New studies find carcinogens in vg and pg at high temps, even in tootle puffers

[Katya]

...and remind her that they used to "bleed" people when they got sick. It's not called "Practicing medicine" for nothing.

Shush.

 

[classwife]

I've tried - her mind is totally closed and shut off.
Damage done.

 

[Katya]

I've tried - her mind is totally closed and shut off.
Damage done.

In that case, it just might be an excuse... You know, some people just like smoking too much to give it up.

 

[Katdarling]

In that case, it just might be an excuse... You know, some people just like smoking too much to give it up.

Interestingly enuf, that was me. I believe you know my story (herstory) tho. If not, I'm happy to share another time.

Now, it's KATURDAY nite and this one must ready for the party.

HAA~ (hugs all around)

 

[Kurt]

A couple questions for Dr. @Kurt regarding his study, if he is still tuned in...

1. Was the "Subtank" a Subtank Mini? Assume so but just checking.

2. Kanger doesn't seem to sell ~0.7R coils now? When I search coils I see 0.5R and then a couple of 1+R coils, but nothing around 0.7. I've owned STMs for years now and don't recall a 0.7 coil but I probably never bought any, only used the RBA deck. Are the coils you used now obsolete? Just curious since this is something many of us could reproduce since many own STMs but maybe the coil you used is no longer available?

Just saw this. Tuned in still, time allowing. Mike and I have been communicating directly, but I have not been on the thread for a bit.

It was an original Subtank, not a mini. I don't know what resistances the subtank coils are now, but at the time of our study 0.7ohm was available, and may have been the lowest resistance at the time for that tank. The data was collected for that study starting early 2015. At the time, we wanted to include some "sub-ohm" device, and the subtank looked good and was very popular. At the time of the data collection I don't think the mini was yet available.

This is the problem with doing rigorous ecig studies. Technology can change faster than it takes to get a paper in print. Time for collecting data enough for good stats, writing a good manuscript among collaborators, reviewer turnaround, revisions, resubmitting, etc, these all take time, and the ecig market can change a lot in that time. We were collecting data for that aldehyde study starting in early 2015 with the available gear at the time. A lot has changed between then and now, but you publish what you have at the time.

 

[classwife]

(lovely to see you Kurt)

Mike has some great stuff going on here huh !

 

[jwbnyc]

In that case, it just might be an excuse... You know, some people just like smoking too much to give it up.

You can only do so much.

 

[mikepetro]

That's a heavy load to carry, Mike, and you've no such responsibility to the general public. What you're doing here is great, but that covers but a small percentage of current and potential vapers.

My initial point was that the headlines resulting from the study (studies) ended up having a negative effect on people's opinion of this marvelous thing we call vaping. You can't change that, nor can I, but understanding human nature can be a valuable tool when undertaking any mission that has a higher-purpose goal.

The percentage of people locked into threads such as this, where information & education are available, is likely infinitesimal in contrast to the whole.

I am not trying to "carry the load", just doing my part to further the community knowledge (and my own). Afterall, that is what this thread is all about, sharing knowledge as we discover it.

The "Headline Skimmers" wont find true knowledge as easily if they wont read the content. Alas, thats NOT "my" problem.

Just got home from a long weekend taking my GF in for some surgery. Testing will resume tomorrow.

 

[mikepetro]

Mike, I tried to watch all three videos. As much as I love Phil, Brandon and John, I just didn't have the time to watch it all. What are your major objections to what was being said?

New mod form Evolv?

My only objection is in Vid 3 at 26:00 minutes where Evolv admits they are doing testing but not sharing results. I think that just sucks, particularly on this formaldehyde issue!!!!

I think, actually I know, a lot of the big dogs are doing testing. Anyone who wants to get a PMTA through is doing testing. But everyone is keeping their test results super secret in hopes that "their testing" will give them a competitive advantage when it comes times for PMTAs to be issued.

For example, I know beyond doubt, that the "thermal degradation" of ejuice has been studied and documented, and I "know" there is something to it. I have begged companies to share some of their data with me, but all I get is a run around suggesting test methods that require a $200k+ machine.

Actually watch just the 9 minutes (vid 3) starting at 26:00, it makes my blood boil. While a lot of valid points were made, the fact that they KNOW about the temp\formaldehyde relationship, and wont share it, just pisses me off. Formaldehyde is what Brandon was talking about at minute 33:32 when he spoke of the "Hockey Stick over a certain temperature", ie the levels looking like a hockey stick on graph within a 100F range, and we are talking a range that some folks DO vape at. John quotes "from 1/100th of a cigarette to twice that of a cigarette over a span of 100 degrees".

They blame the lack of testing, and/or the lack of sharing test results, ON THE CONSUMER!!!!!!!!!!!

MALARKEY! .............

And I am an Evolv fan-boy, or so I have been told.


Here is the 9 minutes I am talking about:

 

[mikepetro]

Is it a joke? (sorry for my second hand English)

Context please, most of it is NOT a joke, but IMHO a part of it is, see post above.

 

[Katdarling]

Mike, is Evolv aware of your testing? Have you (all) discussed it at this point? I found some of John's comments at best, "curious".

I'm guessing that they (Evolv) certainly haven't shared info with you, yet. (if ever?)

 

[mikepetro]

Mike, is Evolv aware of your testing? Have you (all) discussed it at this point? I found some of John's comments at best, "curious".

I'm guessing that they (Evolv) certainly haven't shared info with you, yet. (if ever?)

They were one of the companies I wrote to when I pleaded for any existing data on the subject.
Beyond that I am not at liberty to say more, as anything else that was said, was said in confidence.

 

[mikepetro]

Watch the next 2 minutes, this was back from the original stuff I posted back in the opening post of this thread:

 

[ENAUD]

My only objection is in Vid 3 at 26:00 minutes where Evolv admits they are doing testing but not sharing results. I think that just sucks, particularly on this formaldehyde issue!!!!

I think, actually I know, a lot of the big dogs are doing testing. Anyone who wants to get a PMTA through is doing testing. But everyone is keeping their test results super secret in hopes that "their testing" will give them a competitive advantage when it comes times for PMTAs to be issued.

For example, I know beyond doubt, that the "thermal degradation" of ejuice has been studied and documented, and I "know" there is something to it. I have begged companies to share some of their data with me, but all I get is a run around suggesting test methods that require a $200k+ machine.

Actually watch just the 9 minutes (vid 3) starting at 26:00, it makes my blood boil. While a lot of valid points were made, the fact that they KNOW about the temp\formaldehyde relationship, and wont share it, just pisses me off. Formaldehyde is what Brandon was talking about at minute 33:32 when he spoke of the "Hockey Stick over a certain temperature", ie the levels looking like a hockey stick on graph within a 100F range, and we are talking a range that some folks DO vape at. John quotes "from 1/100th of a cigarette to twice that of a cigarette over a span of 100 degrees".

They blame the lack of testing, and/or the lack of sharing test results, ON THE CONSUMER!!!!!!!!!!!

MALARKEY! .............

And I am an Evolv fan-boy, or so I have been told.


Here is the 9 minutes I am talking about:

Nothing surprising to me there, they are first and foremost business oriented in all that they do and say. They do stand to make a boatload of money if they do survive. Money rules all...

 

[ENAUD]

Watch the next 2 minutes, this was back from the original stuff I posted back in the opening post of this thread:

So what he said confirmed what the ProVape owners claimed, that temp control is not accurate. It is repeatable, and it is concise, but the accuracy depends on assumptions. interesting clip...

 

[Katdarling]

They were one of the companies I wrote to when I pleaded for any existing data on the subject.
Beyond that I am not at liberty to say more, as anything else that was said, was said in confidence.

Understood. Totally.

<hugs>

 

[mikepetro]

So what he said confirmed what the ProVape owners claimed, that temp control is not accurate. It is repeatable, and it is concise, but the accuracy depends on assumptions. interesting clip...

I didnt get that out of it. What I got was that Evolv had to "assume" the user knew how to set up a TC Mod.

Evolv claims +/- 10 degrees F, my testing has confirmed that. This is assuming the Mod is properly set up.

From an earlier post:

Yes, I have long had confidence in the DNA line. but just because mine is accurate doesnt mean they all are. And while not the intent of this thread, TC accuracy is dependent on a lot of variables.

• The manufacturer of the board
• How well the mod was constructed, specifically with respect to the solder joints to the 510 connector
• Is it a quality 510 connector, many spring loaded connectors dont have enough tension
• Was the mod calibrated to account for internal resistance
• The quality of the atty, specifically its internal resistance and stability under heat flux
• The accuracy of the TCR curve being used with respect to the wire
• The quality and consistency of the wire.
• The technique of the user in assembling all of the above

There are a lot factors that must come together to have an accurate TC reading on a mod. A mere couple hundredths of an ohm can make a big difference with some of the wire being used.

Alas, that is the topic of many other threads already scattered about ECF

Here is actual testing I did:

Test Conditions:
The Mod being used is a DNA250 that I built myself. Accuracy of the mod was checked by using a NIST traceable thermocouple/meter. Calibration Data can be seen in this post. I measured at a variety of temperature settings. Each reading was repeated twice. I have screen captures of all 10 datapoints if anyone desires validation. Here are the results.

• DNA set at 300, Thermocouple measured 307
• DNA set at 350, Thermocouple measured 349
• DNA set at 400, Thermocouple measured 393
• DNA set at 450, Thermocouple measured 442
• DNA set at 500, Thermocouple measured 485
• DNA set at 550, Thermocouple insulation melted before reading could be obtained

 

[ENAUD]

NVM

 

[ENAUD]

Watch the next 2 minutes, this was back from the original stuff I posted back in the opening post of this thread:

go to 13:20 and listen carefully to what he says...

 

[Katya]

My only objection is in Vid 3 at 26:00 minutes where Evolv admits they are doing testing but not sharing results. I think that just sucks, particularly on this formaldehyde issue!!!!

Thanks! I wasn't sure. And I agree, FWIW.