How is sub-ohm vaping dangerous?

[gankoji]

Odd, the quick drop to nominal voltage and then mostly steady until reaching capacity is exactly the behavior I see in my batteries, at least when I measure them over the course of my usage with the ProVari. I seem to get the same performance out of my mech's, although it's tough to distinguish between 3.8 and 3.5V by vapor quality/heat alone.

 

[st0nedpenguin]

If you would look at the tests you would see that tests under different loads are different, that's why they test different loads. If you ever used a battery for anything in your life and were aware while doing so you would know that resting them between loads allows them to "recharge". Given our short bursts of load those resting periods do add up to make a difference.
So no, a constant discharge until dead or frequent discharges until dead is not equal to ecig use.

I will take anecdotal real life results over faulty testing methods when real life contradicts the tests any day. But you are free to stick to faulty testing methods if you want.
And it's not really anecdotal, it was a fairly controlled set up with an exact puff count (that were rounded off for here). It is a small sample because it takes a long time to drain batteries in the 3000mah range in real use situations. The one thing that throws it off is the eVic has a small drain even while not firing so while testing I was trying to focus on that one mod.
The usage perceptions in the mech with the NCR-A are purely anecdotal. I don't offer those as proof beyond that they seem to follow along with what I saw in the VV/VW. Which goes against what the metered tests say.

If you want a good test for ecigs it has to be designed around typical ecig use not constant flashlight/laser drain.

Yet despite this "recharge" period, a constant current drain is LESS of a strain on a battery than a pulsed one, and a battery under a constant current drain will last longer.

Nobody is saying that constant drain battery testing equates to real world vaping use though, simply that it provides a good enough performance metric with which to compare different batteries. More so than comparing "puff" counts when what even constitutes a "puff" varies wildly from person to person.

Also it's worth noting that "puff" counts from an evic are hardly particularly applicable in a discussion primarily aimed at sub ohm vaping anyway.

 

[dr g]

If you would look at the tests you would see that tests under different loads are different, that's why they test different loads. If you ever used a battery for anything in your life and were aware while doing so you would know that resting them between loads allows them to "recharge". Given our short bursts of load those resting periods do add up to make a difference.
So no, a constant discharge until dead or frequent discharges until dead is not equal to ecig use.

I don't think it's so much the recharge that makes a difference as the more accurate representation of the change in current over the battery's life. You are getting fairly accurate results as far as the battery lifespan, the voltage under load findings are a little odd, or were those unloaded measurements?

Also what were the differences between the various test numbers, were they tied to the different conditions?

eVic is a PWM VV/VW mod with all the bells and whistles (although a low amp limit). The puff counter is just a puff counter that I reset with every battery change.
2.2Ω. Wattage went like this, 10w for 1 second, 9w to 1.3 seconds, 8w/1.6 seconds, 7w/2 seconds, 6.5w up to 10 seconds. You seem to know how those translate to drain in a PWM VV/VW over the voltage range with a boost better than I.
With auto puff turned on so most puffs were 5 seconds long, although auto puff can be disabled by holding the firing button and that happens sometimes
It also has a battery meter that shows percentage so you can see how many puffs you get per percentage point, which I was paying attention to while testing. And it shuts down at 3.2v.

I sort of understand the results a little better now, if the heaviest test was a 10w for 1 second, that is a fairly light hit on the battery, so it makes sense that the lower current, higher capacity batteries provided more power ... that's basically what they are designed to do. The PD battery holds up better under heavy loads, that's its design, but it sacrifices some energy density to do that. Which is common to all high drain batteries.

To calculate amp draw basically use the wattage and derive it from the battery voltage at the time.

BTW, I think you like lighter wire for sub-ohm? I could not get those working right in my IGO-L clone. I liked heavier wire. I think the legs are too long in the RDA. The lighter wire might work better in my RBAs.

Do you mean smaller gauge? It depends on the specific meaning of that, but generally with thinner wire you don't go subohm, more the opposite.

 

[Myk]

Also it's worth noting that "puff" counts from an evic are hardly particularly applicable in a discussion primarily aimed at sub ohm vaping anyway.

And yet in my experience it's seeming standard ohm VV/VW vaping is more applicable sub-ohm mechs than tests that use a constant drain, at least as far as discharge curve. Odd how you accept one but say the other doesn't apply especially after you have said, "voltage under load is voltage under load."

I don't think it's so much the recharge that makes a difference as the more accurate representation of the change in current over the battery's life. You are getting fairly accurate results as far as the battery lifespan, the voltage under load findings are a little odd, or were those unloaded measurements?

Also what were the differences between the various test numbers, were they tied to the different conditions?



I sort of understand the results a little better now, if the heaviest test was a 10w for 1 second, that is a fairly light hit on the battery, so it makes sense that the lower current, higher capacity batteries provided more power ... that's basically what they are designed to do. The PD battery holds up better under heavy loads, that's its design, but it sacrifices some energy density to do that. Which is common to all high drain batteries.

To calculate amp draw basically use the wattage and derive it from the battery voltage at the time.



Do you mean smaller gauge? It depends on the specific meaning of that, but generally with thinner wire you don't go subohm, more the opposite.

I don't have an inline tester to test current under load. The mech battery testing is outside of the mod. I don't know how the eVic measures it other than I would guess 50% is halfway between 3.2v and 4.2v.

The "various test numbers" aren't various numbers. It's a vaping sequence programmed into the mod (I said it has all the bells and whistles ). Each 5-10 second puff runs through those wattages for the specified time.
I hadn't considered that the sequence plays to a battery's strength's by dropping off like that.

That explains that. I just tried to wrap a micro coil with thick and thin and couldn't figure out what anyone uses the thin for (not thinking about dual or quad coil).

 

[dr g]

The "various test numbers" aren't various numbers. It's a vaping sequence programmed into the mod (I said it has all the bells and whistles ). Each 5-10 second puff runs through those wattages for the specified time.
I hadn't considered that the sequence plays to a battery's strength's by dropping off like that.

Ah I got it, pretty cool. For that test yeah, the non-high drain NCR18650s are going to show higher capacity, and if someone doesn't go above 10w, they would be better performers.

EDIT: I'm actually surprised that function of the evic is not more well known ... I would think more people would be doing this kind of testing.

 

[Ubergeek63]

You can find that data for many batteries if not most (not AWs though!). However this is less data than the other poster requires.

AW does not tell you because they do not want you to KNOW they are just RE-BRANDING someone else's batteries! They can not give you the data sheet without telling you who made them, allowing you to get them for less with the ACTUAL factory brand!

 

[dr g]

AW does not tell you because they do not want you to KNOW they are just RE-BRANDING someone else's batteries! They can not give you the data sheet without telling you who made them, allowing you to get them for less with the ACTUAL factory brand!

It's well-known he rebrands. Certain of his batteries are known to be Panasonics, for example. Others no one has figured out. The AW branding ensures a certain level of performance, that's his model.

However such test information is also not available for Panasonics either. It's really not available for any of the common vaping batteries.

 

[pdib]

AW does not tell you because they do not want you to KNOW they are just RE-BRANDING someone else's batteries! They can not give you the data sheet without telling you who made them, allowing you to get them for less with the ACTUAL factory brand!

Oh, this is awful. Hand selected batteries? Cream of the crop? I wonder if I can return these

 

[Katdarling]

Thought you guys might enjoy this.

 

[gankoji]

Thought you guys might enjoy this.

Great find. Thanks for sharing!

 

[Katdarling]

My pleasure gankoji.

 

[Ubergeek63]

It's well-known he rebrands. Certain of his batteries are known to be Panasonics, for example. Others no one has figured out. The AW branding ensures a certain level of performance, that's his model.

However such test information is also not available for Panasonics either. It's really not available for any of the common vaping batteries.

you mean like these?

Rechargeable Lithium Ion OEM Batteries - Panasonic

 

[Ubergeek63]

Oh, this is awful. Hand selected batteries? Cream of the crop? I wonder if I can return these

LOL that would be nice... but is not the case

 

[dr g]

you mean like these?

Rechargeable Lithium Ion OEM Batteries - Panasonic

Yes those. Read them. No safety testing data. Try finding your vaunted penetration test.

 

[pdib]

HEY!

"Note: AW does not sells batteries in mainland China or on Alibaba.com, i.e. all batteries from these areas sold as AW are fakes."


Index of AW batteries

 

[Ubergeek63]

Yes those. Read them. No safety testing data. Try finding your vaunted penetration test.

Frankly I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming YOU knew how to read: Precautions and safety notes for Li-ion Batteries in PDF Format - 45KB basically cops to the fact that Panasonic does not make ANY safe batteries.

It is not listed because they do not test what the battery CAN NOT PASS! Instead they put an obscure blanket warning about not puncturing in a list of other explicit DO NOTs.

Now if you WANT the safety data you CAN get it, but you will need to jump through hoops with the technical people to do it. But they usually will look down their noses on individuals demanding a big order before they will deign to speak to you. I have dealt with Panasonic in the past for data and can not waste my time on them unless forced to.

 

[Ubergeek63]

on a lighter note: E-Cigarettes as Good as Nicotine Patches

 

[ZeroDisorder]

There are so many posts in this thread that I just shake my head at in disbelief.

Though, there are some genuinely informative posts.

 

[dr g]

Frankly I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming YOU knew how to read: Precautions and safety notes for Li-ion Batteries in PDF Format - 45KB basically cops to the fact that Panasonic does not make ANY safe batteries.

It is not listed because they do not test what the battery CAN NOT PASS! Instead they put an obscure blanket warning about not puncturing in a list of other explicit DO NOTs.

Now if you WANT the safety data you CAN get it, but you will need to jump through hoops with the technical people to do it. But they usually will look down their noses on individuals demanding a big order before they will deign to speak to you. I have dealt with Panasonic in the past for data and can not waste my time on them unless forced to.

Whoa, massive straw grasp. That document is absolutely not at all like the testing data you referred to. Yes I know it is unavailable for Panasonic unless you want to jump through a lot of hoops, that's why I said that. YOU are the one who claims it's absolutely required to use a certain battery.

The document linked is boilerplate for all lithium batteries. No manufacturer is going to say it is OK to puncture a battery, or charge it backwards, or anything regardless of whether the battery passes the test. A123's documents contain the same warnings, it would be stupid not to.

Cells must not be subjected to ambient conditions or self-heating that result in a temperature in excess of 60°C during operation or while in continuous storage because they will either lose life or be rendered inoperable. Do not incinerate cells, or store or use them near open flames. Cells must not be punctured, ruptured, dented, or crushed. The pack design must likewise ensure this under normal operations or in a crash.

 

[Ubergeek63]

Whoa, massive straw grasp. That document is absolutely not at all like the testing data you referred to. Yes I know it is unavailable for Panasonic unless you want to jump through a lot of hoops, that's why I said that. YOU are the one who claims it's absolutely required to use a certain battery.

The document linked is boilerplate for all lithium batteries. No manufacturer is going to say it is OK to puncture a battery, or charge it backwards, or anything regardless of whether the battery passes the test. A123's documents contain the same warnings, it would be stupid not to.

Not at all. There are VERY few lithium chemistries that are actually SAFE. The original video is very pertinent due to a little thing called thermal runaway. Fact is the puncture test is SAFER to perform than having a battery go into runaway since you are relying on mechanical weakness in the casing (scores or some other weak point intentionally put in the design) to prevent explosion instead of the nature of the chemistry, but that still does not prevent the spectacular fireworks of the thermal runaway condition.

Actually, A123's documents INCLUDE the puncture test, at least they did somewhere. They are the ones that made that video. Point is, armchair engineers should not be playing with torturing batteries, never mind armchair vapors. The reason for the protection circuit is that they are NOT safe. That circuit only makes them tolerable. Laptops STILL catch fire with factory batteries on occasion.

To my knowledge the ONLY safe lithium chemistries are LTOs (Lithium Titanate at 2.5V) and LiFePO4s (Lithium Iron Phosphate at 3.2V)

http://www.batteryspace.com/prod-specs/7472.pdf

http://www.batteryspace.com/prod-specs/2343.pdf

And BOTH explicitly say they are safe even with a DEAD SHORT, which what "sub-ohm vaping" comes close to being in some cases.