I started where Netflix started me . . . . . they went to Antarctica. Black gooey slime . . . .-
Need help from former MFS (MyFreedomSmokes) customers
Has any found a supplier or company that has tobacco e-juice like or very similar to MFS Turbosmog, Tall Paul, or Red Luck?
View thread
I'm thinkin' maybe we should try this again? . . . . and you kids should behave yourselves
- Thread starter pdib
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I started where Netflix started me . . . . . they went to Antarctica. Black gooey slime . . . .
Black gooey slime?
So many places my warped mind could go with that and i expect Froggy will have pics.
" or do the wiping 1mm lower and with a 2.5mm lateral offset. "
^ sorted!
T
So many places my warped mind could go with that and i expect Froggy will have pics.
" or do the wiping 1mm lower and with a 2.5mm lateral offset. "
^ sorted!
T
Ok, want to see some renders?
let's look at proposed chamfers (.25mm on the small ones and .5mm on the top rim). Bear in mind please the milled surface spec (thousands of teensy weensy horizontal lines . . .. a highly refined machined look)
2 things I'm looking at here: one is the chamfer on the bottom of the AFC. It's a double edged sword (no it's a chamfer
), that bottom chamfer; because it looks good here, giving us a balanced and ~symmetrical object. However, it may help or hinder on the "flush mounted" look. On the one hand, it may pretend to be a gap when there is none; and, on the other, if there is a gap for reals, this would be like a soft focus or the smudge tool, making all imperfections less pronounced. There has to be some kind of easing of this edge, so why not this one?
The other thing we can look at is chamfer VS roundover on the top rim of the atty. Personally, with the "refined machine" theme, I like the chamfer better; but . . . .
Also, that .5mm chamfer is as big as I'd want to get. Too big? Too small?
let's look at proposed chamfers (.25mm on the small ones and .5mm on the top rim). Bear in mind please the milled surface spec (thousands of teensy weensy horizontal lines . . .. a highly refined machined look)
2 things I'm looking at here: one is the chamfer on the bottom of the AFC. It's a double edged sword (no it's a chamfer
), that bottom chamfer; because it looks good here, giving us a balanced and ~symmetrical object. However, it may help or hinder on the "flush mounted" look. On the one hand, it may pretend to be a gap when there is none; and, on the other, if there is a gap for reals, this would be like a soft focus or the smudge tool, making all imperfections less pronounced. There has to be some kind of easing of this edge, so why not this one?
The other thing we can look at is chamfer VS roundover on the top rim of the atty. Personally, with the "refined machine" theme, I like the chamfer better; but . . . .
Also, that .5mm chamfer is as big as I'd want to get. Too big? Too small?
I'm not really clear why you want a chamfer at all on the AFC. I thought the idea was that would slide down flush with the top surface of the mod.
Besides it'll trap dirt and that would mean cleaning.... you know where this goes from here.
T
Besides it'll trap dirt and that would mean cleaning.... you know where this goes from here.
T
Well, I'm only able to zoom out to 25% on my browser, which still leaves it a little bigger than real size; but it'll give a person a better idea of what kind of minuscule chamfer we're really talking about. just sayin'. .. .
plus, I like dirt.
HEY! I'm still at 25% . .. . I like yer posts a lot better this way. Can't even read 'em!
Last edited:
you guys really shouldn't leave me all alone in here . .. .
I think I need supervision.
I think I need supervision.
why.
do you anticipate regaining your strength by then?
Oh stop
If it's opinions you're looking for I love the last rendition with the rounded edge. I'm not a fan of having them anywhere but the top . I really like the sleek look it sports now and was hoping you would mostly keep that.
you guys really shouldn't leave me all alone in here . .. .
I think I need supervision.
A bee with bug spray? Oh tell me you're not suicidal!
GENIUS! You and the metal cutting shaping type people are geniuses.I was getting to a place where I was sure enough about the idea myself. I didn't want to present it until I'd sorted through the list of pros and cons, as best as I could think of. So, now you can all shoot it down . .. .
So, here's what we were looking at, myself and the fabricators: at first, they wanted to know if I wanted the internal structure of the positive assembly (post, it's shape and design . . . the parts you don't see. . .. the guts, and insulator, how they are machined and how they go together) the same as the existing. There's a lot good can be said about the existing set-up from the user's point of view, with the one main exception being how hard it is to adjust. From a fabricator's point of view, and a design perspective, we thought maybe we should stop and re-examine our options. We kinda decided to "start from scratch" but not stray from the tried and true if we didn't come up with something clearly better. We came up with some pretty cool ideas, independent of each other. When we compared our initial thoughts (after some period of isolated brainstorming), we chuckled over the fact that we had both come up with this one idea that was totally outside the box and seemed pretty doable. Buuut, we set that one aside because other stuff happened too. (it is, however, something I may revisit in the future).
While I was coming up with yet another of my wacky, OTB, but despicably simple solutions (like, "how about no posts?" . . . like 'at one), they were looking at refining the existing structure. Either of our solutions would work, independent of each other; but I'm considering doing both. They presented some pretty technical stuff about varying thicknesses, slightly varying tap and die applications to mating parts, big round things fitting into little square holes, sharp deep threads VS squared shallow threads, and told me they could science up a variation of the existing configuration with just the right tweaks to allow for much easier user adjustment of the centerpost; but good grab to insure no unwanted spinning of the post when cinching down the + wire capture. Well, that's a no-brainer. Let's go for that.
Meanwhile, I thought up a small tweak on the atty that would insure perfect flush seating in almost any 510 (say, depth variation of 4.35→4.75mm) with a fixed positive post (no adjustment, no need for adjustment).
[pauses for oohs and ahhhs]
The second half of the battle soon set upon me tho . .. . (sheesh, it's like I'm telling a story or something ... with the narrative
. . . .. . .hmmmmm?
OK, here it is, and "♪don't ♪ flame me♫". So, I thought, if you had an atty with a fixed centerpost extended to, say 4.75mm of 510 connector, and you seated that atty into almost any 510, it would make contact. How do you make the location/height of the atty base irrelevant? . .. . . Topcap, that's what. So, I wanna cut the flange/rim at the bottom of the atty base off.
wait, waIT, WAIT! Remember, the variation in height here is a total of about .4mm from one mod/510 to the next. Let's call it .5mm. So, if the rim is gone from the atty base, and the topcap slides down until it flushes out on the mod itself, what difference is that .5mm gonna make? Well, it's going to mean a variation in chamber height/volume (from the mean) of +/- 0.25mm. . . .. anybody caring? big deal? . .. . nope. Also, it's going to mean that there may be a +/-0.25mm (so .5mm total) variation in the location/height of the airhole. Guys, it's a 1.5mm tall airhole with 3mm clear above and below it's centerline. So, if the airhole winds up 0.2mm lower, take yer fingertip (fangertip) and gently touch the coil . . . Boom! your there! So, I'm picturing, you screw in the atty, nestle the cap next to it (with the cap just resting on the top of the mod, or just lipping on, in the case of a REO) and visually gauge your airhole location, adjust your coil up or down a hair to accommodate the final landing height of the airhole (which most of us always do anyways), slide the cap on til it hits the deck (mod deck), and yer golden . . . flush as punch, full on connection in the 510 (OH! and dual o-rings and spot-on machining to form a nice seal on that).
Now what's wrong with that?
Oh, if you cut off the rim, the caps and AFCs will need to be longer to go all the way down to the deck! No more changing old/new parts. Different parts! that sucks!
(this ↑ was my dilemna)
But no! if instead of milling off the lip, we eliminate that whole 1mm of the atty's elevation (shorten the base by 1mm . . . the thickness of the "was" rim), then an old topcap would hit the mod deck! All parts same size! problem solved!
Advantages, we would STILL have an adjustable post; just that we also wouldn't always need it, or need to fiddle with it. (However, in an extreme case of mod510-lousiness, we could compensate.) It could be used for reorienting the angle of the positive wire capture instead of fussing with atty height. It could be used for deciding where you'd like to place your coils/airholes with no care to how that effects "THE GAP"! Also, with all the full-on Black and Brass Topcaps coming out, who wants to see a 1mm thick ring of SS between their atty and their mod? That's gone. Also, with single coil builds, we have the option of putting an over-fat o-ring under the atty and jacking the thing up. This, in turn, reduces the chamber size by exactly the thickererness of the o-ring used. So we can basically adjust our atties to create just about the smallest chamber BF atty out there (should we want to). Major gain in vape adjustability, no-brainer atty setup, and full time flush seating effortlessly.
I def will need at least 2 of nuppin2
pweeeese
HEY! I'm still at 25% . .. . I like yer posts a lot better this way. Can't even read 'em!
How did you type your reply then? Font's smaller than mine (aren't they all).
T
you know, the French don't question chamfers.
they just put them.
I'm trying to think of a piece of French engineering made in the last - say, 100 years.
Juliet Binoche is not an answer!
T
last 100? c'mon, look at the Citroen! More than a chamfer, the things a wedge!!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
