I'll roll with it. I'm condesating Boba's Bounty at 3.8v with a 1.5ohm Cisco atty on my MonkeyBoxx VV
I cringe when I see the title of this particular forum
- Thread starter KevNewEngland
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- nicquid
- Status
I'll roll with it. I'm condesating Boba's Bounty at 3.8v with a 1.5ohm Cisco atty on my MonkeyBoxx VV
During my early days of vaping I found a science article that described the process that makes PG "fog" visible; of course, I can't find it again (I've tried a number of times). Anyway, what I recall is that the smoke-like appearance is caused by the refraction of light by water molecules that are bound to, as opposed to condensed upon, the PG molecules when in a gaseous state.
I tend to use "like theatrical fog" when I describe what e-cig vapor is to others.
ETA: Found the article; I didn't remember it quite correctly. I should stick to electronics and avoid chemistry
Here's the link: Chemistry connections: the chemical ... - Google Books
Last edited:
Hmm.. why don't we call it "fogging"? Making us a bunch of foggers.
Or, we could call it "gassing." Since we're using the gas form of a liquid. Gassers. That should bode well.
Or, we could call it "gassing." Since we're using the gas form of a liquid. Gassers. That should bode well.
Most people think of ecigarettes and esmoking. People investigating ecigs for the first time have never hear of PVs or vaping.
Using the public terminology means when Joe Public googles, he gets here pretty fast. And I have to say, IMO, that's a good thing.
Using the public terminology means when Joe Public googles, he gets here pretty fast. And I have to say, IMO, that's a good thing.
Fogging....It has been suggested. Gassing...lol. Wrong end
I gotta find that thread........ lol
EDIT: Here's one discussion that partly hits on it. Terms are discussed too, maybe in a slightly different context:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...905-vaping-myths-we-exhaling-water-vapor.html
Last edited:
I'm not even sure how popular the term "e-smoking" is. I've certainly never googled for it. Instead, I usually include the term "e-cigarette" in my searches.
My initial point was that this is a section on the E-Cigarette Forum. If any members of the public at large are researching e-cigarettes, are they really going to have an issue with "vaping" vs. "e-smoking"? Are they really going to miss a good thread because they can't find the term "e-smoking". I don't think so.
E-smoking doesn't even make sense. Electronic Smoking? It sounds like an iPhone app. *bee* *bee* *boop* "Congratulations, e-smoker. You win 10 points." Boss level coming up....
My initial point was that this is a section on the E-Cigarette Forum. If any members of the public at large are researching e-cigarettes, are they really going to have an issue with "vaping" vs. "e-smoking"? Are they really going to miss a good thread because they can't find the term "e-smoking". I don't think so.
E-smoking doesn't even make sense. Electronic Smoking? It sounds like an iPhone app. *bee* *bee* *boop* "Congratulations, e-smoker. You win 10 points." Boss level coming up....
I agree. Perhaps an option can be added to the forum that allows us to select "Prefer Vaping References" which changes the display name of some forum sections when we are logged in.
Exactly right! We are trying to enlighten smokers to a new alternative, correct? Search engines identify matching websites according to the terminology used in the text typed in by the "searcher". A smoker wanting to search for alternatives to smoking but who is totally unfamiliar with the term "vaping" may still find out about e-cigs, or pv's by typing in electronic cigarette, electronic smoking, quitting smoking, smoking alternatives and so on... THEN, once they are here, they can learn the new language that will accompany their new hobby, and find out they are now Vapers!
I don't really identify with it either. I use it here freely, but when I talk to someone else not from ECF I usually say "use my e-cig" instead of vape. I'm not at all fond of the ~word~.
I agree with keeping the term vaping. As a few others said, everyone I know is familiar with the term now because of my using it. Also, a lot of people in the world are starting to get to know the term "vaping" because of its wide use by our community. If it's changed now, people are probably going to say "Oh now that's the new word for it now?", and may feel turned off with the change and think of it misleading somehow. They may also think it's too early to get into this, they don't even know what they want call it yet.
I want people to know it's been around awhile and it's here to stay. I want people to know we have our terms and they're here to stay and that it's safe to get into. Just my two cents, I wouldn't put it past people to think this way.
I want people to know it's been around awhile and it's here to stay. I want people to know we have our terms and they're here to stay and that it's safe to get into. Just my two cents, I wouldn't put it past people to think this way.
That's easy. It's so new people can relate. We don't need to seem so alien to newbies that they wont wanna switch. I think the lingo works just fine. I have heard people call it steam instead of vapor and that would fit. Do we call it steaming instead of vaping? What about, breathing? That's what we are doing, breathing the cocktail of chems in our e-cigs. It's just a matter of personal taste but smoking works because everyone knows it's the act of inhaling and exhaling the e-cig.
Sorry but I WOULD HAVE TO Strongly disagree with this statement. Everyone know smoking is the act of igniting a tobacco substance on fire and inhaling and exhaling the smoke which people believe is toixic to those in the vicinity of the smoker.
Is that really what we want to be identified with? No wonder I can't use my pv inside a public space in NJ and many others locales are trying to do the same. The public identifies vaping with smoking and that is the perception that must be changed.
I agree with Phoenix on the issue. The "e" indicates that "e-smoking" is something other than "igniting a tobacco substance on fire and inhaling and exhaling the smoke". Just as email is different than "mail" as that term was commonly used before email existed. Email has some similarities to "mail" but is not the mail with a stamp and envelope that we were accustom to before email. And I believe those responsible for the ban on e-smoking or vaping in NJ knew full well that e-smoking was not igniting anything. My suspicion would be that those responsible (in NJ) might have arrived at a different conclusion had the dissimilarities between "smoking" and "e-smoking" been greater. It is most likely that the possibility of nicotine use was what did e-smoking in, in NJ. Although one can only speculate, had "e-smoker's" been able to conclusively demonstrate that "e-smoking" produced absolutely no nicotine in the environment, the outcome might have been different. But they could not demonstrate that as a scientific fact - and still can not to my knowledge. That my comment on the nicotine is highly speculative is evidenced by the fervor that some antis have for anything that has the slightest resemblance of the act of "smoking". For this latter group, it would make no difference what you might call it - you may do it as far as they are concerned. If they had any control of what you can or can not do in your home - this group would be there to tell you what conduct is permissible there as well. I find it sad that NJ could not recognize the great potential of "e-smoking" and vaping for the public health in general and put greater greater weight upon the possibility of some complaints from the more extreme elements in the anti group. But the term "e-smoking" IMO was not the cause of the NJ ban.
Why not just call it e-scubadiving or e-cartwheeling? Just as accurate. Since it isn't smoke, it isn't smoking. Obviously some think you can just attach any verb simply because it is a familiar concept. OK. e-scubadiving it is. Simple.
You could make an argument for e-inhaling (although you don't inhale electronics), or e-puffing. Some inhalers are called puffers.
How about e-puff'n? Here's a mascot:
Puffin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You could make an argument for e-inhaling (although you don't inhale electronics), or e-puffing. Some inhalers are called puffers.
How about e-puff'n? Here's a mascot:
Puffin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited:
Cheese and crackers! I never even noticed it before. Now its gonna drive me crazy. Thanks a lot.
BTW. Don't bite your tongue.
BTW. Don't bite your tongue.
I'm no radical on "e-smoking". E-scubadiving or e-cartwheeling work for me. But that's the case because I've discovered the light and now know how to lite an e-cig. I think Phoenix's point was that a connection to the word smoking might help others "see the light" or at least give it a try as an option to the evils of cigarette smoking. And also my point, e-scubadiving would have met with the same fate in NJ. Whereas NJ felt it more important to appease what I call the radical antis, there is at one New England health care organization, in spite of the term e-cigarettes, that have weighted public health benefits greater than NJ cared to do.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
