Lost Vape

[bombastinator]

Clearly you don't understand how this works.

how what works? Standards systems? The US government? I would say one of us doesn’t.
I notice a distinct lack of specificity in your complaint

Not surprising at all really. Continue on with your ignorance, I heard somewhere it is quite blissful.

Ah. Accusations of incorrectness without any attempt to point out what that incorrectness is. That ignorance is present is clear. Who the ignorant one actually IS though is something you seem to be avoiding very directly

No need to reply, I'll never see it. You can join dripster on my ignore list.

So I win then. I never put dripster on my ignore list. He quit posting entirely so far as I can see. You seem to have made it onto my dripster list though with this last statement. He had biases that couldn’t withstand the brutal winds of actual reality as well.

 

[Punk In Drublic]

The legend certainly doesn’t. It specifically failed one drop test due to its bottom latch system. The company stated as much. I don’t know whether the mini or the solo do or not. I personally doubt it. The ageis 100 did though. They don’t make it any more. Merely the act of having passed such a test in the past is enough to embue a brand with a certain mystique for reliability though. It says “our engineers know how to build products reliable enough to pass these tests”. I personally am somewhat unimpressed by this mystique. Geekvape no longer afaik actually makes a mil-spec certified device. They’ve shown they know how to do it though. I’d personally specifically like to see a device with a dna board pass a mil-spec certification test. Not merely be made by a company that passed one once upon a time. I don’t know if it’s even possible. The dna board itself may not be up to it. @Eskie points out such a device might be too expensive to be mass marketable. This could very well be true. It does not lessen my personal desire for the existence of such a thing though.

No discredit to the Aegis, but your comment is not fact. As I mentioned, the MIL STD of the Aegis can be subjective based on what tests were conducted. The manufacture does not list which out of the 8 tests the device was able to pass, nor does it state how the tests were conducted. It only states that it received said standard. So was that 29 transit drop tests from 4 feet across 5 subjects – to me this is not a very credible test. Or did they include one of the more rigorous tests such as Rail Impact? Too much is open for misinterpretation. That is the problem with the standard, it can be manipulated by the manufacture (or at least this standard can). There are hundreds of MIL STD 810-516.6 cell phone cases…. the cases can easily pass the minimum tests thus receive the rating. But not all can protect your phone if subjected to the same tests.

And another example - a Carabiner can hold the same MIL STD 810 shock resistance standard – would be easy for such device to carry this spec given its ability to resist shock, especially a 4 foot drop. But that does not certify it for climbing.

 

[Punk In Drublic]

Same certification. The test states a 4 foot drop onto a flat surface that must be conducted 29 times with a max of 5 subjects. So what are the odds of protecting you phone assuming it is dropped on a flat surface (and not one that is jagged)?

Sure this case maybe better than no case at all. But the spec is misleading

 

[bombastinator]

No discredit to the Aegis, but your comment is not fact.

OK. How?

As I mentioned, the MIL STD of the Aegis can be subjective based on what tests were conducted.

well of course. The mil-spec et al is not a single test, but a series of tests of specific behaviors. Passing a single mil-spec test only says that it has passed that one test not all of them

The manufacture does not list which out of the 8 tests the device was able to pass, nor does it state how the tests were conducted. It only states that it received said standard. So was that 29 transit drop tests from 4 feet across 5 subjects – to me this is not a very credible test.

clearly they need to be more specific in that location then. I got my info not from the geekvape site but from statements made on this forum by geekvape. This seems to be a source issue rather than a fact issue.

Or did they include one of the more rigorous tests such as Rail Impact? Too much is open for misinterpretation. That is the problem with the standard, it can be manipulated by the manufacture (or at least this standard can). There are hundreds of MIL STD 810-516.6 cell phone cases…. the cases can easily pass the minimum tests thus receive the rating. But not all can protect your phone if subjected to the same tests.

this implies to me that the standard is not fit-for-purpose.

And another example - a Carabiner can hold the same MIL STD 810 shock resistance standard – would be easy for such device to carry this spec given its ability to resist shock, especially a 4 foot drop. But that does not certify it for climbing.

True. Carabiners need to withstand a far greater than 4 foot drop in practice. My memory is that they generally attempt to adhere to a different section of the standards set with different requirements. The mil-spec system is not a single standard but a series of different ones.
You seem to be referring to my statement that it failed one drop test. I am referring to a statement made by a geekvape employee on the geekvape section of this site. Iirc That person said it failed all but one drop test, in which the plastic grip for the latch mechanism broke on impact.
I was under the impression that the standard required the object being tested to never fail. You seem to be claiming that this is not actually the case with this particular set of test requirement within the umbrella of this standard. This is very very likely. I have no data to refute it either and am willing to accept such as fact for my purposes.

You seem to be saying “yes they did pass it but the standard is vague so that passing may not actually denote actual reliability”. I think we were trying to say more or less the same thing though I concede they your statement is in all likelyhood more specifically accurate than mine. I haven’t actually read the standard whereas you seem to have done so.

 

[Punk In Drublic]

The only MIL Spec test the Aegis passed is the 810G-516.6. I have explained a few times now how this test alone can be misleading – especially when the manufacture does not include its methods. The standard covers 8 different testing methods (to my knowledge), but does not require all 8 to pass in order for the subject to comply. Only 1 is required to pass. A Transit Drop of 29, 4 foot drop tests onto flat plywood across 5 subjects is all that is needed to meet min requirements and receive the rating. That means each subject is only required to pass 5 drops – the test allows the 6th drop to fail. So without knowing the testing methods that the manufacture conducted along with their results, this spec is extremely subjective. As I pointed out above, same spec for a cell phone case. What are the odds of it protecting your phone?

If the Aegis has passed other MIL STD tests, then why not promote them? And again, no discredit to the Aegis, i think they are great devices.

 

[bombastinator]

The only MIL Spec test the Aegis passed is the 810G-516.6. I have explained a few times now how this test alone can be misleading – especially when the manufacture does not include its methods. The standard covers 8 different testing methods (to my knowledge), but does not require all 8 to pass in order for the subject to comply. Only 1 is required to pass. A Transit Drop of 29, 4 foot drop tests onto flat plywood across 5 subjects is all that is needed to meet min requirements and receive the rating. That means each subject is only required to pass 5 drops – the test allows the 6th drop to fail. So without knowing the testing methods that the manufacture conducted along with their results, this spec is extremely subjective. As I pointed out above, same spec for a cell phone case. What are the odds of it protecting your phone?

If the Aegis has passed other MIL STD tests, then why not promote them? And again, no discredit to the Aegis, i think they are great devices.

Wikipedia has this to say on the 810 standard as a whole.
MIL-STD-810 - Wikipedia
I also found a YouTube video describing the 810g-516 bit which apparently has 10 8 subsets. Apparently #6 of was the only one tested.

 

[ShowMeTwice]

As I pointed out above, same spec for a cell phone case. What are the odds of it protecting your phone?

Slim to none if it were to fall and hit screen first on a pointed object versus a flat drop test. Say goodbye to the screen. I have my doubts on the screen being fine with most real world drops case or no case. The protective case would perhaps be fine though. Maybe.

My Aegis Solo has been sent flying through the air by my dog's tail. It went flying ~5 feet and landed on carpet. Still works great. The atty too.

 

[bombastinator]

Slim to none if it were to fall and hit screen first on a pointed object versus a flat drop test. Say goodbye to the screen. I have my doubts on the screen being fine with most real world drops case or no case. The protective case would perhaps be fine though. Maybe.

My Aegis Solo has been sent flying through the air by my dog's tail. It went flying ~5 feet and landed on carpet. Still works great. The atty too.

I’ve had good luck personally with glass screen protectors in this pointed object scenario. There another sheet of high impact glass with adhesive on the back. The screen protector shatters but the actual screen doesn’t, so it’s $30 to fix instead of god-knows-how-much