Another Popular Science article bashing vaping
- Thread starter TomCatt
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Sometimes I soak my coil and wick in water and then burn it dry, vaporizing the water. The coil must get at least 212 deg F to vaporize water. I don't know offhand the temp at which VG and PG vaporize, but the coil must get hot enough to do that. Coil temp probably varies a lot depending on the power (watts) applied to it and the length of time the power is applied. Some peeps vape at 4 watts, some at 40 watts.
I think you need to do Some Reading on the Differences of Vaporize/Evaporation and Boiling.
If Water had to be at 212F to Vaporize, your Driveway would Stay Wet Forever after you Washed your Car.
Unless you Lived on a Planet that was a Little Closer to the Sun. And that Doesn't sound Very Viable.
Evaporation happens slowly. Vaporization is quicker. Sublimation is weirder.
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...l-vaporization-atomizer-temp.html#post1586581
Last edited:
Slowly or Quickly are Modifiers that are Hard to Quantify Numerically. 212F isn't.
Think about your Car after you wash it. Read a Little More here on the ECF. And then go back and look at Post #42 and ask yourself it Needs to Be Edited?
If your point was "I am wrong and someone needs to tell me so," then I agree with the above statement.
This explains why I can never see my own breath when the weather is cold.
That or you're a Vampire?
IMO, eliquid is clearly boiling around the coil when we vaporize it. Measuring the actual coil temperature is tricky, because of the high-volume airflow created by the draw. However, as long as the coil is wet, I think the max temperature will be fairly close to the boiling point (bp) of the eliquid, which BTW is much lower than that of pure PG. Physics 101 tells us that mixtures of volatile liquids have lower boiling points than the highest bp of the pure components. Calculating the actual bp of ejuice is probably a foolish pursuit, since it is much easier to measure it empirically.
How high does the temperature get?
"I've actually measured the coil temperature using the temperature probe on my top of the line DMM. When the coil is wet with juice it gets up to about 300C. When dry burning, it gets up to about 700C."
"I've actually measured the coil temperature using the temperature probe on my top of the line DMM. When the coil is wet with juice it gets up to about 300C. When dry burning, it gets up to about 700C."
I think I get it now. Instead of an atomizer, you use an evaporator to get your ecig vapor. Probably don't even need a battery. Cool vape. LOL!
Consider stepping down on the nicotine. That stuff can make you swimmy-headed if you over do it. It can cause you to think weird thoughts and say weird things.
Good Advise Nickel.
But please, do keep posting the Temperature Numbers you have been Posting. Because we are all getting a kick out of them.
BTW - Do you know what PG and VG break down into at Elevated Temperatures? And Do you know what those Temperatures? are?
I'm going to avoid replying to your posts in the future. You are snarky. And, I'm liable to respond in kind. And, that gets us nowhere. If you have information disputing those temperatures, then post them or post a link to them. Otherwise, get off my back.
It does not say whether there was any airflow past the coil in that test. In any case, 300C is way too high, since that would instantly carbonize glycerine, which obviously doesn't routinely happen in our use of these devices...
800K? What a crock.
Anyone have the full text of the article they sited as showing second hand vaping causes the same nicotine level in the non vaper? Here are the highlights from the article but it wants $ to view the full article:
"► We evaluated acute active and passive e-cigarette and tobacco cigarette smoking. ► We assessed effects on complete blood count in 15 smokers and 15 never-smokers. ► Control and active/passive tobacco and electronic cigarette sessions were used. ► We observed no effects of e-cigarettes on complete blood count. ► Tobacco cigarettes increased white blood cell, lymphocyte, and granulocyte counts."
Digging into the study where they sited "adverse physiologic effects after short-term use that are similar to some of the effects seen with tobacco smoking," What I bolded below is not included in their results or conclusions at the beginning of the article. You know, the part 99% or more actually read. All the rest of the conclusion after that is hypothesis and guilty until proven innocent. The statement "that are similar to some of the effects seen with tobacco smoking" in this case is the same as saying apples are similar to oranges because both cause us to excrete dung. What would have been more pertinent is to have a third group who smoked cigarettes during a 5 min period and compared that to the e-cig group.
"In conclusion, use of an e-cigarette for 5 min was found to cause an increase in impedance, peripheral airway flow resistance, and oxidative stress among healthy smokers. We must state, however, that although the differences within our study are of statistical sig- nificance, the clinical changes may be too small to be of major clinical importance. Notably, because these short-term effects were present even after only very limited usage, and a normal consumer would use the product most likely many times a day, it is possible that if e-cigarette use were a short-term bridge to smoking cessation, the long-term health benefits associated with their use might outweigh the short- term risks; however, this would need to be clarified. The FDA, as well as other international regulatory bodies, should pursue the regulation of the e-cigarette until manufacturers provide scientific evidence to sup- port their claims. Additional research is warranted to obtain concrete evidence of an adverse health outcome."
My time is limited and that is all the digging I can do today.
Anyone have the full text of the article they sited as showing second hand vaping causes the same nicotine level in the non vaper? Here are the highlights from the article but it wants $ to view the full article:
"► We evaluated acute active and passive e-cigarette and tobacco cigarette smoking. ► We assessed effects on complete blood count in 15 smokers and 15 never-smokers. ► Control and active/passive tobacco and electronic cigarette sessions were used. ► We observed no effects of e-cigarettes on complete blood count. ► Tobacco cigarettes increased white blood cell, lymphocyte, and granulocyte counts."
Digging into the study where they sited "adverse physiologic effects after short-term use that are similar to some of the effects seen with tobacco smoking," What I bolded below is not included in their results or conclusions at the beginning of the article. You know, the part 99% or more actually read. All the rest of the conclusion after that is hypothesis and guilty until proven innocent. The statement "that are similar to some of the effects seen with tobacco smoking" in this case is the same as saying apples are similar to oranges because both cause us to excrete dung. What would have been more pertinent is to have a third group who smoked cigarettes during a 5 min period and compared that to the e-cig group.
"In conclusion, use of an e-cigarette for 5 min was found to cause an increase in impedance, peripheral airway flow resistance, and oxidative stress among healthy smokers. We must state, however, that although the differences within our study are of statistical sig- nificance, the clinical changes may be too small to be of major clinical importance. Notably, because these short-term effects were present even after only very limited usage, and a normal consumer would use the product most likely many times a day, it is possible that if e-cigarette use were a short-term bridge to smoking cessation, the long-term health benefits associated with their use might outweigh the short- term risks; however, this would need to be clarified. The FDA, as well as other international regulatory bodies, should pursue the regulation of the e-cigarette until manufacturers provide scientific evidence to sup- port their claims. Additional research is warranted to obtain concrete evidence of an adverse health outcome."
My time is limited and that is all the digging I can do today.
Last edited:
- Status