Certainly there are posts with pitures like that
throughout this
'experiment' section of the forum.
There seems to be two main ways of reporting a cleaning process/mechanism.
Initially have slow/'cold'/underperforming atty then
1 apply cleaning method X,
post about improved performance here,
asking if anyone else get the same result.
Gather anecdotal evidence.
or
2 pull/cut atty apart to expose coil
take photo
apply method Y
take photo
post visual proof of effectiveness.
1 applies to generally slowing attys, might be dirt on coil,
might be build up of old juices in internal 'flow spaces',
might be something else.
The atty can be put back into use to anecdotally show the improvement.
2 really is only worth it if it's known the lower performance is due
to gunk on the coil. The atty is visually proven to be clean,
but it's unlikely to be re-built & reused.
But also can do a clean on another failing atty
(assumed to be same cause), to show performance improvement.
Since 1 is easier (& less expensive) it's more prevalent,
used to be a lot more of 2 going on in earlier days,
as can be seen by browsing the various
threads here.
There's one super-mini atty design where you can see the coil
under the bridge without destroying it.
Bit fiddly, and it's not a really mainstream e-cig.
Also there's 'secondary evidence' proof of cleaning,
like black particles in the cleaner or rinse stage of the clean method.
Personally I prefer the proof type posts, cos otherwise there's
a chance of
'atty getting a bit slow, cleaned with X & it's much better now'
being only just as effective as everyone else's regular maintainence
(e.g. just rinse, drain).
Then again if enough anecdotal evidence is gathered for a drastic
improvement, then that's proof in it's own way.
/end story
