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.
Evolv Technology Owners Discussion Thread
- Thread starter retird
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
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?
And in the grand scheme of the new technology a screen glitch with some devices (not all) that has no effect on the performance of a very new technology is small potatoes in comparing it to all the technology is doing. At least some don't think the sky is falling.... funny as my brother designed and manufactures a data logger computer system for race cars and after almost twenty years he still has firmware updates and some involve the OLED display... go figure...
And if anybody may want a bit more information on nickel wire I'll just leave this:
http://www.specialmetals.com/documents/Nickel 200 & 201.pdf
Last edited:
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.
Last edited:
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.
The issue has been solved since last year in the originally released boards (small screen). The large screen board was released later and there is some question whether the issue is actually the same or not, obviously if it were it would have also been fixed.
You might be surprised what you can catch. If it's prevalent enough to take a picture of then it would be easy to catch. If it only happened once ever it wouldn't be able to be caught, and it would also not be an issue.
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
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
That may be a true statement but taken out of context or purpose is just fishing for people to read the article as the original author intended it to. The good doctor is talking about a dry hit on a none TC Mods where the temperature goes thru the ceiling during a "dry hit".
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.
Regards,
George
Last edited:
Retird... Retird...
One letter makes a HUGE difference.
KTM,
As Sigmund Freud said sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. My apology to all and especially "Retird".
And you are absolutely correct KTM it don't take much for a word to typed in error to change the world. I am certainly glad you caught that - Thank you.
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.
That is the title of the study, click the link. So the authors did write it I believe. Again it is written that way to directly address the claim in the previous study. It is written that way to emphasize that the high levels ONLY occur during dry hits, i.e. not in normal use.
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
retird,
My comments were never meant to criticize you and your post. I stumbled on the article also I think on one of the DIY vendor sites. I didn't like the title there either and it just smacks of headlines in a News Paper or Gossip Magazine - "Shock and Awe" solely for the purpose of capturing peoples attention and selling them a News Paper. My problem with "Eye Catchers" like that is not everyone reads the article and walks away sure to quote the title as fact (IMO not in the best interest of the Vaping public).
My response to the title was the same as it was when I see things like that in a WEB advertisement, News Papers or one of those ridiculous magazines at the checkout counter at Wall Mart.
Anyway I will apologize for venting my personal opinions about advertising methods. It actually has no relevance to this thread or the article that you linked to.
So Mr. Retird if you can let my comments go as just the venting by a guy tired of Hype for Hype's sake there has been more than enough comments on this subject that anyone seeing that title in this thread section will know it is not necessarily a truism and to understand it you must read the article.
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 good... 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....
Last edited:
dr g, I am sure you are correct about the "shell-shocked". If you listen to the news today they will tell you about something that cures cancer and in less than a week they will tell you the same item cures scurvy. Probably a poor example but yes I am a little warn out on all these "Studies" claiming one thing or another. I know that it was the title in another study and actually I think that was the "Headline" posted by "My Freedom Smoke" that drew me in to read what they really wanted to say.
retird,
I didn't mean to over respond to your post it just bubbled up when I saw that "Title" again. Actually I shouldn't have even let myself over respond to what was really only a link to the legitimate study.
If I wasn't so old I'd tell you I will try to get better about my reactionary habits but "old" puts its own limitation on things also. i.e. "Old dogs..."
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
