Buzz Pro II and Buzz Pro Lightning BOTH APPROVED BY ECF !! - Page 3
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 68

Thread: Buzz Pro II and Buzz Pro Lightning BOTH APPROVED BY ECF !!

  1. #21
    PIF Moderator Team ECF (folding@home)
    Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member
    markfm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Beautiful Baldwinsville (CNY)
    Posts
    9,158

    Default

    The cspnet article reads like a variant of the press release put out weeks back by Kiklas and TVECA. Suppositions spoken as if facts. ecigarettesjunction is a "review" site that appears to be a fake site, with obviously junk "reviews", links that don't work, etc. The "most popular" e-cigarettes are from the ones we warn people about (I know because my first PV was one of the brands, and when you read the "reviews" they are totally PR)

    The last paragraph, talking about SGS certification was a complete shrug to me. I actually am a techie, an engineer, did a "... are they saying?" when I read it.

    SGS is a real testing company, qualified to perform certifications to various standards (e.g., they can generate proper tests, obtain UL listings). At best, maybe it was some kind of way to assert, in this PR puff piece, "our proprietary, over-priced, PV, must be good because at least in theory we could pay to have SGS test it, if only there was some standard for SGS to test it to".

    (PRish stuff comes out poised as real journalism, trying to sift through things isn't easy.)
    Last edited by markfm; 03-15-2012 at 06:21 PM.
    Pay It Forward Learn to laugh at yourself -- why let everyone else have all the fun :)
    http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/diy-e-liquid/

  2. #22
    PV Master Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    retird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Okie City
    Posts
    3,097

    Default

    You are correct markfm, SGS is a real testing company. My question was simply whether the Buzz products (or anybody's mod) has been certified by SGS. I was hoping for some info concerning my question.

  3. #23
    PIF Moderator Team ECF (folding@home)
    Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member
    markfm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Beautiful Baldwinsville (CNY)
    Posts
    9,158

    Default

    Testing to what standard? The SGS testing performed on ecigarettes, multiple links come up, is:
    SGS Testing and Certification

    Ingredient Testing Analysis and compliance
    Chemical Testing Analysis and compliance

    In other words, the common SGS testing that is being performed, by Chinese manufacturers, has nothing to do with the batteries/electronics. It is testing to basically make sure they aren't releasing gubbage eliquids. It is possible that some vendor has gone to SGS to have them test something else, but it isn't to an overall recognized ecigarette safety standard, since there isn't one.

    The other standard "certification" claims, of the proprietary china-sourced PVs, are CE mark related to not producing interference, and ROHS/UN38.3 concerning battery production standards. ROHS relates to hazardous substances, while UN38.3 is a test that batteries must undergo before they are deemed safe for air transport. These have nothing to do with assuring the safety of a PV as a system. There's no magic test saying this size battery, this much maximum current, etc.

    The CSP article is a PR presser, a variant of the same thing people looked at weeks ago as "news". It's been written by one of the companies selling high-priced proprietary own-labeled PVs, by non-technical types, essentially hoping to dazzle with claims. If notcigs sells batteries that were produced overseas, they will also be RoHS, and UN38.3, else the batteries wouldn't have made it to the US. CE relative to interference is a non-safety thing. SGS eliquid testing (performed on the really huge bulk China eliquid) isn't a notcigs product.

    Notcigs will undoubtedly chime in, I'm only answering because I had already read the earlier "article", and this one turned out to be another version of it.

    (These things are hard to decode, there's a lot of material on the Internet posing as news that turns out to really be some company's PR handout that others then publish.)
    Last edited by markfm; 03-15-2012 at 08:44 PM.
    Pay It Forward Learn to laugh at yourself -- why let everyone else have all the fun :)
    http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/diy-e-liquid/

  4. #24
    PV Master Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    retird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Okie City
    Posts
    3,097

    Default

    markfm, thanks for the info. From what I gather from your dissertation, you feel there are no standards that can be used to evaluate a PV to assure it's safety. Just because a vendor, any vendor says a PV is safe, does not convince me that it is so. What tests, standards, and processes can they provide me to verify what they say can actually be backed up by documentation?

    SGS testing is not just for e-liquids. Electrical Safety and Safety Certification Marks by SGS

  5. #25
    PIF Moderator Team ECF (folding@home)
    Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member
    markfm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Beautiful Baldwinsville (CNY)
    Posts
    9,158

    Default

    Unfortunately there really isn't any kind of pv-level standard, it is all ad-hoc, up to the individual.

    The things that rolygate has been posting at the top level of ecf, recommendations to be careful on batteries, look for things that talk about having current and/or temperature cutouts at the pv level, look for venting, are ecf's own attempts to start coming up with things to look for. I certainly don't agree with everything posted, and I really believe that ignoring single big battery units is sticking one's head in the sand (the very recent report of an 18650 battery entering a thermal runaway, though an alert user tossed it before anything bad happened, sounds real to me), but I also believe they are at least trying to come up with something, given nobody else has.

    A single large 18650 has twice the total energy of anything in a notcigs pv, and the total energy is a major part of the potential for harm.

    I actually am an engineer, can afford to buy whatever I want, and I honestly believe the current notcigs products are the best stuff out now. The new bp ii and lightning are the first pv to incorporate the new ecf-directed super slots, but I am entirely content with my existing bp, and original infinity (i did retrofit the infinity with the ipro delrin end cap, months ago). The big slots on the notcigs products buy even more safety margin, but the base product already has multiple safety features, is well thought out.

    (Truthfully, if it was me I wouldn't have asked for the super slots, there are several viable approaches, including the delrin blowout plug, as long as the tube can accommodate rational battery swelling - notcigs pv do have oversized tubes.)

    Sorry for the long-winded response, but it is a good quetion. A friend, justifiably spooked by recent things, asked for a good option for his wife. A notcigs PV was an easy, appropriate, answer

    Update: I'm not certain, but notcigs may not be able to respond to you here. Vendors can't post in many areas (understandably). You can always post things where you want them to respond in the notcigs area of ecf suppliers. Buzzkill is pretty open about things, it is an active forum.
    Last edited by markfm; 03-16-2012 at 01:13 AM.
    Pay It Forward Learn to laugh at yourself -- why let everyone else have all the fun :)
    http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/diy-e-liquid/

  6. #26
    PV Master Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    retird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Okie City
    Posts
    3,097

    Default

    The reason I posted my question here is the OP started this thread stating "SAFE MOD". This is the only place I have seen this designation pertaining to any Mod. Thus I felt this the appropriate place to ask my question. I am interested in compiling a list of "SAFE MODS". I would ask the OP what verifiable proof is available to support this claim, as I would start my list with the Buzz Line, pending verifiable proof.

    Thanks for all the replies and info.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bovinia View Post
    Notcigs has been notified by Rolygate that Both designs ( straight slot and lightning bolt ) have been APPROVED by ECF according to the NEW specs posted by them .

    SO the Buzz Line is now a SAFE MOD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


  7. #27
    Divine Bovine Team ECF (folding@home)
    ECF Veteran
    Bovinia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central CT
    Posts
    12,424

    Default

    It is considered "safe" because it falls within the new ECF stated rules applying to mods. http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/for...tube-mods.html

    See the posts by Rolygate for your answers to what the new ECF safety standards require. In the post I linked is another link from Roly.

    If today I can touch someone's life with kindness, my day has been a success.

  8. #28
    PIF Moderator Team ECF (folding@home)
    Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member
    markfm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Beautiful Baldwinsville (CNY)
    Posts
    9,158

    Default

    Ahh, got it Sorry I was chasing down the rat hole. Yes, the two referenced notcigs pv are the first (perhaps only) to meet the new ecf safety spec. Verification on that, I believe, was a by inspection or analysis activity, seeing that the slots conformed to retirement.
    Pay It Forward Learn to laugh at yourself -- why let everyone else have all the fun :)
    http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/diy-e-liquid/

  9. #29
    PV Master Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    retird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Okie City
    Posts
    3,097

    Default

    I understand that ECF has determined that it is their opinion that these mods meet their suggested guidelines. But I search for "proof", not opinions.

    From the link you provided ( http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/for...tube-mods.html ) :

    Notes

    [1] No mod of any kind is ultimately safe because lithium batteries are used and these will occasionally suffer failure. Lithium batteries are not themselves safe and have a well-known history of energetic failure. However, ECF believes that mods that comply with EMSS are very unlikely to be involved in an incident where serious injury occurs and are therefore acceptably safe.

    [2] Mods that can only accept a single battery are not implicated in any kind of explosive failure event at this time. Statistically they are safe, no matter their level of safety features or lack of them.

    [3] Whether or not any mod is 'safe' is a matter of opinion. The opinion of ECF is that a metal tube mod that can accept two batteries would need to comply with EMSS before we would regard it as safe or be prepared to list it as a safe choice. Other opinions may differ. There is no scientific basis for any opinions at this time.

    [4] Because no single-battery mod has been reported as involved in any explosive failure event, statistically these mods must be regarded as safe. If they also have sufficient safety features to comply with EMSS, it is not unreasonable to consider them as having a higher safety level than other mods: safe+.

  10. #30
    Divine Bovine Team ECF (folding@home)
    ECF Veteran
    Bovinia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central CT
    Posts
    12,424

    Default

    I'm afraid that what you quoted is as close to "proof" as you will get. Anything that uses a battery can fail, and sometimes those failures result in personal harm. Cell phones, laptops, flashlights, etc. all have documented cases of failures resulting in personal injury, they just don't make the news like the e-cig explosion did.

    Anyone who claims to have SGS or anything of the sort is blowing smoke up your skirt

    If today I can touch someone's life with kindness, my day has been a success.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Bookmarks