Consumer Product Safety Commission & vaping batteries regulation

[zoiDman]

I haven't seen what their requirements might be, but when people talk about the misrepresentation of specs on batteries currently on the market, I assume they're talking about the specs printed on the battery.

I haven't seen Anything the CPSC says it May or May Not do.

JMO - But it wouldn't surprise me if the CPSC Only focused on Built In batteries and On-Board Charging.

 

[Lessifer]

I haven't seen Anything the CPSC says it May or May Not do.

JMO - But it wouldn't surprise me if the CPSC Only focused on Built In batteries and On-Board Charging.

That hasn't been the tone of this thread though. It would also have zero effect on people mishandling removable batteries or using batteries not rated for the way they are using them. I'm okay with that, but other seem to be asking for more.

 

[mikepetro]

I haven't seen what their requirements might be, but when people talk about the misrepresentation of specs on batteries currently on the market, I assume they're talking about the specs printed on the battery.

Direct and deliberate misrepresentation, whether it be on the label or on advertised specs.

 

[mikepetro]

That hasn't been the tone of this thread though. It would also have zero effect on people mishandling removable batteries or using batteries not rated for the way they are using them. I'm okay with that, but other seem to be asking for more.

Nobody knows what the CPSC would do once they got it. I have not been able to find their "Voluntary Battery Standards" anywhere without paying for it. For all I know they may already address many of our concerns, and the big dogs may already meet these requirements.

 

[zoiDman]

That hasn't been the tone of this thread though. It would also have zero effect on people mishandling removable batteries or using batteries not rated for the way they are using them. I'm okay with that, but other seem to be asking for more.

This Thread is just that... a Thread on an Internet Forum. Having little to No Bearing on what the CPSC May or May Not Do.

To Me, regarding the Entire 18650 Battery CPSC Should or Shouldn't thing seems like the Cart is before the Horse.

I don't see the CPSC doing anything to Individual Battery Cells. They are going to look at the Mods that the FDA will Allow to be sold as an "e-Cigarette".

And I don't think the FDA will allow a Mod to be Sold as an e-Cigarette if it uses a Stand-Alone 18650 Battery. Be it a Mech or a Regulated Mod.

Built-In Battery Mods. Yeah. But I don't see there being any FDA signed-off-on 18650 Interchangeable e-Cigarette Mods.

 

[Lessifer]

Nobody knows what the CPSC would do once they got it. I have not been able to find their "Voluntary Battery Standards" anywhere without paying for it. For all I know they may already address many of our concerns, and the big dogs may already meet these requirements.

At which point I would reiterate that this would likely have zero effect on what seems to be the concern coming from some in the vaping community.

 

[Lessifer]

This Thread is just that... a Thread on an Internet Forum. Having little to No Bearing on what the CPSC May or May Not Do.

To Me, regarding the Entire 18650 Battery CPSC Should or Shouldn't thing seems like the Cart is before the Horse.

I don't see the CPSC doing anything to Individual Battery Cells. They are going to look at the Mods that the FDA will Allow to be sold as an "e-Cigarette".

And I don't think the FDA will allow a Mod to be Sold as an e-Cigarette if it uses a Stand-Alone 18650 Battery. Be it a Mech or a Regulated Mod.

Built-In Battery Mods. Yeah. But I don't see there being any FDA signed-off-on 18650 Interchangeable e-Cigarette Mods.

Yeah, if we're talking about the current law this is all pretty much moot.

 

[mikepetro]

At which point I would reiterate that this would likely have zero effect on what seems to be the concern coming from some in the vaping community.

Decoupling batteries from the whole vaping debate would be of tremendous effect IMHO.

 

[mikepetro]

Yeah, if we're talking about the current law this is all pretty much moot.

Alas, that is where I at least hold out hope. With this new administration I am seeing signs that the deeming may be scaled back. If that doesnt happen, then this whole thing doesnt make a hill of beans worth of difference.

 

[mikepetro]

The is No Question that the previous FDA(s) were applying Over-Reach to enact a de facto Ban based on agenda. The Question becomes is the CPSC operating with the same Agenda?

Or are they Quasi Agenda Neutral? And more concern with just Battery Safety?

Because when you show the Average, Non-Biased, person something like this...

E-Cigarette Explosions: Comprehensive List - eCig One

... they probably would think that Something should be done. Be it Justified or Non-Justified.

Yeah, that is a scary list.

 

[zoiDman]

Yeah, that is a scary list.

Yep... And something that will Raise an Eyebrow of even a Non-Biased person.

 

[Jumpin' In...]

Yeah, that is a scary list.

Yup. That list even scares me.

I only charge batteries from a reliable vendor at 0.5 amp with an Xtar VC2 and store them in cases or sleeves, but I guess I really should get a charging bag.

 

[mikepetro]

Yup. That list even scares me.

I only charge batteries from a reliable vendor at 0.5 amp with an Xtar VC2 and store them in cases or sleeves, but I guess I really should get a charging bag.

Well, statistically that doesnt seem all that bad.

194 out of how many million devices?

I wonder what the same data on cellphones or laptops, or powertools is?

Still, if you are the guy who got his teeth blown out, you probably dont give a damn about statistics.

And it really does make for good anti-vape propaganda.

 

[MacTechVpr]

I haven't seen what their requirements might be, but when people talk about the misrepresentation of specs on batteries currently on the market, I assume they're talking about the specs printed on the battery.

The emphasis or substitution of pulse ratings for continuous, in think in the main. A clever but misleading form of advertising.

Direct and deliberate misrepresentation, whether it be on the label or on advertised specs.

Agreed, particularly re-wraps which may or may not be the advertised (producer) article but clearly or evidently sub-par on test. Of far greater interest to us at least a bit more familiar with the technical concerns.

Our problems and risks are proportional to the integrity of the supply chain. There we can't touch the specific sources apparently. Nor does it seem credible that US buyers are capable of it. Instead prohibition would seem the best alternative.

Of course, we won't risk a house fire if we just ban frying pans and boil our meals. Someone who hasn't an inkling about what we actually do will no doubt come up with a bright solution if we just trust them to do it. Maybe pocket smoke alarms.

Good luck.

 

[MacTechVpr]

Well, statistically that doesnt seem all that bad.

194 out of how many million devices?

I wonder what the same data on cellphones or laptops, or powertools is?

Still, if you are the guy who got his teeth blown out, you probably dont give a damn about statistics.

And it really does make for good anti-vape propaganda.

Billions the way we buy, LOL. Particularly individual batt's. An incredible stat at 1000x incidence (<2%).

Good luck.

 

[mikepetro]

A couple of confiscations of container loads of "counterfeit" batteries might get someones attention.

Until you make it "cost" them money, unscrupulous merchants wont change.

 

[MacTechVpr]

A couple of confiscations of container loads of "counterfeit" batteries might get someones attention.

Until you make it "cost" them money, unscrupulous merchants wont change.

At least that might be doing it for the right reasons. They did it for for off-gassing drywall and toxic children's toys. I think that might be too much to ask or expect tho. Too reasonable. We'll ban the frying pan to stop house fires.

Good luck.