SmokTech Telescope is air tight!

[hmlessalky]

Every time I pick up a PV, I am vaping at my own risk, no matter what the mod I am using.. Yes it may be unsafe, but for someone to perform a very base test and deem it unsafe is irresponsible in my book. To voice their concerns is fine, but to state their 'findings' is not. I could build a mod based on the ECF standards that would be as airtight as this mod (vent openings that are covered with a thin plastic to prevent debris from entering the mod), would it be OK to attack that one since I couldn't blow up a balloon with it?

 

[Rocketman]

Why is everyone so wrapped up about the balloon video. Do we live by Youtube videos?
Read the first post. The text. It is one of our peers raising an alert. Thank you very much.

It would be nice if the manufacturers would work with us, the e-cig user community and publish test data.
But they don't. Keep pressuring them. If anyone finds a similar situation, valid or not, raise the question, alert us.
If those even somewhat knowledgable agree that it is an issue to be investigated, go with the flow. Help spread the word. No need for a character assasination of a vendor, the intent should be protection of your fellow vapers.



and yes you could build a mod in a paper bag that didn't have any vents. This is not a paper bag mod. It is obvious from photographs that it is a metal tube mod.

And for those that don't know any better, balloons are used in industry as an air flow source for testing. They generate a rather constant flow, low pressure. Hazardous chemical sensors are often charged with a balloon during calibration.


Edit, even more words

OK, if the balloon test is not valid, provide a reasonable explaination of the gas release mechanism used by this mod in it's present form. Not something that could be added, something that is there. I did not SEE it in the photographs. Pics or it didn't happen

 

[six]

Every time I pick up a PV, I am vaping at my own risk, no matter what the mod I am using.. Yes it may be unsafe, but for someone to perform a very base test and deem it unsafe is irresponsible in my book. To voice their concerns is fine, but to state their 'findings' is not. I could build a mod based on the ECF standards that would be as airtight as this mod (vent openings that are covered with a thin plastic to prevent debris from entering the mod), would it be OK to attack that one since I couldn't blow up a balloon with it?

I'm going to take this in two parts:

First - 'own risk'. Sure. That's true. Keep in mind what the press did with the Colorado incident. And, the FDA is still pretty peeved about getting spanked by a Federal judge in Florida - and the ANTZ are always looking for any tidbit that gives them what they think is high ground to try to ban anything that 'looks like smoking'. If you choose to use a device that has zero safety features, you are indeed doing so at your own risk... but you are also putting the rest of us at risk of over-regulation and even bans if you do end up having an incident that injures or kills you.

And: You said you could build a mod to ECF standards etc... (all quoted) - We aren't talking about a mod that has any safety features, ECF approved or not. This is a mod with no safety features. This is a metal tube mod with no venting, no blow out plug, and no hot spring. This is a mod that is air tight not due to a wrap of Mylar sheet, but because it has no venting. We aren't talking about something that has too little venting. We are talking about a device that has none at all.

 

[Rocketman]

Come on folks.
Don't we have more reasons that this is an unjustified false alarm and part of the normal risk with a PV?
Like maybe this, or maybe that?
Or maybe a party balloon was used, not an industrial grade balloon?
Or maybe there are invisible vents we don't see? Just show me where.

Maybe it's pretty safe with a single protected high quality cell and less safe with stacked high quality 16340 cells, and downright dangerous with counterfeit stacked cells. That would be a valid point of view.

How about, in it's present configuration, with the button unlocked, would the cell be dented and damaged from a drop to a hard surface, end on, by the button? I didn't see anything in the photos that would prevent damaging the thin shell of a Li-ion cell. Can someone give a reasonable answer to that? Just for my own info.

 

[hmlessalky]

Whatever. You are unwilling to go beyond the fear-mongering that is rampant on the forums. I am not saying the mod is safe, neither was DP. But we have so many 'internet professionals' running rampant that post whatever they think, based on something they read, that the possibility of damaging a person or business that is trying to make a living is way too easy. Yes, the Smok mod may be unsafe. The glue melting to vent may be B.S. But, for someone to go out and state the mod is unsafe based on basic testing is not a good thing.

This is not about not caring or promoting unsafe practices, it is about responsible reporting on behalf of us ECF members. I do not care either way about this mod, or the vendors selling it, I am just about people not posting base testing results without proper qualifications. I could go on the forums and bash Provari, GG, or any thing else, and some idiot will take my words as fact. That is not the actions of a responsible member of this community.

 

[Rocketman]

I will go on record and repeat what I said ealier that I do not believe this model to be a safe PV in it's present configuration.

I suggest anyone that has one of these to contact your vendor and discuss a replacement.

I am not implying that the vendors that have marketed this device or the manufacturer have intentionally mislead anyone with false claims.

I do not own one of these devices. I do not speak for any other member of ECF or ECF itself.

This is my own personal engineering opinion.

Should any valid vendor, reseller, manufacturers agent wish to disagree, please PM me for my e-mail address.

If I have violated any of the forum rules by making this claim, site me, and I will retract them from this forum.

Please do not watch the balloon video.


ECF user,
Rocketman

 

[AnsonJames]

Whatever. You are unwilling to go beyond the fear-mongering that is rampant on the forums. I am not saying the mod is safe, neither was DP. But we have so many 'internet professionals' running rampant that post whatever they think, based on something they read, that the possibility of damaging a person or business that is trying to make a living is way too easy. Yes, the Smok mod may be unsafe. The glue melting to vent may be B.S. But, for someone to go out and state the mod is unsafe based on basic testing is not a good thing.

This is not about not caring or promoting unsafe practices, it is about responsible reporting on behalf of us ECF members. I do not care either way about this mod, or the vendors selling it, I am just about people not posting base testing results without proper qualifications. I could go on the forums and bash Provari, GG, or any thing else, and some idiot will take my words as fact. That is not the actions of a responsible member of this community.

Maybe the safety concerns have been overstated somewhat, at the same time how difficult would it have been for Smok to put a vent in the thing?

I've had a short in an "indulgence" due to a bad connection on an Arry tank, it had a hotspring and a vent. I can tell you the thing got pretty damn hot (removed the battery and burnt my finger on the hotspring) but it stopped the battery from venting.

When you were a kid, did you ever use tin foil and matches to make fire crackers?

It only took a little bit of foil to make the matches go "bang" so I'd assume that a sealed airtight aluminum tube could also go "bang" with the right amount of gas and heat. Even if the chances of an explosion are miniscule we should be over cautious with these devices, especially seeing as putting a hole in something won't break the bank for manufacturers and is very easy to implement.

Better to be safe than sorry.

 

[martinc]

errr....guys,no need for labs to get alerted,the job as far as safety is concerned already been done by the flashlight industry/community.

Were not the 1sts to shove big batteries into tubes you know.

So google your hearts out

 

[Rocketman]

Is this the first example of a product safety recall for a PV?
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...l-tube-exchange-announcement.html#post6932491

That's pretty stand up in my oppinion.

I've seen vendors that would SELL you a safety UPGRADE, but I don't remember a no cost to you upgrade.
maybe I'm wrong

 

[Stoggy24]

Yea was gonna say why we still talking bout this smoktech has recalled the tubes and are adding vent holes so obviously they were wrong yet some people are still doubting that the balloon thing says nothing

 

[Rocketman]

Pay no attention to the man behind the balloon

 

[Butters78]

Two mods one balloon?

 

[martinc]

Somehow I wonder how many tried to order one just for the $25 voucher

 

[Rocketman]

Wut?

I thought about it

 

[jerry503]

Somehow I wonder how many tried to order one just for the $25 voucher

They wouldn't have had any luck since GV removed it from available stock prior to announcing the recall/voucher.

 

[Rocketman]

..................

 

[martinc]

OK,so how many went: "oh,snap!"

 

[Stoggy24]

Actually they said they pulled em off but they still showed 14 after 2 hrs after the annoucment and you could still add to cart lmao

 

[zoiDman]

Actually they said they pulled em off but they still showed 14 after 2 hrs after the annoucment and you could still add to cart lmao

Actualy, I bought all 14.

Now I'm going to Return them to GV and make a Cool 350 Smack-a-rooes because I get $25 Each.

 

[Rocketman]

I bet they


"see you coming"

Don't go spending it just yet