Vacuum?

[Alien Traveler]

One more thing to consider: in drippers there is only capillary action at work.

 

[beckdg]

alien Traveler" data-source="post: 18628427" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch">

No, you are wrong. Point of this thread is to discuss. Whether capillary action or pressure have leading role cannot be proved in the thread. We just do not know. But they work in the same direction.

From OP...

But capillary action is stronger and it will dominate all these small changes in pressure.

Forgive me for reading your conclusion as it's written.

As you would forgive me for using a different yet legitimate definition of the word vacuum as it's commonly used in casual conversation.

Or would you?

Tapatyped

 

[beckdg]

I agree with @Alien Traveler. The use of the term vacuum has no meaning.

With strict, clinical only definition of the word? Sure. Unfortunately that's not representative of the modern English language.

There is a slight change in pressure before, during and after use but is is
so slight it shouldn't have any real affect unless of course your going from sea
level to 5000 ft above sea level post haste.

Try 4000 to 5000 feet over the course of a half hour or better... with very real effects.

Or sat in 60 degree F then transfered to 70 degree F... with very real effects.

Tapatyped

 

[SteveS45]

I have to agree with what @Deryan3 stated above how nice it was to have a discussion like this and truly have a adult conversation and differences of opinion without flare ups. It sure was a refreshing change! Thanks to all who contributed!

 

[Alien Traveler]

But capillary action is stronger and it will dominate all these small changes in pressure.

Forgive me for reading your conclusion as it's written.

It was my opinion. I started the thread because thinking alone is boring. Now, after more thorough thinking (thanks for all the posts) I changed my opinion, now it stays like this:
We do not know, what is more important, but we should not bother to much with it - both of these forces are working on us.

As you would forgive me for using a different yet legitimate definition of the word vacuum as it's commonly used in casual conversation.

Or would you?

Tapatyped

Too much attention was paid in the thread to terminology.

 

[SteveS45]

The argument could be made for gravity feed being a part of how the liquid fills the wicks. Maybe a new tank with a float bowl and a needle valve to keep e-Liquid at the perfect level? LOL!!

 

[beckdg]

One more thing to consider: in drippers there is only capillary action at work.

Wrong.

And you would know this if you were a heavy dripper.

There's also direct dripping to the coil.

Tapatyped

 

[Eskie]

Never seen that kind in 30ish years of replacing those jugs.

All the ones I've seen, you rip the cap off, flip the jug in and the reservoir fills to the cap level after putting the jug on.

Tapatyped

Oh, this is funny, I haven't seen those old remove the blue cap types in 20 years. All the ones I have these days allow you to simply flip the bottle over, insert in the well, and the weight of the 5 gallon bottle punctures the cap. That way there's no chance for spills and splashes when flipping those big bottles over and trying to get them into the well fast enough. Now I understand where you're coming from.

 

[Maestro]

It was my opinion. I started the thread because thinking alone is boring. Now, after more thorough thinking (thanks for all the posts) I changed my opinion, now it stays like this:
We do not know, what is more important, but we should not bother to much with it - both of these forces are working on us.

Too much attention was paid in the thread to terminology.

Agreed. Without capillary action the tank would never empty. Without a vacuum, the tank wouldn't hold the liquid. I'm actually amazed that such a fine balance was achieved in the first place

 

[Alien Traveler]

Wrong.

And you would know this if you were a heavy dripper.

There's also direct dripping to the coil.

Tapatyped

Key word is "also". Direct dripping is not obligatory for dripper.

 

[SteveS45]

My Gragas RDTA has a tank with a pump that drips right on the coils.

 

[Eskie]

My Gragas RDTA has a tank with a pump that drips right on the coils.

And then there's something like this

 

[Alien Traveler]

Agreed. Without capillary action the tank would never empty. Without a vacuum, the tank wouldn't hold the liquid. I'm actually amazed that such a fine balance was achieved in the first place

Actually it is self-regulated system. Wick wants to be saturated, it draws liquid from tank, pressure in tank slightly drops. Saturated wick plugs juice channel with cotton (or whatever else) and liquid. Now - balance.

 

[SteveS45]

@Eskie isn't that a squonker? The Gragas is like this

 

[beckdg]

Key word is "also". Direct dripping is not obligatory for dripper.

*not always obligatory*

Even with 3mm I.D. coils, my wicking often doesn't keep up without direct application.

Wicking alone can't keep up with high powered vaping on large coils. Even worse with smaller I.D. coils that accept less wick.

Others do the same out of necessity.

And I still remember my days of primer puffs breaking up chain vaping to feed the wick and coil.

It was frustrating to say the least.

Tapatyped

 

[Eskie]

@Eskie isn't that a squonker? The Gragas is like this

Yes, it is, just with the weirdest liquid feed setup I've ever seen. That Gragas looks like a beauty. I'm stumped as I've never used a configuration like that but how do you control the juice flow between the upper and lower chambers?

 

[Alien Traveler]

*not always obligatory*

Even with 3mm I.D. coils, my wicking often doesn't keep up without direct application.

Wicking alone can't keep up with high powered vaping on large coils. Even worse with smaller I.D. coils that accept less wick.

Others do the same out of necessity.

And I still remember my days of primer puffs breaking up chain vaping to feed the wick and coil.

It was frustrating to say the least.

Tapatyped

I already made my point - capillary action works for drippers.
What you are saying is that at very high power you can burn wicks without direct dripping. So what? With too high power you will burn wicks in any tank, whether it feeds them with capillary action, vacuum, or sorcery.
Should we continue arguing for the sake of arguing?

 

[beckdg]

I already made my point - capillary action works for drippers.
What you are saying is that at very high power you can burn wicks without direct dripping. So what? With too high power you will burn wicks in any tank, whether it feeds them with capillary action, vacuum, or sorcery.
Should we continue arguing for the sake of arguing?

Now, now.

This WAS a civil discussion.

Let's keep it that way.

But yes... very high power... or too high power.

Like 11 watts. Its all relative.

If you atomize your juice faster than capillary action can keep up, you need to compensate.

This can be done at 7 watts or 250 watts.

There's a long history of this being done between 7 and 11 watts right here on this forum.

Even with drippers.

A 2mm I.D. wick only holds so much juice within the constraints of the coils dimensions.

But this has been overcome at levels from 80 to 800 watts very easily.

I just explained how the juice was delivered.

Because you've never had to overcome high wattage atomization doesn't mean maintaining a balance isn't easy to comprehend.

You've been here long enough to see people posting these solutions for cartomizers and original protanks @ 6 watts and up.

Because there's a need to.

If you've found the perfect balance for your vaping style and everything works great except you chain vape and dry out your wick faster than capillary action can replenish it, you have to take an approach that actually works.

Power applied is moot, really.

And as you can see... where your argument applies... applying too much power to a coil... doesn't apply in the context you're applying it to.

I vape 80 watts very successfully with the appropriate build, wicking and air flow.

Many... MANY... vape much higher than that just as successfully.

Tapatyped

 

[gotch23]

@Eskie isn't that a squonker? The Gragas is like this

No, that's a top-feeder In the old days it was the competing system to the bottom-feeders, now mostly
called squonkers. The liquid is being fed to the top of the coil instead of to the deck.
The benefits were of course that the wick would have to do less work feeding the coil... by means of capillary
action.

I am so gonna get that new Kanger-thingamajig. I bet it vapes great.
Who cares that it looks like an flux-capacitated soap-dispenser.

In a old-school Genny, as everybody knows who used one, having the wickhole totally closed by the wick is bad.
The juice that is being sucked out by the wick -by means of capillary action- needs to be be replaced by
air, so that no negative pressure can arise in the tank.

With bottom-coil atomizers that work after the kayfun-principle it is indeed mainly the negative pressure differential of the atomizer chamber vis-a-vis the tank that is responsible for the juice transport into the atomizer chamber. As you suck out the air of the atomizer chamber a negative pressure vis-a-vis the tank is created, sucking juice from the tank into the chamber.

beckdg also has a point there with the primer puffs. If you shut the airflow completely off, you can see how powerful that juice-sucking action is.

All this has of course also been discussed at length before. And i think State O' Flux did a brilliant
write-up of how kayfun-style tanks work:

Tank type atomizers... For new vapists - how they work | E-Cigarette Forum

And on terminology:

Of course it's not a vacuum.
Vacuum = A space devoid of matter.

A vacuum is a theoretical thing.
Not even space is a total vacuum.

What we mean, when we say vacuum in
real life situations is a negative pressure differential
of one contained space in relation to the
surrounding space.

 

[Alien Traveler]

Now, now.

This WAS a civil discussion.

Let's keep it that way.

But yes... very high power... or too high power.

Like 11 watts. Its all relative.

If you atomize your juice faster than capillary action can keep up, you need to compensate.

This can be done at 7 watts or 250 watts.

There's a long history of this being done between 7 and 11 watts right here on this forum.

Even with drippers.

A 2mm I.D. wick only holds so much juice within the constraints of the coils dimensions.

But this has been overcome at levels from 80 to 800 watts very easily.

I just explained how the juice was delivered.

Because you've never had to overcome high wattage atomization doesn't mean maintaining a balance isn't easy to comprehend.

You've been here long enough to see people posting these solutions for cartomizers and original protanks @ 6 watts and up.

Because there's a need to.

If you've found the perfect balance for your vaping style and everything works great except you chain vape and dry out your wick faster than capillary action can replenish it, you have to take an approach that actually works.

Power applied is moot, really.

And as you can see... where your argument applies... applying too much power to a coil... doesn't apply in the context you're applying it to.

I vape 80 watts very successfully with the appropriate build, wicking and air flow.

Many... MANY... vape much higher than that just as successfully.

Tapatyped

I am sorry if I was impolite. In my, may be alien, standards my post was OK, but in no way I should insist on accepting these standards forum-wide. My apologies.

But anyway, I do not see any point in your last two posts. They do not belong to this thread. They are about different thing.