GEM - RTA by markbugs
- Thread starter mark78
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
So I'm reading that the gem 2 smallest airflow is the maximum of the gem v1?
Also I saw the air intake (not in the side e main lower chimney) is 6mm. To me I would think the density of the vape is going to be extremely different.
I'm actually glad I didn't get that Change in the titanium but I still think they screwed their customer base.
Anyway what is the general thought from those who bought a v2. Can it be made to vape exactly like the v1? Even with n v2 for example which has a 3mm lower chimney / air intake. The difference in vapor density is huge if you use ptfe tubing to shrink it down to 2mm. So I'll be very surprised if objectively it's asserted the vape is as dense, which was one of my favorite points. I would think that the gem v2 is for Leung hitters and the v1 is for mouth to lung. And if you're testing please don't confuse vapor volume with density. Two different things. I can produce a ton of vapor from a sub tank but it's not dense compared to the gem for example. I actually find the titanium isn't as dense or flavorful as the stainless in guessing the increase in the chamber size ? I suppose it could be a build difference. As I use one for temp,control and the other isn't. I'll run a side by side test.
I'm sure the vast majority of vapors today will prefer a lung hitting gem. Just like lung hitting everything else is me the big thing. I for one am not appreciative of it. With MB moving to lung hitters I guess I really am straight GP now. I guess I better consider a chalice before they reliance that with a lung hitter
Anyway the point is here's no such thing as a tank that can provide Massive airflow to those who went it and the density + flavor of the gem v1 for mouth to lung hitters. The two are mutually exclusive. Once you increase that air intake pipe below the coil you I,mediated change the characteristics of the vape. While you can close the air down the open diameter of that airway completemy changes enway the air flows and subsequently the density and flavor and heat of the vape. Frankly they probably should have called it the gem air or something and sold the two side by side.
Sorry to see the other read was closed. @qorax thanks for the thoughtfulness to paste the new link.
Also I saw the air intake (not in the side e main lower chimney) is 6mm. To me I would think the density of the vape is going to be extremely different.
I'm actually glad I didn't get that Change in the titanium but I still think they screwed their customer base.
Anyway what is the general thought from those who bought a v2. Can it be made to vape exactly like the v1? Even with n v2 for example which has a 3mm lower chimney / air intake. The difference in vapor density is huge if you use ptfe tubing to shrink it down to 2mm. So I'll be very surprised if objectively it's asserted the vape is as dense, which was one of my favorite points. I would think that the gem v2 is for Leung hitters and the v1 is for mouth to lung. And if you're testing please don't confuse vapor volume with density. Two different things. I can produce a ton of vapor from a sub tank but it's not dense compared to the gem for example. I actually find the titanium isn't as dense or flavorful as the stainless in guessing the increase in the chamber size ? I suppose it could be a build difference. As I use one for temp,control and the other isn't. I'll run a side by side test.
I'm sure the vast majority of vapors today will prefer a lung hitting gem. Just like lung hitting everything else is me the big thing. I for one am not appreciative of it. With MB moving to lung hitters I guess I really am straight GP now. I guess I better consider a chalice before they reliance that with a lung hitter
Anyway the point is here's no such thing as a tank that can provide Massive airflow to those who went it and the density + flavor of the gem v1 for mouth to lung hitters. The two are mutually exclusive. Once you increase that air intake pipe below the coil you I,mediated change the characteristics of the vape. While you can close the air down the open diameter of that airway completemy changes enway the air flows and subsequently the density and flavor and heat of the vape. Frankly they probably should have called it the gem air or something and sold the two side by side.
Sorry to see the other read was closed. @qorax thanks for the thoughtfulness to paste the new link.
Last edited:
Lot of presumption, I'd say.
I have all 3 in the Gem series.
OG Gem has been quite satisfactory and arguably the most favorable RTA to date.
The Ti Gem has increased juice ports to accommodate those who prefer VG heavy juices.
The SS 2 Gem has increased airflow to increase flexibility to accommodate those looking for a more RDA like experience. The SS2 can easily wicked and air flow adjusted to duplicate the OG Gem or Ti MTL hit. It's not different, just more flexible.
I have all 3 in the Gem series.
OG Gem has been quite satisfactory and arguably the most favorable RTA to date.
The Ti Gem has increased juice ports to accommodate those who prefer VG heavy juices.
The SS 2 Gem has increased airflow to increase flexibility to accommodate those looking for a more RDA like experience. The SS2 can easily wicked and air flow adjusted to duplicate the OG Gem or Ti MTL hit. It's not different, just more flexible.
Based on my experience, vapor density is impacted mostly by VG ratio in the juice. (reasonable coil build) One of the weak point of RTA is ability to handle 100% VG due to reliance on gravity feed. I have many different GG/GP RTAs and know it takes lots of tweaking to vape VG on those. As previous post stated, larger juice hole on GEM II make it easier to handle VG. Hence it gives you more juice options for denser vape.
As for the size of air hole changing the vape dynamics, I have a different theory. Amount of air coming into the air hole isn't dictated by the size of the hole. it is 100% determined by the amount of air inhaled at the mouth piece. larger air hole allows easier pull from the mouth piece but it can not "draw" more air by itself. that's why i am enjoying the larger air hole of GEM II more. I am a pure mouth-lung guy and never enjoyed lung hit. larger air hole just makes the pull easier even for mouth-lung vape. it might feel different since there is less "negative pressure" inside the mouth.
You're right on 2/3 big points
. I'm all for other theories and I agree that drip tip impacts greatly but I think if you vaped tai fun gt2 or heron v2 with j awry reducing the lower chimney (I can't call it intake as that's the holes in the side) you would see that it does greatly impact density. VG ratio certainly does also impact it - I think you've hit two of three major impact points. The third is the lower chimney. It's ine if the main reasons sub tanks don't work well by just shutting the air down
Maya be you have w tank and can do a test. Either the two fun or heron v2 can be tested as they're 3 mm.
It's possible you may be able to test with the recent gem. The tubing used original purpose is 3D printers. I believe they make it with OD 6mm (new diameter of the gem?)and ID 2mm. There are two material. Ptfe which is good to 425f I believe and another good for 100 more. Check eBay for plastic tubing inner diameter 2mm or 3D printer tubing.
The two tanks I mentioned are functionally similar to the gem in how they intake air and the overall design. I'm not sure if the hurricane has a 2nm or 3mm lower chimney but that too may be a candidate. I believe if oh try it you'll see the massive difference between reducing that portion vs shutting down air flow.
It stands to reason if you consider the way piping reacts to water and air flow and the characteristics of how piping changes those two. I can only say I've used reducers in two of my tanks and he difference is quite palpable.
As always I'm open to discussion and considering other theories. I can only for now base things in my experience.
The tubing is about $2.5-3 a meter.
I no longer buy any tanks with inner lower chimney officer 3mm as a result of my tests. I wonder if results will show in video? Probably not. I'll take a look though it's abut difficult to replicate perfectly let alone have it show up on video.
Closing down air flow doesn't replicate a smaller diameter chimney - upper or lower. Is it presumption if doing tests is presuming ??
The tests I completed are actually not to do with the gem but tank design overall. The gem is supposition (not presumption) based in design characteristics then and now
There's a reason tank designers don't all just make huge air flow and I e people to ability to close it down. And a reason that flavor chasing mouth to Lung experience is not replicated by sub ohm cloud blowing tanks with airflow shut down and a hug resistance coil. May fun for example could easily make a tank that has a lot more air flow possibilities. And given the market for lung hitting they may give in to demand like mark bugs did at the expense of the original experience. But why would anyone hold out if characteristics of the inlet didn't affect the outlet.
If you slap s 1.2 ohm coil in a sub tank and close down the air vents you're not going to get a thick dense voluminous vape. Why do you think that is ? If you increase length you lose density. If you increase Keith you lose warmth. You can try to lower resistance of the coil or apply more
Power by pure not replicating the reovirus experience. You are creating a new and maybe similar one at best.
When you're dealing with what many consider the perfect vape - well - you're changing it. And to some people that's going to matter and to some it's not n some people may think the new one is perfect. Point is - it's not the same.
So Are you asserting that the chimney size and flow changes in piping have no impact of vape experience? I think most engineers would disagree.
If not why are all tank designers not just blasting 10 mm holes with a chance to cut it down ?
If design is that rudimentary either why are some tanks so much superior?
To me it's presumptuous to think tank designers make arbitrary decisions without understanding engineering.
If all these things didn't impact vape quality - and it was just chamber size or coil resistance - nearly every tank in a slicer rainmaker segment would be like every other tank.
The way air flows through tubing is science. Not an interpretation. Maximizing and small diameter air flow is going to be completely different than utilizing 20% if a large one in the way air travels and creates pressure. Including velocity into things as well
You can consider perhaps that the differences experienced are a factor of the Bernoulli effect right? The pressure exerted from the varying sizes are going to change as the tubing size does. And where air flow is the fastest we have the least amount of pressure. A reduction in air pressure passing into a chamber is going to impact the way the air circulates. How it mixes with the vapor produced and ultimately how that comes it as what we inhale. If the pressure changes to another portion or is increased or reduced that's going to completely change things. And given the intake of air and the way it moves along the piping you're never going to have the same vape with a different design just by closing down intake vents. Tubing changes fundamentally change air pressure which fundamentally changes mixture
You can replicate this yourself. Same build same
Liquid. Same air vent settings. Then reduce the intake pipe. You will see differences. Given the science behind air flow and pressure changes it is impossible that the vape would be the same.
Have a look at CFM papers for more on the why or test it yourself.
Given overall similarities in tank length and sizes though you'd have to expect a much more similar vape were this not true.
Maybe what you're asserting is to you it doesn't matter? Or you don't personally find it impactful ?
I wouldn't say anything here is presumption unless you assumed I meant what mattered to me should matter to others. There is supposition as I stated. But general design differences are there to be referenced.
My assertions are made as I stated on my preferences and science as I understand it. I don't suppose it's not good or that others don't love it. I'm just happy I have what I have as generally speaking large intake tanks don't vape well for my style. It's entirely possible that mark bugs is an exception. I won't be tanking the chance as I don't need another tank right now. I'm surprised they'd change such a huge part of the design and brand it the same line.
Whenever possible I do blind tests to figure it what I prefer. Juice to tanks and on. I know price and looks can mislead my brain - as can anyone's. So I try to be objective.
I'm completely open to those who can educate me further on then subject of tank designing course. But I think there's s lot to it when you're talking top level. Specifically CFM studies on designs.
Last edited:
Presumptions, I meant in regards to presuming MBs intended direction to MTL hitters.
They are just trying to give us what they think we want, while making a few bucks in the process.
Anybody with experience with the OG Gem would notice that it was very limited in build versatility.
Anybody with experience with the Ti Gem will notice that it will have more juice flow and that they can use up to 26ga wire without the deck screws shorting against the chamber wall.
Anybody with experience with the Gem II will notice they have all the airflow they could ask for in a package they are familiar with.
As one who uses multiples of all 3 versions in a continuous rotation, I have built them all to have identical vapes, using the same coil builds, just a little finessing of the wick and air adjustment.
Not here to start an argument, just lending an opinion based on first hand experience.
They are just trying to give us what they think we want, while making a few bucks in the process.
Anybody with experience with the OG Gem would notice that it was very limited in build versatility.
Anybody with experience with the Ti Gem will notice that it will have more juice flow and that they can use up to 26ga wire without the deck screws shorting against the chamber wall.
Anybody with experience with the Gem II will notice they have all the airflow they could ask for in a package they are familiar with.
As one who uses multiples of all 3 versions in a continuous rotation, I have built them all to have identical vapes, using the same coil builds, just a little finessing of the wick and air adjustment.
Not here to start an argument, just lending an opinion based on first hand experience.
Okay the Gem 2s are press fit, but that is not what raitizz has. He has an original SS, there is nothing broken.
Fair enough. If you can get the new one to vape similar enough to the old one for your likings that's all that matters. My only assertion was scientifically there pretty different.
I can't use 26 gauge in the titanium because the builds wind up crazy low. I didn't have an issue with them shorting in the first but functionally I can see he difference with wicking. I typically build the titanium with 28 temp control. I'll have to see what I think if 26 kanthal - I'll be surprised if it works well though due to the limited build area (length) but I'm always game to try a new build. I have to rebuild tonight. I'll check back in.
I agree the screws need to be really in on the first gem but I don't shirt if I screw them in well.
How many wraps of 26 can you get with a 2.5mm coil using 26 gauge? I'd think six max maybe five. Isn't that pretty low even with improved wicking ? I'd think dry hits would come frequently.
Cheers and have a good night.
I use a 3/32 rod, which equals to 2.4mm, instead of 2.5mm. That way I can a extra wrap in deck bowl. With 26ga, I can get seven wraps, but I do prefer 28ga., 8 wraps at 1.1-1.2 ohms.
Sorry, thought you were quoting Marks response to Mazaev's Gem II.
Yup. for each refill, I do
- flip the tank upside-down with airflow closed
- open AFC over a napkin and let the overflow drip out
- flip, have a napkin right infront of AFC, blow through mouthpiece
leaks are pretty much stop now. trick was to use right amount of cotton and keep the AFC wide open. it might be that the smaller airflow causes imbalance with large juice flow.
anyway, i am really liking GEM II.
interesting concept. took me little while to understand what modification you were referring to, but finally figured it out. reducing the air hole on the deck directly below the coil to deliver more concentrated airflow to the coil. i can see that having an impact to the vapor production. i am sure MB did testing on the delivery of air to the coil but good to have feedback from the user.
while this mod can make enough differences for some users, i doubt that it should be the de facto metrics in determining the right atomizer. one of the key innovation Kayfun made was the reduction in overall chamber size and known to be the flavor atty. Everyone followed suit and started to reduce the chamber size, even RDAs. after that, squape came out with slotted deck which not only made the coil build dead easy but reduced the chamber size further by eliminating the empty space around the post. As far as i know, GEM achieved extremely small chamber size by combining cone shaped chamber, slotted and press fitted deck, and using very low tolerance machining. combine this with GP salt&pepper style top refill, innovative grooved AFC, and many other features, you get pretty rock solid atty. on top of that, GEM II let's you use heavy VG juices. all these without making any modifications.
Taifun, Heron, sheproid, ithaka, tilemahos, and other well known RTAs are all good atties. but they all need lots of tweaking to perform well. fluff vs fluffless, s vs fan shape wick tail, flavor wick, horizontal vs vertical.. etc. i did them all. never ending combinations and modifications to tweak. the air hole reducer is yet another potential modification. for modders, this is a great thing. they can buy a cheap knock off rta and mod to exact spec they like. but rest of non-modding community should be informed about the atty's overall stock performance. for me, this is where GEM trumps over others and in my hand right now while rest of atties in the drawer.
It sounds like you've got a more complicated process than I do, when it comes to refilling...
Here's my break down:
1. Close airflow
2. Open top, inject juice to about 85% full
3. Close top
4. Turn tank over, and let all the juice flow down
5. Slowly open airflow
6. Turn tank right side up, and enjoy vaping
No leaks, no overflow to clean up, no need to blow through the top and clean up mess.
Why are we having different experiences with this device?
These are the kinds of mysteries that cause differences in opinions, and eventually arguments in the vape world.
YabsolutelyLong story short - GEMs are nice, quality attys, right?
R
pretty much same steps except for extra purge via mouth piece. i don't wait too long on initial draining and if i don't do the extra purging, i get small amount of leaks in AFC. this isn't a big deal as i always had this issue even with GEM I. i mix my own juice and they tend to be less sticky than store bought juice. so that could be the cause. beside, i don't mind doing the extra step to push the extra juice left on the side of the mouth piece and chimney. i hate the taste of juice liquid in my mouth.
as for the leakage after the initial setup, it could be the combination of thin juice and half closed AFC. you can try yourself. use the exact same as one you are using right now but just turn down the AFC half way and see if that causes some leak.
with GEM II, I am planning to turn up the VG portion on my juice going forward. gonna make a batch tonight with 80/20 VG/PG and see how that goes.
R
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Nice pic, nice place. Fishing?
R. Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
- Status
