e-cigarette Wikipedia article needs help
- Thread starter Wallace_Frampton
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Okay so I have to go do housework. I want to thank everyone thus far that has posted. I'll say a few more things about myself before I go, as they are relevant to this this thread.
I'm an old-hand at online forums. (This is really nice forum software, btw...) I learned how to do computer repair on several online forums over a period of about 5 years. Also other computer and internet related activities. Online forums are (in my opinion) the best source of information because there's an immediate system of checks and balances, and as long as one stays within the rules, you can disagree with anything anyone has said. That's not true for text books, research papers, etc...
I'll be reading, and re-reading every single post in this thread. I almost never read anything deeply the 1st time. I have to let some things sink it, roll around a bit, and in the background my CPU (that's what I call my brain) makes connections and processes things, and then I'll start asking more questions as I'm able. So, if someone is wondering whether or not they are casting their "seeds upon the stones" or fertile earth, the "earth" is FERTILE. GUARANTEE you that every word posted will get read at least 3 times. It's just how I do. I start at the beginning of the thread at page 1, post 1 and read what I wrote (with half an eye towards what I said wrong, what I left out, etc...) and then I go through the whole thread, start to finish. The links posted will get read, the recommendations that I educate myself will get taken to heart and efforts will be made to do exactly that. I understand the difference between doing your own research and wanting to be spoon-fed (with all the negative connotations about the 2nd option; people that won't dig around and do their own work.
It shouldn't be too difficult for someone to read the wikipedia article and figure out which editor I am, and while it's not a big huge deal, I'd rather keep the connection between this thread and the article as separate as possible (note I did not use my wikipedia username as my username here). This is "background research" and not a citable source, but that doesn't mean that other editors could not benefit from reading and participating in this thread at some point in the future, but before it goes there I think it best to check-in with forum staff to see where they are at on that idea, because you never know. Local cultures are sometimes like isolated cannibal tribes in the Congo. One minute you think you've found some of the best friends you've ever found ever, and the next minute they are having you over for dinner.
I'll be back, maybe later this evening. Thanks to all for all of the very substantive information.
I'm an old-hand at online forums. (This is really nice forum software, btw...) I learned how to do computer repair on several online forums over a period of about 5 years. Also other computer and internet related activities. Online forums are (in my opinion) the best source of information because there's an immediate system of checks and balances, and as long as one stays within the rules, you can disagree with anything anyone has said. That's not true for text books, research papers, etc...
I'll be reading, and re-reading every single post in this thread. I almost never read anything deeply the 1st time. I have to let some things sink it, roll around a bit, and in the background my CPU (that's what I call my brain) makes connections and processes things, and then I'll start asking more questions as I'm able. So, if someone is wondering whether or not they are casting their "seeds upon the stones" or fertile earth, the "earth" is FERTILE. GUARANTEE you that every word posted will get read at least 3 times. It's just how I do. I start at the beginning of the thread at page 1, post 1 and read what I wrote (with half an eye towards what I said wrong, what I left out, etc...) and then I go through the whole thread, start to finish. The links posted will get read, the recommendations that I educate myself will get taken to heart and efforts will be made to do exactly that. I understand the difference between doing your own research and wanting to be spoon-fed (with all the negative connotations about the 2nd option; people that won't dig around and do their own work.
It shouldn't be too difficult for someone to read the wikipedia article and figure out which editor I am, and while it's not a big huge deal, I'd rather keep the connection between this thread and the article as separate as possible (note I did not use my wikipedia username as my username here). This is "background research" and not a citable source, but that doesn't mean that other editors could not benefit from reading and participating in this thread at some point in the future, but before it goes there I think it best to check-in with forum staff to see where they are at on that idea, because you never know. Local cultures are sometimes like isolated cannibal tribes in the Congo. One minute you think you've found some of the best friends you've ever found ever, and the next minute they are having you over for dinner.
I'll be back, maybe later this evening. Thanks to all for all of the very substantive information.
About changing power from manufacture, I don't know that anyone does that(but not sure) a lot of them are adjustable voltages or watts from the manufacturer, most you have to match your tank or atomizer to match your mod/battery for what you're looking for, you should go talk to a local vape shop to see the equipment, might understand better.not like they're modifying cigalikes (cigarette looking where the tip glows).
In your OP (original post) you asked about terminology and whether e-cigarettes were better described as a nicotine delivery device.
My point was that what we call e-cigarettes today are merely very small fog machines.
Wallace_Frampton,
Thank you for taking steps to revise that Wikipedia section on e-cigs. I read it months ago & realized it needed editing. Actually it needed to be rewritten.
As you can tell, most of us on this forum are pretty upset about the misinformation circulating in the popular media about vaping. With all the do-gooders that oppose freedom of choice teamed with big tobacco & the pharmaceutical industry, we are pretty defensive about our successful method of avoiding cigarettes.
Thank you for taking steps to revise that Wikipedia section on e-cigs. I read it months ago & realized it needed editing. Actually it needed to be rewritten.
As you can tell, most of us on this forum are pretty upset about the misinformation circulating in the popular media about vaping. With all the do-gooders that oppose freedom of choice teamed with big tobacco & the pharmaceutical industry, we are pretty defensive about our successful method of avoiding cigarettes.
IMO:
Wiki should post only rigorous multiple substantiated/sited information when referring to the subject of vaping. If a statement is hotly contested/disagreed, the sentence should indicate such. If some claims are opinion, then the sentence should indicate. If no rigorous multiple substantiated/sited information is sited then the sentence should be identified as such (an opinion).
Wiki should post only rigorous multiple substantiated/sited information when referring to the subject of vaping. If a statement is hotly contested/disagreed, the sentence should indicate such. If some claims are opinion, then the sentence should indicate. If no rigorous multiple substantiated/sited information is sited then the sentence should be identified as such (an opinion).
wow .. lots of questions and answers ...
first off, vaping is a personal preference thing... it involves taste, smell, texture and a bit of habit continuation from the days of smoking. Many vapers want to find a vape that is just like a ciggie, while others look for a vape that isnt even close to the taste/smell of a ciggie, opposite ends of the spectrum.
As far as the carcinogen aspect of vaping, yes, its possible to create them by heating the juice ( fluid) to a burning temp. If one takes the time and watches the dry burn of a coil ( after the wick is removed) while juice is still present on the coil, one will notice vapor ( what we want) will be produced by the coil heating up. As the coil becomes hotter ( glowing hot) the remaining juice then begins to burn and now creates smoke ( it has an orange/brown tint to it) and the smell of the proverbial "dry hit" becomes apparent... mind you now, the coil is red hot and glowing to do this, something vapers avoid at every cost if possible, just as in a ciggie smoker will avoid lighting the filter of a ciggie and puff on it.
As far as higher powered units go, they are used to supply the energy required to heat up the larger heavier coils... just as one would use an 18 wheeler truck to pull a heavy load up a hill instead of a moped...
the 5 volt number was used for that particular unit and coil assembly ( 30 ga? wire small wick), while 5 volts with a heavy gauge wire ( 22-26) will just begin to get warm ( excluding low ohm builds, to keep things equal, lets say both 30 and 22 builds were at 1.2 ohms) the 30 will get toasty in a hurry, the 22 might get warm....
first off, vaping is a personal preference thing... it involves taste, smell, texture and a bit of habit continuation from the days of smoking. Many vapers want to find a vape that is just like a ciggie, while others look for a vape that isnt even close to the taste/smell of a ciggie, opposite ends of the spectrum.
As far as the carcinogen aspect of vaping, yes, its possible to create them by heating the juice ( fluid) to a burning temp. If one takes the time and watches the dry burn of a coil ( after the wick is removed) while juice is still present on the coil, one will notice vapor ( what we want) will be produced by the coil heating up. As the coil becomes hotter ( glowing hot) the remaining juice then begins to burn and now creates smoke ( it has an orange/brown tint to it) and the smell of the proverbial "dry hit" becomes apparent... mind you now, the coil is red hot and glowing to do this, something vapers avoid at every cost if possible, just as in a ciggie smoker will avoid lighting the filter of a ciggie and puff on it.
As far as higher powered units go, they are used to supply the energy required to heat up the larger heavier coils... just as one would use an 18 wheeler truck to pull a heavy load up a hill instead of a moped...
the 5 volt number was used for that particular unit and coil assembly ( 30 ga? wire small wick), while 5 volts with a heavy gauge wire ( 22-26) will just begin to get warm ( excluding low ohm builds, to keep things equal, lets say both 30 and 22 builds were at 1.2 ohms) the 30 will get toasty in a hurry, the 22 might get warm....
First sentence of Wiki:
"An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer that simulates the feeling of smoking, but without the tobacco burn."
Might want to start a thread and poll each sentence?
See: Polls | E-Cigarette Forum
"An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer that simulates the feeling of smoking, but without the tobacco burn."
Might want to start a thread and poll each sentence?
See: Polls | E-Cigarette Forum
Okay so smaller Vaping Devices deliver a smaller "hit" of vapor. Do they run out? The whole "voltage" thing is still confusing.
I'd like to submit a proposed Lede for discussion at some point. Right now I'm doing background research and thinking about structure and one thing I'm thinking is to give a straightforward description of WHAT the thing is, then divide the Lede into 3 ideas, the vaping device itself, the ejuice and then the act of vaping, i.e. "What you do with thing 1, and thing 2". Once the Lede is constructed like this, many other things just fall into place, which in political terms means that all the FUD and half-baked studies filter downwards into "unproven" and "disputed" territory. Which I think is the reason why the article is the way it is. As long as the Lede starts off "This is just like smoking, except for..." then anything they want to put near the top of the article "fits" because it (emotionally) rides on top of community awareness of the dangers of smoking. People don't mind being given scary information as long as it feels true, so the "feeling" of being true for cigarettes easily transfers over to feeling that it's true about vaping, i.e. "Vaping is just like cigarette smoking and the dangers of Vaping are...."
See how easily you can transition from "vaping" to "danger" by using "just like cigarettes" as the transitional idea? That's why I want to break the article of it. People are railing against this and that, and while they may all be right, the transcendent fault with the article is that it does not establish as it's primary foundation that "Vaping" is a standalone subject fully deserving of it's own article and not some secondary off-shoot permanently hard-wired to the demon subject "smoking".
Vaping is effecting the bottom line of the three most powerful entities on the planet, Big Gov't, Big Pharma, and Big Tobacco, and everyone who sucks on the money "teet" of those three (and there are thousands of them who receive millions if not billions of dollars each year to help the above three protect their interests).
If you don't think the most powerful entities on the planet can control the narrative on Wiki (via their "people"), well i don't know what can be said to change your mind.
Go read every single tweet/statement by Stanton Glantz or Simon Chapman (better known ANTZ, who also block all vapors) to get an idea of the extreme lengths these sociopaths will go to to protect their jobs/revenue streams....at ANY cost.
Also probably relevant to familiarize yourself with the MSA and implications it has in many states/legislators motivations.
If you don't think the most powerful entities on the planet can control the narrative on Wiki (via their "people"), well i don't know what can be said to change your mind.
Go read every single tweet/statement by Stanton Glantz or Simon Chapman (better known ANTZ, who also block all vapors) to get an idea of the extreme lengths these sociopaths will go to to protect their jobs/revenue streams....at ANY cost.
Also probably relevant to familiarize yourself with the MSA and implications it has in many states/legislators motivations.
Yesterday while reading some articles I found one that compared them to "nebulizers" where (for example) kids that have asthma can use them to deliver an aerosolized "hit" of medicine. Also they are selling Vaping Devices to deliver liquid THC (active ingredient in marijuana), so this whole notion that these devices are "just like cigarettes, only different" gets weaker and weaker for me. Vaping technology could be used for much more than delivering nicotine.
And, at core, while I'm at it, the "health concerns" raised have little to nothing to do with the health effects of Vaping, Vaping Devices, etc... but instead these health concerns are about the dangers of breathing aerosolized/vaporized nicotine. Correct me anytime I get something wrong. So all the regulatory efforts (and the language used to describe them) should be aimed at nicotine and not vaping.
Found a study that claims that vaporized nicotine has no effect on lung tissue in a laboratory environment, but I'm real, REAL skeptical about that because the article was right next to the one about the woman who was so proud because she ran a marathon without a tampon, while having her period.
Another thought/question I had is the use of heat to aerosolize nicotine and it seems that a cannister of pressurized gas might do the same thing, i.e. "huffing". Has anyone seen, know about, heard of an alternative means of delivering nicotine to the lungs that does not use heat, but instead uses pressure, or something else?
Another article talked about a patent RJ Reynolds has involving passing a nicotine solution over some kind of catalyst, so (according to how I read it) the nicotine gets vaporized with no heat. Wonder if that stuff tastes funny. So any 1st hand knowledge about that would be appreciated.
Here's that flimsy article on lung tissue:
E-cigarette vapour has NO toxic effect and is as safe as AIR, shock study claims - Mirror Online
The amount of vapor produced largely depends on surface area of the heating element that touches the wick which holds, and feeds the e-liquid to the coil. More surface area -> more vapor.
Larger surface area and thus coil size is typically accomplished by the use of thicker wire. Due to the greater mass of thicker wire, higher levels of power are required to heat it up in adequate time. Larger coils often require advanced devices of greater size.
Another important factor in vapor production is the amount of airflow being fed to the coil which counteracts the heating of the coil.
The power put into the coil has to be 'correct' for the specifics of the heating coil and airflow. Too little power and no vapor production will be happening, too much power and a dry-hit may occur, where the wick runs out of juice, juice overheats and produces higher levels of Formaldehyde. In the case of cotton wick may begin to scorch. A dry hit is very comparable to lighting a cigarette on the wrong end and is duly avoided.
Within this range, power adjustments (in volts or watts) can be made to personal taste between cool to warm/hot vapor.
nicotine has been considered of little or no concern
since the 1964 Surgeon Generals report on Smoking.
a fact over looked by many over the years.
regards
mike
Thanks I got all of your post, most particularly the part where the Vaper/User can adjust the power (on advanced units, I assume) in order to have a cooler or warmer vapor, based on personal preference, but with the idea that not enough power means no, or not enough vapor, and too much power means a nasty-tasting dry hit.
no vapor....not enough vapor...cool vapor...warm vapor...dry hit
A spectrum, like (above).
But most particularly I'm interested in your wording and specifically what you meant when you used the word "higher" levels of Formaldehyde. My current understanding is that there is NO "formaldehyde" or any other toxic chemical (save for whatever toxicity people want to claim is in the propylene glycol, nicotine, etc...) and that the only time there are any kind of toxins (that most people would agree exist) is when a "dry hit", overheating of the e-liquid occurs. When it burns/oxidizes, the chemical make-up of the e-liquid changes and that is when toxins are produced.
When you say "higher" I wonder if you mean that there are already formaldehydes (and whatever other toxins) present during normal operation of the vaping device. So some clarification on this would be appreciated.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
