.
If you would like to discuss this in any further detail, please don't hesitate to contact me. If you do see fit to pass this to any of your colleagues who may be in need of further persuasion or enlightening on this Directive (well, I hope this has been in some way informative or persuasive if you happened to be on the fence -- it certainly took a while to write!) then do know that you have my appreciative thanks. I, too, would appreciate a response in confirmation that this letter has been read and digested, and assurance of your viewpoint on this bill.
Once again, I really must thank you for the time taken to read this letter and, of course, the content within the linked pages. May we hope for a better future for us all. Article 18 of the Tobacco Product Directive must go.
Yours sincerely,
Pestilence
First and foremost, I would like to thank you in advance for taking time out of your undoubtedly busy schedule in order to entertain my concerns -- concerns which are related directly to the content of the proposed Tobacco Products Directive (TPD), and specifically Article 18 of such.
I currently count myself as part of the approximately 1.3 million e-cigarette users, referred to colloquially as 'vapers', in the UK, and have done so for roughly the past three years. The difference that this technology has made to my life, both personal and professional, cannot be understated and it is because of this that I feel I really must get involved with what is shaping up to be a healthcare disaster for not only Great Britain, but the EU in its entirety.
To provide the history: My first introduction to electronic cigarettes came in the form of the standard "cig-a-like" that one would tend to see in the media -- all tubular shape and little glowing end -- foisted on me by a wife sick and tired of being dragged out into the cold when visiting a recreational establishment, or enduring the stench of a freshly nicotine-filled husband crawling into bed next to her and quite literally stinking up the place. Of course, the persistent cough and wheezing respiration after ten years of tobacco use also weren't particularly pleasant things to be around. Regardless, she loved me, and I loved her enough to give it a go. Hey, I could still smoke tobacco at home and save the little e-cig for nights out, right?
Well, two days later I put the rolling tobacco on a shelf, and never looked back -- entering the world of a brand new hobby and massive consumer market that I didn't even know existed. My current device couldn't appear any less like a cigarette, and I wouldn't have it any other way. I'm no longer a smoker -- the lack of pursuant stink on both my person and around our home, naked flame, hot (or cold) ash, smoke-filled eyes, rasping throat and wheezing breath are simple testament to such -- yet it would appear that there are still some out there that attribute the very act of recreational nicotine use to be directly synonymous with the burning of tobacco. A fallacy of the simplest order that is easily dismissed with a modicum of cognitive ability, and that is why I was so deeply shocked to notice an Article referencing e-cigarettes (or Personal Vapourisers, as the better term may be when the device physically resembles a cigarette in no way at all) within a directive seemingly designed to discourage the use of products containing tobacco. It's even in the name: Tobacco Products Directive. So what does this article pertain to, I wondered.
Article 18, in fact, will force the medicalisation of e-cigarette products, requiring sufficient licensing for every product (at an astronomical cost to the supplier), and for all devices to conform to approved specifications and a measure of nicotine content that would prove completely ineffective to any current smoker. In short, it would prove to be a de facto ban on just about every single device and flavoured nicotine solution (a huge draw for the 'vaping' scene, as the choice is astronomical -- from the great, to the really rather disgusting -- yet almost all entirely preferable to the ashtray flavour of a tobacco cigarette) and would prove the single hammer blow that would bring an end to a burgeoning industry that is really starting to take off. The destruction of such a market seems a rather strange action to take in a time when British enterprise is being actively encouraged as an essential piece of steady economic recovery.
More mind-boggling, however, is that Article 18, by its very nature, flies in the face of everything that the TPD and its proponents, including author Linda McAvan claim to be its prime directive: The protection of public health.
Electronic cigarettes are already proven, via reputable, peer-reviewed studies from various highly qualified scientists worldwide to be several degrees of magnitude safer for the user than a traditional tobacco cigarette, and of absolutely no danger to bystanders who may passively inhale the vapour. Many appear to be more informed by knee-jerk panic, personal opinion and media cherry-picking than they are the actual facts, but even brief time sent researching papers online would bring anyone with the ability to read coherently to the conclusion that e-cigarettes are, quite literally, a life saver. What they are not, however, is a medicine.
People who enjoy, and are addicted to, nicotine -- a perfectly safe, and legal, substance when used responsibly (as, for example, the much more socially destructible yet widely used utility that is alcohol) -- are not sick. Shall we medicalise coffee with a slightly lower caffeine content in case people want to wean themselves away from that steamy morning black in order to quit being so darned angry until they've had their fix? Of course not, and there is no logical reason to do the same for the nicotine experience that vaping provides. The only outcome that this bill offers is for pharmaceutical companies to, very literally, take absolute control of the one thing that is geared up to take tobacco manufacturers and conglomerates head on, and in the process render it completely ineffective, and far less accessible to those who may want it. The logic in this is absolutely non-present. It is sheer insanity to claim that this bill seeks to protect health while putting a bullet in the head of the first invention in a long time that holds the true power to deal a massive blow to tobacco use not only within the UK, but on a global scale. Leaving Article 18 active within this Directive is disingenuous to the extreme and renders the entire thing nothing more than a cynical attempt to remove this competitor from the reach of the majority of smokers, veiled between reams of further seemingly positive approaches to tobacco presentation. Determined smokers will continue to smoke regardless of whether the package is covered in glitter, or a plain white box. Where is the logic in removing the safer alternative for them, and rendering it ineffective from the mere few outlets that they may be able to procure it? You and I both know exactly what will happen: The smoker will simply walk into the local shop and purchase a pack of cigarettes. It's simpler, easier, and takes less time and effort. This bill condemns that smoker to a proven life of sickness and eventual death -- and will do the same to many of the millions of vapers that currently populate this land.
Proponents of this bill and the removal of e-cigs from the open market like to claim that the industry is completed unregulated. This, again, is absolute fallacy -- any item for sale on the open market within the UK is already regulated by bodies designed to protect the consumer, and "e-liquid" (the flavoured nicotine solution for use within personal vapourisers) must conform to strict standards. I couldn't point you towards a single vaper out there who wouldn't welcome legislation to tighten these standards and ensure absolute compliance -- of course that would be welcome, but medicalisation is far and away not the method by which to do so.
Rather than throw a ton of links at you ad nauseum, I would urge you to please take a look over the website and articles of ex-ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) director Clive Bates' website, which acts as an admirable bastion of common sense regarding the treatment of e-cigarettes, the true horrors hidden away in Article 18 of this bill, and details of the various studies and the qualified individuals who have performed them proving, without a doubt, that e-cigarettes are something to be embraced as the strongest weapon again tobacco-related illnesses that we have today, and not something to be feared, quashed, and stamped into submission. The site address is:
http://www.clivebates.com/
Infographics are a rather fun, and modern, way to get points, figures, and facts across these days and so I would also like to draw your attention to the following "The 'Dark Truth' Behind E-Cigarettes" infographic, which should hopefully act as a positive witness for the benefits of vaping, and highlight the true value that it offers modern society:
http://visual.ly/“dark”-truth-behind-e-cigarettes
Of course, what vaping doesn't benefit is the coffers of a tobacco industry hell-bent on keeping people addicted to, and using, their proven harmful products. Neither does it benefit the coffers of a pharmaceutical industry profiting exponentially from the treatment of prolonged sickness caused by the previous. The two are indelibly intertwined -- and so we see the public's greatest weapon against this demonised, attacked, and for all intents and purposes should this Directive pass -- shut down.
To allow this Directive unchanged is corrupt in the extreme, and unashamedly so -- to pass law claiming to be in the interest of public health that plainly, and without conscience, hands the technology that proves to be its own greatest ally straight over to the very enemies of the Directive that would seek to see it quashed for their benefit -- and the suffering of millions -- is perverse in the extreme.
Voting on the Tobacco Products Directive has been delayed until early next month (October), and I would personally urge you as a constituent and human being to please vote against the adoption of this proposal in its current form. Should Article 18 be excised, this bill has potential public health benefits -- however, with it, is nothing but a thinly veiled coup designed to take a competitor out of tobacco's marketplace.
I hope you can see the sense in this, and see through the fog of misconception, disingenuous statements, ill-informed rhetoric and in some cases outright lies that those of us seeking to keep our health are facing at this crucial moment. Please do not allow this to pass. Please don't sign the death warrants of millions, and the liquidation papers for pioneering business all across the United Kingdom. There's a real chance here to let health, science and personal freedom prevail over deception, money, and the continuous peddling of suffering and misery -- I beseech you to stand on the side which benefits the people and not the tobacco industry.
If you would like to discuss this in any further detail, please don't hesitate to contact me. If you do see fit to pass this to any of your colleagues who may be in need of further persuasion or enlightening on this Directive (well, I hope this has been in some way informative or persuasive if you happened to be on the fence -- it certainly took a while to write!) then do know that you have my appreciative thanks. I, too, would appreciate a response in confirmation that this letter has been read and digested, and assurance of your viewpoint on this bill.
Once again, I really must thank you for the time taken to read this letter and, of course, the content within the linked pages. May we hope for a better future for us all. Article 18 of the Tobacco Product Directive must go.
Yours sincerely,
Pestilence
It would seem that with an IMR 18350 and .65/7 Ohm atomizer, internal battery resistance is probably(average) 150 Ohms. The mod will probably introduce another 150 Ohms through connections and contacts. Total resistance is going to be .7 Ohms for the atomizer plus .3 Ohms extraneous for a total of 1 Ohm. With fully charged cell at 4.2 Volts, current load will be 4.2 Volts divided by one Ohm which is 4.2 Amps. That's within tolerance of the cell.
That's assuming there is much resistance in my mod and batt............ if not my head will implode soon.
I'm scared..... but I live on the edge...
Well, if you're set on sub ohm vaping, just be bloody careful ... the lowest I go is 1.3ohms on a 14500 battery (usually 1.4 - 1.7 is best for me), just remember, its essentially a pipe bomb your sucking on and its doesn't take prisoners.
Also, if anyone here is a member of the vapepit, read this http://vapepit.net/index.php?/topic/9834-a-word-of-warning/
Please tell me that you didn't sign the letter Pestilence.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 10,263
- Location
- UK
egos have always caused problems, stay well away. I read an article where it exploded in someone's face in America.
egos have always caused problems, stay well away. I read an article where it exploded in someone's face in America.
No they haven't, eGo batteries are safe when looked after correctly. it all goes pete tong when the wrong charger is used though, and the case of the exploding mod in America was when some eejit decided to use the wrong batteries stacked in a home made tube mod.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2008
- Posts
- 11,114
Of course I did!
+1 I'm hoping you've copied & pasted the draft and you rook the time to proofread it before sending - I lost count of spelling mistakes, grammar errors and overzealous vocabulary use... Still, if it gets a positive reaction, that's what matters.
Craig, get yourself some of these, please!
www.fasttech.com/products/1/10002357/1443728-samsung-inr18650-20r-3-6v-2000mah-rechargeable-li
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2008
- Posts
- 11,114
Really? I'm genuinely interested in your feedback on that, considering on a few re-reads I've caught two genuine typos/spelling mistakes. Certainly not in the realm of "losing count".
EDIT: I'm actually serious about this, just in case you're wondering if I'm being prissy. I would very much appreciate an editorial response/highlighting of the issues you mention, for future improvement.
Last edited:
- Status