Colorado man sues after explosion

[Str8V8ping]

Unfortunately the numbers are nowhere near that good - if they were, we wouldn't have this problem. An expert flashlight user reckons they have as high as 1 in 1,600 explosions with their gear, although I don't know if that is a widely held opinion or not (see the Candlepower forum).

My estimate of the frequency in metal tube mods that can accept two batteries and have no electronic controls is between 1 in 3,000 and 1 in 10,000. We have data on one model that confirms it is 1 in 3,000, so I'm being a bit generous in going as high as 1 in 10,000. You probably wouldn't be far out if you said 1 in 5,000.

That number is what you might call 'a significant figure'.

Being a member of CPF thats not really accurate since theres lots of experimenting there and people doing crazy things with li-ions like stacking 3-4 18650s and such. Also lots of people using cells out of old laptops,etc.All that and i still dont think the numbers are close to that much or even half that much. You cant really base any numbers off that. And when you talk actual explosions theres not many at all. I would put the actual number closer to the amount of people that die getting hit by a bus.

Millions more people die a year from swimming .Does that mean we should all stop swimming

 

[rytzzzy]

Hey I got an idea, let ban cars and anything else that fails, like people. The government is already working on that by not allowing procedures to the elderly because they can be done away with. Lets ban doctors they blow up better yet ban any and all of the government that wants to makes all of us compliant and robotic................ Lets sue someone because of global warming, I am new here but I am not stupid enough to ignore warning and directions on how to use a device. I also know how to read, all vendors put up the disclaimers telling everyone use at own risk. Do we just sit back and say its ok, no, this man did a idiotic thing and he's paying for it. Now he's just helping the daymn government to step in and try to control this also. Just another piece of iron to add to the inviable iron curtain we already have. Oh yeah and to boot this incident has made vendors start butchering all the newer mods with these ugly vent holes.

To the person (man) who pm'd me about my comment, I will say this, at least I posted at comments. Correct me if I am wrong but is this not a forum for thoughts about what is happening in our community's about ecigs. I posted my thought and if you disagree that is fine, but you don't need to attack me in a pm and I blocked you. If you take offense to my comment about the health care things coming and still to come and losing our elderly, well you too will face that firing squad one day !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Good Luck To You...........

 

[hifistud]

My estimate of the frequency in metal tube mods that can accept two batteries and have no electronic controls is between 1 in 3,000 and 1 in 10,000. We have data on one model that confirms it is 1 in 3,000, so I'm being a bit generous in going as high as 1 in 10,000. You probably wouldn't be far out if you said 1 in 5,000.

That number is what you might call 'a significant figure'.

If it was correct, it would only just be significant in statistical terms (1), but I'm afraid that there's an error in your reasoning.

I'm assuming that your "confirmed" 1 in 3,000 is brought about because the manufacturer of said device has 3,000 devices out there and one has failed. I'm also going to assume that if said manufacturer had 200,000 out there and one had failed, you would quote a 1 in 200,000 "confirmed" - and neither would be absolutely, correct, although the latter figure would carry more weight due to sample size - it would be more likely to be accurate.

What we currently don't have is confirmed figures for:

A: the number of stackable tube mods with no electronic protection which have been sold and are in use
B: the number of those mods which are regularly or exclusively run with stacked batteries
C: the number of those mods (B which are regularly or exclusively run with stacked unprotected batteries (and therefore, by implication, those which are run with either protected or safer chemistry batteries)
D: the actual and confirmed number of catastrophic failures in conditions of use ie not on charge (the CPF figures include failures under charge, I believe).

Without that information any figure anyone comes up with is a guess, not an estimate. Without that information, you can't even separate the guess out into "used according to instructions" and "used out of spec" - in other words, the figure is spurious and has a very low confidence level.

vide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_interval

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_hypothesis_testing#Potential_misuse

 

[rolygate]

..... in other words, the figure [1 in 5,000] is spurious and has a very low confidence level.

Yes, I agree with you the number is spurious. However it's a lot higher than it should be and with absolute certainty is more frequent than 1 in 20,000 units.

A potentially violent failure in 1 in 20,000 units for a consumer device used in front of the face is not acceptable.

 

[Str8V8ping]

I have been on CPF for many years and as much as iv experienced in people having battery explosions is 99% of the time its user error. Most stemming from multistacking cell(more then 2 mostly),unrechargabkle cells being charged(not in a device),Circuit shorts(usually because of the heat high power LEDs generate which doesnt relate to ecigs),unprotected cheap cells. I rarely ever hear of a cell exploding when using it correctly. Im sure there has been some but it would be a very low number,well below most strange injuries in everyday life.The number really isnt big enough to worry much about if using them correctly(even stacking two cells is fine if its done properly).

There will always be people that do the wrong thing and that doesnt mean theres something wrong with doing it in general .Injuries are possible doing anything. If someone hangs themself with a shoelace we shouldnt ban or change shoelaces.Stupid stuff happens all the time. Giving warnings is a good thing but nothing needs to be changed. Thats just my opinion and if ecigs werent thought of as bad by the public these cases wouldnt even be a thought in anyones mind.

1 in even 20000(actual number probably much less even) is not bad at all .That what maybe 30vapors out of a million(guess) with most likely 25 of them user error like this case.That could be considered one of the most safe things in the world really .

 

[rolygate]

Just a quick note on terms. It seems to me that APVs can be grouped into three classes:

- Mechanical
- Electrical
- Electronic

(And two main types: tube or box.)

A mechanical device has no wires, and no electrical switch that is wired in.
An electrical device has a wired-in switch. The positive line, at least, is wired at some point.
An electronic device has a circuit board and one or more electronic functions such as voltage change.

Talking about tubemods, personally I don't see any reason why any of these types cannot be designed and built to be safe. I own examples of all types. Statistically, the electronic units have a better safety record, it has to be admitted; but this could be because mechanical and electrical APVs, up to now, may not have been designed for optimum safety.

 

[Malduk]

And yet I read that all-mechanical mods are the most dangerous of all mods.
They have no extra electronic protection built in.

Well yes. Thats what I was trying to say (with a badly constructed last sentence lol).
All mechanical mods will let any kind of current through, and thats if they are perfectly well made. They are also most probable to produce an unintentional short within the tube, depending on the design.

 

[hifistud]

Yes, I agree with you the number is spurious. However it's a lot higher than it should be and with absolute certainty is more frequent than 1 in 20,000 units.

I might be being a tad pedantic here, but on what basis do you conclude that with absolute certainty is more frequent than 1 in 20,000 units? What figures do you have that would allow that conclusion to be drawn? Again, it's entirely possible to state that 20,000 tube mods have been sold, and that one has gone postal - but that does not remotely mean that with absolute certainty the failure rate is 1 in 20,000. Another five million may be sold and not one further failure be encountered.

Language is important when it comes to statistical calculations - and even more so when interested parties may be looking for ammunition. Taken out of the context of this discussion, your assertion could be very damaging to a large number of people, and yet, statistically speaking, it's a nonsense and not a valid conclusion - it would make a great headline, though.

A potentially violent failure in 1 in 20,000 units for a consumer device used in front of the face is not acceptable.

There is enough evidence for us to propose the hypothesis that a catastrophic failure in front of the face is a very rare event predicated by misuse of some or all of the constituent parts of the devices in question. In order to prove or disprove the hypothesis, we must ascertain a reliable and repeatable method of causing the failure in the first place. So far, this has not been shown. Unless and until it is, conjecture serves only to promote hysteria based on incorrect and mistaken science and mathematics. Unfortunately, that's exactly what headline writers feed on.

 

[rolygate]

Someone asked how the mod in this incident is alleged to have exploded.

If a fast gas generation event occurs in a metal tube APV that on cursory inspection appears to be sealed, either:

• The structure remains intact and gas leaks from small vents. This requires very strong construction in all areas: the bottom end, the central area (threading perhaps), and the top end (including atomizer connector).
• The bottom end blows off (if separate). The batteries may be ejected; or if they swell and jam in the tube, continual gas ejection occurs ('rocket').
• The structure disintegrates due to a central threaded point coming apart.
• The top end blows off. This event has the most potential danger as the atomizer can be fired into the face. It is more likely to happen if the general structure is strong, and there is no lower end cap, and/or if the batteries swell in the tube and block it so that pressure rises at the top end.

It is alleged that the Colorado event in January and the Florida event in February involved a top end / atomizer ejection.

The only devices these types of events are reported to have occurred with are metal tube mods that appear on cursory inspection to be sealed, that had two batteries inserted in series, and had no electronic controls. It is thought that if any of those three factors were not present, an incident (of a potentially serious nature) would not have occurred.

 

[rolygate]

There is enough evidence for us to propose the hypothesis that a catastrophic failure in front of the face is a very rare event predicated by misuse of some or all of the constituent parts of the devices in question. In order to prove or disprove the hypothesis, we must ascertain a reliable and repeatable method of causing the failure in the first place. So far, this has not been shown. Unless and until it is, conjecture serves only to promote hysteria based on incorrect and mistaken science and mathematics. Unfortunately, that's exactly what headline writers feed on.

I suppose it depends on your definition of rare.

To me, one a year would be too many because it might involve an ECF member being hurt, and because - from now on - it will be used against us. There is a real possibility now that these incidents will be used as a reason to regulate or restrict ecigs.

I'm not sure why you think trying to stop these incidents occurring is a bad idea. Perhaps you could explain?

 

[Str8V8ping]

I suppose it depends on your definition of rare.

To me, one a year would be too many because it might involve an ECF member being hurt, and because - from now on - it will be used against us. There is a real possibility now that these incidents will be used as a reason to regulate or restrict ecigs.

I'm not sure why you think trying to stop these incidents occurring is a bad idea. Perhaps you could explain?

How it happened is all allegations. We dont know what happened really because we werent there so therefore you cant really blame the mod or change mods for that matter based on a allegation or guess of what happened. one a year would make it one of the safest devices in human nature so that cant possibly be concidered bad . Not to mention that one time could be user error. All i think everyones trying to say is the mod is not a problem the user is. Warnings are the only thing thats needed since that will eliminate most user error. Cant blame the mod for a stupid person . According to the guessed data of injuries im sure any one with a scientific background would deem in more then safe with those types of numbers.

I think most people wouldnt want to change a mod over it because they are perfectly happy with the way it is. Read the warnings and you should be safe.If you fail to read them then you cant really complain. Personally i think youd have just as good a chance of winning the lottery then having a mod blow up in your face . Sure some people win the lottery but that doesnt make it good odds. Everyone has there opinion,thats just the way i see it. I know one thing ,if i did misuse or use the wrong batts in a mod and it blew up on me i know id only have myself to blame.

 

[Rocketman]

Of the factors that could cause a failure like this the human is the only one that can be ....-ized statistically.
Mod, APVs, are evolving. Multiple sources, revisions from a single sources, aging and damage allow too many variables to determine reliability figures.

Batteries are in the same boat. New cells from different manufacturers, different lots, counterfeiting, relabeling, normal aging and abuse.

But the human can be statistically evaluated and should result in a normal distribution for common traits like careful/careless or informed/uninformed. You can see a reasonable sample size just from the member posts on ECF.


and also get a feeling for the number of vapers that should not stack batteries.

 

[Petrodus]

I've always found Shawn from zeecigs.com videos to be presentations
the general public can easily understand.



I think Shawn did a good job ... Considering the target audience.
NOTE: At the end of the video ... Shawn points viewers to the ECF

 

[hifistud]

I suppose it depends on your definition of rare.

To me, one a year would be too many because it might involve an ECF member being hurt, and because - from now on - it will be used against us. There is a real possibility now that these incidents will be used as a reason to regulate or restrict ecigs.

I'm not sure why you think trying to stop these incidents occurring is a bad idea. Perhaps you could explain?

I don't, but I feel that A: it's being blown out of proportion, B: some of the reasoning behind certain recommendations (and the initial thrust of the posts on the Safety Spec) is not based in sound science or statistical analysis and C: that much of the language being used actually provides ammunition for those who would oppose e-cigs.

I am not now, nor have I ever been an "if it saves just one life" type of person. I acknowledge that, in life, there are risks and challenges. I approach them sanguinely. I still maintain, and will until someone can prove without a shadow of doubt, that we have not seen a confirmed case of an e-cig going postal when it is being used within spec, with batteries within spec. The Colorado case is an example - the mod was not, as evidenced by the plaintif's filing, being used with the correct equipment.

Now, had I the mind so to do, I could quite easily decant a mixture of nitroglycerine and ethanol into the tank of my car. In all likelihood, that would cause major problems, and, potentially, an explosion. The car manufacturer is well aware that I could do that - the facility exists, and it's not outside the realms of possibility. Would they be liable if, as a result of my foolishness, the car exploded and rendered me incapable of consort with my wife? I think not. In fact, I am as sure as I can be that, were I to bring suit, it would be thrown out of court.

Now, the fact of the matter is, were they so minded, they could fit sensors to the tank to measure the substances in there, and signal the ECU to prevent me from starting the car up. The fact is, they don't, and neither should they. I know the right way to run my car - the guy at the dealership told me - diesel only - in the same way that Piuresmoker said "tenergy only if you're stacking". They - and I - are confident that the risk of rapid disassembly under recommended use conditions is acceptable.

What I see in the ECFSS is a solution to a problem that has not be proven to exist, in my view - again, I'll issue the challenge - if anyone can show, reliably and repeatably, a method whereby a tube mod can be made to enter catastrophic failure mode immediately and with no warning, in normal use, with the recommended batteries, three times in succession, I'll eat my words. My bet is they can't - and it's not just "here's how I think it will happen" - it has to happen.

 

[classwife]

To the person (man) who pm'd me about my comment, I will say this, at least I posted at comments. Correct me if I am wrong but is this not a forum for thoughts about what is happening in our community's about ecigs. I posted my thought and if you disagree that is fine, but you don't need to attack me in a pm and I blocked you. If you take offense to my comment about the health care things coming and still to come and losing our elderly, well you too will face that firing squad one day !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Good Luck To You...........

Report this PM please...use the triangle at the bottom of the post.

We do not harass members via the PM system here.

Thank you.

 

[bnrkwest]

Hi Roygate,
Can you do a warning on the home page of ECF or a sticky that always shows up on battery warnings, that the first thing people read is your great post on batteries, what they are, what is the difference and why every user needs to know about batteries! Maybe this will help educate. I did not know the difference between a safe chemistry and protected batt, now I do. I think we need more battery education, there is just so much out there most people don't know. bnrk

 

[mianker]

Folks I believe in personal accountability. As a person I am responsible for myself and when I purchase anything I feel it is up to me to research and acquire the knowledge to safely use my purchase.

If I buy pork from the grocery store and don't cook it to the proper temperature and get tape worms is the store then responsible for my parasite or am I responsible because I didn't cook it to the proper temperature?

If I purchase a chainsaw and don't read how to use it safely and neglect to wear eye protection is the chainsaw manufacturer liable when I lose an eye?

In my opinion the government is taking over more of our personal lives and decisions because we blame others rather than admitting our own shortcomings and mistakes.

 

[muzichead]

MAybe you are not up to date on all that has gone on , no problem I understand you are fairly new , anyhow ECF has posted SPECS as a voluntary requirement to be " ECF Approved " YES they are a forum but by doing this they move into a new realm IMO .

The problem that has been happening in this industry is that many mod makers are mom and pop shops so to speak , some are not ( like Puresmoker ) and Us , however this industry has NO regulations it is a wild west of there , you should see some of the MODS that have come flashing by this place !! SCARY STUFF !!no thought on safety no insurance no design that a child would make I mean some real crazy stuff ! .

This is what happens in a brand new market , then it sorts itself out , the crap or dangerous stuff goes away ( because of law suit's ) the good stuff gets better and bigger player emerge , natural market growth .

But there have been all kinds of devices sold through ECF over the years and they are getting better .

Buzz, I am aware of whats happening with the ECF movement around here and hope it doesn't get too out of hand for mfg's such as yourself. I feel for you. I was a business owner a few years ago and can feel for what liabilities you take on with that responsibility, but my comment was aimed at some of the people that were trying to place too much blame on a forum. I too hope that some APV mfg's get there game together and we can get some kind of regulation in the industry. You are right about some of the scary stuff out there. I tend to over research when I am looking for something new and as we all know, (or should know), basically an APV could come down to being the same as putting a stick of dynamite up to your mouth if it is not set up and maintained correctly and catastrophic failure is almost imminent... The only other point to what I said was that any manufacturer should have a very good insurance policy in place because there will always be someone out there that will do something with these APV's that wasn't meant to be done with them and as I said, all it takes is for the right lawyer to be representing them at the the time and the 12 people in the box...... Its all about CYA.......

 

[four2109]

One of the issues is whether the seller provided safe handling instructions and appropriate warnings, as do food, auto and chainsaw manufacturers suggested in above posts.
They should not be relying on the consumer to seek out a forum and try to sift through the information there.
I have used stacked protected rechareable batts twice. On a 5V box mod one of the batteries heated up and I got it out of the mod. The other was a VV box mod and one of the batteries over discharged. If I didn't have a multimeter and bothered to check it, I wouldn't have known it.
With the number of commercial mods available now, device specific safety and handling information should be provided by the vendor. Not just 'buy your batteries from us', unless they want to invest in a proprietary design.

 

[bnrkwest]

I have been trying to learn as much about batteries as possible. It seems the explosions mostly come from unprotected and also stacked batts. four2109 you said your batts were protected but also had problems with them stacked. So is stacking batts maybe something we should avoid? I have read that using one batt in a PV is the safest if it is a safe chemistry batt or a protected batt. Reason I ask is I am using two mods but each only uses one batt, so has anyone heard of anything exploding or overheating using one batt in a mod? thanks, bnrk