Thursday, June 25, 2015


Tuesday, March 03, 2015

Study Finds Almost No Hazardous Chemicals in Aerosol of Blu or Sky-Cig E-Cigarettes

study published in journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology reports that the two brands of electronic cigarettes tested - Blu and Sky Cigs - contain levels of hazardous chemicals that are almost all indistinguishable from levels in ambient air. The few chemicals that were detected were present at levels between 50 and 900 times lower than that in cigarette smoke. 

The study highlights were as follows:
  • "The e-cigarettes contained and delivered mostly glycerin and/or PG and water.
  • Aerosol nicotine content was 85% lower than the cigarette smoke nicotine.
  • The levels of HPHCs in aerosol were consistent with the air blanks.
  • Mainstream cigarette smoke HPHCs (∼3000 μg/puff) were 1500 times higher than e-cigarette HPHCs.
  • No significant contribution of tested HPHC classes was found for the e-cigarettes."
The authors conclude that: "The deliveries of HPHCs tested for these e-cigarette products were similar to the study air blanks rather than to deliveries from conventional cigarettes; no significant contribution of cigarette smoke HPHCs from any of the compound classes tested was found for the e-cigarettes. Thus, the results of this study support previous researchers’ discussion of e-cigarette products’ potential for reduced exposure compared to cigarette smoke."

The Rest of the Story

This study adds to the abundant and growing body of evidence that electronic cigarettes are orders of magnitude safer than tobacco cigarettes and suggests that brands of e-cigarettes that do not overheat the e-liquid may be associated with very minor absolute health risks.

This should put an end to the assertions of many e-cigarette opponents that electronic cigarettes are not any safer than tobacco cigarettes. It exposes those public statements as being lies.

This research also demonstrates how misguided the FDA is in its scientific judgment. Despite all of the evidence, with numerous studies demonstrating results similar to those above, with studies showing rapid clinical improvement in smokers who switch to e-cigarettes, and with studies showing that the acute cardiovascular and pulmonary effects of smoking due not occur with vaping, the FDA is not sure that smoking is not any more hazardous than vaping.

In the deeming regulation proposal, the FDA stated: "Many consumers believe that e-cigarettes are "safe" tobacco products or are "safer" than cigarettes. FDA has not made such a determination and conclusive research is not available." Clearly, the FDA does not believe that there is sufficient evidence at the present time to conclude that cigarette smoking is any more hazardous than vaping. 

Furthermore, one of the problems noted in the deeming regulations was the fact that: "The vast majority of the respondents who were aware of these products indicated that they believed e-cigarettes were less harmful than traditional cigarettes...". Once again, the FDA is stating that smoking may not be any more hazardous than vaping.

Combined with the existing body of scientific evidence, this study blows out of the water the argument of e-cigarette opponents that we have no idea how hazardous vaping is and that we can't be sure that vaping is significantly safer than smoking.

Nevertheless, I'm sure electronic cigarette opponents will continue to make these assertions because they are being primarily motivated by ideology and not by science.

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