Status
Not open for further replies.

notarobot

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
May 28, 2015
94
190
Germany
Regarding resistance lock...

But my main point was that locking resistance is preventing a useful feature of refinement, adjusting for natural resistance changes due to background temperature. The reason to do it - fluctuating resistance - is going to cause problems anyway, and locking the resistance seems like it really only hides or transfers that problem rather than encouraging the user to fix it.

I think it's a double-edged sword.
  • resistance lock is good with regard to changing ambient temperature: this is because the TC associates the locked resistance with 20ºC. If you go outside in winter, the lower resistance due to lower ambient temperature should NOT be used as a new base resistance.
  • resistance lock is bad when an unwanted (SR or VR) resistance disappears: resetting the base resistance automatically will eliminate the temperature offset. (However, a reset will change actual temp anyway; the difference is that it changes to the "right" temperature in contrast to "another wrong" temperature.)
  • resistance lock is neutral when an unwanted (VR) resistance appears: resetting the base resistance automatically will cause overheat, whereas a locked base resistance will cause underheat.
As I understand it, I think resistance lock is better... At least if you don't have varying resistance, it's the right thing.

Some additional thoughts: It could be a different story if a mod had a sensor to measure the ambient temperature to distinguish between resistance changes caused by ambient temperature or by bad contacts. Now, that it can do this, we could build a "perfect" TC if we added the feature to set the "pure" base resistance (just the coil, without any static resistance). That way, the TC would be able to detect "bad" varying resistance and knew the amount of it. With that information, the TC formula (to calculate the coil temperature from resistance) could be refined to compensate for unwanted resistance completely and always yield correct results. Why is nobody doing this? @TheBloke: Let's make money! ;)
 

TheotherSteveS

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 14, 2015
5,232
6,814
Birmingham, England
Regarding resistance lock...



I think it's a double-edged sword.
  • resistance lock is good with regard to changing ambient temperature: this is because the TC associates the locked resistance with 20ºC. If you go outside in winter, the lower resistance due to lower ambient temperature should NOT be used as a new base resistance.
  • resistance lock is bad when an unwanted (SR or VR) resistance disappears: resetting the base resistance automatically will eliminate the temperature offset. (However, a reset will change actual temp anyway; the difference is that it changes to the "right" temperature in contrast to "another wrong" temperature.)
  • resistance lock is neutral when an unwanted (VR) resistance appears: resetting the base resistance automatically will cause overheat, whereas a locked base resistance will cause underheat.
As I understand it, I think resistance lock is better... At least if you don't have varying resistance, it's the right thing.

Some additional thoughts: It could be a different story if a mod had a sensor to measure the ambient temperature to distinguish between resistance changes caused by ambient temperature or by bad contacts. Now, that it can do this, we could build a "perfect" TC if we added the feature to set the "pure" base resistance (just the coil, without any static resistance). That way, the TC would be able to detect "bad" varying resistance and knew the amount of it. With that information, the TC formula (to calculate the coil temperature from resistance) could be refined to compensate for unwanted resistance completely and always yield correct results. Why is nobody doing this? @TheBloke: Let's make money! ;)

The dicodes mods have a T sensor!
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheBloke

DeareN

Full Member
Dec 29, 2012
68
58
Ελλάδα
btw I was checking on fasttech new products and saw this wire...
What is that? 0.6mm? For TC?
$2.25 HOWING TiNiFe Alloy Resistance Wire for Rebuildable Atomizers - 22 AWG / 0.6mm*1m / 2.6ohm/m at FastTech - Worldwide Free Shipping

3440100-2.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheBloke

ndb70

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Nov 19, 2014
80
150
Florence, Italy
Here you go @BrentMydland - something I had been meaning to write about for a little while anyway.

TC Inaccuracy from Atomizer Resistance - Static and Variable

Static Resistance (SR)

SR = any amount of resistance read by the mod which is not accounted for by the wire in the coil itself, and which is always present (static) *.

Therefore it is primarily the resistance of the atomizer itself - its positive pin, its positive and negative block/posts, and any intermediate metal. The positive is usually the higher resistance, as the negative goes through the body of the atomizer which is much thicker and so lower resistance (though the positive is often partly brass or copper to balance this out.)

SR can possibly also include the wiring to the mod's 510 and the 510 itself, depending on whether this has been measured and automatically subtracted by the mod/chip maker. (Users of the DNA 200 can adjust this themselves via eScribe's Mod Resistance setting.)

The impact of static resistance (SR) depends entirely on the base resistance of the coil. It is irrespective of the TCR, and therefore also, technically, of the wire used.

However as the wires we use have different resistivity, in practice the wire used does impact the likely effect from SR. Ni200 coils are almost always very low resistance and thus experience high inaccuracy from SR, where Stainless Steel resistance is almost always much higher and therefore much lower inaccuracy, and so on. Titanium and NiFe are in between, with Titanium less affected than NiFe.

I consider 0.01Ω to be the maximum amount of static resistance I will willingly accept. Most of my tanks that I have checked are no more than 0.005Ω, but I haven't been particularly bothered to test them all quickly. I'll do it over time, as I feel like it, and I wouldn't stop using a nice tank if I did find it was more than 0.01Ω. I would though see if I could improve it. I have already improved a few tanks by replacing stainless parts with brass, in particular my Squape Rs clones. My best tanks for SR are my authentic Aqua v2s, which have an all-copper positive path that I measured as 0.0004Ω!

As mentioned, the inaccuracy caused by SR is relative to the base resistance of the coil. It is also relative to the target temperature - it is best expressed as a % of the target temperature.

Here's the inaccuracies caused by 0.01Ω of static resistance for the following coil base resistances as a % of the target temperature, and actual inaccuracy at target temperature = 230°C (446°F)
  • 0.08Ω: +11.41% | +26.25°C
  • 0.12Ω: +7.61% | +17.50°C
  • 0.15Ω: +6.09% | +14.00°C
  • 0.20Ω: +4.57% | +10.50°C
  • 0.40Ω: +2.28% | +5.25°C
  • 0.60Ω: +1.52% | +3.50°C

I have expressed the inaccuracies as + numbers, by which I mean they are the amount by which the mod will overheat the coil. So a 0.08Ω coil with 0.01Ω SR (read by the mod as 0.09Ω) set to 230°C will actually be heated to 256.25°C, which is +11.41% of the target temperature.

The percentages change linearly with SR. So 0.02Ω SR will cause +22.83% inaccuracy with the 0.08Ω coil, and +3.04% with the 0.60Ω coil. They also change linearly with decreasing base resistance - for example note 0.40Ω being half the inaccuracy of 0.20Ω.

As SR always leads to overheating the coil, the natural fix is to set our target temperature lower than we want to achieve. To compensate, we can simply set it lower on the mod by the amount indicated above - eg if we know we have 0.01Ω SR on a 0.20Ω coil, and our actual target temperature is 230°C, we set the mod to 220°C. Rounding as appropriate to get the nearest °C or °F setting the mod will do.


* The exact definition of the 'static' in SR is: present at the time the cold base resistance of the coil is measured by the mod, and then present inthe same amount throughout all subsequent vapes until the next base resistance measurement.

If the resistance is not present during one or the other occasions, or its amount changes, then that (or some part of it at least) becomes Variable Resistance:


Varying Resistance (VR)

VR = any amount of non-coil resistance which comes and goes, for example caused by the atomizer not being screwed on as tightly as possible to the mod, or by screws not being tightly secured onto the coil, loose posts, or any other resistance that cannot be guaranteed at a single figure.

VR should be avoided wherever possible because it is unpredictable and thus cannot be easily compensated for.

VR affecting the base/cold coil resistance reading

Let's look at a 0.01Ω varying resistance that is there when the cold resistance is read, and then disappears later; perhaps the atomizer was not fully tightened at first and was then adjusted later.
  • Two examples, two different atomizers on two different identical mods
  • The atomizers themselves have 0.01Ω SR
  • Coil One is really 0.20Ω, but the SR + VR causes the mod to read it as 0.22Ω.
  • Coil Two is really 0.40Ω, but the SR + VR causes the mod to read it as 0.42Ω.
  • The user has a desired target temperature of 230°C
  • Some vapes are taken before the VR disappears. There is 0.02Ω SR+VR in place, therefore the inaccuracies are:
    • Coil One, 0.20Ω : +9.13% = +21.00°C = heated to 251°C on a 230°C setting
    • Coil Two, 0.40Ω : +4.57% = +10.50°C = heated to 240.5°C on a 230°C setting
    • These are just the same as if there had been 0.02Ω SR.
  • Now the VR disappears, but the mod still thinks the base resistance is 0.42Ω
    • Coil One, 0.20Ω : Will be heated to 265°C = an inaccuracy of +35°C
    • Coil Two, 0.40Ω : Will be heated to 247°C = an inaccuracy of +17.5°C
    • The fact that the VR has gone makes things a lot worse, an extra 50% inaccuracy compared to when it was there, because now the base resistance reading is out of sync with the in-vape resistance readings.
VR of this nature - present for base resistance, gone later - should be removed over time on mods with Refinement: the DNA 40, DNA 200, and some clones of the DNA 40. It will detect the resistance has gone down, and adjust its base reading accordingly.

It will not be removed, and will cause ongoing inaccuracy, on "Set Resistance" chips such as the Yihi, Dicodes, etc - or on the DNA 40/200 if the "lock resistance" feature is used.

We could regard base readings taken on non-cold atomizers (eg moved from another mod and not cooled) as also being VR. Well in fact it is VR, just of a different cause to the mechanical components we normally associate with SR/VR.

VR not present during the base/cold coil resistance reading but then appearing during vapes

For this case, let's assume the base/cold coil resistance was read correctly but then 0.01Ω VR suddenly appears in the middle of a vape. For simplicity, this example assumes there's not also any SR:

A 0.20Ω coil, read correctly by the mod as 0.20Ω, but then exhibiting +0.01Ω VR during the vape, will have an inaccuracy of -14.3°C; it will be underheated, not overheated as in the SR cases.

This case would include situations where the atomizer was accidentally unscrewed a touch from the mod, or otherwise became slightly looser - causing the base reading of the coil to increase.

I am not yet sure if DNA Refinement helps correct this: it's much harder for the mod to detect, because it has to be sure that the rising resistance isn't just normal heating of the coil, but actually the base resistance rising. Maybe the DNA 40/200 does address this, perhaps by detecting base resistance rose for a long period during which no vaping occurred? I'm trying to test it now and will update.

Summary:
  • Varying Resistance: if you've got it, check your atomizer/mod and fix it; it is, as the name suggests, variably impactful and there's no good reason to put up with it.
    • It might underheat, it might overheat, and either way it will do much more damage than SR
  • Static Resistance: every atomizer has some amount, and unless you're using Ni200 it's rarely a big deal
    • It applies fairly minimally for most resistances you are likely to build to with Titanium, Stainless Steel, and (to a lesser extent) the NiFes.
      • With NiFe70 single coil you might get down to 0.15Ω or so, and thus be subject to 6%, or around 14°C at common TC temps.
      • NiFe52 single coil should not usually be worse than 4.5%, or 10°C at 230°C/450°F, and will often be better (my standard coil of NiFe52 will be 0.30Ω)
  • SR maximums: I consider 0.01Ω to be a good guideline maximum: with at most this a mount of SR, at the resistances I build, I don't have to think about offsets.
    • I set 235°C every time and my vapes are pretty consistent (on accurate mods) regardless of the atomizer in use
    • If you've got more than 0.01Ω you can use the figures in this post to decide how bad it is at your usual base resistances and either try to reduce it, or just account for it in your target temperatures.
  • Adjusting for SR: In all cases of high(er) SR, the result will always be that the mod over-heats the coil
    • So it can be counteracted by lowering your target temperature by the amount indicated by the inaccuracy
    • Remember that the inaccuracy is a % of the target temperature, so the offset will vary according to that.
    • But not many people will want an actual achieved temperature outside the range 215°C - 240°C (420°F - 464°F), so the offsets are going to be very similar at all these temps, not different enough to worry about checking the % each time.

As an aside, it's this over-heating of the coil - and thus under-setting of our target temp - that explains why it was common in the earlier days of TC to see YouTubers like Busardo talk about "this tank tastes burnt at more than 300°F, while this RDA needs 450°F". The joys of Ni200 :)

Hey, @TheBloke, long time since my last time here.
If you remember I was the strange guy with some ideas on how to fight SR a while ago, and we kind of started dissecting the problem at that time.
Then I've been side-tracked by a lot in my life and I'm only now getting back at tweaking and studying.
You're doing an excellent job in the meantime, I love all your experimenting with different wires and I'm trying to catch up while I'm starting to make some tests with SS and NiFe, but time availability is _not_ on my side...
Anyway, while I'm catching up, I'd like to understand what I'm doing wrong as my calculations on SR get to slight different results.
Can you check if/what is wrong in my line of reasoning here below?:

Temperature error from SR (static resistance)

⍺ = TCR
dT = Set-temperature - Temperature-of-baseline

For a dT1 set by the user on the mod, the mod will estimate a final target resistance

Rf = (SR + r0) * (1 + ⍺ * dT1) = r0 * (1 + ⍺ * dT1) + SR + SR * ⍺ * dT1 (1)

But in reality, that Rf will be reached as

Rf = SR + r0 * (1 + ⍺ * dT2) (2)

Where dT2 will necessarily have to be dT2 > dT1 to compensate for the missing "SR * ⍺ * dT1" term.

Equating (1) and (2) brings to:

r0 * ⍺ * dT1 + SR * ⍺ * dT1 = r0 * ⍺ * dT2
SR * dT1 = r0 * (dT2 - dT1) = r0 * ERRT

ERRT / dT1 = SR / r0 //<<<—— Note this does not depend on ⍺

i.e.

ERRT% = SR/r0

Well if I apply this to your numbers, e.g. the case of 0.01 SR on a 0.08 coil, I get 0.01/0.08 = 12.5% and not the 11.41% of your example.

I'm might be doing something wrong, but I can't see where's the flaw in the logic, and I'd like to iron this out before I try to move on with further experimenting.

Thanks a lot, did I already say you're doing a fantastic job? :)
I hope I'll have some more time in the near future to spend playing around here...
 

notarobot

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
May 28, 2015
94
190
Germany
Well if I apply this to your numbers, e.g. the case of 0.01 SR on a 0.08 coil, I get 0.01/0.08 = 12.5% and not the 11.41% of your example.

I'm might be doing something wrong, but I can't see where's the flaw in the logic, and I'd like to iron this out before I try to move on with further experimenting.

Hey @ndb70, please allow me to jump in and explain the difference... First of all, your calculation is correct. However @TheBloke expressed the offset as a percentage of the target temperature (230ºC) instead of the temperature increase (230ºC-20ºC=210ºC). For the cited example, he calculates the correct offset of 210ºC*0.001/0.008 = 26.25ºC, which is 12.5% of 210ºC, but 11.41% of 230ºC. That said, I agree that taking the percentage from the temperature change would have been "better".
 

BigEgo

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Oct 12, 2013
1,048
1,228
Alabama
  • Like
Reactions: TheBloke

TheotherSteveS

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 14, 2015
5,232
6,814
Birmingham, England
A temp sensor other than the coil itself? Do you guys have a reference for this?

My bad, dicodes doesnt. Sorry about that!! Wishful thinking I guess. Since I have one, I dont know why I posted that...brain fart..
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TheBloke

TheBloke

Ultra Member
Verified Member
Mar 30, 2015
2,800
3,549
45
Brighton, UK
A temp sensor other than the coil itself? Do you guys have a reference for this?

All mods except the Dicodes - to my knowledge anyway - have a temperature sensor in them. It was considered a standard part of the TC mod until Dicodes decided not to do it.

We know for sure the Joyetech does because it has a hidden menu option to show the environmental tempeature (albeit shown to nearest 5°C; we don't know if the internal thermometer is also nearest 5 or not)

We know the DNA 40 does because Evolv said it does.

We know for sure the DNA 200 does because it shows its value through eScribe

We surmise that all/most others except the Dicodes do, based on their general behaviour and the fact that they copied it from the DNA 40, and because they've given us no reason to think otherwise.

The Dicodes assumes the coil is at 20°C when taking the base resistance reading. It makes a point in the manual that if the background temperature differs greatly from 20°C, all target temps should be offset accordingly. It is unique in providing this instruction.

It does not mean absolutely 100% that all other mods do have one - perhaps some of the cheaper mods/clones do not. But the assumption so far has been that they do have one, until proved otherwise. It's an interesting point that might be worth investigating - eg taking a cheap SXK and putting it in a fridge or hot room and seeing if it remains accurate. We do know for sure that the SXK has refinement, automatically adjusting the coil base resistance up and down, so we would hope it has a thermometer to use with that.

Regarding resistance lock...

I think it's a double-edged sword.
  • resistance lock is good with regard to changing ambient temperature: this is because the TC associates the locked resistance with 20ºC. If you go outside in winter, the lower resistance due to lower ambient temperature should NOT be used as a new base resistance.
  • resistance lock is bad when an unwanted (SR or VR) resistance disappears: resetting the base resistance automatically will eliminate the temperature offset. (However, a reset will change actual temp anyway; the difference is that it changes to the "right" temperature in contrast to "another wrong" temperature.)
  • resistance lock is neutral when an unwanted (VR) resistance appears: resetting the base resistance automatically will cause overheat, whereas a locked base resistance will cause underheat.
As I understand it, I think resistance lock is better... At least if you don't have varying resistance, it's the right thing.

Some additional thoughts: It could be a different story if a mod had a sensor to measure the ambient temperature to distinguish between resistance changes caused by ambient temperature or by bad contacts. Now, that it can do this, we could build a "perfect" TC if we added the feature to set the "pure" base resistance (just the coil, without any static resistance). That way, the TC would be able to detect "bad" varying resistance and knew the amount of it. With that information, the TC formula (to calculate the coil temperature from resistance) could be refined to compensate for unwanted resistance completely and always yield correct results. Why is nobody doing this? @TheBloke: Let's make money! ;)

So yeah, I'm afraid we are beaten to it ;) It has been there since the very first TC mod, the DNA 40.

And this is why my feeling is "resistance lock is not so good" - because taking out your "resistance lock is good" point (because the temp sensor is there to prevent against this), we are left only with a neutral and negative point.

I do however think there are other advantages to Yihi's "Set Resistance Now" feature: a mod with this feature is my preferred for building. I much prefer it to auto-read mods like the Evolv, because I want to check resistance multiple times during building. For example, on atomizers with a tight deck/narrow chimney, I want to check resistance again after putting the chimney on to be sure I did not just short the coil. I cannot do that on an Evolv.

That is a kind of different point though - because on the Yihi, resistance must always be locked; and the feature I like on the Yihi is the ability to check/change resistance at any time, manually, versus Evolv's always-auto. If Evolv added a "change base resistance now" button, that would be great - and I wouldn't then use their "resistance lock".

I think the ultimate mod would have:
  1. Auto resistance read (like Evolv)
  2. Set Resistance Now override (like Yihi and Dicodes)
  3. Optional refinement (like Evolv but optional), which if turned on can change the base figure - this could be either auto-read figure (1), or the manually read figure (2)
    1. Turning optional refinement off would be the equivalent of turning on "lock resistance" on an Evolv.
In fact the Dicodes does two of these three, the only mod I know that has two methods: it has optional auto resistance read (enable or disabled by user), and separate manual Set Resistance Now. This for me is better than most, because I can choose to just hit fire and get the auto read if I want, but I can also choose to re-set it at any time if I prefer. The best of both worlds.

But the Dicodes does not then have the third item, refinement, and it cannot have it: because it does not have a thermometer.
 
Last edited:

TheBloke

Ultra Member
Verified Member
Mar 30, 2015
2,800
3,549
45
Brighton, UK
Hey @ndb70, please allow me to jump in and explain the difference... First of all, your calculation is correct. However @TheBloke expressed the offset as a percentage of the target temperature (230ºC) instead of the temperature increase (230ºC-20ºC=210ºC). For the cited example, he calculates the correct offset of 210ºC*0.001/0.008 = 26.25ºC, which is 12.5% of 210ºC, but 11.41% of 230ºC. That said, I agree that taking the percentage from the temperature change would have been "better".

Thanks for clearing that up.

Yes I suppose relative to ΔT makes more sense. I used relative to target because it is target the end user understands better - he/she knows that they want to achieve 230°C, and does not think about whether it is currently 20°C or 30°C. Though then the % will vary according to what the background temp actually is, so unless it is "room temp"/20°C, the %s are wrong.

I don't want to over complicate things, but maybe you are right it is better expressed as % of ΔT.
 

TheBloke

Ultra Member
Verified Member
Mar 30, 2015
2,800
3,549
45
Brighton, UK
Hey, @TheBloke, long time since my last time here.
If you remember I was the strange guy with some ideas on how to fight SR a while ago, and we kind of started dissecting the problem at that time.
Then I've been side-tracked by a lot in my life and I'm only now getting back at tweaking and studying.
You're doing an excellent job in the meantime, I love all your experimenting with different wires and I'm trying to catch up while I'm starting to make some tests with SS and NiFe, but time availability is _not_ on my side...
Anyway, while I'm catching up, I'd like to understand what I'm doing wrong as my calculations on SR get to slight different results.
Can you check if/what is wrong in my line of reasoning here below?:

Really glad to see you back @ndb70 ! Yes of course I remember you, and have mentioned you in several posts since then and hoped you would return :)

Thanks very much! And I hope you will stick around as and when you have time.

@notarobot has cleared up the confusion. Unlike you guys, I am not a mathematician. I may express things a little more crudely or in fact completely inaccurately :) So yes as notarobot said, the delta makes more sense. I did target temperature because it seems easier/simpler for the end user. But then it is also changing if room temperature changes, so it is debatable if the % still serves a purpose.

I will update this shortly in the original post to make it clearer and correct.
 

TheBloke

Ultra Member
Verified Member
Mar 30, 2015
2,800
3,549
45
Brighton, UK


Wow! Thanks for the link!

No idea what to make of that. It's like they read this thread and threw together all the wires we use/might want to use ;)

Only in 22 AWG is a shame. I am going to wait a couple of days and see if they get it in at least 24. Then of course I will buy some to try it out :)

A 1-minute Google has not shown me any TCR info or even a data sheet. Very intriguing. I will look harder later.
 

TheotherSteveS

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 14, 2015
5,232
6,814
Birmingham, England
All mods except the Dicodes - to my knowledge anyway - have a temperature sensor in them. It was considered a standard part of the TC mod until Dicodes decided not to do it.

We know for sure the Joyetech does because it has a hidden menu option to show the environmental tempeature (albeit shown to nearest 5°C; we don't know if the internal thermometer is also nearest 5 or not)

We know the DNA 40 does because Evolv said it does.

We know for sure the DNA 200 does because it shows its value through eScribe

We surmise that all others except the Dicodes do, based on their general behaviour and the fact that they copied it from the DNA 40.

The Dicodes assumes the coil is at 20°C when taking the base resistance reading. It makes a point in the manual that if the background temperature differs greatly from 20°C, all target temps should be offset accordingly. It is unique in providing this instruction.

It does not mean absolutely 100% that all other mods do have one - perhaps some of the cheaper mods/clones do not. But the assumption so far has been that they do have one, until proved otherwise. It's an interesting point that might be worth investigating - eg taking a cheap SXK and putting it in a fridge or hot room and seeing if it remains accurate. We do know for sure that the SXK has refinement, automatically adjusting the coil base resistance up and down, so we would hope it has a thermometer to use with that.



So yeah, I'm afraid we are beaten to it ;) It has been there since the very first TC mod, the DNA 40.

And this is why my feeling is "resistance lock is not so good" - because taking out your "resistance lock is good" point (because the temp sensor is there to prevent against this), we are left only with a neutral and negative point.

I do however think there are other advantages to Yihi's "Set Resistance Now" feature: a mod with this feature is my preferred for building. I much prefer it to auto-read mods like the Evolv, because I want to check resistance multiple times during building. For example, on atomizers with a tight deck/narrow chimney, I want to check resistance again after putting the chimney on to be sure I did not just short the coil. I cannot do that on an Evolv.

I think the ultimate mod would have:
  1. Auto resistance read (like Evolv)
  2. Optional refinement (like Evolv but optional), which can reduce the auto read figure if turned on
  3. Set Resistance Now override (like Yihi and Dicodes)
In fact the Dicodes does two of these three, the only mod I know that has two methods: it has optional auto resistance read (enable or disabled by user), and separate manual Set Resistance Now. This for me is better than most, because I can choose to just hit fire and get the auto read if I want, but I can also choose to re-set it at any time if I prefer. The best of both worlds.

But the Dicodes does not then have the second item, refinement, and it cannot have it: because it does not have a thermometer.

Didnt want to labour my stupididty but thius it was in my mind..of course the dicodes is the one that doesnt....duuuuuhhhh...
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheBloke

notarobot

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
May 28, 2015
94
190
Germany
All mods except the Dicodes - to my knowledge anyway - have a temperature sensor in them. It was considered a standard part of the TC mod until Dicodes decided not to do it.

I must admit I did not know that. Remains the question, what they're doing with it... However, it's a bit off topic and I do not not want to start a discussion about that. Just wanted to point out that - if the ambient temp would be known AND the amount of static resistance could be specified when locking the resistance - the temperature calculation could be improved to eliminate all errors we've been talking about.

I don't want to over complicate things, but maybe you are right it is better expressed as % of ΔT.

Doesn't make much of a difference anyway. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheBloke

TheotherSteveS

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 14, 2015
5,232
6,814
Birmingham, England
I
Wow! Thanks for the link!

No idea what to make of that. It's like they read this thread and threw together all the wires we use/might want to use ;)

Only in 22 AWG is a shame. I am going to wait a couple of days and see if they get it in at least 24. Then of course I will buy some to try it out :)

A 1-minute Google has not shown me any TCR info or even a data sheet. Very intriguing. I will look harder later.
looked at this yonks ago. It is one of the shape-memory alloys. You bend it, then after you straighten it out, it goes back to the same shape on heating..or something like that! Crazy Wire indeed!!!!

Cue @druckle !!!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheBloke

druckle

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Sep 20, 2013
1,149
2,193
Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
TiNiFe alloys in general are "shape memory" alloys that have a "memory" of their former shape such that if they are deformed at a lower temperature and then exposed to a higher temperature they tend to return to their previous shape. ie: if we make a coil at below their transition temperature then expose them to a temperature above their transition temperature they would "uncoil" themselves. The normal shape memory alloys were originally NiTi alloys called Nitinol. Recently it has been found that substitution of some iron for some of the nickel content can further help to manipulate the transition temperature.

I have no idea what the composition of the FT wire is or what it's properties might be. I cannot imagine why one would want to use a shape memory wire in vaping unless there is some very unusual TCR involved and the shape memory transition temperature is outside the range from room temperature to vaping temperature.

I'm sure none of us would like our coils to unwind/distort on first firing.

Duane
 

TheotherSteveS

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 14, 2015
5,232
6,814
Birmingham, England
TiNiFe alloys in general are "shape memory" alloys that have a "memory" of their former shape such that if they are deformed at a lower temperature and then exposed to a higher temperature they tend to return to their previous shape. ie: if we make a coil at below their transition temperature then expose them to a temperature above their transition temperature they would "uncoil" themselves. The normal shape memory alloys were originally NiTi alloys called Nitinol. Recently it has been found that substitution of some iron for some of the nickel content can further help to manipulate the transition temperature.

I have no idea what the composition of the FT wire is or what it's properties might be. I cannot imagine why one would want to use a shape memory wire in vaping unless there is some very unusual TCR involved and the shape memory transition temperature is outside the range from room temperature to vaping temperature.

I'm sure none of us would like our coils to unwind/distort on first firing.

Duane

Hi Duane, you beat the cue by a couple of seconds!! lol!!
 

TheotherSteveS

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 14, 2015
5,232
6,814
Birmingham, England
TiNiFe alloys in general are "shape memory" alloys that have a "memory" of their former shape such that if they are deformed at a lower temperature and then exposed to a higher temperature they tend to return to their previous shape. ie: if we make a coil at below their transition temperature then expose them to a temperature above their transition temperature they would "uncoil" themselves. The normal shape memory alloys were originally NiTi alloys called Nitinol. Recently it has been found that substitution of some iron for some of the nickel content can further help to manipulate the transition temperature.

I have no idea what the composition of the FT wire is or what it's properties might be. I cannot imagine why one would want to use a shape memory wire in vaping unless there is some very unusual TCR involved and the shape memory transition temperature is outside the range from room temperature to vaping temperature.

I'm sure none of us would like our coils to unwind/distort on first firing.

Duane

Im pretty sure I started looking for some data on TCR for some of these wires (nitinol I think as someone in my lab was trying to use it in a mini-robotics project...dont ask...) but I forgot about it for the reasons you state. Not clear how it would be at all useful...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread