Titanium wire, vaping and safety

[Quantum Mech]

The red lead is touch probe & the green on the lower left insertion

Need to find time without kids & dog to do some testing

The Kane & May was only recently calibrated too

 

[TheotherSteveS]

Oh and to answer the question "what reads accurately to 0.001Ω" - the Dicodes claims to be accurate to mOhm resolution, 0.001Ω. But annoyingly, and baffingly, it only shows to 0.01Ω granularity, even on the dedicated Resistance Reading screen. So it will round the last digit.

The Yihi chips display three decimals (during Set Resistance) so we can hope they're reading it accurately, but they haven't stated an actual resistance accuracy. And the fact that they truncate the last digit, not round it, for the main display, is also baffling. But we can hope they at least use the last digit in their TC calcs - hope, but not assume I think.

you are right. I guess they just truncate the last digit rather than round down although effectively that is the same thing! Silly really..

 

[druckle]

First water test on SXK vapor flask 60W

The calculator/spreadsheet tells me to set the purity for my Ti Coil Magma dripper at 45.
Done
New Rayon Wick, RO water TDS=0
sustained indicated temperature during firing = 208-213F.
Hmmmm all works perfectly? Nah...can't be. Nothing works that well. Off to screw up the purity setting and see if the indicated boiling temp changes as expected but why would it not?

I wish I had a TC I trusted to check the temp at vaping temperature.
It's in your hands at the moment Tom. You have water and a TC.

Duane

 

[SotosB]

What is it, what's the name?

And is that the point? I though the point was to get the best possible wire? Is there a reason why those components would be bad?

Kanthal is Iron, Chrome, Aluminium; Ni200 is Nickel; Resistherm is Nickel and Iron; NiChrome 80 is Nickel and Chrome; Titanium Gr1 is Titanium.

So all those elements we vape in other wires, alone or together in different combinations; is there a reason they would be bad in this combination?

Since there's no research about what is passing through the vape, I feel safer avoiding Chromium and Nickel. As I prefer vaping home made juice, for the same reason. Probably there's no serius concern, but since I have an option, I walk the safer way. I'm really satisfied by Ti and SS, and keep an eye for the rest.

 

[Dobo]

Tony, I just ordered the white one from US, mind you that they had a choice of all three colors For me, it looks the most beautiful of them. Nevertheless, VT seems to be the best price/quality TC mod out there as of now.

Just found a BM 15 miles from my home that will receive the VT today (at 79.99€) only catch... they pre-sold all colors except white... do I want that mod so badly I'm willing to take the white? :S

Tony

 

[druckle]

Since there's no research about what is passing through the vape, I feel safer avoiding Chromium and Nickel. As I prefer vaping home made juice, for the same reason. Probably there's no serius concern, but since I have an option, I walk the safer way. I'm really satisfied by Ti and SS, and keep an eye for the rest.

If chromium concerns you then stainless steel isn't the way to go. I personally don't think you have a ghost of a chance to get Chromium VI from a SS coil at vaping temps but just saying....



Duane

 

[SotosB]

If chromium concerns you then stainless steel isn't the way to go. I personally don't think you have a ghost of a chance to get Chromium from a SS coil at vaping temps but just saying....



Duane

I know, you can't avoid everything, can you? SS is what I'm mainly vaping at, it has less content of chromium I think. Please tell me I'm not wrong. (To be honest, I think it performs the best as it comes to flavour)

 

[TheotherSteveS]

If chromium concerns you then stainless steel isn't the way to go. I personally don't think you have a ghost of a chance to get Chromium VI from a SS coil at vaping temps but just saying....



Duane

Agreed. If it was that easy, SS wouldnt be quite as useful as it is !!!

 

[druckle]

I know, you can't avoid everything, can you? SS is what I'm mainly vaping at, it has less content of chromium I think. Please tell me I'm not wrong. (To be honest, I think it performs the best as it comes to flavour)

I have no idea what the Ti alloy you are using is except that it appears to be a beta alloy and could have very high chromium content since some of the hundreds of beta alloys do. Doesn't matter to me what the chromium content is though because I'm quite sure that you can't get Cr VI from a vape coil no matter what...as long as the coil is wet or temp limited. Stainless steel isn't likely to have more than 18-20% chromium. That's the common range for Cr in various stainless steels.

My real concern for any Ti alloy other than commercially pure (Grade 1 etc.) is that alloyed Ti is not likely to have a temp/resistance coeff. that will make it work for a temperature controlled coil.

Duane

 

[druckle]

Well, raising and lowering the "purity setting" on the SXK vapor flask clone does exactly what one would expect. It changes the sustained displayed temp when firing a coil wetted by water. I assume that since the temp coefficient of resistance is almost linear in our temp range then it just may be possible to do the water test and keep changing the "purity setting" on the SXK till the indicated temperature is the boiling point of water.

That would be cool. All it would take is the water calibration dance for a given coil atomizer combination and set the "purity" as required. .....
no guessing/worrying about what the static resistance of the atomizer is or the accuracy of the resistance measurement ?? At least that seems right to me.

Tell us how it works at vaping temps Tom.
Also tell us that your postman came and you now have the most sophisticated vaping device on the planet and it works perfectly!

Duane

 

[SotosB]

I use Ti Gr1, not an alloy. I agree with your thoughts. Since I'm satisfied with it and SS, I find no reason to experiment. As I've read somewhere, (I don't remeber where) the Ti alloy doesn't work well with sxk tp because of its coeff.

 

[druckle]

I use Ti Gr1, not an alloy. I agree with your thoughts. Since I'm satisfied with it and SS, I find no reason to experiment. As I've read somewhere, (I don't remeber where) the Ti alloy doesn't work well with sxk tp because of its coeff.

Oh...Ok... I got confused. Someone mentioned a ti alloy having Cr, Fe etc...I assumed that was what you were using. Apologies...I misunderstood.

Duane

 

[TheBloke]

Well, raising and lowering the "purity setting" on the SXK vapor flask clone does exactly what one would expect. It changes the sustained displayed temp when firing a coil wetted by water. I assume that since the temp coefficient of resistance is almost linear in our temp range then it just may be possible to do the water test and keep changing the "purity setting" on the SXK till the indicated temperature is the boiling point of water.

That would be cool. All it would take is the water calibration dance for a given coil atomizer combination and set the "purity" as required. .....

Yeah that's exactly how it should work.

First, nomenclature - hereafter I will refer to the Nickel Purity scale on the SXK and Coefficient scale on the Dicodes as the TCR Scale, or TCRS. I will give that value in terms of the Dicodes scale, because that has the best granularity. So TCRS 320 is a Coefficient of 0.0032 and is NP32 on the SXK and 320 on the Dicodes Coefficient Scale.

no guessing/worrying about what the static resistance of the atomizer is or the accuracy of the resistance measurement ?? At least that seems right to me.

But we do care about the SR, very much so - at least unless we want to perform the water dance for every build on every atty, rather than once per atty.

As I mentioned yesterday, I think the main benefit of the water test (or any external temperature calibration) is to do it once for a given atty, and then work backwards from the found TCRS to derive what the SR must be. Then that SR can be used simply for future calculations on my calculator, at any target temp on any wire on that atty, without having to re-calibrate with water each time.

There can be slight variations in SR based on build - ie a poor build can make it (much) worse - so that needs to be accounted for; each time we calibrate, and each time we re-build with calculations not calibration, we need to be sure of accurate builds. But that's true of any TC.

I see the prime benefit of the water test as giving an externally-calibrated TCRS from which we work out the SR to use in future purely-calculated TCRS configuration.

Ie, assuming a mod with accurate resistance, if one has a build of 0.30Ω but one finds the right setting is TCRS 320, one can calculate that the SR should be 0.01Ω - ie the real resistance is 0.29Ω not 0.30Ω.

(If the mod does not have accurate resistance, ie SXK then the same principle applies: the water test can find the resistance offset; the key difference is that because the offset will vary not only per atty (SR), but also per build (varying resistance inaccuracy according to base resistance), one must perform the test once per atty+base resistance range. Not necessarily per build - a coil of 0.30Ω and a coil of 0.32Ω can be assumed to have the same offset in most cases.)

In future, for any build on that atty, one can use the calculator: putting in target temp, the read resistance and the expected real resistance )subtracting the 0.01Ω SR) and get the right TCRS for this base resistance, temp and (potentially) new wire type.

As an example:

• A Ti build of 0.30Ω is made on AttyX and calibrated with the water test or other external temp test.
  • Temp test suggests TCRS 320.
  • TCRS 320 is used to calculate an SR of 0.01Ω - ie real resistance is 0.29Ω
• A new Ti build on this atty is made on AttyX of 0.40Ω.
  • The calculator is used to put in the real resistance of 0.39Ω, re-using the calibration SR of 0.01Ω to subtract from the read resistance of 0.40Ω
  • For this build, the correct setting is TCRS 330 - not 320.
  • We cannot simply re-use the water test calibration result at this new resistance, but we can use the calculated SR taken from the calibration to re-calculate the most accurate TCRS value without performing another external temp test.

I will soon expand my calculator to allow this reverse calculation - turning a TCRS value on a given build into the offset from the real resistance.

Tell us how it works at vaping temps Tom.
Also tell us that your postman came and you now have the most sophisticated vaping device on the planet and it works perfectly!

Done.

And yes, vaping on it now Usability is awful from having only button, a bone-headed decision if ever I saw one. But in terms of accuracy and TC control I think it will live up to expectations - of course very early days still, I've only had it a couple of hours and I was out for 45 mins of that (though I did take it with me to vape in the car.)

But it is very nice to be vaping on Resistherm just at TCRS 320 without having to wonder if the resistance is right

I will do much more testing today including external temp measurement.

 

[druckle]

Yeah that's exactly how it should work.

First, nomenclature - hereafter I will refer to the Nickel Purity scale on the SXK and Coefficient scale on the Dicodes as the TCR Scale, or TCRS. I will give that value in terms of the Dicodes scale, because that has the best granularity. So TCRS 320 is a Coefficient of 0.0032 and is NP32 on the SXK and 320 on the Dicodes Coefficient Scale.



But we do care about the SR, very much so - at least unless we want to perform the water dance for every build on every atty, rather than once per atty.

As I mentioned yesterday, I think the main benefit of the water test (or any external temperature calibration) is to do it once for a given atty, and then work backwards from the found TCRS to derive what the SR must be. Then that SR can be used simply for future calculations on my calculator, at any target temp on any wire on that atty, without having to re-calibrate with water each time.

There can be slight variations in SR based on build - ie a poor build can make it (much) worse - so that needs to be accounted for; each time we calibrate, and each time we re-build with calculations not calibration, we need to be sure of accurate builds. But that's true of any TC.

I see the prime benefit of the water test as giving an externally-calibrated TCRS from which we work out the SR to use in future purely-calculated TCRS configuration.

Ie, assuming a mod with accurate resistance, if one has a build of 0.30Ω but one finds the right setting is TCRS 320, one can calculate that the SR should be 0.01Ω - ie the real resistance is 0.29Ω not 0.30Ω.

(If the mod does not have accurate resistance, ie SXK then the same principle applies: the water test can find the resistance offset; the key difference is that because the offset will vary not only per atty (SR), but also per build (varying resistance inaccuracy according to base resistance), one must perform the test once per atty+base resistance range. Not necessarily per build - a coil of 0.30Ω and a coil of 0.32Ω can be assumed to have the same offset in most cases.)

In future, for any build on that atty, one can use the calculator: putting in target temp, the read resistance and the expected real resistance )subtracting the 0.01Ω SR) and get the right TCRS for this base resistance, temp and (potentially) new wire type.

As an example:

• A Ti build of 0.30Ω is made on AttyX and calibrated with the water test or other external temp test.
  • Temp test suggests TCRS 320.
  • TCRS 320 is used to calculate an SR of 0.01Ω - ie real resistance is 0.29Ω
• A new Ti build on this atty is made on AttyX of 0.40Ω.
  • The calculator is used to put in the real resistance of 0.39Ω, re-using the calibration SR of 0.01Ω to subtract from the read resistance of 0.40Ω
  • For this build, the correct setting is TCRS 330 - not 320.
  • We cannot simply re-use the water test calibration result at this new resistance, but we can use the calculated SR taken from the calibration to re-calculate the most accurate TCRS value without performing another external temp test.

I will soon expand my calculator to allow this reverse calculation - turning a TCRS value on a given build into the offset from the real resistance.



Done.

And yes, vaping on it now Usability is awful from having only button, a bone-headed decision if ever I saw one. But in terms of accuracy and TC control I think it will live up to expectations - of course very early days still, I've only had it a couple of hours and I was out for 45 mins of that (though I did take it with me to vape in the car.)

But it is very nice to be vaping on Resistherm just at TCRS 320 without having to wonder if the resistance is right

I will do much more testing today including external temp measurement.

Tom
I agree...except that it was so easy and quick to do the water dance I believe I could do it for each build and be vaping with assurance faster and better than having to worry about all the"guess" issues. It seems like it would be self compensating for a lot of the build variables that would lead to big guesses in starting resistance etc. Anyway I'm going to put my favorite Ti coil on a bunch of different atties and see if just the water will get me up and running in my sweet spot.
Did you get the magic German machine yet?

Duane

 

[druckle]

Yeah that's exactly how it should work.

First, nomenclature - hereafter I will refer to the Nickel Purity scale on the SXK and Coefficient scale on the Dicodes as the TCR Scale, or TCRS. I will give that value in terms of the Dicodes scale, because that has the best granularity. So TCRS 320 is a Coefficient of 0.0032 and is NP32 on the SXK and 320 on the Dicodes Coefficient Scale.



But we do care about the SR, very much so - at least unless we want to perform the water dance for every build on every atty, rather than once per atty.

As I mentioned yesterday, I think the main benefit of the water test (or any external temperature calibration) is to do it once for a given atty, and then work backwards from the found TCRS to derive what the SR must be. Then that SR can be used simply for future calculations on my calculator, at any target temp on any wire on that atty, without having to re-calibrate with water each time.

There can be slight variations in SR based on build - ie a poor build can make it (much) worse - so that needs to be accounted for; each time we calibrate, and each time we re-build with calculations not calibration, we need to be sure of accurate builds. But that's true of any TC.

I see the prime benefit of the water test as giving an externally-calibrated TCRS from which we work out the SR to use in future purely-calculated TCRS configuration.

Ie, assuming a mod with accurate resistance, if one has a build of 0.30Ω but one finds the right setting is TCRS 320, one can calculate that the SR should be 0.01Ω - ie the real resistance is 0.29Ω not 0.30Ω.

(If the mod does not have accurate resistance, ie SXK then the same principle applies: the water test can find the resistance offset; the key difference is that because the offset will vary not only per atty (SR), but also per build (varying resistance inaccuracy according to base resistance), one must perform the test once per atty+base resistance range. Not necessarily per build - a coil of 0.30Ω and a coil of 0.32Ω can be assumed to have the same offset in most cases.)

In future, for any build on that atty, one can use the calculator: putting in target temp, the read resistance and the expected real resistance )subtracting the 0.01Ω SR) and get the right TCRS for this base resistance, temp and (potentially) new wire type.

As an example:

• A Ti build of 0.30Ω is made on AttyX and calibrated with the water test or other external temp test.
  • Temp test suggests TCRS 320.
  • TCRS 320 is used to calculate an SR of 0.01Ω - ie real resistance is 0.29Ω
• A new Ti build on this atty is made on AttyX of 0.40Ω.
  • The calculator is used to put in the real resistance of 0.39Ω, re-using the calibration SR of 0.01Ω to subtract from the read resistance of 0.40Ω
  • For this build, the correct setting is TCRS 330 - not 320.
  • We cannot simply re-use the water test calibration result at this new resistance, but we can use the calculated SR taken from the calibration to re-calculate the most accurate TCRS value without performing another external temp test.

I will soon expand my calculator to allow this reverse calculation - turning a TCRS value on a given build into the offset from the real resistance.



Done.

And yes, vaping on it now Usability is awful from having only button, a bone-headed decision if ever I saw one. But in terms of accuracy and TC control I think it will live up to expectations - of course very early days still, I've only had it a couple of hours and I was out for 45 mins of that (though I did take it with me to vape in the car.)

But it is very nice to be vaping on Resistherm just at TCRS 320 without having to wonder if the resistance is right

I will do much more testing today including external temp measurement.

OOPS...missed your post about the machine. ENJOY!!!!

 

[druckle]

MY GOD....it's raining again in Arizona. This is twice in the last week. I guess the Water Dance is good for something besides calibrating vaping fools.

Duane

 

[TheBloke]

Yes in the case of the SXK, where resistance is so far out, calibration - if it is quick and easy - might be best, because you can't rely on a fixed resistance.

But for accurate resistance reading devices, I think one water test and then re-using the calculated SR is by far quickest, because it really takes no time at all. One water/external test, then use the SR forever more.

That's also not the only way to measure SR, there's the direct way of shorting the device, but that requires accurate low-ohm reader so probably isn't practical for most - I don't yet know if my Dicodes will be accurate that low, for example. Annoyingly although it measures to 0.001Ω granularity it only displays to 0.01Ω anyway.

I would be hopeful that before too long SXK fix the chronic low resistance at which case new, cheap SXK devices will also be usable in the 'standard' way, with TCRS used only for adjusting for SR and not also for inaccurate base resistance readings.

 

[druckle]

Yes in the case of the SXK, where resistance is so far out, calibration - if it is quick and easy - might be best, because you can't rely on a fixed resistance.

But for accurate resistance reading devices, I think one water test and then re-using the calculated SR is by far quickest, because it really takes no time at all. One water/external test, then use the SR forever more.

That's also not the only way to measure SR, there's the direct way of shorting the device, but that requires accurate low-ohm reader so probably isn't practical for most - I don't yet know if my Dicodes will be accurate that low, for example. Annoyingly although it measures to 0.001Ω granularity it only displays to 0.01Ω anyway.

I would be hopeful that before too long SXK fix the chronic low resistance at which case new, cheap SXK devices will also be usable in the 'standard' way, with TCRS used only for adjusting for SR and not also for inaccurate base resistance readings.

Tom

I absolutely agree. I was only thinking of the SXK when I mentioned doing the water thing for each build. I'm not too sure that any of the temp controlled devices measure resistance very well though. I've been getting numbers all over the map between SX, Evolv and SXK on the same coil/atty. I really think the whole industry needs to think long and hard on how accurately they measure resistance. Without your calculator there is no other way to deal with most temp controlled devices with water alone. As you say it can help determine SR but beyond that ...nothing.

I'm thinking that the Dicodes and the SXK share a feature that everyone needs to do for their devices and that's letting us dial in a TCR number, not just set one number for each type of wire. Funny to think of a $60 chinese clone and a piece of expensive German engineering as the most advanced vaping devices of the moment.

Duane

 

[TheBloke]

Yeah TCR adjustment is the future for sure, well at least the future of the now Maybe in six months we'll all have highly accurate external-temp-sensing in the atty, like Innokin are (seem to be) pioneering.

But yeah right now I can't imagine myself buying another TC mod that doesn't have TCR adjustment - I might allow that to include the Joyetech, because it has a Ti mode and Ti and Resistherm are so close together. But I won't buy any more legacy TC devices with fixed-TCR because I'm now too interesting in non-Ni200 wires, not to mention super-accurate TC with adjusting for SR.

Resistherm and Titanium are possible on such devices as most people here are still doing, but Stainless Steel is not and I'm liking that wire a lot as well.

 

[druckle]

Bye the way...remember my rant about Evolv and the Vapor Flask Squonk of yesterday?
I have to correct/restate the issue. After banging my head against the wall and quoting every curse word in every language I could think of I decided to calm down and look at the situation carefully.

First thing I noticed is that the aluminum threads for the battery caps were anodized. Yes, ANODIZED.
This was not true on any Vapor Flask device I have looked at before.

The first thing I did was simply to wipe the threads and brass caps several times with alcohol...to remove whatever organics might have accumulated there. Believe it or not that caused the device to start working. I'm still left with a likely state of fubar negative grounding but at least I can let the bruises on my head heal while I think of ways to improve that stupid Vapor Flask manufacturing change. Apologies Evolv. This time it looks like you were not the problem.

I don't want to make things worse but I'm thinking for some sort of wire brushing or somesuch as a step in the right direction. Does anyone have suggestions?

Duane