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

[markfm]

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 "WTF 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.)

 

[retird]

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.

 

[markfm]

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.)

 

[retird]

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

 

[markfm]

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.

 

[retird]

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.

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 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Bovinia]

It is considered "safe" because it falls within the new ECF stated rules applying to mods. http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/announcements-rules/274600-safe-metal-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.

 

[markfm]

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.

 

[retird]

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/forum/announcements-rules/274600-safe-metal-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+.

 

[Bovinia]

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

 

[markfm]

Neither bovinia nor I are notcigs people, we're just individual vapers. The vendors can't post in these areas.

It was a kick to see that these were the first (maybe still the only) products that meet the new safety guidelines. Apologies if you don't like the word safe, but the whole drive for the ecf work in this area is making things as safe as reasonably possible. The ecf spec/guideline was a fairly rapidly drawn up, flexible/evolving, thing. Truth be told, if someone wants to be 100%, that is not rationally achievable in any product built by man; if anyone tells you that vaping is 100% safe, they are lying.

As to how no single battery pv has gone boom, while literally true there was a report in the past week of a big battery single cell 18650 vv unit where the battery was going into what any rational person would acknowledge is thermal runaway. One can declare that the user must be lying, but if not the only reason it wasn't a bad whoops is that the user recognized what was going on and threw the battery into a field.

 

[Bovinia]

Thank you for the better explanation Mark, you are much more politically correct than I

 

[retird]

So, if I understand your comments, you are saying that your reference to the "SAFE MOD" is only an opinion, not based on any verified tests or scientific data, thus just your opinion (and ECF's opinion).

Thanks for all the dialog. I can appreciate your opinion that the Buzz Line is safe, but opinions are not what I am searching for. Opinions are not facts, thus your claim of safe mod is baseless, absent documented data or certifications.

I have taken more time here than anticipated, and I will ask my question elsewhere in hopes of getting hard data.

Thanks again.

 

[markfm]

Best of luck in the search for information. This has been an educational experience for me, hunting down things like chargers

 

[hificat101]

I was wondering if the manufacturer of the laptop I'm presently using, or any others for that matter have been designated "safe" by any testing body? Or for that matter, the cell phone I press to the side of my head several times a a day?

If so, I haven't heard of it.

 

[markfm]

Not really, though at least for a cell phone there are recognized standards for things like measuring the rf emission of them, and there are then rf standards for safe emission level for the general populace, as a function of frequency.

 

[hificat101]

I'm just thinking battery Mark. The gentleman that was here earlier seemed to want something akin to death and taxes. Not that I can blame anyone after the way FL was over-hyped. Just saying.

I would like to see numbers comparing the safety of bat mods, to safety of bats in laptops and cell phones. I mean, 2.5 million people are using ecigs in the US.

 

[markfm]

I've heard that at least some laptop battery packs actually consist of multiple 18650, 6 or 7 in series to hit the voltage, strings of those in parallel to reach the mAh. Saw a post recently talking about it.

Most laptop battery packs don't take anywhere near the abuse of a pv. Physical abuse from drops, daily remove/replace, generally bursty high current use.

An interesting question, certainly

 

[retird]

You are correct in your analogy of laptop batteries. Computers, digital cameras, and etc. are SGS, UL, etc. approved. Tested and evaluated as safe for the intended purpose. Sure accidents can happend with them, but the point is Mods are not certified, nor tested (none that I can find yet) and should be IMO. Thus saying they are safe is only supposition. Regulation, testing and certification by the mod makers or by the government will happend.

There are Standard (not mods) e-cigs that are certified and tested. You can google and find them. Mods can be certified and tested..

http://www.ego-e-cigarette.com/photo-pid10564217/eGO-T+Electronic+Cigarette.htm

 

[six]

E-cigarette companies who have SGS certifications on their products have all met or surpassed the necessary stress tests on their batteries to ensure that they are safe to use for their intended purpose.

You misunderstand SGS. I'll explain below, but just because SGS tested something that happens to be electrical doesn't at all mean they stress tested the battery. SGS does all sorts of testing on all sorts of devices and other goods.

There are Standard (not mods) e-cigs that are certified and tested. You can google and find them. Mods can be certified and tested..

Conspicuously missing from that links "testing" insignias is UL.

It has CE

It has RoHs

It has SGS

Without knowing what SGS actually tested for, that ego in the pictures may as well be untested for anything besides mercury and other chemicals. RoHS compliance has to do with a list of dangerous chemicals and the levels of them found in any given product (mercury is a big deal). The CE mark doesn't actually mean any given device was necessarily safety tested. It means that the product reasonably performs its intended purpose and was RoHS tested. And, SGS is a private entity that will test anything for anything you want them to. It doesn't mean they safety tested that ego in the picture. It means that joytech hired them to test that ego for *something*. It's actually most likely that Joytech hired SGS to test for mercury and other chemicals so they could get their RoHS, and by getting their RoHS therefore able to get their CE so their product could be shipped in Europe. In fact, that's pretty normal for a lot of Asian goods. SGS does a whole lot of RoHS testing in S. Korea, China, and Japan.

So, those three insignias together most likely add up to just the one - RoHS.