Posted on

Ohm’s law

Ohm’s law

Not sure what cartomizer to use or replace with?

Ohm’s? and voltage?? Here’s a little help.

Ohm’s law, (Voltage x Voltage) / Resistance (ohms) = Power (watts)

Knowing this formula is crucial to understanding what variable voltage is all about, and helps gain a better understanding of how the different combinations of vaping equipment perform relative to each other.

 

Here’s a look at a few examples.

Most standard 510 atomizers have a resistance of 2.5 ohms. Mass produced PV’s such as the 510 and the eGo run around 3.2v. Using Ohm’s law, we can calculate the power output for this configuration.

(3.2v x 3.2v) / 2.5 ohms = 4.096 watts

If you use a standard 510 atomizer, but instead step up to a 3.7v device our power output increases.

(3.7v x 3.7v) / 2.5 ohms = 5.476 watts

If you use a non-standard atomizer @ 3ohms, but instead step up to a variable voltage 5.5v device our power output increases.

(5.5v x 5.5v) / 3 ohms = 10.083 watts

Note: higher resistance (higher ohms) last longer than lower resistance. It all depends on the voltages of the power unit.

Posted on

What are Drip Tips and How to Use Them?

What are they made of?

If you are new to vaping then you might hear a lot of new terminologies that can confuse you. A drip is commonly referred to the mouth piece section of an atomizer which simply facilitates the air draw from an atomizer and also serves as a decorative accessory.
 
A drip tip can be made of different materials such as stainless steel, titanium, aluminum, chrome plated copper, acrylic, perspex or perhaps plastic. The prices of these drip tips vary largely depending on the materials used, quality of the finish and so forth.
 
What is the function of a drip tip?
All drip tips have the one common function – to supply the vapour emerging from an atomizer. This can be a cartomizer, dripper or a standard tank.
 
Do they fit all atomizers and tanks?

The majority of the drip tips sold today are mainly of two different types being; drip tips for CE tanks for eGo devices mainly or drip tips for all standard 510 atomizers and tanks such as the Rev Tanks and dripping atomizers such as the Trident, etc. If a drip tip is made to fit on a CE type tank then it won’t fit a regular cartomizer or atomizer tank.
 
Amongst the two types the standard 510 drip tips are more popular as these can fit the majority of tanks, RBAs, RDAs and attys and so forth.

At VapeMOB we stock a number of different drip tip styles which not only look funky but some of them have some special features. They come in various designs and styles to suit your mood.

Posted on

What are electronic cigarettes and how do they work?

You’re at your favorite restaurant, enjoying a meal. A diner at the next table is puffing on a cigarette, letting out a cloud of smoke. Because smoking isn’t allowed in the restaurant, you’re thinking about asking the smoker to put the cigarette out. But before you protest, consider this: Your neighbor may not be smoking at all.

 

Electronic cigarettes, also known as smokeless cigarettes, e-cigarettes, or e-cigs, are an alternative method of consuming nicotine, the chemical found in tobacco. Manufacturers often design e-cigarettes to look like regular cigarettes, but they contain no tobacco and don’t require a match — or any flame at all.

 

Electronic cigarettes feature a replaceable inhaler cartridge containing vegetable glycerin and/or polyethylene glycol, flavoring and nicotine. With every inhalation, a sensor triggers a vaporizer to heat a small amount of liquid flavoring. The liquid turns to vapor and is drawn into the user’s mouth.

 

Vaping is not the same as smoking a water-pipe, or hookah. In a hookah, a burned mixture of tobacco and molasses is drawn through water to cool the smoke. Burning creates cancer-causing chemicals that are inhaled by the smoker.

 

The vaping technology of e-cigarettes does not burn anything; the liquid mixture is simply vaporized. The vapor does not contain the harmful compounds found in smoke from hookahs or cigarettes.

 

In theory, since vaping does not burn tobacco, it should be safer than conventional cigarette smoking. A main ingredient in the liquid cartridges, polyethylene glycol, is FDA-approved and is used in many consumer products.

 

A 2013 study in the journal Tobacco Control found that the harmful chemicals in Electronic cigarettes occurred at levels 9 to 450 times lower than in regular cigarette smoke.

 

Posted on

Rebuildable Atomizer (RBA) how to Guide

How to Guide: RBA

If you are brand new to the world of Rebuildable Atomizers I’m going to let you in on a secret. Shhh! Don’t tell anyone. Okay?

 

 

Ready?

Rebuildable Atomizers are a lot easier to master than you might think. When you hear the term “rebuilding an atomizer” for the first the first time you probably think it requires a lot of steps, a lot of material, a lot of skill, and the ability to perform micro-surgery. The truth is, rebuilding an atomizer requires two basic steps; take it apart, clean it, attach a new coil where the old coil was, put it back together, and vape away. Okay, that was more like 4 or 5 steps, but you know what I mean. In other words, rebuilding an atomizer is more or less replacing the coil. And testing the coils. Always test your coils. Always.

The hard part of rebuilding an atomizer is actually wrapping a coil around a new wick. That’s the gist of it, honestly. And… what material you use (wicks and coil wire) and the number of times you wrap the coil around the wick will determine the resistance. So the next time you see a complicated looking atomizer, or an atomizer that looks like it was made by NASA to help send the Rover to Mars just remember that no matter how fancy it looks, it basically just a wick with wire wrapped around it suspended between a positive and negative post, with power coming up through the battery, which in turns vaporizes the eLiquid, turning it into vapor, which is then sent streaming up through the tube and drip tip as you inhale. Not exactly quantum mechanics, is it?

 

 

Feel better?

So, if you’ve ever asked the question “How do I wrap a coil?” and “Where would I even start?” this column is for you. It’s really not that hard. You just need a steady hand, the proper tools, some good quality wicking material and some nice coiling wire. Oh, and you need a little confidence as well. If you read through this column now, then come back and read through again once you have your tools and materials with you, that confidence will be there. Trust me, I know. Your first coil wrap is always the hardest.

So let’s go.

Rebuildable Atomizers, while they look overwhelming, aren’t really that big a deal. Many RBA’s can look a bit confusing because they don’t look familiar, or maybe they DO look familiar but you’ve never taken one apart, either way I’m here to show you that its not exactly brain surgery here.

Most RBA’s are a simple two-piece designs consisting of nothing more than the base and cover with 2 simple connections for the coil. When you step back and look at an RBA that’s all it really needs to be. It doesn’t need to be fancy, it doesn’t need to have 15 parts and it certainly needn’t cost and arm and a leg.

The 4/5 Wrap – No, that’s not a dance move

A simple 4/5 wrap/coil is an example of a basic setup. Now, I can already hear you asking, “What’s a 4/5 wrap?” and that’s okay, let me explain. A 4/5 wrap confuses a lot of beginners but it really is as simple as it gets.

You see, when you wrap a coil there is always ½ a wrap missing on one side because you start and end the coil on the same side of the wick. Got that? Probably not, so read it again. One more time; there is always a ½ wrap missing on one side because you start and end the coil on the same side of the wick. Should we take a break? No? Good.

If you notice on the coil there are 5 wraps (coils) on the top, if you could see the bottom of that coil you would notice there are only 4 wraps (coils). It’s just that simple and it doesn’t matter if your coil has 5 wraps or 10 wraps, in order for both “leads”/”ends” to face the same direction ½ a wrap must be missing. Eureka moment!

 

 

Let me show you how to rebuild your atty in just 7 simple steps.

1. Disassemble and Clean the Atomizer

The first step as you may have guessed would be to remove the cap to your RBA and loosen the two screws holding your wick and coil assembly. You can then also take the time to wipe down the entire unit to give yourself a clean start.

Rebuildable Atomizer

2. Wrap A New Coil

Unless you have purchased pre-made coils it’s time for what some consider the most frustrating part of working with a Rebuildable Atomizer, the dreaded “wrapping a new coil”. (Scary music now!)

There are several methods to wrap a coil but I have always found it easiest to keep it simple, or the KISS method (Keep It Simple Stupid). I just grab a length of silica and Kanthal and wrap around the wick, and I find if I wrap my coil close to the fingers holding the wick and wire I don’t have any stability issues.

Do not skimp on materials right now; give your self a nice 15-20 cm length of wick and wire to work with. It makes all the difference when you have extra material to grab on to. Remember, practice makes perfect, if you don’t get it the first time try again and keep on trying until you have great looking and great performing coils.

wrapped coil – How To wrap a coil –

3. Attach Your New Coil

Once you have your coil and wick ready (wrapped) the next step is to attach it to the positive and negative posts on your RBA. Be sure the screws on the posts are sung around the wire but not overly so. Be careful when you tighten the coil down. When tightening the positive or negative terminals the coil might get drawn closer to the posts and if you didn’t leave a bit of slack your coil might very well short out against the terminals. That would not be good.

 

4. Test Your Coil!

Do not ever attempt to use a newly wrapped coil without testing it first. In fact, until you have a multi-meter don’t bother to start wrapping coils. Even when using a protected PV like a ProVari, it’s always a good idea to learn the right way from the beginning. If you learn to wrap your coils and test them, every time, you won’t mistaken get over-confident down the road and throw a untested coil on something like a Bolt.

With your multi-meter in hand,(or with a protected APV like a Provari) you should test your coil. If your new coil is properly wrapped and installed you should get no errors with the device and you can then move on to checking the resistance.

If you do receive an error take a good look at your RBA and find out what went wrong. Is the coil touching or overlapping itself? Is the coil to close to the posts and shorting against them or the body? Look hard and you’ll find the problem. Fix it and test again.

Never use an RBA on an unprotected mod without thorough testing. If this coil had a short and I tried firing it on an unprotected mod there would be serious damage and almost certainly a catastrophic battery failure resulting in fire, a destroyed mod, serious bodily harm or all of the above.

Check your coil!

5.Checking the Resistance

If you chose the proper gauge of wire your resistance should be pretty close to what you wanted.If your using a VV (variable voltage) device then your margin of error can be rather large, you can simply adjust the voltage and you will be fine. If you’re using an unregulated device, the need to get as close to your desired resistance as you can becomes much more important.

Checking the resistance with a multi-meter How to wrap a coil

If you are off more than 0.6 ohm you may need to look at a different gauge of wire. If you’re only 0.3 ohm or less you can simply add or remove a coil or two to get to your desired resistance. Once you have the wire you need and you’ve made a few coils you’ll find yourself getting closer to the resistance you’re aiming for every time.

 

 

Here is a list of Kanthal gauges and their respected resistance per inch:

30 awg (Ω/in) 0.7 ohms

31 awg (Ω/in) 0.9 ohms

32 awg (Ω/in) 1.2 ohms

33 awg (Ω/in) 1.4 ohms

34 awg (Ω/in) 1.8 ohms

35 awg (Ω/in) 2.3 ohms

36 awg (Ω/in) 2.9 ohms

 

 

6. Fill with e-Liquid

If you’re not getting any shorts/errors and you’re happy with the resistance the only thing left is to fill the tank with juice. When filling your tank you might also want to apply eLiquid to the wick and coil. This lessens the time you have to wait for the wick to naturally absorb the e-Liquid and it allows you to vape straight away. If you intend to use the coil you made in a “Drip Atty” you will simply place the top back on and drip in some of your favorite juice.

 

 

7. Vape away

Now you see, that wasn’t so hard was it?

 

By: Matt Wagner

Posted on

What is Vaping?

Firstly, Vaping is not Smoking!

Vaping is intended for current adult smokers , that wish to continue enjoying their nicotine habit at a reduced risk.

Vaping utilizes a Propylene Glycol or Vegetable Glycerin based liquid, mixed with small amounts of nicotine and food grade flavoring that then get vaporized in a small battery powered atomizer, Simulating the experience of smoking. The vapor created is inhaled and exhaled much like cigarette smoke hence the term “VAPING” as opposed to “SMOKING”

Vaping is not proven 100% safe.  Although there are now more promising studies out there like theClearstream study,  and IVAQS.  Certainly feel free to do your own homework regarding things like PG / VG and nicotine and decide for yourself if vaping is a road you want to go down.

Additionally while not categorized as a carcinogen nicotine is still essentially a poison and can increase blood pressure and heart rate in humans.  So please be careful and use at your own risk.

e-cigs come in all shapes and sizes ranging from cigarette looking devices , to larger more powerful devices like the ProVari.

These larger devices use a bigger battery, and a bit more care and know-how regarding their operation. They also look nothing like a cigarette, which as you will find, the more your device looks like a cigarette, the less performance and satisfaction you will get out of it.

I feel like a good place to start is with a device called the EGO, it’s a more compact size, but still offers a good battery life.  There are variations of the Ego battery as well.  A good place to start is with a Variable Voltage  Battery, Pair those with the simple to use EVO tank and you will be vaping in no time.  Be sure to get an Ego charger and some liquid as well.

Liquid is generally catagorized in “milligrams” of nicotine.  Ranging from 0mg up to 18mg,  stronger nicotine will create a stronger throat sensation that is commonly referred to as “throat hit”.  It’s up to the user to decide how much nicotine they want to use.  I would suggest starting low, and working your way up to a level that will satisfy your nicotine cravings.

The world of vaping can be confusing and overwhelming for new people not sure where to place their foot.  Trust me when I say that we have all been there.  Look around at a few products.  Watch some review videos.  Think about what you want your device to look like, and feel like.  Think about battery life, size and form factor.  There is no wrong way to vape.  If you vape here and there, but still feel the need for a cigarette, DON’T FEEL BAD ABOUT THAT. Quitting smoking is literally one of the hardest things you will ever do, but stick with it.  I promise you that vaping is a very rewarding experience, and makes the transition away from tobacco that much easier.

Best of luck, and let me be the first to congratulate you on taking the first step toward getting away from tobacco.

Vape Strong.

MOB

Posted on

The Great Nicotine Myth

Nicotine is one of the last great taboo subjects in the western world, and as a result has some powerful myths attached to it that are unrelated to its actual properties. As a good example of this, most people would be surprised – even amazed – to learn that there is not even a single published clinical trial of nicotine; an extraordinary fact considering the almost-vitriolic description of its ‘addictive’ powers seen occasionally, for which, rather obviously, there is not a shred of evidence. The lack of any published trial despite the intense interest in this subject raises many interesting questions. It also means we do not have the basic evidence to discuss some of the most hotly debated aspects of nicotine.

This does not mean that nicotine is not, for example, dependence-forming; just that a scientist who states categorically that it is ‘fiercely addictive’ or similar, without any evidence, can hardly be regarded as a reliable source – of anything, probably.

The four myths
There are four nicotine myths perpetuated in modern culture that have no basis in fact. These are:

1. The myth of nicotine’s dangerous and alien nature
2. The myth of nicotine’s toxicity
3. The myth of nicotine’s potential for addiction
4. The myth of nicotine’s potential for harm

1. Nicotine – a dangerous, alien chemical?
Hardly. It is a normal ingredient in the diet, everyone consumes it, and everyone tests positive for it.

No person has ever tested negative for nicotine, in any of the large-scale clinical trials that looked at nicotine presence in the population
No one can be shown to have ever been harmed by dietary nicotine
Indeed, it may be beneficial since it is so closely associated with the B vitamin group, has multiple well-recognised beneficial effects, and is commonly investigated as a component in medicines for such conditions as Alzheimers.

All vegetables of the Solanaceae family contain it, and this includes tomatoes, potatoes and aubergines / eggplants. Many foods contain it, including tea: when you drink tea, you are consuming five active alkaloids and nicotine is one of them. After all, that’s why tea works.

Nicotine is closely linked with nicotinic acid, a sister compound that in some organisms is a metabolyte, and both are generally co-located in the same vegetables. You may know it better as vitamin B3 or niacin [1].

There have been several large-scale clinical studies of nicotine presence in humans, the last of which was a test of 800 people by the CDC in the USA: every subject tested positive. Nicotine is a normal, safe ingredient in the diet. Just like any other dietary ingredient some people may require supplementation, and it looks as if about 25% of the population fall into this group.

Vitamin B3 is a necessary component in the diet and a deficiency results in physical and psychiatric symptoms, the most serious of which is pellagra (a serious skin condition resulting in extreme deformities of the skin). B3 assists with cognitive function, memory, work capacity, alertness and stress relief; and so does nicotine.

So nicotine is as normal to consume as vitamin B – unlike alcohol or coffee (caffeine), which are clearly more ‘alien’ as thay are not part of the normal diet and not associated with a vitamin group. Dietary ingredients are not normally considered harmful.

2. Nicotine – a highly toxic drug?
We used to think so – apparently with zero evidence for it, though. Those of us who handle it on a daily basis always knew that it is far less dangerous than supposed, since otherwise – quite simply – many of us would be dead.

In October 2013, Prof Mayer of Graz demolished the myth: he showed that there is no evidence at all for the assumption that nicotine is highly toxic; and in fact the LD50 should be between 10 to 20 times greater than the current figure [2].

His work shows that:

Evidence for the validity of the current LD50 simply does not exist
The method used to arrive at the LD50 is based on a guess made more than a hundred years ago
There is no evidence whatsoever that a dose equivalent to the current LD50 has ever killed anyone
There is overwhelming evidence that doses of multiple times the LD50 have been survived
There is strong evidence that the lethal dose is 4mg plasma nicotine, and this equates to a 500mg – 1,000mg dose.
Therefore it seems logical that a new LD50 for nicotine should be established at around 750mg, which is 12 times the current figure. The current LD50 was simply a convenient addition to the ideological and commercial propaganda surrounding the compound and there was never any evidence for it.

3. Nicotine – a fiercely addictive drug?
Not likely at all; but of course we’d need some sort of evidence either way, and there isn’t any. There is not one single published clinical trial of nicotine.

This is incredible considering the intense interest in this topic, and begs the question: why? In the past it was usually considered that this is because of ethics committee issues; but a more realistic answer is that such trials have taken place but the results could not be published. Such a trial must have taken place before the current era in which ethics committees decide on which trials can and cannot take place; and there are many places in the world where such an issue would not be problematic anyway. We must therefore assume that the results are known but not politically or commercially convenient.

If you are confused by the above (understandably, considering the volume of propaganda) then here are some further explanations:

The only relevant trial is one in which pure nicotine is administered to never-smokers. There is no such published trial.
Administration in a cocktail of 5,300 other compounds [3] is irrelevant (i.e. in tobacco smoke).
Smokers are frequently dependent on nicotine, as a result of smoking. It is assumed that smoking causes some sort of change in brain chemistry. After smoking, people become dependent on smoking, and many become dependent on nicotine.
There are many trials of dependence in smokers, but these are clearly irrelevant.
There is no evidence that nicotine alone can create dependence. Without consumption in tobacco smoke it has no evidence whatsoever for reinforcement (dependence creation).
There is some anecdotal evidence that nicotine administered to never-smokers has little or no dependence-forming capability.

There is a widespread confusion between dependence on smoking and on nicotine. There is no evidence that nicotine, by itself, is ‘addictive’. Because this would be easy to demonstrate, but has not been, we must question the grounds on which beliefs in this area are held. There is clearly a lack of basic science here.

Terminology: addiction vs dependence
Another aspect worth consideration is the terminology related to its potential for reinforcement. The modern preference is to use the term ‘addiction’ for a compulsion to consume or act in a way that will result in harm at some point; ‘dependence’ is used for compulsion to consume or act in a way considered harmless by modern urban living standards.

Thus, smoking, some types of drug use, and gambling compulsion, are considered addictions since there is significant risk of harm of some kind: either physical and/or social. In contrast, the need to drink coffee, although very common today and in some cases quite powerful, is regarded as a dependence since no observable harm results. Such things cannot be harmless since there will always be a cost; but that cost is regarded as insignificant in modern terms.

The consumption of nicotine, by itself, should be classed as a dependence if reinforcement has occurred as a result of smoking, since it is not possible to identify harm – see next section.

Prof Killeen says (to paraphrase him slightly): “Nicotine is not addictive. Administering it together with MAOIs makes it addictive”; and: “People may disagree with me but, since there is no evidence, they have nothing on which to base an argument” [4]. In other words, since there are no clinical trials of nicotine, there is no evidence to argue about; discussion is moot, without evidence.

As he says, people can disagree on (a) whether nicotine is dependence-forming or not, and/or (b) exactly what in tobacco smoke causes the dependence on nicotine to be established. There is plenty of argument about both issues, but until there is some evidence, argument is pointless.

The only thing to go on currently is that anecdotal reports tell us that nicotine administered by itself to never-smokers does not create dependence; and that e-cigarette users, on average, seem able to reduce or even eliminate their consumption of it. This appears to demonstrate an additional factor: nicotine (by itself) does not create tolerance.

This means that it does not require ever-increasing doses for the same effect; indeed, the opposite appears to be demonstrated – e-cigarette users routinely reduce the amount of nicotine they consume, and may transit into a zero-nicotine usergroup, and may cease all ecig use. At any given time 7% of vapers are zero-nic users; this group is continually being refreshed by persons joining by reducing their nicotine intake to zero and persons leaving by quitting totally. We know that this group is generally reported as around 7% in surveys of ecig users; but we don’t know what the figure is for those who join this group per year or who leave (although presumably they are equal).

4. Nicotine – a harmful and damaging drug?
Apart from the facts that:

Nicotine is a normal component of the diet;
And, that everyone tests positive for it;
And, we now know it is between ten and twenty times less toxic than previously argued;
And, that not only is there no evidence for it being dependence-forming, but there is reason to believe it isn’t;
…apart from all that, there could be a valid question that excessive consumption may cause harm. Naturally, this should be examined.

What if we could find a very large number of subjects who have consumed large amounts of supra-dietary nicotine over a lifetime, without smoke, and the data for whom is easily available: multiple very large cohorts with identifiable health data? What if we had national health statistics, a great deal of epidemiology, hundreds of clinical studies, numerous large scale meta-analyses of the studies, and in general a vast volume of data on such persons over many decades?

Well, we do, and it’s called the Snus data [7]. There are hundreds of clinical studies over three decades, together with unique national health statistics (Sweden has the lowest tobacco-related mortality of any developed country by a wide margin).

This huge volume of facts and evidence from Sweden shows that the average reduction of lifespan attributable to lifetime high-volume tobacco and nicotine consumption (without smoke) is only about 4 weeks.

Although there is no isolated data for pure nicotine consumption, indications are it has little risk (for example, from NRT data); and the closest large dataset without inclusion of smoke, the Snus data, shows that harm resulting from consumption of this tobacco is on such a small scale it is hard to identify with any reliability. As examples of this, Sweden has the lowest male lung cancer and oral cancer rates in the EU; the last item contrasts directly with the expectations people might have for an oral tobacco, since Snus has such a low elevation of risk for oral cancer that it cannot even be identified reliably.

Because of the very great size of the data resource, we know there is an average lifespan reduction of around 4 weeks associated with long-term Snus consumption; there are now indications that this may be less than the equivalent in coffee consumption. In addition it can probably be assumed that tobacco consumption involves more risk than nicotine consumption alone, and thus some subtraction from the lifespan reduction figure could probably be made to arrive at a suitable figure for nicotine consumption alone (until we have a 30-year data resource for e-cigarette users, who appear to be the only long-term pure nicotine users on a sufficiently large scale to potentially equal the Snus resource).

You can also see the latest expert medical position on nicotine’s potential for harm from materials supplied by the UK’s NICE, in their direction to doctors on this topic [5]; and from other experts in this area such as CV Phillips and B Rodu: nicotine does not cause cancer, is not associated with cancer, does not promote cancer, and is not associated with heart disease .

Conclusion
There is probably no other subject surrounded by so much myth and propaganda as nicotine. The reasons are multiple and complex, and comprise ideology together with commercial, economic, political and social pressures.

Nicotine is a relatively harmless normal dietary component that many people appear to need to supplement. Because the required dietary supplementation was normally supplied in a lethal cocktail of smoke, it became tainted by association, and only because of that. No one considers the consumption of ketchup to be an addictive behaviour, and ketchup contains significant amounts of nicotine; no one considers it a bad idea to feed their baby mashed-up vegetables, which of course contain nicotine. You feed your baby nicotine and no one has ever suggested this is a bad idea – because it isn’t.

If people wish to consider supplementary nicotine consumption undesirable, then they must apply the same logic to coffee, tea, sherry, wine, beer, and perhaps chocolate – or risk being classed as a gold-plated hypocrite. Then, consumption of vegetables such as potatoes and tomatoes would need to be carefully limited or avoided, and this would probably lead to multiple nutritional deficiencies.

Posted on

PG Sensitivity

PG Sensitivity

Sensitivity to PG
Throat irritation in new e-cigarette users
Glycerine viscosity issues

Questions are sometimes raised about PG [1] sensitivity, leading to discussions about a change to VG – but this brings up its own issues, particularly regarding viscosity problems in carto tank systems. Some of these topics are examined below.

This article was written specifically for the benefit of e-cigarette store owners, one of whom brought up these issues; in general, shop owners/managers are keen vapers but not technical experts. There is no comparison between the relative size of the knowledge base for ecigarette vendors and tobacconists (vendors of cigarettes and tobacco): the amount of knowledge required by an ecigarette supplier is hundreds of times greater than that for a tobacconist. An ecig vendor needs at least two years of experience to reach a basic level of competency, since they are customer-facing staff who will have two major issues to contend with:

1. A continual volume of questions about the products, and about general vaping issues (two things that are interdependent: few vaping issues can be discussed without reference to the products).
2. A significant number of new users, who deserve the best advice.

In order to assist transition from smoking to vaping, a mentor requires knowledge of the many thousands of options in order to achieve the best success rate: zero-option vaping has a success rate of as low as 10%, whereas full-option vaping may succeed in 75% of cases under optimal circumstances [2]. As an example, there are more than 7,000 refill variants offered by just one vendor; a few of these will work and most won’t, for any smoker attempting to switch – and the optimal choices will be different for each smoker.

Perhaps at a later date there will be large chains of ecigarette stores, who will be able to run staff training courses; until then we may find a knowledge shortfall at the shop counter.

New ecig users experiencing throat irritation
First, ensure that persons who are new to ecigs do not inhale direct to the lungs, as many smokers do. Draw the vapour into the mouth – hold – inhale (if required) [3]. Tobacco smoke contains anaesthetics designed to reduce throat and lung irritation, ecig vapour does not. Despite the fact that vapour is simply a water-based fog, inhaling anything other than pure air causes a reaction, which can be mitigated by correct technique. All cases of ‘lung irritation’ are caused by incorrect technique, since an e-cigarette is not used like a cigarette (in multiple ways).

Inhaling directly to the lungs is incorrect technique with an e-cigarette and can lead to irritation or coughing. While any/all variations of every aspect of ecig use may work for experienced users, who will certainly be able to use a direct lung inhale if they wish, beginners need correct advice in order to transition successfully.

Beginners need correct advice, and not providing it helps no one. Indeed, it would be easy to achieve extremely poor results with an ecigarette by isolating the beginner from correct advice (or even deliberately withholding it). This is clear from studies where deliberate minimising of information and product variations was employed, which generally results in success rates as low as 10% or issues such as ‘lung irritation’, neither of which have any relevance to correct use.

Sensitivity to PG
About 1 in 10 people are sensitive to PG, meaning that they suffer from upper respiratory tract irritation and/or excessive drying-out [4]. Most will experience reducing symptoms if they persist with vaping, as they become tolerant to it. For others, the symptoms may persist, and there could be a benefit in changing to VG [5] or PEG-based [6] refills.

Sensitivity to glycerine
About 1 in 1,000 are sensitive to VG and must avoid it. However at this point we don’t know if these people are sensitive to a particular type of VG, since there are at least 5 different ways of making it (animal source, single vegetable source, mixed vegetable source [7], synthetic source, biodiesel byproduct, and more). If it seems worth the effort, other types could be tried, although the main problem at this time is identifying the source type. In theory a synthetic glycerine should be problem-free and this is the basis for its use in many inhalable medicines.

Another base type: PEG
PEG is a viable alternative base especially as it presents flavours better than either PG or VG. It has been extensively used in prefilled cartos for this reason, especially when supplied from the Boge-Dekang factories. However it is the most usual base type to experience contamination issues with DEG, a toxic glycol made in the same feedstock manufacturing facilities and therefore liable to cross-contamination issues. If PEG can be located in a high-quality form and efficiently tested as absolutely free from DEG, it is a good alternative base material [8].

Glycerine viscosity
The concept of VG being ‘thick’, that is to say gloopy, or more correctly too viscous, is erroneous: it means that it has not been sufficiently diluted. Glycerine must be diluted by around 20% before it becomes usable for vaping. It can be diluted by 5% to 20% with distilled water before flavourings are added. The final viscosity of a correctly-made glycerine-based refill liquid (aka ‘e-liquid’) is similar to a PG-based one – if not, it has been mixed wrongly and needs correcting. If it is too viscous then it needs further dilution.

For example a correctly-made VG liquid can certainly be used in a carto tank system. The precise viscosity of the final mix determines the precise size of the feed hole into the carto, just as it does for a PG-only or PG/VG mix. Different ‘PG’ liquids (i.e. PG/VG mixes, commonly around 80/20) may need the hole smaller or larger to avoid flooding or dry hits; this is normal (it’s why no-button pulls are sometimes needed: sucking on the driptip without operating the on/off switch, in order to pull more liquid through a system with a feed hole too small for the refill viscosity). If no-button pulls are frequently needed, the liquid viscosity is too high and it needs diluting, or the feed hole needs to be enlarged.

A suitable diluent can be anything thinner than the VG element of the liquid, and could be alcohol, PG or distilled water. There is no downside from adding 10% water, or even more: it is still effectively nebulised

Posted on

Double Breath Stealth Vaping Technique

What is stealth vaping? Well put simply, it is vaping without anyone knowing you are vaping. Obviously they might see you taking a pull from the device itself but the most important thing to hide from them is the cloud(s) of vapour, which to them would look exactly like smoke.

I have just been using a new technique today, which works very well and still provides a lot of satisfaction from the flavour and throat hit. This only works if you do the igetcha69 method of vaping, “where he takes the vapour into his mouth before drawing it back into his lungs”, rather than “direct lung inhale”

Here’s how it works:

1. Take a standard draw of the vapour into your mouth.
2. Suck it back into your lungs quickly and enjoy the satisfaction from the throat hit and flavour.
3. Now breathe in again to your full (or comfortable) lung capacity.
4. Exhale with more force than normal.

It’s that extra intake of air in step 3 that makes all the difference. You’ve already gotten the satisfaction from the throat hit and flavour, now you just need to get the vapour out without alerting anyone. By mixing extra air in, the vapour becomes thinner and dissipates a lot quicker.

Posted on

Nicotine High Toxicity Myth Destroyed

Prof Mayer of Graz has absolutely destroyed the myth of nicotine’s extremely high toxicity, accepted without any proper evidence for more than 100 years.

Archives of Toxicology 10.1007/s00204-013-1127-0, 4th Oct 2013
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00204-013-1127-0/fulltext.html

The ridiculous situation of nicotine being classified as more toxic than cyanide has persisted far too long, and is undoubtedly due to ideological pressure. That time is now over, because on 4th October 2013 a renowned toxicologist, Prof Bernd Mayer of Uo Graz, Austria, finally dispelled this long-standing myth. He investigated all aspects of the issue and concluded that the current LD50 amount (the dose expected to kill 50% of those who receive it) is at least 10 times and possibly 20 times too low.

He concluded that:

There is overwhelming evidence that the lethal dose for nicotine in humans is 4mg/ml blood plasma
This corresponds to a dose of 500mg to 1,000mg
The current estimate is 10 to 20 times too low
There is no evidence whatsoever that the currently-accepted lethal dose has ever killed anyone
There is incontestible evidence that, in a large number of cases, ingestion of multiple times the current LD50 has been survived without issue
The evidence that the current LD50 figure appears to be based on is at best extremely weak and appears fundamentally flawed
A new LD50 for nicotine
Prof Graz does not suggest a new LD50 (median lethal dose) for nicotine, but an estimate would appear to be 750mg (halfway between his opinion of the lethal dose minimum and maximum). This is more than 12 times the current figure of 60mg.

Therefore the figure we should use henceforth for the lethal dose of nicotine is 750mg (three-quarters of a gramme).

At last it has been shown that a normal ingredient in the diet, for which everyone has tested positive in all large scale studies to date, has no significant danger in small amounts – something fairly obvious to those who handle it on a daily basis. Some of the other toxic materials commonly consumed such as vitamin A , vitamin D, iron and caffeine (coffee) should have their LD50’s compared in order to get an overall view of relative toxicity. It is no longer correct to compare nicotine with cyanide, and more accurate to relate it to other potentially toxic materials consumed in the diet daily like nicotine.

Posted on

Big Win For Public Health

Tuesday saw the biggest win for public health in Europe in living memory, when e-cigarette community activism defeated those trying to protect the smoking economy in an EU Plenary vote. A huge debt of thanks is owed to LibDem, Independent and Conservative MEPs for voting against the proposal to medicalise e-cigarettes and thus an outright ban [1]. They won the day and temporarily showed that there is much support for preventing PVs (personal vapourisers that replicate cigarettes) being medicalised and therefore banned [3].

Socialists, Greens, pro-pharma seats and others voted to ban e-cigarettes by medicalising them, but were defeated by 362 to 298 votes.

Still a long road to go
Next there comes a Council vote: a vote by the Council of Ministers, which will, here, be the 28 Health Ministers. Unfortunately they will almost certainly vote to ban e-cigarettes, since they need to protect government tax revenues (and lives simply don’t matter). Following that, as there will have been one vote for and two against, there may be some horse-trading before the vote goes to Parliament – because at that point there will not be an agreed Directive to put before the general assembly. At that stage, the score for the war so far will be Pro-Pharma 2, Pro-Health 1 (ENVI and Council for a ban, Plenary against a ban).

It may well be that things come to a grinding halt at that stage, and I have no idea what the EU process is when the Council disagrees with the Plenary on the content of a Directive. With luck there will be a delay that stalls the whole process till next year, when we will be able to convince more MEPs that this has become a voting matter and will affect their seats at the next election.

It’s also worth noting that even if we win the battle against medicalisation, the EU still have the option to class PVs as tobacco products. This could eventually be used to implement stringent regulations that would do almost as good a job as medicalisation in removing ecigs from the market. This is almost certainly their fallback position in the event of medicalisation failing at any stage.

History of the process
The EU Health Directorate had authored a new TPD (Tobacco Products Directive) that in effect banned electronic cigarettes and appeared to strongly benefit the pharmaceutical industry, the tobacco industry, and government tax coffers – while costing millions of lives by denying smokers access to harm reduction products. These are proven to have saved life on such a massive scale that Sweden, where THR products have been permitted for decades, now leads the world in reducing smoking prevalence and reducing smoking-related mortality; by 2016 male smoking prevalence will be down to 5%, and Sweden – alone in the world – now has a realistic chance of defeating smoking and banishing the cigarette industry (and by consumer action alone, at zero cost to the taxpayer). No other country has even the remotest chance of doing that.

The new TPD was the personal project of Commissioner Dalli, since sacked for corruption. (In fact the EU President sacked him within 30 minutes of the evidence being available, demonstrating strongly that the situation was already widely known and condemned.)

Dalli was alleged to have been the most corrupt politician in Europe, and was recently alleged to have been caught moving $100 million in personal funds to the Bahamas. The Police in Malta were desperate to indite him for numerous incidents, the Police Commissioner was reported as saying in a recent interview, but were unable to do so because of his power. He was then reportedly ‘kicked upstairs’ to the EU in order to get rid of him. No one who knows his history [4] would consider that his TPD was designed to benefit public health; such an idea is clearly risible.

His tradition has been strongly maintained by replacements in the EU, and the TPD continued to move through committee, voted through at every stage by supporters who appear quite close to the pharmaceutical industry. Their defeat at the latest stage is perhaps a sign that the community can reject the endemic corruption within the EU if they fight hard enough.

The MHRA
The UK’s MHRA, part of the famously incompetent Dept. of Health, whose Soubry just got sacked (sorry, ‘reshuffled’) as a reward for acting beyond her remit in order to protect pharma income, have run a campaign to remove ecigs based on repeated lies and disinformation in order to benefit their paymasters, the pharmaceutical industry.

– They said that ‘light-touch’ regulations would be applied. Then they changed this to ‘right-touch’ regulations (purported to be a combination of light touch but necessary regulations). This was a blatant lie since they also confirmed that no e-cigarette currently sold would be able to get a license.

– They said that licenses would be obtainable by a ‘fast track’ procedure: another blatant lie since the first ecig company to apply is still waiting after three years.

– They said that costs would be affordable – another outright lie since:
a. The first company to apply has still received no license and has probably spent around £2 million so far.
b. They say that a license will be required for each separate product, and that appears to mean some firms will need to pay a license fee of hundreds of millions of pounds per year (one vendor alone supplies more than 7,000 products).

– They said that product choices would not be restricted – a lie of epic proportions since no company can pay a license fee of hundreds of millions per year, least of all the small firms who comprise the majority of the trade.

– They said that in effect there would be little change to the current situation: a lie of such magnitude that it beggars belief. Every product on the market now would be banned and none would be licensable, according to the MHRA themselves.

– They said that improved safety and quality standards would result: an egregious lie. This is because, in the UK, consumer products are far, far safer than pharmaceuticals. It is inconceivable that a consumer product could stay on the market if it caused even the tinest fraction of the widescale death and harm that Chantix causes, for example:
— Hundreds of deaths and more than 10,000 serious adverse event reports are reported by the FDA
— Chantix is prohibited for pilots and commercial drivers in the USA due to the risk of psychotic events, suicide or heart attack killing many others (if reported in a DOT or FAA physical the candidate fails)
— France removed Chantix from the market due to the significant risk

The MHRA are serial liars and their campaign to protect the pharmaceutical industry at massive cost to public health appears to have stalled temporarily. We await their next move with interest; but don’t write them off, as they have almost unlimited funds to draw on, and money clearly talks in the EU: 298 seats voted in Plenary to kill millions of EU citizens, after all.

It couldn’t be much clearer than that.

——————–
[1] All current products would be removed from the market; none would be able to receive an MA if they applied for one (see below); perhaps one or two new models with one or two types of refill might achieve an MA at some point within five years or so. Thus, the current 1,000-plus hardware products and 100,000-plus refill products would be banned [2]. This is not a de facto ban, it is an outright ban in all but name.

[2] One vendor alone sells over 7,000 refills when the base type, strengths and flavour are multiplied out. Each would require its own separate pharmaceutical license according to the MHRA. This is clearly impossible; in any case it is hard to see how even the largest company would be interested in more than two or three licenses.

[3] The MHRA stated that no e-cigarette currently on the market would be able to get an MA, so every single one of the thousands of products currently sold would be banned. In addition, an ecig firm already trying to obtain a license has invested more than three years and £2 million so far, with no result as yet. This appears to indicate that the MHRA are applying extremely stringent conditions and will require a new type of e-cigarette to be invented before they will issue a license. This is hardly ‘light-touch’ regulation, it is a clear attempt to prevent e-cigarettes impacting on pharmaceutical industry income, and a direct attack on public health.

[4] See the amazing list of his previous financial escapades on the ECITA website and at the Times of Malta. This is the man who sold off the de facto national bank of Malta for a pittance, allegedly to friends, while the President was in hospital recovering from a heart attack. Malta then moved him out, and up to an EU position where he was put in charge of the population of Europe’s health: a position that requires someone with an impeccable reputation, not someone with a history that reads like a mafioso. Europe got what they fully deserved.