Looking for a single 21700 mech with specific features
- Thread starter rottev
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- mech mod non-hybrid
- Status
My memory of one is that the user put a mech down on a pile of change in his car cup holder. The other had put his mech down some distance away. With the first the change connected the fire button. My memory of the second is more vague as to original cause. Both exploded violently. With the one the device was ripped to shreds and it’s original model could not even be determined.
I recall the usual vague news reports containing little to no real information on exactly how each unfortunate event took place, followed by plenty of supposition and theorizing in threads here and elsewhere, with various embellishments, and an absence of much of anything in the way of official factual analysis. And the "stories" of what happened continue to evolve and be passed on right here in this thread, with nary a reference or link.
"Should be no issues" means the same thing as "No problem can possibly exist"?
Gah. Stuff will have to be looked up then. Iirc there were autopsys.
Last edited:
Allow me to preface my quick response with a few facts please.
According to Mooch, the chance of getting a dangerously faulty battery from one of the name brand manufacturers is astronomically low. He said that in one of his videos. Like one in millions. His words. They have alot to lose by allowing bad batteries to escape into the market.
Taking lithium ion wholesale as an example, my favorite vendor, they have sold millions of batteries and have never sold a fake or dangerously defective one even once. Jon, the owner, personally gave a long detailed answer to a question of mine in this regard at another site. Zero fakes sold because of the meticulous attention to sound practices and suppliers. Well over 500 Google ratings and 94% 5 stars. (no, I have no affiliation with that company)
So what we have so far, which wasn't always the case, is the ability to get known good and genuine batteries, for all practical purposes, every single time. That makes the issue of the batteries themselves safer today than it was in the past.
As is the case with any and every man made device, 100% reliability is not, and never will be possible. That said, in virtually every case we know of, with the information available, some version of user error was the cause of a catastrophic failure.
Maybe somebody can point one out, but I have seen zero cases where a well maintained, properly set up device using easily obtainable known good batteries, in the hands of a knowledgeable user just inexplicably blew up.
Now, with all of that in mind, the percentage of dangerous events among all mech users as a whole, is infinitesimally small. A handful among multitudes, several dozen of which I am personally acquainted with.
In addition to all of this, there are a fair number of catastrophic failures among regulated users around as well. Yes there are and very far from just Smok products too. If you demand it, I will do my best to find the time to provide unassailable evidence in that regard, which I promise you, I have seen with my own two eyes.
However, even in the case of problems with regulated devices, the vast majority of the time it is user error of some variety and sometimes the users themselves will say so in the wake of a lesson learned the hard way.
With all THAT now said, far more people are hurt in automobiles and bathtubs than are by all vaping equipment, regulated or not, and I bet the percentages are less for vaping. Meaning that raw numbers aren't very big when considered in the light of the number of total users.
Last edited:
The way you phrased the entire paragraph and your use of yourself as a case certainly implies such.
Even a known good battery can be damaged, and a dead short or a continuous overdraw will still kill one. Within your argument is the assumption that a correctly made battery cannot be made to produce a runaway reaction. I don’t remember Mooch ever saying that.
I would respectfully submit that this is nowhere in my argument.
Of course any battery can be put into thermal runaway. By user error, which is virtually always the case. I also allowed for the possibility of a defective device, as incredibly rare as that would be. Especially with mechanicals which have far FAR fewer points of potential failure.
What I said is just above for everyone to read. If others read me as you have, I will consider the possibility of my not being clear enough.
Excellent post!
I do not see yesteryear as being safer than current devices. Any device that is designed for safety through containment needs to be engineered as such. Did mechanicals of yesterday follow this practice? Or is it because statistically, given the growth in popularity with vaping it is logical we would hear more of injuries and fatalities. Not to mention the likelihood such incidents will be reported and exploited by the media.
I would respectfully submit that it’s the entirety of your argument. If the presence of an OEM battery doesn’t make a difference to the problem why bring them up? Was it merely an attempt to distract? The only other point made is that other things are also dangerous.
yep. And user error happens eventually. Absolute human perfection is impossible. This is another really old argument. This is what the mech argument always comes down to. People thinking they will always be perfect all the time.
I didnt. I think counterfeit batteries are more common than you claim, but it’s irrelevant to the point. Human error IMHO remains a greater possibility.
by which you mean fewer parts. The biggest potential point of failure, human behavior, remains in place though, and mechs have no safety systems to counter that.
How generous of you. /s
How about considering that this is the same argument that has been made for years here already? It’s about assumption of risk, and the results of that risk. Always has been. We’ve already had this argument multiple times. Are you hoping I will make a mistake if you repeat it often enough? I’m sure it eventually will. That’s how statistics work. Which would be both of our points.
So to do the same old tired argument over for the umteenth time. Not for you. You have made it very clear that you will not accept any point not favorable to your view, but for some poor sap that has been drawn into this for their sins.
I think you’re being clear, or clear enough anyway, you’re just making the assumption that humans don’t make mistakes ever. Risk is never zero. Error rates are never zero. Take skydiving. Skydiving is considered dangerous. Why? Because when something goes wrong there is potential for death, and there are few backup systems. Skydiving has MORE backup systems than mechs do though. Anyone wanting to do it has to go through very specific training. Licenses are required. Chutes are double and triple checked. Spare chutes are carried. It’s also not done all that often. Number of repetitions has an effect on number of failures.
People get to choose levels of risk/return to some degree. Not totally because we live in this thing called “society” where our behavior affects others, but to some degree. The level chosen by a given person often changes over time. Risk/return can even be measured fairly accurately given a large enough data set. That dataset does not currently exist. We are not arguing about whether the risk exists we are arguing over how big that risk in relation to what return there is. You believe the risk is low enough for you to do this thing. That’s fine.
I personally believe the risk is high enough to not partake in it or to encourage others to. It’s not impossible I’m wrong. I’d really like to see a risk analysis done. Hasn’t happened though. Yet.
Do I trust you to behave perfectly with your device? Bluntly, no. I don’t. I don’t trust me to do it either, which is why I don’t. Circumstances may change for me personally. Particularly with this upcoming FDA ruling. If the new rules are onerous enough I may have to reassess risk/return. If all they do is outlaw sale of full mechanicals without any safety features I will probably just keep walking. If they limit devices to just pods though I could wind up having to dig out my mechs when my VV devices wear out.
I will resist the temptation to believe that you are intentionally misrepresenting my words, which again, are right here on this page, and assume that for whatever reason, you and I are not capable of sound communication sir.
Last edited:
Gah. I conflated you and @Electrodave. well there’s a mistake. I’m getting old.
It’s the same argument I’ve had to make nearly countless times though.
The skydiving analogy isn’t new. Nor would be a few others I’ve used to make the same point. The roofer analogy comes to mind though there are others.
There used to be a guy named dripster around here who used to make it. Same argument. They blur together.
I should probably collect some links to old threads where these points were discussed previously. It would be faster than retyping it every time.
Last edited:
Yes, we get it ... you don't like mechs, you think mechs are dangerous, you don't use mechs (at least not anymore, after having two identical user-error incidents) and you haven't for quite a while, and you feel it necessary to try to instill fear and discourage any and all who show an interest in mechs in threads all across ECF --- even threads specifically posted in the "Mech Mods" subforum (such as this one) where one might hope to get useful advice and information from actual mech users rather than diatribes from anti-mech folk.
No trouble friend. I have no desire to make new enemies either.
I must say that I feel confident that I have heard all the arguments both ways at this point too.
All true
Generally new users only. What I’m not fond of in particular is people evangelizing mechs to new users. People are going to vape what they are going to vape to some degree.
I do have a tendency to react when attacked. My original post was pointing out that the problem he was having was endemic to mechs in the first place. It was a question that never actually got answered by himself. Then stuff started rolling in demanding I defend my position.
As to the “how dare you speak here” subtext, you know I ignore that.
Apparently the original problem was asking a question that wasn’t specifically mech positive even though it was valid.
So basically it was insufficiently evangelistic.
He is already a mech user, and obviously aware of battery performance issues and was looking to upgrade to a larger battery size mech (with certain features) to mitigate that issue and was asking in the Mech subforum --- I wouldn't have answered your completely useless "why a mech? ... just get something that maintains real wattage" first post either.
(let's just skip your tasteless "constantly dating abusive men" post)
Then, shortly thereafter in a further post you bring up the 'non-hybrid' feature request calling it "silly":
So at this point you've now slipped in the, obviously provocative, comment that mechs with modern batteries is courting disaster anyway ... and now you sit here pretending innocence and self-defense. Stuff wasn't "rolling in" before this, no one was attacking you, no one was advocating that new users should use mechs ... But, you just can't help yourself. I'm only surprised it took you to page two to say "grenade".
Ah. The innocence was real rather than pretended, not that it matters in particular. I can see how that interpretation might have raised the slavering hordes though. In particular it directly disagrees with the concept that mechs are safe, and states that of the various issues they have, protruding attys is amongst the easiest and simplest to deal with. It breaks mech security theatre. Wasn’t thinking about that when I wrote it, but in retrospect it’s clear. Perhaps I did have my cap set, though I wasn’t thinking about it at the time.
I mostly just saw new member, and thinking about a two battery device. The whole “you are in mech area where some aspects of reality are undiscussable” thing really didn’t enter into it.
But @bombastinator you are jumping to conclusions, or better put, assumptions, that someone will get hurt using a mech all while using some non comparative analogy with roofing and skydiving. Has roofer’s fallen off a roof….YES! Do all roofer’s fall off a roof. NO!! Each and every discipline requires their own respected attention to mitigate risk. Neglecting said attention does heighten risk - but in the terms of vaping and when dealing with a volatile battery when abused, this applies to both mech and regulated vapers alike.
One cannot argue what an atomizer short does with a mech. It is possible the action will send a battery into thermal runaway, but also possible that it is caught in time, preventing any catastrophic event. A regulated device, by design separates atomizer from battery therefore an atomizer short has been eliminated as a risk. But in doing so, it adds an unknown risk of an internal short at the battery end of the circuitry. I can test for an atomizer short, thus present my own element of risk reductions. This is a positive human interaction. I cannot test for an internal circuitry short. This is assuming an unknown risk. Some will argue one is better than the other
And if you think this example is far fetched – just this past week (maybe 2), we have had 2 incidents in as many days, raised on ECF where a regulated device, when idle, has drained the battery beyond safe levels. Both cases where the renowned DNA circuits and with completely different devices (to remove assembly as fault)! Fortunately this failure presented itself as a battery drain….but it could have easily been a battery short! To me that is pretty risky, but I do not see the risk assessment argument toward regulated devices.
One cannot argue what an atomizer short does with a mech. It is possible the action will send a battery into thermal runaway, but also possible that it is caught in time, preventing any catastrophic event. A regulated device, by design separates atomizer from battery therefore an atomizer short has been eliminated as a risk. But in doing so, it adds an unknown risk of an internal short at the battery end of the circuitry. I can test for an atomizer short, thus present my own element of risk reductions. This is a positive human interaction. I cannot test for an internal circuitry short. This is assuming an unknown risk. Some will argue one is better than the other
And if you think this example is far fetched – just this past week (maybe 2), we have had 2 incidents in as many days, raised on ECF where a regulated device, when idle, has drained the battery beyond safe levels. Both cases where the renowned DNA circuits and with completely different devices (to remove assembly as fault)! Fortunately this failure presented itself as a battery drain….but it could have easily been a battery short! To me that is pretty risky, but I do not see the risk assessment argument toward regulated devices.
- Status
