In the same way that any product has component failure rates.
Not every manufacturer is having problems. Those doing proper QC and especially those using small screens are doing fine.
In the same way that any product has component failure rates.
Not every manufacturer is having problems. Those doing proper QC and especially those using small screens are doing fine.
In the same way that any product has component failure rates.
Not every manufacturer is having problems. Those doing proper QC and especially those using small screens are doing fine.
Can't the same be said for Evolv? Or are they in the clear of QC? Maybe they should just find better components (screens) to ship out. The manufacturer of the mods cannot be the only one to blame with the maker of the chip in the clear. I have never seen the amount of problems with one specific component with any other product I own.
My V4 screen has glitched once and hasn't happened ever again. How do you know Hana Modz didn't do proper QC and found that everything was working fine? Maybe my screen didn't glitch for them at all like it only glitched once for me?
Well they have fixed the problem in the small screens and are actively working to fix it on the large screens. Their work is on the design and sourcing end, and their QC practices are whatever they are to achieve the price point and failure rate they are achieving (and note the failure rate is smaller than it seems by what you read on forums). If the buyer finds that insufficient they can do their own additional QC, which adds value.
It's not hard to catch the glitches but only if you have the chip in hand. BThey have outsourced the production of the V4 so they are looking at the same QC growing pains as VS. Good luck getting China to QC properly.
I read somewhere that the screen issue was suppose to be gone completely on the newest firmware with the large screens. I am just surprised they still have this issue since release. It is not a major issue since the device still works perfectly but it is something that is still really annoying people.
And honestly, QC seems to be excellent on the V4. The device is clean on the inside and in perfect condition on the outside. The screen is perfectly centered as well. Seems like whatever Chinese factory they are using (if that's what they are using) is doing a pretty damn good job. Like I said, my screen has only glitched once. I don't see how they would have caught that since it probably didn't happen for them while it was there.
Temperature Protection.....
Just saw this..... E-cigarettes generate high levels of aldehydes only in ‘dry puff’ conditions.
E-cigarettes generate high levels of aldehydes only in ‘dry puff’ conditions - Farsalinos - 2015 - Addiction - Wiley Online Library
Well, with TC you don't get the proverbial (and technical) dry hit ...
Retird... Retird...
One letter makes a HUGE difference.
That was kind of my point. Provocative titles like that have always bothered me because not everyone reads the article or just skims thru it and possible walks away with the wrong assumption defeating the articles intent. There are enough anti-vaping articles with titles just like that one. Actually I think that Title was taken from an anti-vaping article that used it as a serious title. (I am too lazy to go back and re-read it).
Anyway Retird caught me off guard by posting it here. The tone of my post was a little agitated but it was not directed at Retird but it was the same reaction I had when I stumbled on the original article. Titles like that one have a way of acquiring a life of their own.
Considering what the State I live in has proposed to do to the Vaping industry and community I just hate seeing anything like that posted even if it's desired result is meant to be positive.
If you follow dr farsalinos and the state of vaping science, that headline is fine and could well have been written by the doctor himself. The study disproves the earlier study that said basically "Ecigarettes can produce 10x more formaldehyde than regular cigarettes" without any qualifications ... it specifically states what they found in terminology that relates to what the previous study has been mis-stated to claim.
No I don't particularly follow Farsalinos but my point is the shock and awe statements like "E-cigarettes generate high levels of aldehydes only in ‘dry puff’ conditions" should be moderated by the facts presented in the article which claim it was a bad study and the temperatures they used were far in excess of what vapors usually use or experience.
Anyway it sounds like we are saying basically the same thing about the truth of the article and yes the eye catching title when qualified by the corrections to the original bad study is acceptable imo. However that is not the way Retird used it. It was just posted as a statement which most would presume to be true not something that you have to follow thru on to find out it was just a shock and awe statement to get you to follow the link to God only knows what. The title statement could have been clarified in Retird's post along with some indicators that Farsalinos published a study that debated and discounted the original study's accuracy.
Why don't we just drop this debate there is not two cents worth of new information in what you and I are saying accept that you apparently accept the tile wording and I don't. As I said before titles like the one referenced above can and often do developed a life of their own.
The title statement could have been clarified in Retird's post along with some indicators that Farsalinos published a study that debated and discounted the original study's accuracy.
To clarify.... I typed the title of the article and posted a link to it.. the reader can form whatever opinion they choose.... plain and simple... here is a pdf link also... Dr. Farsalinos study may be good reading for all... imo....
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.12942/epdf
You may just be shell-shocked by the constant drumbeat of false claims and bad science these days. That title is not meant for advertising, it's the title of a study published in a peer-reviewed journal. It is worded that way because it is related to another study.
HolmanGT..... all is goods..,. I didn't take your comments as criticism. My post just stated the title and a link to the article. Harmless post I thought... but how one receives it is a matter out of one's control... again... all is good....
View attachment 459311