Vapor Flask V3 DNA40 Clone thread

[Quantum Mech]

I may have misunderstood your previous post. I thought you said that you had a batch of these coming and you were going to open them up and repair the grounds and possibly install new chassis grounds to board before you distributed them.

I asked you to take a few pics of the repair process you employed when you did so to help others and post them with your findings as with a large batch of units you will probably be the best person to find the most efficient repeatable process and are obviously skilled in what you are doing.

Should I have tried to volunteer you in that manner without asking politely - no. For that I am sorry. If you choose not to do so fair enough.

We all agree the OP has probably got a poor connection issue and many of us would choose to diagnose it ourselves with an ohm meter on each connection starting with the 510 to top plate right on through each connection but the best advise I would give him is to return his warranted unit to fasttech for manufacturers replacement based on his reported skill level.

I have 2 Waideas & a Kangxin not an SXK so I have only been speculating.

@Tpat591 no worries I must have read your post wrong

I will test all

Should any be faulty I will be doing as you clearly stated and pulling it apart & checking all the wiring and resistance of the +/- circuit

Will make a point of taking some pictures of what I do

 

[Quantum Mech]

the red arrow shows where the 510 ground wire is soldered to the board, the board is using it also for battery ground

The green arrow shows the unused pad, internally they are the same

So the battery negative goes to the 510

The board picks up the battery negative via a ground wire to the casing ?

 

[dwcraig1]

So the battery negative goes to the 510

The board picks up the battery negative via a ground wire to the casing ?

Yep...well via the top plate making contact to the box (ground wire to the 510)
If the top plate isn't attached the board has no ground.
Kangxin seems to be the only one to do it right, they had a ground wire screwed onto the box.
Here, red arrow

 

[Quantum Mech]

Yep...well via the top plate making contact to the box (ground wire to the 510)
If the top plate isn't attached the board has no ground.

Gotcha

So yes the fault you had would have caused excessive voltage drop under load which the board would have seen
This would have caused excessive amp draw to try and maintain the selected wattage
Then the board would have throttled back to keep within its set amp limits
The voltage drop under load would have caused the low battery warning

 

[JAlexander]

Yeah seeing your video that must be something wrong with the battery sled

Once I have them in hand & all tested ok will let you know as should be a couple of VF & VS spare

@Quantum Mech, by battery sled do you mean the tube and the top positive connection?

@dwcraig1 have you pulled out the whole sled? anything i should know before trying to pull it out and start looking at the positive connections?

 

[dwcraig1]

@Quantum Mech, by battery sled do you mean the tube and the top positive connection?

@dwcraig1 have you pulled out the whole sled? anything i should know before trying to pull it out and start looking at the positive connections?

Battery sled is the plastic tray like frame that everything mounts into and slides into the metal shell.
The button (covers) have to come off before sliding the tray (sled) out making sure the USB metal part doesn't get hung up on it's hole.
The button (covers) resemble thumb tacks, the stick in the holes on the buttons of the switches.
No, never took one out.
Once the button covers are off that white plastic framework (sled/tray) slides right out with everything attached.
If in doubt, don't.
As far as just pulling the sled the button covers is the only hard part. Use care there. Another member pulled the switch apart accidentally.
Look at this link:

 

[JAlexander]

so to remove the buttons, i just pull them straight out? away from the device, like i am pulling a thumb tack out of a cork board?

 

[dwcraig1]

so to remove the buttons, i just pull them straight out? away from the device, like i am pulling a thumb tack out of a cork board?

Look at post 4249
Your going to pry them from the switch from the inside of the housing not from the outside.

 

[JAlexander]

gotcha. Ok perfect. I think i can do this

 

[dwcraig1]

Here's what the switch and it's actual button look like, the stem of the button cover sticks in the hole.

 

[dwcraig1]

Now I just checked my manual for my FT flask and it says there is a low voltage warming buzzer. Has anyone got a warm buzz yet??
Also I expect SXK to deny doing any business with FT (because they went out the back door not the front)

 

[JAlexander]

thanks @dwcraig1 that helped a lot. super easy to do, with a little guidance

ok so here is the sled fully removed. things look ok is me the positve pins do look a little angled. does anyone see anything i don't here that i should be looking at?

 

[JAlexander]

no buzzer but does tell you low voltage

 

[JAlexander]

actually there it is i think in the last picture there is some insulation off the wire under my screen. do you see that. could that somehow be causing all this?

i mean i get that exposed wire is no good but could that be the cause of all of this?

 

[TheBloke]

that is definitely strange

if it can control correctly why cant it display correctly

so @dwcraig1 you have a coil that is 0.12, the SXK shows it as 0.07, but then it sends the voltage appropriate for 0.12 at your current wattage setting?

If so, it could be more evidence of a deliberate scam? The resistance reading is fine, but it displays always too low so it can claim to fire down to 0.06.

Then again, I am a firm believer in the maxim: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

If they really wanted to pretend to do 0.06 then it only makes sense to do -0.04 at 0.10-0.14, not all the way up - and not getting worse and worse as it goes up. One might argue that it's both a scam (deliberate lowering displayed ohms) and a screw up (applying it more than is needed for the scam.)

Then again, if it's really firing the right voltage for the real ohms, wouldn't it also use the real ohms for the TC calculation? Meaning TC would be accurate without NP adjustment? But it isn't. It definitely seems to use the wrong, lowered ohms for TC calculations.

Very weird.

i will try probing my voltage today see if I can find the same thing as @dwcraig1

 

[dwcraig1]

First let me say that the layout of the board is different tan Evolv or Rayn.
On the wire, one of them maybe positive, was it touching ground?

 

[dwcraig1]

so @dwcraig1 you have a coil that is 0.12, the SXK shows it as 0.07, but then it sends the voltage appropriate for 0.12 at your current wattage setting?

If so, it could be more evidence of a deliberate scam? The resistance reading is fine, but it displays always too low so it can claim to fire down to 0.06.

Then again, I am a firm believer in the maxim: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

If they really wanted to pretend to do 0.06 then it only makes sense to do -0.04 at 0.10-0.14, not all the way up - and not getting worse and worse as it goes up. One might argue that it's both a scam (deliberate lowering displayed ohms) and a screw up (applying it more than is needed for the scam.)

Then again, if it's really firing the right voltage for the real ohms, wouldn't it also use the real ohms for the TC calculation? Meaning TC would be accurate without NP adjustment? But it isn't. It definitely seems to use the wrong, lowered ohms for TC calculations.

Very weird.

i will try probing my voltage today see if I can find the same thing as @dwcraig1

The best way I can say it it it vapes perfectly using the same setting that I use with an Evolv board. NP is 95 so that's about the same as Evolv too, I guess. It vapes great. (2 days now)
It jumps to 0.2Ω when firing.

 

[TheBloke]

NP is 95 is way higher than what Evolv should/will be using for their calcs - we would anticipate an NP around 60 to match what Evolv does (ie using the real coefficient of Ni200 of around 0.06)

The very high figure of NP 95 (the default is actually 70 - also too high, but not nearly as high as you're now using) is to compensate for the low resistance affecting the temperature predictions, because the base resistance of the coil is a multiplicative factor in that calculation.

The fact that it vapes as well as your Evolv board on a setting of NP95 suggests strongly,as I am finding as well, that the low resistance is real - it really thinks the coil is 0.07 not 0.12. Or at least, it uses that for its TC calculations; whether it also uses it for its voltage calculations (you suggested it did not) is perhaps another matter

This does't get us closer to understanding whether the low resistance is a deliberate marketing fudge, or a real mistake, but it does seem to prove that it's not purely a display issue. If it says 0.07 on the screen it also uses 0.07 internally, at least for TC calcs.

 

[dwcraig1]

NP is 95 is way higher than what Evolv should/will be using for their calcs - we would anticipate an NP around 60 to match what Evolv does (ie using the real coefficient of Ni200 of around 0.06)

The very high figure of NP 95 (the default is actually 70 - also too high, but not nearly as high as you're now using) is to compensate for the low resistance affecting the temperature predictions, because the base resistance of the coil is a multiplicative factor in that calculation.

The fact that it vapes as well as your Evolv board on a setting of NP95 suggests strongly,as I am finding as well, that the low resistance is real - it really thinks the coil is 0.07 not 0.12. Or at least, it uses that for its TC calculations; whether it also uses it for its voltage calculations (you suggested it did not) is perhaps another matter

This does't get us closer to understanding whether the low resistance is a deliberate marketing fudge, or a real mistake, but it does seem to prove that it's not purely a display issue. If it says 0.07 on the screen it also uses 0.07 internally, at least for TC calcs.

I thought the actual idea was to input the nickels percent of purity which is around 99%

 

[TheBloke]

I thought the actual idea was to input the nickels percent of purity which is around 99%

Nope. My testing indicates it's a linear Temperature Coefficient of Resistance scale, NP10 = TCR of 0.001 (around Stainless steel), NP100 = 0.010 (higher than any usable wire.)

On that scale:

32 = Resistherm NiFe30
35 = Titanium
62 = Ni200

The high figures we use are directly to compensate for the low resistance. The figure we should be using is 62, if the resistance was right. Hence my calculator.

Lots more info in the first two posts of and throughout this thread:
TC beyond Ni200: Nickel Purity, Dicodes; Ti, SS, Resistherm NiFe30; Coefficient of Resistance