510 standardization

[sonicbomb]

The width and thread size of the 510 connector is standardized, but why is the length not?

I tried my best to understand why not from a design or engineering standpoint, but I can't work it out. Not only would it make life simpler when changing attys. But it would eliminate screw and spring loaded 510 pin adjustment, and all the the issues associated with them.

Any ideas anyone?

 

[smacuser]

Pictures from the Hubble; I can wrap my head around that.

But this is deep deep territory.

Since we need isolated metal to land precisely on isolated metal, I'm going to say that last spec is the hardest to calculate.

 

[Cloudmann]

Why not just standardize spring adjusted pins on all battery 510 connectors?

 

[stevegmu]

Why not just standardize spring adjusted pins on all battery 510 connectors?

Many can't make floating 510 connections which don't leak...

 

[edyle]

The width and thread size of the 510 connector is standardized, but why is the length not?

I tried my best to understand why not from a design or engineering standpoint, but I can't work it out. Not only would it make life simpler when changing attys. But it would eliminate screw and spring loaded 510 pin adjustment, and all the the issues associated with them.

Any ideas anyone?

Your question I think is more a matter of tolerance.
Tolerance meaning the degree of exactness; how exact the dimensions need to be.

The 510 thread is really a cigalike sized interface.
This is the fundamental reason for the problems with 510 threaded interface on a 22mm device.
We get around the problem by using adjustable centerpin on the mod.

Another solution is direct 20, 21 or whatever interface - what is more commonly known as the true hybrid interface; for example the 3d rda hybrids to m20x0.5 mods; the heron interfaces to m20x1 mods.
Unfortunately, on the mod side there is not a standard thread.

If there were a standard mod thread - for example m21x1 which is the thread used on chiyou, king, zmax, vamo, astro - then there would be reason to make the toppers with m21x1 thread instead, and also offer m21x1 to 510 thread adapters if required.

Actually it would make sense for the manufacturers to just decide on a standard on the topper side, and sell thread adapters so you can match up with whatever mod you have.

 

[PaulBHC]

^ agreed

This size/style has been around too long. I went from blue foam cig a likes to ego and the size required a 510 size connection. Anything with an 18xxx battery or pack is 20+mm and has lots of room for a real connection.

 

[Fordzuki]

This is the exact reason I think I had a problem with my kanger subtank and istick 50w, I threaded the subtank on, used it for a while, then threaded my mutation x on there, which had a noticeably longer threaded section, and then when I went back to the subtank it read "no atomizer". I tried pulling up on the springloaded pin in the istick, but it didn't help. I managed to solve the problem by shimming the rba pin down into the base, and running the rba without an oring.

 

[Wolfenstark]

I guess without an adjustable 510 screw you need the 510 to at least be long enough.

 

[Bunnykiller]

because life would be boring if it was standardized

 

[tj99959]

Actually manufacturers would like to do the opposite, and lock you into using their products by using non-standard connectors. (eGo connector for example)

Ever try to put a NJoy carto on a Blu battery?!?

 

[qorax]

Length I agree. It should get standardized. But 510 should remain as the global e-cig connection interface. It has served us well till now ~ and it'd continue to do so. The problem with M21/1 or M20/1 type threads are that not all devices are 22mm, 23mm etc. There are very many 14mm, 16mm, 17, 19, 20 and 21mm devices too ~ and 510 works well with all such ODs.

 

[Robert Cromwell]

IMHO thread sizes should be different for different wattage ranges of devices to eliminate safety issues with putting sub ohm device on non sub ohm capable power source for example.

Not all users are educated on battery safety and ohms law.

 

[sonicbomb]

Thanks for your responses. I've had another good think about this, and I think I understand.
The diagonal profile of a thread makes it highly forgiving of loose tolerances.
The point of contact of the positive 510 pins is flat on flat. The room for error would be in the order of a few tens of microns, and only in the positive, as in pushing together. A few in the other and no contact or worse, arcing.

I think I will retreat to my mind-palace and contemplate on a superior connector design. In a few months we may be in the position of having to make our own equipment anyway.

 

[K_Tech]

Thanks for your responses. I've had another good think about this, and I think I understand.
The diagonal profile of a thread makes it highly forgiving of loose tolerances.
The point of contact of the positive 510 pins is flat on flat. The room for error would be in the order of a few tens of microns, and only in the positive, as in pushing together. A few in the other and no contact or worse, arcing.

I think I will retreat to my mind-palace and contemplate on a superior connector design. In a few months we may be in the position of having to make our own equipment anyway.

Not me! As long as 18650's and 26650's don't disappear, I think I'm set for a while.