i assume they did the study with the resistance of the atty staying constant.
Interesting explanation by Dr. F. He doesn't dispute the findings, but the context, and also seems to admit that dripping may lead to higher formaldehyde levels, because there is less control over liquid delivery !?
No, not really. What Dr.F said -- and the only thing he said -- regarding "dripping":
"Concerning the remarks about dripping, we should admit that dripping does not allow the user to see how much liquid is present in the atomizer. The same happens with cartomizers. We currently do not know whether the elevation in formaldehyde levels happens just at the time of dry puff phenomenon, or it happens earlier (before being detected by the vaper). Clearomizer-type atomizers (also called tank systems) seem to be the future in e-cigarette use, giving consumers the ability to know when they need to resupply the atomizer with liquid."
Unless sophisticated and knowledgeable staff (regarding ecig usage, which could only come from experienced users) are employed, how are we to know that the tests being run are congruent with how dripping is actually done? Dr. F makes it a point in his research to make sure the ecigs are being used by people that know how to use them -- directions don't come with 90%+ of this stuff (which is a problem and always has been).
Sure, I can drip a few drops on a coil and fire and fire, but people don't vape that way -- making sure everything is properly saturated and "right" should happen before the vape occurs. Our experience and taste tells us when we need to re-drip (an automated machine will not know these things -- assuming real people weren't used to vape). How many people got dripping right immediately? There was a learning curve to something that seems so simple.
And regarding the Ω -- if the resistance was constant, low res at a low voltage would be one thing, but if that same res was used on a high voltage, the heat would necessarily increase and to a level that vapers may not be using (at least not on a clearo). Once again, these are things the user should/would take into consideration. Experienced users don't just put any coil/JDS on a VV device and say "I think I'll go from 3.2v to 4.8v." That's far too wide of a gap on an unknown res. So as an example, put a low res on 3.7v and it is great, but put it at 4.8v and what do you have? Burning! And I imagine some nasty chemicals being produced. These are not even minor details, these are all matters of science that can make or break the validity of the tests. The results mean nothing without insight into the conditions in which the test was run. Did an experienced and knowledgeable vaper "okay" the device as working properly? Putting out vapor doesn't mean that device is running on point! I think we can all attest to that.
I am not saying that there shouldn't be testing or that there isn't risks involved in vaping (obviously), but
unless tests are run under conditions which actually happen, we don't know if the results pertain to vaping or more to the risks involved with not knowing how to use the gear properly. I welcome testing and long for real life data (and even to see if this test was done correctly), but it has to be done right to be admissible.
Context is paramount!
[Edit] I would be remiss to not say this: Wlad was the first person to ever tell me that all best are off with regard to what's going on with the chemical properties of liquid when used at extreme temperatures. That was well over year ago. This is an issue (the extreme temperature applied to liquid), but we don't have precise data (AFAIK) to tell us where the lines drawn.
