2Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksCount me in as well, I'd like to help (with costs). I'm not too technical with the workings, but I can surely try. I PM'd you Quit.
Count me in as well, I'd like to help (with costs). I'm not too technical with the workings, but I can surely try. I PM'd you Quit.
Have you seen how mini christmas lights plug into the strand? It's almost like what you are describing here. That would be really convenient on a heating element.Originally Posted by Quit4myKids
The heating elements in my designs were real rough sketches. I used a scale of 10px = 1mm, and so the bottom design is actually 12mm long and 2mm thin (which is too thin, but it was just a quick sketch of the concept).we will not likely find a replacement heating unit this small (1mm x 4mm rod) that will work for us and be reasonably priced.
The middle drawing, Alternative #1, doesn't have to have a heating rod as thick as the housing. It could be a thin element with insulation blocking the outside. It will definitely need to be longer than shown in the diagram, though.
Here's another take on the same design (this one has a 4mm x 10mm element):
One of my highest priorities for a design is having the location of the vapor production right inside the airflow path. As you can see with this design, the vapor gets swept away instantly because it is directly on the path. I think it might not be crucial to completely seal off the entire bottom, except for waterproofing reasons. It shouldn't interfere with vapor production as the hollow part on either side of the element is out of the airflow anyway. We could just fit a thick o-ring near the bottom of the heating element to keep liquid from coming out the bottom.
Well here is version 3, using a standard rod version. If we can find a place to make the ceramic inserts the rod will fit into, then we can shield its heat from the external case and use the rod itself to wick the fluid straight down into a resivor similar to my previous version. By keeping everything else the same ther are less modding required as far as the cart and batting material is concerned. Again by canneling the air up the sides and then into passage ways to the interior conture the risk of leakage is minimal, also it moves the air flow closer to the point of vaporization. I dont like the airflow down the center as there is to much chance of fluid being suck into the users mouth, also we would have to resdesign the cart and material.
Well here is the design:
Dan
Last edited by Scubabatdan; 10-25-2009 at 10:20 PM.
Brilliant Everyone!!!!!!!!!!!
How would these rod heaters work with 5 or 6 volts? Would the chip inside just keep the output steady? Would we need separate heaters designed for different voltages?
Please count me in, I have pm'd you Q4MK.
Thanks,
SV
I didn't get the idea that there is a chip inside. The way it was described suggested to me that it was an electrical circuit that varies in resistance at a much higher rate than nichrome which would rapidly limit the heating power. The characteristics could be changed by using different metal alloys. A dry nichrome coil goes over 500C quite rapidly whereas it looks like these would not.
With current atties, when you take a draw, small droplets of e-liquid are drawn from the metallic wool through the hole in the center of the ceramic pot on to the hot nichrome wire.
If the nichrome or any other heating element would be pooled with liquid, it wouldn't have the necessary heating power to vaporize the liquid.
I envision a hole in the middle of the heating rod to allow the air to draw the same small amount of liquid onto the hot part as in regular atties. The steel wool and bridge will have to be moved higher (~7mm higher - 10mm in ceramic heater compared to ~3mm with the usual nichrome wire). So carts will have to shrink too or be used for dripping.
Just my 2c.
That design looks nice Dan. I was thinking of how to shield the outer case, the ceramic with a hole in the center looks promising. I have some ceramic pieces that are cylinder shaped and have a hole in the center but I haven't measured them. The O.D. is 10.5 mm and the I.D. of the hole is 5.5mm. I wonder if I could grind them down to make them work. I need a sun rod to find out, I guess.
This may be an esoteric question at this point - but does anyone know how much air is being allowed through current atomizers now?
My 510 has three holes, the center one is 1.5mm and the two sides are .75mm each (eyeballing it with a ruler) googling how to find the area of a circle, I get 2.651 square millimeters of area to let air in...
I assume that this has something to do with the draw (to simulate a cigarette's draw....)
Just a thought to put on the back burner...
The amount of air being let in is about the same as how much you inhale. Try blocking all the holes on the outside of the ecig and see how hard it is to actually inhale. The actual volume of gas ("vapor") is pretty small.
But isn't that how cartomizers work? People are always saying they taste great, and I have never heard problems with fluid leakage. I was trying to replicate that sort of design. (Disclaimer: I have never actually used one. I could be completely wrong)
You are right about the redesign, it would be nice to avoid that.
This is true, hence why I have been using a "cone" shaped filler material in my diagrams, to limit the amount of liquid touching the element at any time. I kind of doubt we could get the manufacturers to put holes in the centers--it sounds like that space is being used up by the element and "circuitry" inside.
Last edited by roadkilldeluxe; 10-26-2009 at 01:05 AM.
RoadKill - PM sent (To keep the thread on topic!) :-)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks