Monday, March 16, 2015

SFATA the organization that can do the best to keep our vaping rights

Please read, SFATA,(Only SFATA is dedicated to the continued growth and the expansion of the vapor products industry; free of agenda or bias. We promote the interests of the entire industry; online retailers, brick and mortar vendors, distributors, importers, wholesalers and consumers alike, working on common goals for the benefit of all.

Membership is open to the various stakeholders within the vapor products industry including manufacturers (domestic and foreign), importers, distributors, wholesalers, and retailers. Membership is also available to trade, tobacco and service organizations as well as to academics and individuals.

National SFATA members are entitled to enjoy additional benefits that come from participation in various local chapters. Local chapters make it easy for members to meet, collaborate and advocate locally under the national umbrella that is SFATA. Click here for a list of areas with SFATA Chapters or for more information email

Membership Benefits include:
We believe that before the FDA is allowed to expand its Tobacco Act jurisdiction to vaporizing products like e-cigs, the agency should be required to demonstrate that it has a credible scientific basis for concluding that whatever the health and safety risks they perceive e-cigarettes to have are comparable to the well-known and thoroughly documented health and safety risks of tobacco smoking.

For this reason, SFATA engages highly respected lobbyists to ensure the interests and concerns of the electronic cigarette industry are heard and addressed.

SFATA firmly believes a proactive approach is imperative for industry representatives to actively participate in a dialogue with the public, local communities and the FDA. SFATA provides tools to mobilize your customer base at the grass roots level; helping promote education and bolster industry support.

We interact with regulatory agencies to try to mitigate over-regulation brought on by lack of education. We provide alerts to state and local bans and legislative challenges in order to influence intelligent decisions and partner with consumer groups and other allies whenever possible.

How does it work?
SFATA meets its legislative, regulatory and campaign goals through membership dues and donations. Dues are based on self-reported annual revenues and are paid yearly.

• Members are entitled to attend all SFATA events and conferences
• Invitations to member only events
• Exclusive member-only content
• Discounted rates to SFATA events and conferences
• Logos displayed on the SFATA member page
• Monthly newsletter
• Daily newsfeed
• Inclusion in the SFATA directory of companies
• Opportunity to serve on SFATA committees
• Discounted insurance through Calco Commercial Insurance

Join Now
Fill out a membership application.

Vaping Militia Fighting For OUR VAPING RIGHTS

Facebook:  "Vaping Militia Auction Benefiting CASAA"

Join Casaa

Input Voltage, amps series vs parallel for mechs and regulated


Description: Quote Originally Posted by STEAM_P0WERED Description: View Post

Only if the battery's are in parallel would you get double the battery life and amps. These are in series, so all it doubles is the voltage.

It doubles the input voltage, this is a regulated mod.

LiveL0NGandVAP0R and STEAM_P0WERED like this.

Description: Reply With QuoteReply With Quote

2.     09-10-2014, 07:23 PM#108

Join Date

Apr 2014


Califronia, USA



Description: Default

Description: Quote Originally Posted by mitro Description: View Post

No. Whether it's series or parallel you have twice the battery. Either you have ~5000mAh @ 3.7v or 2500mAh @ 7.4v. Either way will do the same amount of work. If it wired in parallel it would roughly be drawing 30 amps @ 100w and that would split between two batteries (15A each). If the cells are in series, the higher voltage would only require 15A from the pair in series. Same work done, just a different arrangement depending on what voltage the board requires to operate.

OK thanks, that make's sense to me, I was all excited about having twice the battery life with my curent setup, then I saw pictures of it in series and was worried because I thought it had to be in parallel to achieve that.

Description: Reply With QuoteReply With Quote

3.     09-10-2014, 07:47 PM#109

Join Date

Feb 2014





Description: Default

Description: Quote Originally Posted by mitro Description: View Post

No. Whether it's series or parallel you have twice the battery. Either you have ~5000mAh @ 3.7v or 2500mAh @ 7.4v. Either way will do the same amount of work. If it wired in parallel it would roughly be drawing 30 amps @ 100w and that would split between two batteries (15A each). If the cells are in series, the higher voltage would only require 15A from the pair in series. Same work done, just a different arrangement depending on what voltage the board requires to operate.

Are you certain the amp draw is the same with parallel and series set ups in a regulated device? I always thought it would be but on another thread recently I went back and forth with someone who convinced me the amp draw is half in parallel than in series...

Description: Reply With QuoteReply With Quote

4.     09-10-2014, 08:47 PM#110

Join Date

Feb 2014





Description: Default

The following is only some of the responses mostly to my questioning about amp draw being half in parallel than it is in series with a regulated mod....

The run time is ONLY the same if it's a mech., keeping ONLY wattage constant. 

In a mech, you CANNOT have both constant wattage and resistance for both series and parallel. It's just physically and mathematically impossible. 

It is ONLY in a regulated mod that you can keep output voltage and resistance constant (and this mathematically and physically keep wattage constant). 

However in that case, current drawn from parallel is half that of series, ie lower strain and longer run time. 

I'm not sure I understand the second question. You CANNOT control the voltage output of a battery. Also again, for a mech, you cannot fix both wattage and resistance. 

Let me answer the question in 2 parts:

1) the chip doesn't not control how much voltage is given by the batteries. Regardless of whether the input voltage is 8.4V or 4.2V, the chip takes it in, and uses it's circuitry to output the required voltage. 

For example, if the required output voltage is 5V, in a series set up, the chip will take all 8.4V, and use it's buck circuitry to "chop" the voltage, dumping out only 5V. (This is obviously an over simplification). 

2) the significance of the cells not seeing the load is this: the inherent total voltage does not affect the current provided per cell. Think of it this way. 

The batteries tell the chip: here, I have 8.4V. 

The chip says "dude. But I only need 5V. Ah whatever I'll take it anyway."

The chip looks at the load and says "ah. The resistance is 1 ohm. So I need to give 5amps to the load. Brb"

The chip goes back to the battery: "alright I need you to gimme 5amps. I'll use 5V out of the 8.4V you gave me, to push this 5amps of current to the load plxkthnxbye"

The batteries give the 5amp. 

In parallel, the batteries say "oh well. We will each give 2.5amps each for a total of 5amps"

In series, the batteries says to each other "dude. If I'm giving 5amps, you're giving 5amps too. "

Based on the series rule, the 2x 5amps from both battery are not additive. It's just how it is. So the net is still a 5amps

A good analogy: think of the universal voltage converters. If you use it at a country with 230V, the wall outlet is STILL outputting 230V. You can't change that. 

What does happen is that the voltage converter takes all 230V, and then chops it up to output 110V. 

Then depending on how much current your appliance needs, it'll pull a specific amount of current from the voltage converter, which in turn pulls that specific amount of current from the wall socket. 

In short,

Voltage from primary source = constant and cannot be changed 

The load only sees a voltage from the intermediate (the chip)

The voltage at the intermediate is different from the voltage at the source. 

The load draws a specific current from the intermediate, based solely on the voltage output of the intermediate, which draws it from the primary source. 

As such, the voltage of the source is irrelevant. It is simply a current source. 

Consequently, strain on parallel is less than series.

Lol ok last one. I see where the confusion is now. If you read my previous post and don't get it, here's smth else. 

The confusion lies in this: you're thinking that if the chip needs to output 5v (as specified by the user input), then what the chip does is it will ask for 5V from the batteries. 

But that is not the case. There is no way to control the voltage output from a source. 

What the chip does is this: it knows that it has to output 5V to a load. So it takes ALL 8.4V from the batteries, and using it's own circuitry, chops it down to 5V before outputting it to the load. 

This is why the voltage of the source is irrelevant. If a user requests X voltage, the chip still takes ALL voltage from the source. The only difference is that it takes all that voltage and increase/decrease it before throwing it to the load. Then after that based on ohms law, it draws the required current to power the load based on the output voltage and resistance.

If the user specifies a voltage output, then in a series circuit, the 2 4.2V gets lumped together to give a total of 8.4V (this part you got.). When the chip "discards" the excess 3.4V and uses the remaining 5V, it doesn't know who contributed to the 5V. As such it's inaccurate to say that the regulator is using 2.5V from each battery, because all it did was to take 5V from one large pot of voltage. 

The next thing is that if the load pulls 10A, then BOTH batteries will have to output 10A because they are in series. It is not 5A per battery, because there isn't sucha a thing as "the regulator is using 2.5V from each of the 2 batteries". The voltage of the batteries are fixed, and are irrelevant to the current being pulled.

In series, given a specific amp draw (eg 10A), be it by a load directly or with a chip intermediate, BOTH batteries must supply 10A, because current in series is not additive. 

The only difference between a mech and a regulated mod is

In a mech, the total voltage (8.4V) directly affects how much current is drawn based on ohms law. (Battery voltage and load)

In a regulated mod, the current draw is based directly on the output voltage from the chip and the load.

Steeldragonjmercury1entoptic and 1 others like this.

Description: Reply With QuoteReply With Quote


Monday, February 2, 2015

The Truth About the Formaldehyde Study Regarding E Cigarettes

Post Dated: 02/02/2015

A Look at Formaldehyde Levels Found in E-Cig Vapor 

Recently we reported on a story out of Japan evaluating levels of formaldehyde released through vaping. Yesterday another study on this same topic was published in the New England Journal of Medicine and has been picked up by mainstream media. In this study, researchers measured formaldehyde using a variable voltage battery set at 3.3 and 5 volts. The vapor was collected and evaluated from an unnamed atomizer after a 4 second puff. The study found that at low voltage (3.3V) no formaldehyde was detected. However, at high voltage (5.0V), levels of formaldehyde were detected at levels up to 15 times higher than cigarette smoke. 

Without further investigation on the methods and conclusion of this study, the results are very alarming. We feel it is our responsibility to dig deeper and provide the public with the whole truth. 

One glaring problem with this publication is the researchers found formaldehyde hemiacetals (a combination of formaldehyde and alcohols) not formaldehyde. It is also important to know that formaldehyde is present everywhere. It is found in every person, smokers and nonsmokers alike, and can occur anytime hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen are in the presence of each other. 

The truth is, this study is deeply flawed in many ways. In fact, it is highly irresponsible to publish a half truth and present it as science. For starters, as outlined by Dr. Konstantino Farsalinos, the authors of this study failed to mention (perhaps unknowingly) that volts do not measure thermal energy. Energy should be expressed in watts. Therefore, with the published information we do not know how many watts were applied to the atomizer. 

Fortunately, Dr. Farsalinos used the information that was provided to approximate wattage settings. According to the study, 5mg of e-liquid were consumed at 3.3 volts. Based on measurements performed by Farsalinos, “…such consumption is observed at about 6-7 watts at 4-second puffs. Thus, the atomizer resistance is probably 1.6-1.8 ohms. This means that at 5 volts the energy was around 14-16 watts.” 

So, what does this mean in terms of realistic user conditions? If the resistance was between 1.6-1.8 ohms and the wattage is somewhere between 14-16 watts, the vaporizer is being overheated and the wicking material is being burned. Essentially, these researchers are collecting data on a dry or burnt hit. 

What the authors of this study aren’t accounting for is how easily this scenario is detected by the user. An electronic cigarette user would never vape at these settings. No one continuously vapes an overheated atomizer. The taste is unpleasant, to put it mildly. Therefore, no vaper will ever be exposed to the reported levels of formaldehyde.

We can’t wait to get these in your hands! We know you’ll be quite pleased as your rDNA 40s begin to arrive in early January. All orders currently processing will ship within the next few weeks. No more backorders! 

This method of measuring aldehydes in a lab environment is deceptive and unfair. The public deserves clear and concise results from scientific studies. If researchers continue to publish misleading findings and the media continues with its sensationalism the results can be damaging. How many smokers are afraid to switch to a device that could potentially save their lives? 

For a more detailed breakdown on this study, I urge you to read Dr. Farsalinos’ response by following this link: 


Friday, June 27, 2014

What you need to know to REALLY research E-Cigarettes

I've been trying to find some recent news on the Electronic Cigarette industry, maybe to see whats going on with the FDA or maybe the bans in different cities, I'm sickened to the ignorance a lot of these "bloggers" have on the E-Cigarette industry.

So, to make it simple for you to do your research for yourself or a fellow loved one, here's some tips from somebody who already uses an electronic cigarette and has used for about 2 years now.
  1. If the blog says anything about "Tobacco Products," chances are they're going to be biased on the topic because they're too ignorant to realize there is no tobacco use in an electronic cigarette. It is a water vapor based flavor /w or w/o nicotine. This issue goes all the way up to congress in the way they're "regulating" Tobacco products, when the Electronic Cigarette has NOTHING to do with tobacco. Think of the nicotine you attach this patch of tobacco leaves to your body and hope the nicotine seeps through? No, there's no tobacco in the patch, there's no tobacco in the Electronic Cigarette. Don't let them fool you.
  2. Nicotine kills. This is one of the biggest misconceptions I run into, is that people think the nicotine is what kills you and gives you cancer in cigarettes. Nicotine is a stimulant drug, like caffeine, which is added to the cigarettes or E-Juice to give people that light headed feeling, the calming sensation, and of course the addiction. What kills you, and gives you cancer in cigarettes is the actual burning of the cigarette (or combustion) which activates all the other 50 some odd chemicals in the cigarette. You cannot have tar unless you set something on fire; in an electronic cigarette there is no fire, there is no combustion, there-fore there is no tar, there is no formaldehyde, these are the chemicals that can kill you or make you sick in cigarettes. Now, don't get it twisted, you can over dose on nicotine with very high levels. That's the main reason we stick with 24-30 mgs as the highest level we offer. But also take in consideration that you can also overdose on caffeine and vitamin C. Everything in moderation.
  3. "Light"-"Medium"-"Strong"-"X-Strong" -ect. Don't ever trust companies that put this on the bottle instead of the nicotine levels either in milligrams or a percentage (ie: 6mg or 0.6%). Chances are it's a higher nicotine level than you wanted. I've shopped around and there's some companies where the "Light" is at 18mg which is the amount of nicotine as a normal full flavored cigarette, the "normal" strength being at 24mg, which is higher than a normal cigarette. This is one of the big things the FDA has made sure of, and if a company is still doing the "light" and "normal" approach, they're not good for business.
  4. E-Juice has anti-freeze in it! That could kill me! Okay, this sort of makes me chuckle when people bring this up. There was one brand of e-cigs back in I think 2008 that used Dipropylene Glycol instead of just regular Propylene Glycol. They got knocked of the market and charged a huge fee for putting poison in the juice (I think it was one of those disposable e-cigarettes). Propylene Glycol is 100% safe to consume and is in normal everyday things people use like asthma inhalers, air ventilation, ice cream, and much more. It's sort of like how butane replaced aerosol because it was dangerous to people and the ecosystem, same concept. I've done some blogs on Propylene Glycol if you want more information on it.
  5. And to finish it off, "This juice down the road was only 2-3$ why would I want to pay 6-12$ for some other e-juice?" Alright this is more of an open debate, but in my experiences; if someone sells the same size bottle of juice that we have for half the price; there's a catch. Just like everything else, if something is dirt cheap, that usually speaks for it's quality. Most of the "cheaper" juices are straight out of China, which isn't always a bad thing; but the regulation could be different, the chemicals could be different, and the nicotine levels could be different. So all I'm saying about all that is be careful where you get your juices. If you can't speak to the people that made them, either in E-mail or over a phone call at least, chances are it's probably not the best brand to buy from. If they don't speak English..well that sort of speaks for itself. People will swear up and down that their juice is the best to buy, and how amazing it is that it's pennies on the dollar; I nod my head and let them boast; but they usually end up coming to O2 Easy instead because somehow they got sick, or they went back to the cigarettes.

    One last thing I wanted to mention, just more of a rant than advice. It's the whole situation on "kids and teenagers" using the electronic cigarettes. Look, I don't sell to minors, and anyone in the industry who has morals as we do will not sell to minors. It's illegal, and it's immoral. The fact that we have flavors like Mountain Dew, and Cotton Candy are NOT to attract the younger crowd; it's simply because adults like flavors as well. Do you wanna eat raw chicken or would you rather have bourbon chicken? Just because we're adults doesn't mean we don't like tasty things, true I do still love my tobacco flavors; but I like a good Cinnamon Danish Swirl flavor every now and then. And how are the kids getting them? Not me, chances are they have a friend who's 18 years old and they got them to get the pack for them. That's how I used to get cigarettes as a minor, I'm sure that's how they're doing it with electronic cigarettes. So instead of blaming the E-Cigarette companies for your child or teenager "vaping" take a closer look at their friends. As I mentioned, it is illegal to sell to minors; I would never go out of my way to sell to a minor for I love my job and plan on keeping it.

    So put that in your e-cigarette and vape it!
    ("So put that in your pipe and smoke it")

    I hope this blog has been very helpful, and hopefully it has educated you on some of the b/s you might run into when looking up different E-Cig brands.

    As always, Vape on America

Friday, February 21, 2014

Cigarettes Obsolete?

ATLANTA (CBSMiami/AP) — Health officials have begun to call “end game” on cigarette-smoking in America.

They have long wished for a cigarette-free America, but shied away from calling for smoking rates to fall to zero or near zero by any particular year. The power of tobacco companies and popularity of their products made such a goal seem like a pipe dream.

But a confluence of changes has recently prompted public health leaders to start throwing around phrases like “endgame” and “tobacco-free generation.” Now, they talk about the slowly-declining adult smoking rate dropping to 10 percent in the next decade and to 5 percent or lower by 2050.

Acting U.S. Surgeon General Boris Lushniak last month released a 980-page report on smoking that pushed for stepped-up tobacco-control measures. His news conference was an unusually animated showing of anti-smoking bravado, with Lushniak nearly yelling, repeatedly, “Enough is enough!”

“I can’t accept that we’re just allowing these numbers to trickle down,” he said, in a recent interview with the AP. “We believe we have the public health tools to get us to the zero level.”

This is not the first time a federal health official has spoken so boldly. In 1984, Surgeon General C. Everett Koop called for a “smoke-free society” by the year 2000. However, Koop — a bold talker on many issues — didn’t offer specifics on how to achieve such a goal.

“What’s different today is that we have policies and programs that have been proven to drive down tobacco use,” said Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. “We couldn’t say that in 1984.”

Among the things that have changed:

—Cigarette taxes have increased around the country, making smokes more expensive. Though prices vary from state to state, on average a pack of cigarettes that would have sold for about $1.75 20 years ago would cost more than triple that now.

—Laws banning smoking in restaurants, bars and workplaces have popped up all over the country. Airline flights have long been off-limits for smoking.

—Polls show that cigarette smoking is no longer considered normal behavior, and is now less popular among teens than marijuana.

—Federal officials are increasingly aggressive about anti-smoking advertising. The Food and Drug Administration launched a new youth tobacco prevention campaign last week. At about the same time, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention debuted a third, $60-million round of its successful anti-tobacco ad campaign — this one featuring poignant, deathbed images of a woman featured in earlier ads.

—Tobacco companies, once considered impervious to legal attack, have suffered some huge defeats in court. Perhaps the biggest was the 1998 settlement of a case brought by more than 40 states demanding compensation for the costs of treating smoking-related illnesses. Big Tobacco agreed to pay about $200 billion and curtail marketing of cigarettes to youths.

—Retailing of cigarettes is changing, too. CVS Caremark, the nation’s second-largest pharmacy chain, announced last week it will stop selling tobacco products at its more than 7,600 drugstores. The company said it made the decision in a bid to focus more on providing health care, but medical and public health leaders predicted pressure will increase on companies like Walgreen Co. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to follow suit.

“I do think, in another few years, that pharmacies selling cigarettes will look as anachronistic” as old cigarette ads featuring physician endorsements look today, said CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden.

These developments have made many in public health dream bigger. It’s caused Myers’ organization and others to recently tout the goal of bringing the adult smoking rate down to 10 percent by 2024, from the current 18 percent. That would mean dropping it at twice the speed it declined over the last 10 years.

The bigger goal is to reduce U.S. smoking-related deaths to fewer than 10,000, from the current level of 480,000. But even if smoking rates dropped to zero immediately, it would take decades to see that benefit, since smoking-triggered cancers can take decades to develop.

But while some experts and advocates are swinging for the fences, others are more pessimistic. They say the key to reaching such goals is not simply more taxes and more local smoking bans, but action by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to regulate smoking.

A 2009 federal law gave the FDA the authority to regulate tobacco products. The law barred FDA from outright blocking the sale of cigarettes, but the agency was free to take such pivotal steps as prohibiting the use of appealing menthol flavoring in cigarettes and requiring cigarette makers to ratchet down the amount of addictive nicotine in each smoke.

But nearly five years after gaining power over cigarettes, FDA has yet to even propose such regulations. Agency officials say they’re working on it.

Many believe FDA’s delay is driven by defense preparations for an anticipated battery of legal and political challenges.

A spokesman for Altria Group Inc., the maker of Marlboro, said the company supports FDA exercising its regulatory authority over tobacco products. But as a whole, the industry has tended to fight regulation. Some of the nation’s largest tobacco companies — though not Altria — sued to stop FDA-proposed graphic warning labels on cigarette packs. A federal court blocked the ads.

“The industry makes money as long as they can delay regulation,” said Kenneth Warner, a University of Michigan public health professor who is a leading authority on smoking and health.

Warner and Michigan colleague David Mendez estimate that, barring any major new tobacco control victories, the adult smoking rate will drop from its current 18 percent only to about 12 percent by 2050. If health officials do make huge strides, the rate could drop as low as 6 percent, they think.

But Lushniak said zero. Will that ever happen?

Some experts doubt it. As long as cigarettes and other combustible tobacco products are legal, it’s likely some people will smoke them. Efforts to prohibit them are likely to fail, they say. (Remember Prohibition?)

“It’s hard to do a ban on cigarettes because you’re taking something away from people they have and are using. Once you have something, you hold tight,” said Richard Daynard, a Northeastern University law professor who focuses on tobacco issues.

Better, he said, to bar people from having a product in the first place. He is intrigued by legal efforts in Singapore and a handful of other countries to ban sales of tobacco to anyone born after a certain year — 2000, say. That would be constitutional, he said. The question is: Would our culture accept it?

Probably not, said Ruth Malone, editor-in-chief of the scientific journal Tobacco Control.

“In our culture, we tend to think we have a right to things even if they’re terrible for us,” she said.

A growing number of experts believe the most promising option is to get people to switch voluntarily to something else, like electronic cigarettes.

Electronic cigarettes are battery-powered devices that provide users with aerosol puffs that typically contain nicotine, and sometimes flavorings like fruit, mint or chocolate. They’ve often been described as a less dangerous alternative to regular cigarettes. But there are few studies exploring exactly what chemicals are in them, and in what concentrations, and whether those levels are harmful.

They’re controversial: Some experts believe that at a time when cigarette smoking has finally become passe in popular culture, e-cigarettes may re-glamorize puffing away in public places. Cigarette sales could surge.

“It could go in either direction,” said John Seffrin, the American Cancer Society’s chief executive officer.

But if the FDA can ratchet down nicotine in conventional cigarettes to levels below what’s in e-cigarettes, perhaps everyone who clings to smoking will switch to the higher-nicotine new products. That could achieve the end of smoking, at least of combustible, carcinogen-filled cigarettes — or so the thinking goes.

In the past, “the country really wasn’t ready” to walk away from cigarettes,” Daynard said. “I think the country’s ready now.”
TM and © Copyright 2014 CBS Radio Inc. and its relevant subsidiaries. CBS RADIO and EYE Logo TM and Copyright 2014 CBS Broadcasting Inc. Used under license. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.