Buzz Pro II and Buzz Pro Lightning BOTH APPROVED BY ECF !!
- Thread starter Bovinia
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I posted earlier, do a search and you'll find what testing is done on at least some of the chinese source proprietary pv.
The sgs test is eliquid, verifying nic and that there are not some nasty chemicals. The ce is nothing to do with pv level safety; there is no pv level standard for testing.
http://www.prosmokestore.com/store/e-cigarette-battery-safety/blog_65.html is a sample of an ecigarette firm listing certs; these are all fine, but none of them directly leads to being able to conclude that the pv is safe - has good electronic protection, or batteries that can't fail badly (though they are safe to ship via air transport), or a decent venting system.
(I am not recommending the linked product as an example of something that is either safe or not safe, just that it's an example that even if a firm lists multiple things it does not actually equate to the pv as a system being safe, rather that certain discrete items in it meet norms. Engineering is about performing system level design and analysis, figuring out if the individual widgets will work well together as a whole.)
The sgs test is eliquid, verifying nic and that there are not some nasty chemicals. The ce is nothing to do with pv level safety; there is no pv level standard for testing.
http://www.prosmokestore.com/store/e-cigarette-battery-safety/blog_65.html is a sample of an ecigarette firm listing certs; these are all fine, but none of them directly leads to being able to conclude that the pv is safe - has good electronic protection, or batteries that can't fail badly (though they are safe to ship via air transport), or a decent venting system.
(I am not recommending the linked product as an example of something that is either safe or not safe, just that it's an example that even if a firm lists multiple things it does not actually equate to the pv as a system being safe, rather that certain discrete items in it meet norms. Engineering is about performing system level design and analysis, figuring out if the individual widgets will work well together as a whole.)
Last edited:
Very well, not a single bit of valid info to back up the safe claim made in this thread...end of story....thanks for the dialogue and opinions..
I wasn't attempting to give you any debate. I was merely pointing out that you are making assumptions that are very unlikely to be true. You linked to an article whose source has their own motives. You linked to some photos with "safety" logos you don't understand. Based on those, you expressed expectations that mod makers have a similar process. There is no such process.
As already explained, ECF has taken up a cause to modify the behavior of mod makers in their design process and their marketing. The title of the thread was not made by ECF nor was it made by notcigs. Since I am not the OP, I can't speak to why those words were chosen, but I do think it is quite obvious if you've been reading ECF at all the last few weeks...
Last edited:
The "safe claim" as you put it wasn't made in this thread. If you're referring to the first post that was from the recent ECF Metal tube mods Safety specification (linked below) in which they use the word safe. The Buzz Pro is the first and only mod so far to comply with this specification.
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/announcements-rules/274600-safe-metal-tube-mods.html
Whatever criteria or certification you're looking for that went into this specification would need to be taken up with ECF since that's who implemented it.
Being more realistic Notcig mods are among if not the safest out there. You can evaluate and compare the safety features implemented by notcigs with anything out there and also note the fact that none of the mods that brought on this certification from ECF were from Notcigs and come to your own conclusion.
As has been explained, the original intention of this thread was to announce that Notcigs has met and exceeded the metal tube mod *safety requirements* that ECF has specified. These rules were created by ECF in response to the recent e-cig accidents that have been reported. There has never been an accident with a Notcigs product.
The fact is, there are no safety requirements in this industry, so ECF set out to come up with their own standards. Links to those standards have been provided several times. Anyone who has questions or comments about how ECF came up with said standards might get a better answer by contacting admin
The fact is, there are no safety requirements in this industry, so ECF set out to come up with their own standards. Links to those standards have been provided several times. Anyone who has questions or comments about how ECF came up with said standards might get a better answer by contacting admin
Oh jeez, bov, roly is already getting enough flack
Seriously, the lack of any agreed upon spec is why ecf has been at least taking a shot at it.
If anyone wants a laugh they should read the posts that sound (at least to me) like there must be some secret ecf agenda to boost notcig sales, since they are the first vendor to go for a conforming design. Buzzkill is far from quiet in expressing his thoughts (royally ticked), just that he voices his opinion and then does what is needed.
Seriously, the lack of any agreed upon spec is why ecf has been at least taking a shot at it.
If anyone wants a laugh they should read the posts that sound (at least to me) like there must be some secret ecf agenda to boost notcig sales, since they are the first vendor to go for a conforming design. Buzzkill is far from quiet in expressing his thoughts (royally ticked), just that he voices his opinion and then does what is needed.
Oh I agree Mark, and I know ECF and Roly have the community's best interests at heart. What I'm trying to say (and not doing a very good job) is that Retird is not going to find the answers he's looking for because there isn't a standard spec in this industry. Precisely why ECF is working on it, and since it's an evolving project none of us has all of the info they are working from
So does the fact that thousands of them have been in use daily, and there has never been a problem count as "testing"?
I consider myself a volunteer field tester for Mike, and I have never experienced a problem. Any of you other field testers ever have an issue?
I will say that I have definitavely found the Buzz Pro to be more safe than the cigarettes that I used to smoke at a rate of a pack and a half a day. If I fall asleep while using my Buzz, as I have done, I can say that my testing clearly shows it won't light my bed on fire. It will either lay on my chest until I roll over on it and wake up, or harmlessly roll onto the floor next to my bed.
Last edited:
Don't own a Buzz, but just wanted to pass on a "live event" I had with a XXXXX Mod;
When out and about, I always turn my mod off and carry it in my pants pocket. I failed to turn off the mod one time and pocketed it. The mod fire button fired as I sat down, and continued to fire (without my knowledge) until my leg began to feel the extreme heat. You cannot believe how quickly I pulled the mod out of my pocket. The carto was extremely hot...to the point I received a second degree burn to my finger while getting it out of my pocket.
That mod (with safety features built in) went immediately in the trash. It was kinda funny (but serious too) at the time, and because of my not turning it off, I gained a greater respect for the on-off switch, and that the safety provision(s) failed to compensate for my not turning off the mod.
Last edited:
At some point there's not much you can do. If the PV has an on/off switch, and you don't use it, and when on it isn't over-driving (too much current), it's doing what it should.
Some PVs have timers, but then there is huge debate about what is a good timeout value. If someone uses atomizers, there is at least a fair chance that they will want to be able to dry burn at atty as part of clearing things out, so extended on time is wanted, and others of us just plain do long, slow, draws, again leading to want the unit to stay on as long as we are consciously holding the fire button down.
Best of luck finding something that does what you want.
Some PVs have timers, but then there is huge debate about what is a good timeout value. If someone uses atomizers, there is at least a fair chance that they will want to be able to dry burn at atty as part of clearing things out, so extended on time is wanted, and others of us just plain do long, slow, draws, again leading to want the unit to stay on as long as we are consciously holding the fire button down.
Best of luck finding something that does what you want.
Sorry, but I posted some bad info earlier regarding the Buzz Pro and and timed firing. I was in error.
Mark is correct.
Mark is correct.
Last edited:
Minor correction, current notcigs PV do not have a timeout that I know of. I'll do slow drags or dry burns at > 15 seconds. There is talk of a timeout in a future product, nothing firm yet that I know of.
So is the buzz pro not considered safe because it only has the 3 holes? I'd rather take minor burns than have my entire palm melted by some faulty batteries, though that would never happen anyway.
Is this the case? Are we banking on legitimate reasoning or bureaucracy?
Is this the case? Are we banking on legitimate reasoning or bureaucracy?
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 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I own the original Buzz Pro, like it a lot, no fears. Current limited design, high current diode "fuse", short circuit sensing, reverse battery sensing, 3 symmetric decent sized vent holes for minor venting and warning of something going bad, one piece metal top cap screwed into the main tube, bottom cap has delrin plasic threads that will pop out on a significant over-pressure. You can use either protected or IMR batteries with it -- notcigs is getting in Trustfire protected batteries, and the AW IMR 550 mAH and ICR protected 750 mAh also work fine with it, though I've been happy with the minimally protected Powerizers (since the mod has good protection built-in).
The Pro II/Lightning are indeed there because ECF asked for it, crafted a spec that essentially mandated such-and-such surface area of venting, symmetric along the sides. The BP delrin end cap would have met some of the earlier ECF postings on the topic, as it will pop before there's any chance the top cap would come off. If I bought a Lightning, I might add a small piece of plastic sheet with some vent holes punched in it to the interior, provides the vent path while minimizing opportunity for anything to get in the slots.
Some people do like the looks of the lightning bolts.
So, yes, essentially bureaucracy, notcigs complied rather than ignoring the spec. No tests have been performed to verify the validity of the ECF slot number/size specified that I know of, though notcigs did indeed check that the delrin end cap would come off on over-pressure (before ECF came up with the spec there had been notcigs discussion of the endcap being an inherent safety item). If it weren't for the set of safety features I list in the first paragraph, however, I'd be leery of solid tubes holding a lot of energy, and I personally include big single battery devices -- a large 18650 holds a lot of stored energy, more than in both batteries of a notcigs PV combined.
Buzz Pro and Infinity Pro have the same design features, so what I said applies equally to IPro.
The Pro II/Lightning are indeed there because ECF asked for it, crafted a spec that essentially mandated such-and-such surface area of venting, symmetric along the sides. The BP delrin end cap would have met some of the earlier ECF postings on the topic, as it will pop before there's any chance the top cap would come off. If I bought a Lightning, I might add a small piece of plastic sheet with some vent holes punched in it to the interior, provides the vent path while minimizing opportunity for anything to get in the slots.
Some people do like the looks of the lightning bolts.
So, yes, essentially bureaucracy, notcigs complied rather than ignoring the spec. No tests have been performed to verify the validity of the ECF slot number/size specified that I know of, though notcigs did indeed check that the delrin end cap would come off on over-pressure (before ECF came up with the spec there had been notcigs discussion of the endcap being an inherent safety item). If it weren't for the set of safety features I list in the first paragraph, however, I'd be leery of solid tubes holding a lot of energy, and I personally include big single battery devices -- a large 18650 holds a lot of stored energy, more than in both batteries of a notcigs PV combined.
Buzz Pro and Infinity Pro have the same design features, so what I said applies equally to IPro.
Last edited:
Did ECF do any testing or just draw numbers from a hat? I think that my statement is fairly level headed in that I would rather everything vent away from my person than into it through gaping vent holes. Pressure escapes from the weakest point in any given setup, a delrin bottom cap should suffice as meeting the specs for venting surface area. And the more surface area you have pointing at you is more space for shrapnel to hit you in the event of a catastrophic battery failure.
I just find it interesting that a self imposed "authority" on ecig safety can mandate what a safe mod is. Pressure is a pretty simple concept. Not arguing with you, just getting my facts straight before I buy a buzz and which one. I think it is clear that conforming to these "regulations" is completely unnecessary, I'll save the 15 bucks.
I just find it interesting that a self imposed "authority" on ecig safety can mandate what a safe mod is. Pressure is a pretty simple concept. Not arguing with you, just getting my facts straight before I buy a buzz and which one. I think it is clear that conforming to these "regulations" is completely unnecessary, I'll save the 15 bucks.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
