Regarding ECF Safety Specification For Metal Tube Mods

[Semiretired]

There is no intention in EMSS to describe or advocate for a spiral slot design, this would surely weaken the casing extensively. Until we have a drawing, all that can be done is describe the slots as clearly as possible: three slots milled along the length of the tube body. No doubt this could be interpreted in a multitude of ways, but the most basic interpretation is the one intended: several slots, along the body of the tube.

Spiral was a poor choice of words - knew what I meant, but did not type what I knew. But my real question is on the wrap or some other type of protection from objects and or moisture. The wrap would be the easiest, but also a seal of silicon or other light material should also provide the hand a moments delay before the sides vented. I guess I am trying to think of an early warning device - even if it is only a split second warning...

If not I will stay out and just follow the logic going here...

 

[rolygate]

Is this in response to the part of the battery, or the part of the mod?

Ah yes, I see now the question was where the battery vents or fails - not the mod.

 

[rolygate]

I think sailorman is right on the money with his comments in that thread.

I haven't seen a post yet that is so far off base. It is so wrong in so many respects I can't answer it. It reveals a complete lack of appreciation of any of the issues.

 

[pumasforpets]

I haven't seen a post yet that is so far off base. It is so wrong in so many respects I can't answer it. It reveals a complete lack of appreciation of any of the issues.

He's being a jerk about it for sure, but I agree with the basic premise of the post. I think part of his rant had alot to do with misunderstanding what you actually said. Not that caution probably needs to be exercised when stacking (because it absolutely does), but rather it probably doesn't require as much caution to not stack

This spec is designed to protect people from themselves...and also misinformation/lack of responsibility from others including manufacturers.

But as I've said, I especially agree that a catchall spec that puts the Provari on the unsafe list needs a bit of tweaking and its manufacturer would be well within reason to be completely ...... off at the prospect of losing a sale due to ECF's unproven specification. Do you disagree?

 

[rolygate]

As regards the issues: it is not the user's fault if a mod explodes through no fault of their own and it injures them - it is the manufacturer's fault. It is obvious that batteries are going to fail, and that a user could insert the wrong batteries, and that the right batteries could be used but they may be damaged and thus explode due to overcharge and/or being overdriven and/or shorting out to the mod casing. A metal tube mod that can accept two batteries (and will work with two batteries in) needs to be designed to protect the user - because at some point the product will experience a catastrophic battery failure unless it has some form of infallible protections.

Mods need to be made so they can't explode because if this keeps happening the media will crucify us.

Mods that don't work with two batteries in are not implicated in this. For example the Provari might not work if you inserted two batteries.

In June, if the Provari will work with two batteries inserted, then buyers in large numbers will start to ask them for proof that their product cannot explode. That is precisely what the EMSS is designed to achieve. If a manufacturer can show evidence their mod cannot explode then they have no problems. Those who cannot show such evidence, or a good reason why EMSS does not apply to them, will suffer a sales slowdown.

That is exactly what ECF intends to achieve. In fact we would be happy to see vendors selling gas tight 2-cell mods with a history of explosive failure suffer. If their product has had an explosive incident where someone was injured, and they don't want to take very effective ways to stop it happening again - then why should we not all want to see them go out of business? They are the people who are risking the legality of e-cigs.

Ask your CASAA rep how they would like to fight Vermont or Utah when the committeeman across the table is throwing the exploding e-cig issue in their face. It's tough enough right now without all that. How many more States would you like to see heading toward making web sales or mailing an e-cig a criminal offence?

When are people going to wake up about this?

 

[pumasforpets]

I completely disagree (but you already knew that! ). Manufacturers can take steps to protect users against their own poor decisions, but it is not a manus fault when a user puts uranium in the mod instead of a battery. It's not the fault of Clorox when someone decides to mix their product with Ammonia and is injured by chlorine gas. How could it be? They specifically state that mixing the 2 will be harmful. If the user chooses to ignore this warning, the manu is not the one at fault. Now if the manu opts not to give such warnings, THEN they hold responsibility. You know damn well that there is no such thing as an infallible protection. Even the EMSS, without a shadow of a doubt, is fallible. A mod that adheres to EMSS WILL explode at some point in time.

There you go. Just say that from the beginning. This is about public perception, not willfully ignorant users or irresponsible engineering...it's about what the public sees.

Then how about a list of single battery sizes that CAN NOT be substituted with 2 batteries due to size constraints? And then a suggestion for future designs to use those dimensions so that it would be impossible to stack in that mod. As you've stated, only 2 batt mods have ever exploded. Wouldn't it be just as prudent for the spec to state battery sizes that are incompatible with stacking?

What evidence? How are you expecting mod makers to provide evidence that a mod cannot explode when ECF is currently not providing such evidence? I can think of a reason why EMSS would not apply to me right off the top of my head: It's untested, unproven and has no verifiable merit behind it.

You should probably not say that publicly. You have to remember that you represent a business, not just a community. If Ford went around stating that they hope people stop buying Chevy after Ford created some untested specification for tie rod end construction....Ford would be crucified.

It would not be fun for sure. But data stating that the failure rate of ecigs, while highly publicized, is significantly lower than that of other industries that use the same batteries. And that those devices which have exploded were being used in a manner that the manufacturer did not intend.

The answer to your final question is NEVER. A person is smart, people are stupid. What sort of action do you suppose you'll take when a less than savory manufacturer claims their sealed mod is EMSS compliant? Even moreso...what are you going to do when the cheap Chinese manufacturers start seeing the money in making metal tube mods and could care less about EMSS? Your spec holds no certification or registration...it is a completely weightless bit of wording as it stands. Furthermore, as a business, you can't make disparaging remarks against them (other than to say that their claim is not true) for doing so without legal repercussions.


Your intent is spectacular...the application, however, is troublesome and needs further work. I still applaud the effort, but my opinion is it's still not where it needs to be.

 

[DC2]

I'm still not convinced that I would rather have my tube mod burn my hands to pieces.
What I really want, above all else, is a way to know danger is coming.

If I can't drop the damn thing in time, then my bad.
Darwin works, even if you believe in God.


And yes, I realize dropping the damn thing won't keep my house from catching on fire.
But neither will large vent holes that keep it from exploding while burning my hand off AND catching my house on fire.

An early warning system is the goal I would like to shoot for.
And beyond that, I would like to know what to do when I get that early warning.

JMTwoCents.

 

[buGG]

what if the user starts using cells like these or primaries instead of rechargeables, etc.?

 

[pumasforpets]

Slotted batt cap instead of holes:

 

[Rocketman]

People do use primaries by mistake.
The multitude of 16340 cells (real and counterfeit) confuses many folks.
and the other one is a mistake. I think it is a pack made with a pair of 18650, PCB and wired connector.

 

[pumasforpets]

We need some dedicated technological innovations to our industry.

Absolute agreement there.

 

[buGG]

I have a few questions, related more or less:

What ever came of the exploded "aw imr" thread? Was it determined that they were not what they were claimed to be, or were they?

Currently, there is only one metal tube mod that meets ECF approval. But the odds seem stacked (no pun intended) in favor of this device, because nothing smaller than an 18350 is recommended, and 50mm and 65/70mm length batteries all have capabilities of using two smaller cells in series. On second thought, even two of these might fit in a device designed for a 35mm battery. So with the possibility that everything can accommodate a stacked configuration, then might the only "safe" or approved setup be one that relies upon cells being run in series and that has electronic protection circuitry built in? And is ECF saying that this or any future device will not explode, cannot explode, based on the electronics alone, if without them there is very little that separates it from the multitude of purely mechanical designs that will not be endorsed/ recommended? What constitutes proof that something won't explode (i.e. shatter, decompose, fragment, etc.), or similarly, proof that it will? And why is one needed but not the other?

What are the conditions of use that lead to the reported/ known incidents? Two that are known about, or at least reported on ECF and that I can remember, didn't involve airtight, ventless mods. Of course they didn't meet the new specs either. I know one used stacked batteries believed to be safer chemistry in a 14500 device, and another used batteries believed to be safer chemistry in a 17670 device. Outside of whether they were real, what chemistry, how were they charged, any visisble signs of defect, how were they stored, and much more genuinely useful information, I'm perhaps most curious about the moments leading up to the explosion. I'm curious if the human threshold of pain is at the 45-55C range and safe operating temperatures of some of the recommended cells exceed even that, and we've seen youtube videos of dead shorts peak at around 112C after about three minutes or so, and surely that cell would conduct an awful lot of thermal energy on a metal casing, but where in the process or under what conditions of use does the heat transferred from the cell to the body of the device impact the user enough to drop it? I understand that the pressure is looking for a weak point to escape, sometimes resulting in the fragmentation of adapter caps, atomizer connectors, etc., but is there a correlation between the timetable for these events, the temperature at the point of outgassing, and where the human threshold for pain falls on along the way...if at all?

 

[rolygate]

One thing I find interesting is that several of the reported events say that the mod exploded immediately the batteries were inserted and used. I take that to mean they were put directly into the mod from the charger and blew straightaway on the first drag (that is to say, within 10 seconds or so).

Some would say this is not possible - but it seems to happen. So perhaps we don't know everything about battery failures.

@Bugg

What ever came of the exploded "aw imr" thread? Was it determined that they were not what they were claimed to be, or were they?

It didn't explode, it caught fire in a purse or pocket (so it was reported). There is also a possibility it was inserted in some kind of PCC for large-format batteries. There was a reference to some kind of weird charging case either in the post reporting it or on the vendor's website the products were bought from. But any cell can meltdown in a purse given the right conditions. Since these cells can put out so many amps, the damage they do might be even higher than for a Li-ion. On the other hand it might have been a counterfeit and therefore just a reject Li-ion. Any AW battery brought through Alibaba is a counterfeit, and there must be thousands over here now.

 

[rolygate]

@Pumas FP
The situation is that mods are exploding, and injuring people who are sometimes beginners, sometimes experienced.

The media have got hold of it and they are now alert to any further incident. 'Another e-cig explodes and puts man in hospital', and 'E-cigs are dangerous' will be the headlines for the next one.

So we also have the problem that this issue will affect e-cig legislative status sooner or later.

What we are suggesting is two things:

1. Buyers should be told.
2. That we provide a set of safety features - because nobody else is going to do anything about this.

The safety features have to be such that they are easily visible because the twisters will deliberately shortcut anything that they can. Buyers need to be able to see what they are getting and know it complies, because something that may work just as well but relies on good engineering isn't going to make the trip.

I don't know what other options ECF has that could fix all these issues.

Committees aren't going to work because they will be composed of vendors and they will take the easiest way out. They did for the last four years - why change now? Anyway, a camel is a horse designed by a committee.

Once again - buyers have to be told about this. It's simply a fact. In addition, we have to do this in order to reduce the possibility we will be named as co-defendants when someone loses their eyesight. We should also, morally, try to provide a solution. We're doing it. When someone comes up with something better then let's see it.

 

[surfsuphere]

Yes, we have to do everything with this in mind. In fact it is part of the reason why we will promote the EMSS: as publishers of resources connected with mods, we need to warn buyers and reduce our liability.

Fact: we may possibly be considered to have some liability if we do not warn buyers of the issue. It is our main job to act as as an information resource, so not providing information about this could be seen as inviting liability.

Fact: if we state that such measures are in our opinion an improvement then we incur no fault.

~~~

This is correct (US law at least) with one exception.

If you use words like "ECF APPROVED Mods-Juice-Batteries-Chargers" and merely list those on said list, that is legally fine.

However, (and a large however) if you select words like SAFE and/or UN-SAFE "mods, juice, batteries, chargers" then you open a different Libel can of words, for those two simple words (SAFE and UNSAFE) clearly have obvious meanings to them.

My two cents: avoid, completely and totally using

SAFE and UNSAFE language

and simply use the term

"ECF APPROVED LIST"

The tone remains fully clear and you remove a fair amount of possible legal Libel liability. (again, at least under USA law, no clue re other nations).

I renew my comments earlier about putting JUICE - BATTERIES - CHARGERS on this "ECF List"

 

[pumasforpets]

I completely understand that. I'm not saying you shouldn't be doing what you're doing...I'm simply hoping that you will be very careful in how you go about it to keep ECF's proverbial .... out of the fire The more evidence and proof of expertise you can provide, the more CYA you acquire.

Example: I worked for an environmental remediation company that uses strong oxidizers to break down harmful chemicals into there more basic components. Unfortunately, specific compounds break down into more harmful chemicals step by step until they are fully oxidized. PCE degrades into TCE, then DCE...then Vinyl Chloride...then Chlorine. We successfully treated Agent Orange to non detect levels at a site in Indiana which is absolutely huge news! However, someone in the state DEM got ahold of the intermediate testing data which say that Chlorine was produced during the process and used that combined with the owner's lack of chemistry credentials to blacklist our company from working in Indiana. Nevermind that chlorine would have been produced by natural degradation...the fact that we didn't demonstration before hand that chlorine would be produced was enough.

You have to have more than good intentions.


Edit: surfsuphere stated what I've been getting at.

 

[surfsuphere]

Flash forward to Sept 2012:

This ECF list is out June 2012 -

China won't care and will make whatever they wish to. Perhaps a new and improved LavaTube version 4 and 5. By the ECF standards, it is not approved. Does that mean Vendor X cannot mention nor talk about it on this entire forum? Does that mean I can't sell a used Lavatube version 5 on the for-sale forum?

Not being an ... at all, I do applaud the big-picture concept going on here; but simply was curious re: above

 

[surfsuphere]

Oh, thought of one more aspect you may wish to include. Full and complete Legal Disclaimer that this is a For-Profit website that charges fees to Vendors, charges fees for placed ads, etc. Alas, in the world of trying to CYA legally, "more" info and disclaimers at times is very helpful.

 

[rolygate]

We need some dedicated technological innovations to our industry.

Agreed. No matter what we do, we will never get away from the problem that lithium batteries just aren't safe.

Ni-Zn sounds encouraging, let's hope something comes of that soon.

 

[rolygate]

Flash forward to Sept 2012:

This ECF list is out June 2012 -

China won't care and will make whatever they wish to. Perhaps a new and improved LavaTube version 4 and 5. By the ECF standards, it is not approved. Does that mean Vendor X cannot mention nor talk about it on this entire forum? Does that mean I can't sell a used Lavatube version 5 on the for-sale forum?

Not being an ... at all, I do applaud the big-picture concept going on here; but simply was curious re: above

Members can buy & sell what they like, but there will be warnings. There will be warnings everywhere about 2-battery metal tube mods. The exact wording cannot be determined until nearer the time.

Imagine this situation: your sister is moving up from a mini and goes to ECF to buy a mod. Do you want her to be able to buy what appears to be a sealed metal tube, and to be given advice here that she can fit two batteries in, and that this is a good idea for HV vaping? Probably not.

Keep in mind this has happened to plenty of people here.

We don't do rules & regs for vendors as it doesn't accord with our philosophy and it doesn't work. What we will do is tell buyers the history and advise them to exercise caution. In addition we will be able to give a list of mods that comply with the new safety specification.

It's then the buyer's decision what they go for. I expect that several mod vendors will present reasons why their products do not need to comply. That is fair enough, and only to be expected. The buyer can then choose a mod that is EMSS compliant or one that isn't.

If a mod explodes and injures an ECF member, and it is not EMSS compliant, and the vendor is one who tried to wriggle out of their responsibility to purchasers - you can imagine what we will do then. Whatever the injured party needs from us they will get - and then some.