I do not remember the Eclipse cigarette. Can any one tell me when it was introduced and the reason it was removed from the market? Also what was the difference in that product and ecigs? I recently read an article that referred to the Eclipse product,but offered no explanation. Thank you for replying if you know anything about it.
RJR eclipse
- Thread starter Luisa
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
you might also be interested in the following Google patent searches.
R. J. Reynolds has been trying for a long time to develop a tobacco containing "smoking article" that vaporizes volatile components instead of burning them; early and recent designs rely on a clean burning rod, and some recent designs rely on electricity from battery power.
"R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company"
"smoking article"
R. J. Reynolds has been trying for a long time to develop a tobacco containing "smoking article" that vaporizes volatile components instead of burning them; early and recent designs rely on a clean burning rod, and some recent designs rely on electricity from battery power.
"R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company"
"smoking article"
Thank you. Since I do not have a scientific mind,could someone explain the difference in the workings of the Eclipse and ecigs? I sounds so similar,but there must be a difference.
If anyone has derailed the search for safer cigarettes, it has not been BT. It has, instead, been the zealots in anti-smoking. Here is a fascinating look at the history of research at the major tobacco companies and the reasons their efforts were thwarted.
. And there are now several claims from former industry workers that many tobacco companies shelved research into safer products out of fear of exposing themselves to additional liability. In 1998, for instance, a former Philip Morris researcher testified that the company shelved promising research to remove cadmium, a lung irritant, from tobacco plants.
Premier cigarettes Smokers didn't give Premier a chance, its maker maintains.
High-tech cigarettes
Despite such criticism, the major cigarette makers have attempted to market several versions of safer cigarettes. In 1988, RJR introduced a high-tech cigarette called Premier. Premier, touted as a virtually smokeless cigarette that dramatically reduced the cancer-causing compounds inhaled by smokers, was made of aluminum capsules that contained tobacco pellets. The pellets were heated instead of burned, thereby producing less smoke and ash than traditional cigarettes. Although the product looked like a traditional cigarette, it required its own instruction booklet showing consumers how to light it.
From the beginning, Premier had several strikes against it. RJR had spent an estimated $800 million developing the brand, and the total cost was expected to soar to $1 billion by the time it was placed in national distribution. The costly project was put into test market just as Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. had embarked on a $25 billion leveraged buyout of RJR that had saddled the company with debt. And the cigarette faced a lengthy regulatory battle after public health officials argued it should be regulated by the FDA as a drug. But the biggest problem with Premier was the fact that consumers simply couldn't get used to it. Many smokers complained about the taste, which some smokers said left a charcoal taste in their mouths. RJR had also gambled that smokers would be willing to give Premier several tries before making a final decision about whether to smoke it. RLR estimated that to acquire a taste for Premier, smokers would have to consume two to three packs to be won over. But as it turned out, most smokers took one cigarette and shared the rest of the pack with friends, and few bothered to buy it again. RJR scrapped the brand in early 1989, less than a year after it was introduced.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/cigarette/history2.html
I think it is safe to say that today's e cigs are simply advanced versions of those developed by BT as far back as 1980. Expect BT to not only soon introduce their own versions of e cigs. Expect them to take over the e cig industry since they were the first to develop the ideas and patent them. I am wondering who really owns www.ploom.com and Ruyan.
. And there are now several claims from former industry workers that many tobacco companies shelved research into safer products out of fear of exposing themselves to additional liability. In 1998, for instance, a former Philip Morris researcher testified that the company shelved promising research to remove cadmium, a lung irritant, from tobacco plants.
Premier cigarettes Smokers didn't give Premier a chance, its maker maintains.
High-tech cigarettes
Despite such criticism, the major cigarette makers have attempted to market several versions of safer cigarettes. In 1988, RJR introduced a high-tech cigarette called Premier. Premier, touted as a virtually smokeless cigarette that dramatically reduced the cancer-causing compounds inhaled by smokers, was made of aluminum capsules that contained tobacco pellets. The pellets were heated instead of burned, thereby producing less smoke and ash than traditional cigarettes. Although the product looked like a traditional cigarette, it required its own instruction booklet showing consumers how to light it.
From the beginning, Premier had several strikes against it. RJR had spent an estimated $800 million developing the brand, and the total cost was expected to soar to $1 billion by the time it was placed in national distribution. The costly project was put into test market just as Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. had embarked on a $25 billion leveraged buyout of RJR that had saddled the company with debt. And the cigarette faced a lengthy regulatory battle after public health officials argued it should be regulated by the FDA as a drug. But the biggest problem with Premier was the fact that consumers simply couldn't get used to it. Many smokers complained about the taste, which some smokers said left a charcoal taste in their mouths. RJR had also gambled that smokers would be willing to give Premier several tries before making a final decision about whether to smoke it. RLR estimated that to acquire a taste for Premier, smokers would have to consume two to three packs to be won over. But as it turned out, most smokers took one cigarette and shared the rest of the pack with friends, and few bothered to buy it again. RJR scrapped the brand in early 1989, less than a year after it was introduced.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/cigarette/history2.html
I think it is safe to say that today's e cigs are simply advanced versions of those developed by BT as far back as 1980. Expect BT to not only soon introduce their own versions of e cigs. Expect them to take over the e cig industry since they were the first to develop the ideas and patent them. I am wondering who really owns www.ploom.com and Ruyan.
Thank you for all the information. It was very informative. I do have a question which I hope you can answer. How were such cigarettes as Eclipse lit? Did the user need a lighter or was it activated by drawing on it? I just am unable to understand how they could have operated. Thanks and I hope you can help with my question.
It says, "But it also includes a charcoal tip that, when lighted, heats glycerin added to the cigarette but does not burn the tobacco. The result is a cigarette that emits tobacco flavor without creating ash and smoke." So, I guess that means that it gets lit with a lighter but does not actually catch fire.
I actually smoked the Eclipse cigarettes back in the day(4-5 years ago). It was not quite an e-cig, as there was still tobacco involved. Kind of an analog/ digital cigarette hybrid. The was a charcoal heating element at the end of it that you would light with a lighter, and suck hot air through tobacco, which was encapsulated in a tinfoil like tube. The tip would burn out after about the same amount of time of a cigarette, and you would just toss it. It was a pretty cool little device, tasted like ... though.
I used to smoke them. expensive and tasted like really old stale popcorn. nasty
Truer words were never spoken.
Look at the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act that just passed. Not only does it perpetuate the myth that ALL tobacco is equally dangerous, it pushes the idea of addiction itself being bad and not whether or not the addictive chemical is actually a serious health risk. Direct quotes from the FSPTCA:
Note that it says "tobacco products" and not "smoking," even though smokeless tobacco carries very little risk of cancer, heart disease and other SERIOUS health effects.
Yes, but it does not carry high health risks by itself. The word "addictive" is used in this sentence to say "bad" or "dangerous."
Not including deaths questionably attributed to second-hand smoke, about 16.5% of all annual adult deaths in the U.S. are smokers/ex-smokers who died from smoking-related diseases (393,600 smoker deaths to 2,383,724 total U.S. deaths in 2007.) I cannot find data on smokers who died from non-smoking related diseases or natural causes. However, it's interesting to note that while 80-90% of lung cancer patients are smokers, only 10% of smokers actually get lung cancer. The 8,600,000 illnesses equals about 18.2% of smokers having a chronic illness related to smoking, which means 81.8% of smokers do not have smoking-related chronic diseases.
Not sure where I'm going with that one but it is interesting seeing it from a different persepective.
But it's important to note that they don't give actual statistics for smokeless tobacco and nicotine products. They are saying "tobacco" and then only give stats and health effects for "smoking," which intentionally leaves the reader thinking all tobacco use causes the same illnesses and diseases as smoking.
Tobacco dependence ITSELF is a chronic disease?
Definition of disease: a disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body resulting from the effect of genetic or developmental errors, infection, poisons, nutritional deficiency or imbalance, toxicity, or unfavorable environmental factors; illness; sickness; ailment.
Hmmm...didn't realize tobacco grew in my body.
SMOKING can CAUSE disease, but tobacco dependence is not a disease in and of itself. Dependence upon something not normally needed to keep the body healthy/alive would be a DISORDER: a disturbance in physical or mental health or functions; malady or dysfunction.
Diabetics are dependent upon insulin, but insulin dependence is NOT a disease.
Exposure to radiation can cause disease, but taking risk and working at a job that exposes one to radioactive material is not a disease.
Ther may be underlying conditions which cause people to be more likely to become dependent upon nicotine/tobacco, but the dependency is not a disease. I suppose the same argument could be made for any chemical dependency.
This sentence is nonsensical and redundant unless you deduct from it that "quit completely" means no tobacco or nicotine use, because isn't the definition of cessation "quit completely?" What this sentence really should say is "Because the only known safe alternative to smoking is to not smoke (cessation), interventions should target all smokers (not "tobacco users") to help them quit smoking completely. "
Well...DUH.
But what they are really saying is that they see no evidence that a smoker who switches to a smokeless alternative will reduce their health risks enough to justify encouraging them to switch and only complete abstinence from tobacco and nicotine is acceptable for them. It doesn't matter that repeated attempts at abstinence means repeated exposure to smoking, while the 1-2% risk from smokeless at least keeps them from smoking.
Well.....DUH.
Again, they are expecting something to be 100% SAFE for treating tobacco dependence, when other disorders or diseases are usually treated with drugs that are SAFER. No medical treatment can be considered 100% SAFE, because they ALL have risk. This also lumps nicotine use in with smoking. Smokers aren't considered to have "quit completely" unless they quit any form of nicotine.
Reduced harm products are seen as a possible threat - a ruse or fraud by tobacco companies. The criteria that it be considered safe for current non-smokers too makes it nearly impossible to get accepted. How can any tobacco product or even nicotine be considered acceptable for non-smokers to start using, even if it reduced risks to smokers by 99%?
So, the product not only has to reduce risk for smokers, but has to ensure that people who would otherwise avoid nicotine products because of the perceived danger won't start using them because they now perceive them to be low-risk.
This is the theory that the non-tobacco users who will start using low-risk tobacco products will so outnumber the smokers who switch that MORE people have health risks. It completely ignores the level of risks and probability. Here is what it would take for that to happen:
1000 non-users start using 1% risk products = 10 people get sick
10 current users switch to 1% risk products = 9 people get healthier
So, more people who otherwise wouldn't use tobacco products got sick than people who switched from smoking got better.
The problem is, there is no evidence or even reason to believe that so many non-users will suddenly use and so few users will fail to switch, given the truth about reduced harm alternatives. but there is no way for a company to guarantee that non-users won't be a greater risk to the point where it ofsets the health benefits of users switching. It's an impossible criteria for approval.
One good thing in the Act which I think was completely unintended:
Hmmm...so if the tobacco companies have research which supports the fact that smokeless tobacco is in fact safer than smoking, they can now not only say that but are REQUIRED to inform people? Awesome!
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ31/pdf/PLAW-111publ31.pdf
Last edited:
Kristen, I found this tool, Sloan-Kettering - Prediction Tools: Lung Cancer Risk Assessment interesting. For one, it will not even measure the risk for anyone smoking under 10 cigarettes a day. For another, if I put the following info on the calculator: 60 years of age, pack a day for 42 years, my risk of contacting lung cancer is 4%. So, I have a generalised risk of NOT contacting lung cancer of 96%. Although I understand that I might not be one of the lucky 96%, the number is much lower than I would have dreamed having read the constant barrage of fear mongering news from anti-smoking.
Here is another chart from Wired Science that visualizes causes of death for both smokers and non-smokers
Do Fear the Reaper: Readers Visualize Death Data | Wired Science | Wired.com
Here is another chart from Wired Science that visualizes causes of death for both smokers and non-smokers
Do Fear the Reaper: Readers Visualize Death Data | Wired Science | Wired.com
Interesting tool, Sherid!
I expanded and posted my thread post on my blog and added the sources for my numbers at the end: Wisconsin Vapers Blog - Enjoying a Smoke-Free Life The article I found related how a smoker's risk of lung cancer may also be genetic.
People may want to share it with Facebook, etc. too.
I expanded and posted my thread post on my blog and added the sources for my numbers at the end: Wisconsin Vapers Blog - Enjoying a Smoke-Free Life The article I found related how a smoker's risk of lung cancer may also be genetic.
People may want to share it with Facebook, etc. too.
Here is another interesting document. It shows how SmokeFree infiltrates message boards, editorial pages of newspapers, email listserves, etc. to brainwash the public and policy makers within government. It comes directly from Tobacco Control since it is their strategy guide, and of course, what affects smoking policies also affects vaping policies. Pass it around, and spread the news about just what depths these people will sink to in order to get their way. Reading it made me ill.
http://www.smoke-free.ca/pdf_1/Smoke-free outdoor spaces advocacy -sept2010.pdf
CITIZENS AGAINST GOVERNMENT ENCROACHMENT CITOYENS ANTI GOUVERNEMENT ENVAHISSANT: INSIDE THE TOBACCO CONTROL INDUSTRY AND THEIR DECEITFUL TACTICS
http://www.smoke-free.ca/pdf_1/Smoke-free outdoor spaces advocacy -sept2010.pdf
CITIZENS AGAINST GOVERNMENT ENCROACHMENT CITOYENS ANTI GOUVERNEMENT ENVAHISSANT: INSIDE THE TOBACCO CONTROL INDUSTRY AND THEIR DECEITFUL TACTICS
Thanks for linking to that guide, Sherid! It's given me a lot of tips for helping CASAA and its goals!! (Like getting media attention.)
Know thine enemy....
Know thine enemy....
I just came upon this device myself and did a search on the forums here so as to not duplicate another thread on it and wanted to add the following thoughts.
I wonder if the Eclipse by R.J. Reynolds was the first pioneer in e-cigs and not the Chinese as many claim?
The technology is almost the same concept, minus the actual tobacco and combustion. The glycerine, water and nicotine is still "warmed" to produce "smoke". The e-cig substitutes lighting it with a battery, adds an atomizer (or cartomizer/tank-system), extracts the nicotine from the tobacco and customizes the nicotine delivery based on the user's preference. But the original concept appears to be R.J. Reynolds.
Here's a how-to video of the Eclipse by R.J. Reynolds that appeared for consumer information back in 1995:
How long was this even on the market and where? Here in NY, I can't find anyone who even heard of it? All I can dig up is that it was tested on a market in Tennesee and then ASAM was the first to try to stop it. Then several states followed and in 2005 sued R.J. Reynolds again, this time specifically over the Eclipse cigarette, claiming misleading ads.
RJ Reynolds Sued over Cigarette Ad Claims
That last series of events leads me to wonder whether or not they sort of made a back door with e-cigs that removes tobacco and R.J. Reynolds from the equation. This would remove the negative stigma already attached to the R.J. Reynolds name, the instant urge to sue for millions against a rich company that everyone loves to hate, and leaves lawyers wondering what's in it for them when faced with bringing lawsuits against a "Mom and Pop" type businesses with the intent of preventing them from selling e-juice or devices that don't cause cancer.
Considering that Hookah Bars are legal all across the country, at least in the USA, it's not the device or juice that would stand up in court. With the e-cigarette, it's not even the tar or 5,000 other chemicals that the FDA allows to be put in conventional, analog cigarettes. All we're now fighting over is one ingredient - NICOTINE.
I'm just wondering where R.J. Reynolds stands in all this because I find it hard to believe that they already came out with something so similar 15 years ago and don't have an interest.
Sources:
About This Episode
Fyi-Asam Re Eclipse.
Eclipse: A Whole New World for Smokers (1995) edit
http://health.dailynewscentral.com/content/view/0001368/62/
http://www.hookah-bars.com/
I wonder if the Eclipse by R.J. Reynolds was the first pioneer in e-cigs and not the Chinese as many claim?
The technology is almost the same concept, minus the actual tobacco and combustion. The glycerine, water and nicotine is still "warmed" to produce "smoke". The e-cig substitutes lighting it with a battery, adds an atomizer (or cartomizer/tank-system), extracts the nicotine from the tobacco and customizes the nicotine delivery based on the user's preference. But the original concept appears to be R.J. Reynolds.
Here's a how-to video of the Eclipse by R.J. Reynolds that appeared for consumer information back in 1995:
How long was this even on the market and where? Here in NY, I can't find anyone who even heard of it? All I can dig up is that it was tested on a market in Tennesee and then ASAM was the first to try to stop it. Then several states followed and in 2005 sued R.J. Reynolds again, this time specifically over the Eclipse cigarette, claiming misleading ads.
RJ Reynolds Sued over Cigarette Ad Claims
That last series of events leads me to wonder whether or not they sort of made a back door with e-cigs that removes tobacco and R.J. Reynolds from the equation. This would remove the negative stigma already attached to the R.J. Reynolds name, the instant urge to sue for millions against a rich company that everyone loves to hate, and leaves lawyers wondering what's in it for them when faced with bringing lawsuits against a "Mom and Pop" type businesses with the intent of preventing them from selling e-juice or devices that don't cause cancer.
Considering that Hookah Bars are legal all across the country, at least in the USA, it's not the device or juice that would stand up in court. With the e-cigarette, it's not even the tar or 5,000 other chemicals that the FDA allows to be put in conventional, analog cigarettes. All we're now fighting over is one ingredient - NICOTINE.
I'm just wondering where R.J. Reynolds stands in all this because I find it hard to believe that they already came out with something so similar 15 years ago and don't have an interest.
Sources:
About This Episode
Fyi-Asam Re Eclipse.
Eclipse: A Whole New World for Smokers (1995) edit
http://health.dailynewscentral.com/content/view/0001368/62/
http://www.hookah-bars.com/
Last edited:
I have been saying what you say here for over three years. It is, IMO, impossible that BT with all of their money and resources would simply stand by and allow a small company in China to steal their ideas and go out on their own. My thoughts are that BT is fully behind all of these e cig developments as a silent partner.
I think you're absolutely right. They're probably tired of being sued. Oh, and I fixed those source links.
Another thing that disturbs me is the way the politics of this thing is maneuvered. First it was about cancer. Then it was about that dirty, disgusting cigarette. Then it was about those terrible PEOPLE who justifiably should be treated as the filth of society.
Psychological manipulation that essentially provides a legal methodology of discriminating against certain groups.
And since it has shown mass-acceptance, they (the ones we should be suing for discrimination), are branching out to not only ostracize the smoker of even a non-nicotine product (see attempts to ban propylene glycol too), they are taking it even further and trying to tax not only the smoker, but the obese, those with diabetes and regulate salt and sugar in restaurants.
These are probably people who never worked an honest day in their lives. They sit around getting paid to think up ways to control your life, parent your children and make you miserable.
But the whole thing is quite hypocritical. They don't have the right to control anything and everything. Ultimately, they ARE discriminating against a group or groups of people. Perhaps the way to combat this is focus on the unjust labeling of people instead of just focusing on defending against their lawsuits? Put them on the defensive for once and let's see how they like it? I certainly don't see how they could defend what they are doing. We finally have a device that works in turning people's health around and they want it banned. Nothing is being done to stop the rampant discrimination of their labeling against certain groups that I can see.
- Status
Similar threads
