From CNN.com Today/Eissenberg study with feedback
- Thread starter lager
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
KK:
See: Plowshare Technologies :: The Smoking Topography Experts
The problem is that, as currently configured, I am uncertain how the mouth end of any e-cig will interact with the required mouthpiece of the topography measurement device. The topography device mouthpiece is meant for the squishy filter of a tobacco cigarette and not the hard metal/plastic end of an e-cig. That is why I did not measure topography in Eissenberg (2010). I have a colleague who is an outstanding engineer and I hope to interest him in the challenge....
See: Plowshare Technologies :: The Smoking Topography Experts
The problem is that, as currently configured, I am uncertain how the mouth end of any e-cig will interact with the required mouthpiece of the topography measurement device. The topography device mouthpiece is meant for the squishy filter of a tobacco cigarette and not the hard metal/plastic end of an e-cig. That is why I did not measure topography in Eissenberg (2010). I have a colleague who is an outstanding engineer and I hope to interest him in the challenge....
Our mod guys can adapt that in minutes. It's just a fitting, right? If we have the opening size in mm, we can make an adaptor with o-rings, etc..
any idea on their pricing?
thanks
kai
Last edited:
KK: It may be that easy or it may not -- the device's mouthpiece is specially constructed to use the venturi effect to allow precise measurement of air flow following calibration (using a pressure transducer and A/D converter and calibrated software). If features of the mouthpiece are altered, is flow measurement also altered thus requiring re-calibration of the software? I fear this question is best answered empirically, and that is why I hope to bring in my colleague. Much as I might like to, I can't base a scientific assessment of ECIG user puff topography on the assumption that a modified topography measurement system functions as though it had not been modified.
Last edited:
I don't know pricing -- I think it is in the $1000-3000 range for the whole system. Why don't you ask them for a quote...
Okay, I think these are the specifications in inches, I believe, with venturi (see attached). You mentioned the cig filter receiver's i.d. on the device is 'squishy'? The cig opening on the venturi is .30 in..
I don't have an analog anymore to measure a cig filter
And my query is for the Forum's other members' potential use, in order to generate current user field data, as opposed to laboratory data. I'll contact the company to see about a possible short term lease. Thanks.
BTW, you'll find there are a number of highly skilled engineers on the forum.
(I'm a former IAMAW member)
Attachments
Last edited:
Just a note about dripping: it's simply the application of nicotine fluid to the atomizer -- it's really not different than using a cartridge in terms of the end result (getting liquid to the atomizer). Most people drip because they find the cartridges finicky and somewhat inconsistent -- it's more of a convenience factor rather than some way of "supercharging" an ecig. It's about consistency and the avoidance of some hassle.
However, I understand why you would want to stick with more commonplace usage. Just thought I should make clear that if you drip you're not using some "arcane method" to increase your nicotine uptake -- you're just fed up fiddling with the cartridges. The cartridge is supposed to evenly wick liquid to the atomizer, and sometimes it does. But other times it might let loose a large blob of liquid (flooding the atomizer) or other times not release enough to keep the atomizer sufficiently primed -- those who drip usually find they can avoid this "rollercoaster" by forgoing filler material and dripping a measured amount onto the atomizer.
Also, I think you should consider a more realistic scenario for the true naive user -- the user has just spent a not inconsiderable amount of money on the device and has a desire for it work for him/her. He/she, typically, doesn't evaluate the device's effectiveness after the first 10-20 puffs -- the true naive user, more often than not, will stick with the device for at least a few days. That means definitely burning off the primer fluid and also developing some understanding of how the draw works before coming to a conclusion about the device's effectiveness.
Last edited:
Just a few thoughts IMO, and lots of questions. (I’ve had either too much caffeine or not enough)
The question of who pays for the study is a catch 22. Government funding (NIH, NIMH) is perceived by most as to be the least biased. However, grants are in short supply these days. There are apparent conflicts of interest if tobacco or pharmaceutical companies pay- and there are apparent conflicts if e-cig manufacturers pay. There is no such thing as a pure study. Strong studies need to be designed, and they will need to be paid for by the e-cig manufacturer’s, and the conflicts disclosed. The best defense against the charge of COI are well-designed studies, along with transparency . The FDA will require the tests and won’t pay for them. Testing will need to be done, and done well. Can we contribute to CASAA and designate that money going to funding of studies?
Anecdotal studies aren’t well-respected anymore (but heck out NEJM sometime). Self report studies aren’t the best either, however they are still used and can carry weight. If well-designed, with caveats and limitations clearly identified the data can actually be relatively strong, especially in fuzzy areas where there aren’t easy ways to measure biological events in people. There are many informal polls here. They’re limited in use because it’s a skewed sample. But there are ways of expanding the pool, or decreasing the skew.
Biological studies are required, but there are many other elements that can be used. I’d love to see those studies, as well as long term studies, self report studies etc. In short, we need a body of data. How to get it? I hope Dr. T continues to study the effects of e-ciggs. But we can’t just hope that “they” do them. Are there grad students out there looking for dissertation topics? Anyone interested in designing a good self report questionnaire and finding ways to validate it? Can any of the surveys on this forum also be posted on survey monkey or other sites, and open to everyone? How do we capture data from people who haven’t had good experiences with e-cigs, or who have but aren’t into forums?
From posts I’ve read on this forum we have people who are capable of doing the work, MDs, nurses, statisticians, chemists, mathematicians, students and a lot of people who care. It sounds like KK is getting ready to start doing some testing (yay, i am really interested in the results)- is there a way that we can help those results become something than for oue own information?
The other part of the battle is the media and public opinion. Many of us hace had really postive experiences in talking to people. Do we have any people in the media and public relations who are willing to help us reach the people that we can't talk to directly? Can we move from reacting to the media to becoming proactive?
(ok, done, coffee cup is empty, and i can't get my caffeine directly from my usb port- yet)
The question of who pays for the study is a catch 22. Government funding (NIH, NIMH) is perceived by most as to be the least biased. However, grants are in short supply these days. There are apparent conflicts of interest if tobacco or pharmaceutical companies pay- and there are apparent conflicts if e-cig manufacturers pay. There is no such thing as a pure study. Strong studies need to be designed, and they will need to be paid for by the e-cig manufacturer’s, and the conflicts disclosed. The best defense against the charge of COI are well-designed studies, along with transparency . The FDA will require the tests and won’t pay for them. Testing will need to be done, and done well. Can we contribute to CASAA and designate that money going to funding of studies?
Anecdotal studies aren’t well-respected anymore (but heck out NEJM sometime). Self report studies aren’t the best either, however they are still used and can carry weight. If well-designed, with caveats and limitations clearly identified the data can actually be relatively strong, especially in fuzzy areas where there aren’t easy ways to measure biological events in people. There are many informal polls here. They’re limited in use because it’s a skewed sample. But there are ways of expanding the pool, or decreasing the skew.
Biological studies are required, but there are many other elements that can be used. I’d love to see those studies, as well as long term studies, self report studies etc. In short, we need a body of data. How to get it? I hope Dr. T continues to study the effects of e-ciggs. But we can’t just hope that “they” do them. Are there grad students out there looking for dissertation topics? Anyone interested in designing a good self report questionnaire and finding ways to validate it? Can any of the surveys on this forum also be posted on survey monkey or other sites, and open to everyone? How do we capture data from people who haven’t had good experiences with e-cigs, or who have but aren’t into forums?
From posts I’ve read on this forum we have people who are capable of doing the work, MDs, nurses, statisticians, chemists, mathematicians, students and a lot of people who care. It sounds like KK is getting ready to start doing some testing (yay, i am really interested in the results)- is there a way that we can help those results become something than for oue own information?
The other part of the battle is the media and public opinion. Many of us hace had really postive experiences in talking to people. Do we have any people in the media and public relations who are willing to help us reach the people that we can't talk to directly? Can we move from reacting to the media to becoming proactive?
(ok, done, coffee cup is empty, and i can't get my caffeine directly from my usb port- yet)
The intricacies of clinical testing are pretty tricky. I've worked in analytical chemistry for over two decades, and even then, I'm not really able to speak with any real competence on the rigors of clinical research. The whole affair always gets tricky when you insert people into the equation.
I would think that us continuing with our ideas and observations is a good start. This is the part that frosts me... media and public opinion, and particularly media's role in shaping public opinion... how media paints vapers, the ecig, their lack of commitment to anything past "the story"... their general douche-like behavior.
KK:
No, it is the cigarette filter that is squishy! As you see, the inner diameter of the device mouthpiece is tapered. The cigarette is pressed into the wide end (labeled 0.30) and pushed in firmly so that it meets the taper and therefore 1) it stays in and 2) it activates the circuit so that the device "knows" that a cigarette is there.
So, will an e-cig fit in, stay in, and activate the sensor so that a the presence of the e-cig is necessary? And, if you modify the device mouthpiece, have you done anything that messes up the flow dynamics?
No, it is the cigarette filter that is squishy! As you see, the inner diameter of the device mouthpiece is tapered. The cigarette is pressed into the wide end (labeled 0.30) and pushed in firmly so that it meets the taper and therefore 1) it stays in and 2) it activates the circuit so that the device "knows" that a cigarette is there.
So, will an e-cig fit in, stay in, and activate the sensor so that a the presence of the e-cig is necessary? And, if you modify the device mouthpiece, have you done anything that messes up the flow dynamics?
V4L would be very happy to supply Dr. Eissenberg whatever he needs to conduct a proper study. As most of you know, I used to smoke 5 packs a day, and am just shy of 1.5 years tobacco free. I have used every single method available in the united states, as well as eastern remedy's to quit. I have Asthma, and begginning stages of COPD...
...V4l will not stop till we help to prove these are a far better alternative than smoking.
Thank You
Steve
slightly OT... but hadda
steve's offer. i knew the big guy would step up. i would gather that dr. e has to purchase equipment discreetly w/out the manufacturer knowing it was 'for a study' but i don't know... i'm not an expert on the ethics of clinical studies. but i would definitely recommend to V4L and it's product (the Kr808) specifically because the company has made such an effort to have informed observation of and interaction with the chinese manufacturers.
As gracious as Steve's offer is, it would bias a study. I think its great that Steve is kicking in here, and I do think that the V4L product seems to be ideal for a new user. Just not as many variables. The sad thing is that until a newb gets here, or to another good source of information, the newb is flying blind.
providing supplies may not bias the study itself, if it is a well designed study and done honestly. As long as there is full disclosure of the conflict, and there is no gag order on the results (many companies who sponsor studies specify that results can't be published without approval) then people will be able to read and draw conclusions from the published data. Providing supplies isn't as big of a deal as sponsoring a study. We frequently uae the Ruyan study- and it was sponsored by..Ruyan. I believe that any pharmaceutical company that submits something for approval must do their own initial studies. the bias is inherent in the system, and that's why meds are so expensive. the only way e-cigg studies will get done is if someone is willing to pay for them- and disclose any conflicts of interest that exist.
Supplies aren't the issue. Supplies are a trivial expense. In my world, the Ruyan sponsored study is viewed with skepticism by many. The same ideas as are expressed at the beginning of this thread, with less of the vitriol
teissenb. my comments about honest well designed studies weren't meant to be an attack- i apologize if they sounded like it. I may have been off topic, about the fact that the people who need studies done are those who are most likely willing to pay for it- and the need for disclosure and careful design in upcoming studies. i appreciate that you are doing e-cig studies, that your report and comments have been clear about what was done and why it was designed that way, and that you have been willing to participate in this discussion.
I have a choice of words that I would like to say to those people. But they are far too innapropriate to post here so I will give you a hint. It starts with a "BUL" and Lovingly Slides down to "HIT". If you chatch my drift.
CES: No no -- I wasn't referring to you, or to anything that has been said since -- I don't know -- post 200 or so...
So a study of hardware , juices and, and vapeing method to find the ideal should have preceded the head to head with something that has decade upon decade of engineering behind it I would think.
Analogs are designed to addict and thus create return business to a known deadly cocktail.
eCigs are relatively new in comparison and thus not as uniform across the board in standard and use.
I'm new to this but i can safely say that after a 30 min session with a new eGO and refilled ry4 high carts that came with it I showed all the classic symptoms of a nicotine overdose... High heart rate , slightly disoriented, trouble focusing, etc.
With a lower dose juice I seem to be fine...
So im pretty sure the "Bio available" Nic is there if delivered correctly.
Analogs are designed to addict and thus create return business to a known deadly cocktail.
eCigs are relatively new in comparison and thus not as uniform across the board in standard and use.
I'm new to this but i can safely say that after a 30 min session with a new eGO and refilled ry4 high carts that came with it I showed all the classic symptoms of a nicotine overdose... High heart rate , slightly disoriented, trouble focusing, etc.
With a lower dose juice I seem to be fine...
So im pretty sure the "Bio available" Nic is there if delivered correctly.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
