What was wrong with ultrasonic?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gestalt

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Jun 4, 2011
78
2
Colorado
I read that the original e-cigarettes had ultrasonic atomizers. Now I keep reading about people getting "dry hits" and "burnt taste." It seems like the ultrasonic versions wouldn't have had that problem. It also seems like they would last longer. Was there a problem with them? Or was it just that they would be more expensive than the heating element version?
 

Gestalt

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Jun 4, 2011
78
2
Colorado
Thanks for the link. That is interesting. I didn't think about the bacteria issue. I wonder how effective vaporizing is at killing or excluding bacteria. A quick look through the Wikipedia article on sterilization seems to indicate that both high temperature and time are needed to sterilize something. I wonder how hot the atomizer element gets and how long it takes to sterilize something at that temperature.

In the linked thread someone said "The vapour doesn't carry the bacteria or impurities though, they get left on the wick apparently." That brings up the idea of exclusion. It seems like the heating element might actually be boiling the liquid instead of "atomizing" it. If it is, it seems like it would be more effective at excluding bacteria.

In any case, it seems like you could do the same thing by including anti-bacterial materials (like silver) into the atomizer design.
 

Clutter

Full Member
May 12, 2011
21
3
London, UK
I wonder how effective vaporizing is at killing or excluding bacteria. A quick look through the Wikipedia article on sterilization seems to indicate that both high temperature and time are needed to sterilize something. I wonder how hot the atomizer element gets ...

About 300 degrees so don't hold the button and stick your tongue on it:blink:
I reckon that's hot enough to deal with most bacteria:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread