Discontinued Thermovape Cera

OF

Well-Known Member
Still, if TET could come up with a 1.5Ω coil, it would open up a zillion choices.

Lots of 'food for thought' with that gem in the middle. Yes, I agree, the combination of a thread adapter to 510 and Cera cores at 1.5 or so would be wonderful indeed. We'd be in tall cotton.....and asking about making a new body for the EO core (since it doesn't have to fit the Cera format any more, it can be smaller in diameter....). It's an outside sourced machined part, it would even be cheaper if they say reduced the diameter, removed the rings, and made the top deeper by a bit to make loading easier......

Doing so would let them add another doughnut, for greater capacity and plenty of room to get the extra wire in the heater.

I wonder how hard (and expensive) it is to order a pound of the magic wire? My guess is you might have to wait a bit for a run if it's not in stock, I'm going to guess it's 'only' a hundred dollars or so? Even if it's several times that (which I doubt) you can make a huge pile of heaters using six inches or so each. There must be a mile or more on that spool.

Next time I'm buy I think I'll see if I can promote the idea. A gauge or two down should do the trick, and it should be easy to calculate an accurate guess. The physical size (diameter) is important, the connections are based on it, but we should be able to save a few thousandths off without making a problem I'd think?

All they can do is say no, right?

OF
 
OF,
  • Like
Reactions: ataxian

Quetzalcoatl

DEADY GUERRERO/DIRT COBAIN/GEORGE KUSH
It might be a bit more expensive since they use US-sourced wire and a special blend if I'm not mistaken, but in the ecig community you can get 75 feet of wire to use for rebuildable atties for... $5 I think? Quite cheap if you're into the scene.
 

MPZ

Well-Known Member
Man...

This thread is amazing. so many awesome mods for the cera....

I still haven't gotten around to doing anything to my Cera, aside from creating an end cap to keep the switch on. I need to get on that...

But anyways, the reason I am opening my mouth is to say that I am impressed with the oil Cera! I bought one for my best friend (he paid me back.. it's just that he was in Japan at the time), and he brought it with him to Hempfest. Long story short, he used it continuously for 6-8 hours two days in a row, and it just kept on hitting. While I have found that the switch is a little bit of a weak point (I'm just mad cuz mine isn't working very well) due to its apparent fragility, the Cera really adheres to the values expressed by its design.

I just wanted to say props to thermovape! And now I'll go back to reading about all the cool mods you people are doing. :)
 

PhotoRider

Diagnosed with level 11 G.A.S.
Found it again. I calculated them at .78, .83 and 1.33 Ohms at the time. I did find a VV 'battery' that will drive it. Up to 15 Watts, IIRC. But Tim was unable to make another core like this one! He tried several times and finally gave up. Shorted turns kept cropping up. Too bad. Hopefully a change (larger holes in the doughnuts?) sometime will let 'em make higher resistance cores. Or have another run of slightly smaller wire......

I think you're right on, Ohm's Law should still be trusted. At least for now. I for sure agree 5 Amps is possible, it's the advised part. Four was the number I was told to use, and what I tended to find in real use. Five is a different number, which is better each guy gets to decide I guess.

Perhaps the root problem is we're trying to decide 'what is normal'? A question I'm not unfamiliar with....



Thanks for the advice. I see nothing wrong with my numbers. Or my methodology. Volts divided by Amps, same I believe as you. And I sure trust yours. As we just said above, we don't need to rewrite Ohm's law. I was passing on what I think is useful information from Noah. 4 is his number, I asked. 4 and 5 are different numbers. Pick the one you like.

The opinions are his, the data mine, and the choice yours.

Regards to all.

OF
My choice is to go with ohms law. My carts - all 3 are .69 ohms and draw a min of 5a on my Cera base in actual use. so therefore this is the correct use of my Cera EO. Math. What I am doing is exactly the same as it operates on my battery Cera...

Just don't understand why you disagree with that. Like you ignore my data or simply think I am full of it. 0.69 ohm carts draw 5A and 3.6V. Seems you don't agree with either the 0.69, or 3.6V or ohms law - which one is it? If its 0.69 of the carts I will post a video on a $5,000 4 point Kelvin resistance cross bridge measuring each EO to 0.69 +/- 0.1. Accurate to 100ppm and traceable to the NBS - National Bureau of Standards to 10ppm plus give the cal certificate of accuracy and NBS (must be posted on the equipment in the cal lab). Once the resistance is proven and understood ohms law wins and the normal operating condition for my carts is 5A min.

I can decide to ignore that and run a 4A as you suggest, but that isn't what my carts do on my Cera. Nothing suggests different.

The data suggest something changed and 4A is no long the result. Even one of your carts is closer to 5A than 4 and at full charge 5A...


Oh well, don't matter. We each decide what to believe and each person criteria is different. Just wish you would be a bit more direct on exactly you are questioning on my numbers. You seem to stay with 4A and ohms law, but disagree that 5A is not normal on MY carts. If ohms law is agreed upon, what don't you agree with, must be the 0.69, but you never say that??? or do you suggest the voltage is less than 3.6V given to the cart in real use? Either V or R must be different to yield 4A you don't direct question my numbers based on actual measurements of 3 carts... frustrating.
 

Tweek

Well-Known Member
I decided to load up my LL cart today, to give it another go. Was actually starting to get some decent vapour, and then the thing died on me...it got really hot, and now it looks like the spring collapsed...just like last time.
 
Tweek,
  • Like
Reactions: ataxian

darkrom

Great Scott!
I decided to load up my LL cart today, to give it another go. Was actually starting to get some decent vapour, and then the thing died on me...it got really hot, and now it looks like the spring collapsed...just like last time.

I'm so torn because I LOVE my cera and I love the company, but can we face it and say this vape is pretty unreliable in its current condition? I'm not planning on selling mine or anything, but clearly at this point its good advice to always have a backup ready. I'm actually picking up the firewood while its $85 in that sale. That way I have something to use while my cera gets sent out to be repaired the THIRD time. I just want it to be reliable at this point. The T1 was never this unreliable.
 

OF

Well-Known Member
Seems you don't agree with either the 0.69, or 3.6V or ohms law - which one is it? If its 0.69 of the carts I will post a video on a $5,000 4 point Kelvin resistance cross bridge measuring each EO to 0.69 +/- 0.1.

Just wish you would be a bit more direct on exactly you are questioning on my numbers. You seem to stay with 4A and ohms law, but disagree that 5A is not normal on MY carts. If ohms law is agreed upon, what don't you agree with, must be the 0.69, but you never say that???

If you can please drop the insulting 'you don't believe in Ohm's Law' strawman we can continue (I hope) to have a civil discussion? I have never said Ohm's Law is not real, please drop that? TIA.

I have no doubt you can measure (older?) carts that low. I've seen them. I've also no doubt that for most any resistance you can push 5 Amps (or any other value you want), within reason of course. My point is not 'can you' but should you? Is that using it the way intended.

I'm not questioning your numbers, just if they meet the goals laid down by the maker of the core.

Let's go back to what I think we can agree, then allow me to ask a rhetorical question that might sort things out? I think we can agree on at least two points:
  • Ohm's Law is real, we're all living under it.
  • TV has, over time, changed the resistance of cores to compensate for other changes.

My question is why did they do that? Why did the raise the cart resistance if not to lower the current?

I decided to load up my LL cart today, to give it another go. Was actually starting to get some decent vapour, and then the thing died on me...it got really hot, and now it looks like the spring collapsed...just like last time.

Bummer.

Something out of the ordinary is going on. Collapsing springs are a very bad sign, the current is way way out of line when that happens (it's a fuse of sorts, aimed at keeping the unprotected battery insider from starting WWIII in response to a short circuit).

Perhaps the heater is shifting in the cart and shorting to the 'heat shield' (a short SS tube between the heater and the ceramic body), a rare, but known fault. Perhaps it's an issue elsewhere (less likely IMO).

But something is seriously wrong (you probably guessed that part, right?). My advice is to send the lot in to be carefully checked out. For sure the spring needs replacing, once collapsed they can't be 'bent back right' and I'd recommend replacing the heater in the core by way of 'belt and suspenders'?

Sorry to have bad news, but collapsed springs are not normal.....great performance from Cera LL carts, is however the norm. Hopefully soon you'll be enjoying that with the rest of us?

Regards.

OF
 

Tweek

Well-Known Member
Thanks, but I am going to just put it back on the shelf. I can't afford to pay for shipping this all the way back to Cali again. Last time I sent it in, it was the same issue...maybe one day I can utilize the carts on another body.
 

OF

Well-Known Member
Thanks, but I am going to just put it back on the shelf. I can't afford to pay for shipping this all the way back to Cali again. Last time I sent it in, it was the same issue...maybe one day I can utilize the carts on another body.

Your call, of course. But I strongly suspect the issue will follow the cart. Something made the heat rocket up and the current draw to go wonkers, a radical drop in core resistance (most likely from the heated wire shifting over an touching the wall removing some of the windings from the circuit). That will tend to happen any time it gets that hot until corrected.

My guess is the basic Cera (after the spring is replaced) is just fine, but I'd get it checked out.....but as you point out all I have to do is drive 25 miles and watch it happen (and visit with 'the guys' of course).

One thing sure, it's not normal. Outstanding performance is normal.

Good luck.

OF
 

MPZ

Well-Known Member
Thanks, but I am going to just put it back on the shelf. I can't afford to pay for shipping this all the way back to Cali again. Last time I sent it in, it was the same issue...maybe one day I can utilize the carts on another body.

Man that sucks.

I'm feeling your pain right about now... as I mentioned, the switch on my Cera is barely working, and I'm unemployed at the moment (I had a job lined up... but it requires me going back to college this year, which I can't do because I need to help out my injured mother and... *sigh*)

On the other hand, presuming your switch is still working and it is your loose leaf cart that is the problem, I might be able to help you out... I'll PM u
 
MPZ,
  • Like
Reactions: Tweek

PhotoRider

Diagnosed with level 11 G.A.S.
If you can please drop the insulting 'you don't believe in Ohm's Law' strawman we can continue (I hope) to have a civil discussion? I have never said Ohm's Law is not real, please drop that? TIA.

I have no doubt you can measure (older?) carts that low. I've seen them. I've also no doubt that for most any resistance you can push 5 Amps (or any other value you want), within reason of course. My point is not 'can you' but should you? Is that using it the way intended.

I'm not questioning your numbers, just if they meet the goals laid down by the maker of the core.

Let's go back to what I think we can agree, then allow me to ask a rhetorical question that might sort things out? I think we can agree on at least two points:
  • Ohm's Law is real, we're all living under it.
  • TV has, over time, changed the resistance of cores to compensate for other changes.

My question is why did they do that? Why did the raise the cart resistance if not to lower the current?



OF
OF - sorry you read that I was suggesting you didn't believe in ohms law :) If you thought that I am sorry. However I don't think I implied that really. I asked since you questioned the 5A normal draw of my carts and I had actual data I wanted to know which value you disagreed with since you never went on record. You have already stated you trust ohm law and I would never believe you question that... I was really implying you didn't trust my numbers based on the interaction, but it was a guess...

I thought we were both being civil - no judgements here at least by me. However, I wish you would please put away the passive aggressive stuff though, its just a discussion from two different points. Mine is a single data point of 3 carts, yours has more history...

So, want I am wondering about is the old carts verses the new. My carts are new, June delivery. So I suggest the resistance dropped, not up. If the original design intent was 4A they have increased that on my newer carts either by design or by something else if its intentional or not.

So I am treating the carts exactly as the Cera base treats them so why change?
That is the germane point here since this started that I was over driving. I don't think so because this is how it operates with the Cera.

However, if you say this is too much for normal use then my carts are defective and are outside spec.... Do you suggest I place a ticket with TET and have them repaired?
 
Last edited:

OF

Well-Known Member
I wanted to know which value you disagreed with since you never went on record. You have already stated you trust ohm law and I would never believe you question that...

So I am treating the carts exactly as the Cera base treats them so why change?

You were plenty clear to me (and I think at least one other Member?) with believing in Ohm's law not what I was saying. I hope you can see how a guy might misunderstand.

I don't believe that's the way it's really treated by Cera. I've said so a time or two. I still don't. I just measured mine again. Starting with a fresh 2250 at 4.17 OC and using the method I've described I measured 3.31 Volts on the cart pins. .32 Volts was lost across the strap, the remainder in the switch, spring and battery itself. A bit over four Amps. By the time the battery reaches nominal value I'd expect to have those numbers even lower, typically about 3.0 Volts on the cart (?) and be at or under four Amps.

So I don't think 3.6 Volts is realistic across the pins, especially at nominal value. This indicates a current higher than the four Amps the cart is designed to pass.

I've asked several times if you've done that test, I have a fair bit, and have found it's not realistic to start with 3.7 Volts and still have 3.6 of it left after the system losses. Perhaps my readings are way off (although they agreed with what we were seeing as Tim worked on the heater changes), what are you reading?

I originally suggested 'you might want to rethink that 5 Amps', and while I still think it's a good idea to stick with the ratings given the call still remains yours. To answer my question I think the cart resistanc was raised to get the current back down again as the system losses were decreased. You can, by adjusting the drive, run most any current you want, at least for a while. I just believe 5 is not the 'right' number. It's not what I see, and not what I was told the design allowed. But I've said all that a few times now. No need to repeat further.

Edit: I just did another test of some interest. I took that same battery (still reading 4.17 OC) and put it on my battery tester kluge. The four Amp load there (four 4 Ohm, 5 Watt resistors in parallel) dropped it to 3.95. So I'd say .2 Volts or so is lost in heating the battery?

Again, please, what values do you read on the pins when in the Cera system? TIA.

Good luck.

OF
 
Last edited:
OF,

MPZ

Well-Known Member
Ok, I need to apologize in advance for asking this, as I think someone at least mentioned it earlier in this thread... but I can't find it. So forgive me if this has already been answered, but is there a consensus procedure for cleaning the battery contact on the bottom of one's loose leaf (or Essential oil- I don't recall there being a difference) cartridge. I thought I saw someone post at some point that they cleaned theirs because, paradoxically, cleaning their cartridge has dirtied it, and it made a big difference. Given that my Cera is not heating up very well ATM, I just wanted to know. I will be surprised if this is part of my problem, as one of my two loose leaf cartridges has only been used twice and never been cleaned (though I guess I did store it rather haphazardly for a bit), but just in case, I would like to know.

Oh, while we are on the subject of battery contacts...

Contact_fluid_bottle-1r.png

Website: http://www.jenalabs.com/contact-fluid/contact-fluid.html
Am I crazy (especially given my lack of electronics knowledge) to consider trying this on one of my cartridges? I seem to have caught the modification bug. I keep thinking about this and heat-shrink wrapping my Cera so my friends don't burn themselves using it (I like to do really long preheats then take huge rips out of bubblers, especially my friends' Toros :D). However, I don't want any heat shrink wrap I use to melt or something, and the stuff rated higher than 135c according to wikipedia (aka not polyolefin) is expensive and apparently only available in bulk. I have no experience with heat shrink- is 135c plenty of margin past temperatures at which one can't touch certain parts of the Cera without significant discomfort? Or do I need to try and find a deal on the expensive stuff?

Someone return me to sanity please :whoa:
 
MPZ,

Tom Funk

Well-Known Member
No one throws more thermovape love around than me, but honestly a few aspects are not as impressive as the T1. The switch is better on the T1 imo (though I didn't think so at the time). The reliability simply isn't there I'd say. I still love it and its my preferred portable, but what does it say that I'm currently shopping around for backup vapes for when I need to send my cera back in? This is the third time I have to send it in, but it doesn't feel like it'll be the last. Most impressive portable vape I'd say, but I wish they had a better deal on it so I could get a 2nd one, because it feels like with one of these and nothing else I WILL be out of a vaporizer for a while. With my current medical situation that simply isn't an option for me. So here I am browsing for a backup portable. REALLY sad I sold my pax to a friend for so cheap.

I think it would be great if TET simply made the new mini/lite handle an upsized T1 handle. A top cap that was metal on the inside press fit into delrin/Teflon on the outside like the T1 would also be good for heat management and durability.

The T1 style handle would be great for the Cera, not only for its reliability, but also for the fact that LL users could throw a couple dimes in the bottom to give a latching option. I know there were complaints about pushing up the T1 switch but these could be addressed with something like Pipes' StonePad.

The Cera should be a reasonable bit shorter with the T1 style handle too.

I'm torn at the moment as to whether to buy a Cera now, or to wait until the mini/lite handle. On the one hand, I'm certain that the new handle will be more reliable. On the other, I also get the feeling that it will be a replacement rather than an alternative and I don't know if it will be as easy to modify to latch on as the current handle is.

TF
 

PhotoRider

Diagnosed with level 11 G.A.S.
You were plenty clear to me (and I think at least one other Member?) with believing in Ohm's law not what I was saying. I hope you can see how a guy might misunderstand.

I don't believe that's the way it's really treated by Cera. I've said so a time or two. I still don't. I just measured mine again. Starting with a fresh 2250 at 4.17 OC and using the method I've described I measured 3.31 Volts on the cart pins. .32 Volts was lost across the strap, the remainder in the switch, spring and battery itself. A bit over four Amps. By the time the battery reaches nominal value I'd expect to have those numbers even lower, typically about 3.0 Volts on the cart (?) and be at or under four Amps.

So I don't think 3.6 Volts is realistic across the pins, especially at nominal value. This indicates a current higher than the four Amps the cart is designed to pass.

I've asked several times if you've done that test, I have a fair bit, and have found it's not realistic to start with 3.7 Volts and still have 3.6 of it left after the system losses. Perhaps my readings are way off (although they agreed with what we were seeing as Tim worked on the heater changes), what are you reading?

I originally suggested 'you might want to rethink that 5 Amps', and while I still think it's a good idea to stick with the ratings given the call still remains yours. To answer my question I think the cart resistanc was raised to get the current back down again as the system losses were decreased. You can, by adjusting the drive, run most any current you want, at least for a while. I just believe 5 is not the 'right' number. It's not what I see, and not what I was told the design allowed. But I've said all that a few times now. No need to repeat further.

Edit: I just did another test of some interest. I took that same battery (still reading 4.17 OC) and put it on my battery tester kluge. The four Amp load there (four 4 Ohm, 5 Watt resistors in parallel) dropped it to 3.95. So I'd say .2 Volts or so is lost in heating the battery?

Again, please, what values do you read on the pins when in the Cera system? TIA.

Good luck.

OF
OF,
This is very frustrating.

For one what I stated was this
"Just don't understand why you disagree with that. Like you ignore my data or simply think I am full of it. 0.69 ohm carts draw 5A and 3.6V. Seems you don't agree with either the 0.69, or 3.6V or ohms law - which one is it? If its 0.69 of the carts I will post a video on a $5,000 4 point Kelvin resistance cross bridge measuring each EO to 0.69 +/- 0.1. Accurate to 100ppm and traceable to the NBS - National Bureau of Standards to 10ppm plus give the cal certificate of accuracy and NBS (must be posted on the equipment in the cal lab). Once the resistance is proven and understood ohms law wins and the normal operating condition for my carts is 5A min."

Where did I imply what you are saying? What I said its "LIKE" you are ignoring my data or simply think I am full of it. Not ohms law. I then said what which was was it: the resistance measurement, voltage and a all out try ohms law. That was a question, not a statement - "?" was attached. So you are taking offense at my question? I am just try to understand why you are standing by your opinion in leu of data presented by me and not addressing the actual details. That was my point.

You know if people want to take offense where non was intended, people can. Written word is not that precise. I have boldly stated I was trying to be respectful more than once, but you took offense. Not sure why you are going that, but it concerns me.

I have stated I measured the cart voltage using wires on the base at the cart input. I stated what that was and what I measured the resistance to. You ask for the former again... frustrating

Now, look at my prespective here - you asked me to look at yours. I am being respectful, providing data and drawing conclusions from it, not opinions or taste great/less filling stuff. My reaction was in defence to you stating I was over driving my cart aka you are the aggressor. I did investigate and characterize everything before I did this. I presented that. However, you stayed with your opinion and didn't present much data back. Moreover the data you did provide does not add up. That is the POV I saw.

Then you reply I am attacking you or being disrepectful about your understanding of ohms law. Also stating at least 1 other member agreed.. hmmm OK I checked with others also and at least 3 others see what I see - OK. So what!

There is no disrepect intended and I don't think was done between us. If you want to go that route - your choice. OK by me. I will not. This stuff is not opinion based,its science and both of us know this. No reason to have drama where none was intended at from my POV. I mean no disrespect and have no agenda here. I hope we share that.


OK, remeasured my data using a Cera base and a Persei. Thanks, learned something here between the two bases.

Cera, fresh charged AW 18650 2000mAh battery.
No load 4.43V.
Full Cera EO load - 3.41, 35 seconds later 3.37

Persei
Recharged same battery...
No load 4.43V
Full Cera EO load - 3.55V, 35 seconds later 3.48V

First to note, even through the Persei must use an adapter it drops (4.43-3.55) or 0.88v, the Cera drops (4.43-3.41) or 1.02V.
That means under even worse conditions the Persei base dropped 0.14V less initially and after 35 seconds was still 0.11 higher. The Cera is only 86% efficient of the Persei.

Now lets explore the current flowing.
Initial conditions...
Cera 3.41/0.69 = 4.94 Amps
Persei 3.55/0.69 = 5.14 Amps

After 35 seconds...
Cera 3.37/0.69 = 4.88 Amps
Persei 3.48/0.69 = 5.02 Amp.

OK lets reset all history here. We are civil and no intention of disrespect between us - OK?
Now everything I measure says 5 amps is what the operating condition of my carts are which are the latest carts being produced from TET - June delivery. Newer than yours - right?

1. Agree? if not would you please explain why (TIA)
2. If you agree and 4A should be my value, are my carts defective? In not then this is my carts normal operating condition - right?


Please, please, please (did I say please?) don't take any offense about this. I have no agenda here. I simply must understand your point that I am overdriving my carts because my characterization does not agree - the Dilbert in me. At this point I coming to the conclusion that carts are defective, trying to decide how to return them and explain it to them why. At this point, perhaps, I should print this out and put it in the package to TET that you are saying my carts are outside the designed operation of the CERA EO. This is the only explanation I can see because I firmly believe you are right that 4A was the design spec and my carts draw 5A min in use...

EDIT - to be sure I double checked the adapter resistance used on the Persei for the EO cart. Its resistance is so small I need my 4 point kelvin meter so I can really ignore it, besides it was before my measurement point. My wires were on the cart inputs after the adapter. That is what amazes me. Even with the adapter the Persei drops less, over 14% less.

Just goes what my old grandma said, the more you look, the more you find...

Another edit - I have received a couple PM asking me if I am being played to further someone agenda or maybe I had one. I CALL BULLSHIT TO THAT. I am no ones BOY. I am defending myself on my operation which I shared. At no point it I ever put down the Cera or the EO. I was showing my lab supply setup. Then I am told I am outside the operational limits. Well, I am an senior fellow in an electronics firm with 35 years experience. When someone suggests I am operating outside the design specs and I characterized my equipement you are DAMN right I am going to do the following:

1. Recheck my data with an open mind
2. Then present that data once again to defend myself since in effect I am being told I am wrong.
3. In doing so I will present the data, unbiased for all to interrupt.

In suggesting I am incorrect I expect the following in return:

1. Objectively review the data I presented.
2. Be objective and covey the points you disagree with.
3. Get emotion at of it because it pure written word.
4. Use only data generated my yourself, not others. Let other people state there own data or opinion.
5. If you think something is out of line in the interaction - clarify with the presenter their intentions before taking offense.

I believe I followed that methodology as I have done in teams for years. I did not take offense at someone saying my operation was outside spec, I double checked and followed my methodology and kept a thick skin.

THAT IS WHAT I DID. If anybody thinks I am being played my Delta9 or TET, well you are 100% wrong. I am defending myself on my work, no one elses. I can't control anybody but myself and I have no agenda here. I hope the same is true for all because as an user and not a supplier here it serves me no purpose to drive anybody under. Users need competition and improvement. Ignoring data because its bad isn't in my best interest nor any users. Instead it should be used to improve the product.

Once emotion takes over, objectivity is lost. Bottom-line this is impossible to resolve. Emotions are involved I guess. Mine is being attacked so I am upset also. So... last post on this subject. Don't need to win, don't care. I hate drama and will keep and use both products. In fact will continue to support both and purchase from both. Period.

Besides SOA starts next week, enough drama for me :)
 
Last edited:

SameOldTim

Previously Known as 'ThermoCoreTim'
Manufacturer
OF,
Cera, fresh charged AW 18650 2000mAh battery.
No load 4.43V.
Full Cera EO load - 3.41, 35 seconds later 3.37

Persei
Recharged same battery...
No load 4.43V
Full Cera EO load - 3.55V, 35 seconds later 3.48V

First to note, even through the Persei must use an adapter it drops (4.43-3.55) or 0.88v, the Cera drops (4.43-3.41) or 1.02V.
That means under even worse conditions the Persei base dropped 0.14V less initially and after 35 seconds was still 0.11 higher. The Cera is only 86% efficient of the Persei.

This isn't the right way to think about that. That drop is actually showing how much your BATTERY is being affected by the specific load given.

The drop in Voltage under load indicated how much current the vaporizer is requiring of the battery, More of a drop indicates more load, less drop means less load.

just my :2c:

Cheers,
Tim
 

PhotoRider

Diagnosed with level 11 G.A.S.
This isn't the right way to think about that. That drop is actually showing how much your BATTERY is being affected by the specific load given.

The drop in Voltage under load indicated how much current the vaporizer is requiring of the battery, More of a drop indicates more load, less drop means less load.

just my :2c:

Cheers,
Tim
well same battery, same load, exactly, battery was recharge between tests - I don't understand. Only difference is the base... Only reason a different current is flowing is the resistance from the battery to the heater is different. Higher on the Cera than the Persei and the Persei has an additional adapter.

Tim, outside that base resistance the battery should see the exact same load given these conditions - right?

Your point is to make the only difference the unit under test. This is the case here. The only difference is the Cera base or the Persei - all other components are the same. This is the correct way to look at it. Only change one thing, measure, double check...

Interesting. similar POV as when I characterized each component separately to understand each one, then I could predict the system preformance. Standard engineering procedure 101, decompose, rebuild. Understand your components and trade offs. Systems can have compensating errors and hide issues. To truly understand system performance this is the correct methodology and POV... That was questioned...

I am happy with my POV and understanding. Respectfully, I do not agree with yours Tim or OF's on this subject and firmly believe neither will change. Doesn't need to. It is what it is.

However, research and the quest for understanding is fun. Also so is this subject as long as people are objective and hopefully all of us believe everyone is (as Jules says in the Diner to Pumpkin) "[I'm] TRYING TO" we are good.

EDIT - let me add a couple things to think about. On the Cera the positive terminal is always connected to the cart. The negative side of the battery is switched to the cart. The ceramic section of the base is non conductive so this connection must have a another path. Here the path is flex strip. This is the longest path in the design and therefore the weak link... Moreover the ceramic requires a metal section on either end to be mounted - either screwed or glued. Another connection, mechanical, but weak. Failures are easy, maybe abuse aka dropping, but weak never the less. I can throw my Persei against the wall and nothing seems to happen. Seen a video of this idiot doing that for some strange reason :D. I have read in this thread about many failures in both these areas. The data correlates.

On the counter side the Pesei switches positive battery connection. The negative has a very low impedance path from that huge hunk of metal tube. Since I have not disassembled a Persei head, I am have no idea of the connection path in the head, however that path is much shorter and resistance is a value of area and length...

Everything correlates and supports itself. The Cera drops more voltage under the same conditions and there is an engineering architecture to why - the ceramic non conductive base and the higher impedance path of the negative voltage connection.

I do not understand why ceramic was used, I do know it breaks, is heavy and forces another connection for the negative battery terminal which is architectural. One can simply replace that area with metal tube, lighten the base, remove the look people seem to complain about (not me), lower the impledance and remove the risk of failure of that connection. Plus make the base stronger and less chance of failure...

I really hope TET looks at that objectively. I want both units improved. Nothing is perfect and I use both. This is not bashing the Cera. It is looking for areas to improve from an user's POV. A win - win. Or one can take this as bashing and dismiss it. In the end, the users move on. Cisco's claim to fame is they worked with all customers, not just ones of like minds. To me they were a perfect example of how a startup grows very quickly and self funds. Objectively accept feedback and continue improvement. Now, not that things have not improved. My base is the latest and it works well. Never an issue for me...
 
Last edited:

ataxian

PALE BLUE DOT
I really hope TET looks at that objectively. I want both units improved. Nothing is perfect and I use both. This is not bashing the Cera. It is looking for areas to improve from an user's POV. A win - win. Or one can take this as bashing and dismiss it. In the end, the users move on. Cisco's claim to fame is they worked with all customers, not just ones of like minds. To me they were a perfect example of how a startup grows very quickly and self funds. Objectively accept feedback and continue improvement. Now, not that things have not improved. My base is the latest and it works well. Never an issue for me...

Very well said!
 

darkrom

Great Scott!
I hope to get my email back today. Sent 2 emails to them so far. This is very unlike them IMO. Are they having some kind of crisis now that Tim is gone lol?

One thing I still haven't decided on. Is the cera eo supposed to be a "load a few days worth" device, or a load one or 2 dabs worth device where you get a couple hits then reload next time you want to use it?
 
Last edited:

OF

Well-Known Member
OF,

Cera, fresh charged AW 18650 2000mAh battery.
No load 4.43V.
Full Cera EO load - 3.41, 35 seconds later 3.37

Cool. Let's try starting here?

4.43 Volts is way too high. 4.2 is really higher than you want to go if you want longest battery life. Dropping it to 4.1 will basically double the cycle life of your battery. I don't know of anyone who recommends this level of charge, all the protection circuits out there would cut you off long before 4.43 Volts. Such levels are only possible on unprotected batteries....for a good reason. That battery is seriously overcharged, unrealistically so IMO. Check out chart 5:
http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/how_to_prolong_lithium_based_batteries

They don't show 4.43 Volts of course, but look at the way going from 4.3 to 4.35 kills it off younger, we'd be talking dozens (not hundreds) of cycles. The charger TV specifies (after a lot of testing) was picked because it came closest to getting that 'magic .1 Volt' getting the maximum run time per charge possible without killing the battery off in a month or two (which I think 4.4 will do).

I suggest 4.2 is a more realistic maximum OC voltage, for sure the most Cera was designed around. That should be subtracted IMO, making the more correct in use number 3.2 Volts, not the 3.4 you measured or the 3.6 you're using? And that's for a very fresh battery. The actual nominal value is 3.7 Volts. Under those conditions, the (fairly normal IMO) drops you cite above brings the terminal voltage into the 'around 3 Volt range' not 3.6. For the same resistance cart this will of course drop the current by that ratio, 5*(3/3.6) is 4.1 Amps. Which seems to fit the number Noah named and I'm used to finding.

I think driving it at 5 Amps (3.6 Volts) is higher than normal. In normal use the cart is driven close to 3.0, perhaps up to 3.3 or so 'worst case'. And here I think you want the typical power, not worst case.

Thanks for answering the question, I think I understand the source of the difference of opinion better now.

OF
 

Skored

Well-Known Member
One thing I still haven't decided on. Is the cera eo supposed to be a "load a few days worth" device, or a load one or 2 dabs worth device where you get a couple hits then reload next time you want to use it?

I think this is honestly personal preference. Since there doesn't seem to be taste degradation, I like to have it fully loaded for the convenience of not having to load it every time I use it. IMO, this is one of the best things about this cart. So I like loading a full .5g and then take it down to about .15-.2g before loading again. Now I'm not like most guys on here as that can last me up to a few weeks. Definitely becomes a no fuss vape at that point... just pick up, hit and go.

But, loading each time with a dabs worth works as well as long as it's on top of at least .15g in the cart.
 

OF

Well-Known Member
Since there doesn't seem to be taste degradation, I like to have it fully loaded for the convenience of not having to load it every time I use it.

So I like loading a full .5g and then take it down to about .15-.2g before loading again.

I'm with you there. There's no penalty paid for loading half a gram over a tenth or so, in fact I think you probably waste less messing with it loading all the time? If you put more that that in, leaks and slow start ups can crop up, in extreme cases you can lose taste (I think by blasting some while trying to melt the rest?).

I think the 'keep it .2 to .5 or so from new weight is a good starting point. As you gain experience you can modify that to suit your tastes?

OF
 

MPZ

Well-Known Member
well same battery, same load, exactly, battery was recharge between tests - I don't understand. Only difference is the base... Only reason a different current is flowing is the resistance from the battery to the heater is different. Higher on the Cera than the Persei and the Persei has an additional adapter.

Tim, outside that base resistance the battery should see the exact same load given these conditions - right?

Your point is to make the only difference the unit under test. This is the case here. The only difference is the Cera base or the Persei - all other components are the same. This is the correct way to look at it. Only change one thing, measure, double check...

Interesting. similar POV as when I characterized each component separately to understand each one, then I could predict the system preformance. Standard engineering procedure 101, decompose, rebuild. Understand your components and trade offs. Systems can have compensating errors and hide issues. To truly understand system performance this is the correct methodology and POV... That was questioned...

I am happy with my POV and understanding. Respectfully, I do not agree with yours Tim or OF's on this subject and firmly believe neither will change. Doesn't need to. It is what it is.

However, research and the quest for understanding is fun. Also so is this subject as long as people are objective and hopefully all of us believe everyone is (as Jules says in the Diner to Pumpkin) "[I'm] TRYING TO" we are good.

EDIT - let me add a couple things to think about. On the Cera the positive terminal is always connected to the cart. The negative side of the battery is switched to the cart. The ceramic section of the base is non conductive so this connection must have a another path. Here the path is flex strip. This is the longest path in the design and therefore the weak link... Moreover the ceramic requires a metal section on either end to be mounted - either screwed or glued. Another connection, mechanical, but weak. Failures are easy, maybe abuse aka dropping, but weak never the less. I can throw my Persei against the wall and nothing seems to happen. Seen a video of this idiot doing that for some strange reason :D. I have read in this thread about many failures in both these areas. The data correlates.

On the counter side the Pesei switches positive battery connection. The negative has a very low impedance path from that huge hunk of metal tube. Since I have not disassembled a Persei head, I am have no idea of the connection path in the head, however that path is much shorter and resistance is a value of area and length...

Everything correlates and supports itself. The Cera drops more voltage under the same conditions and there is an engineering architecture to why - the ceramic non conductive base and the higher impedance path of the negative voltage connection.

I do not understand why ceramic was used, I do know it breaks, is heavy and forces another connection for the negative battery terminal which is architectural. One can simply replace that area with metal tube, lighten the base, remove the look people seem to complain about (not me), lower the impledance and remove the risk of failure of that connection. Plus make the base stronger and less chance of failure...

I really hope TET looks at that objectively. I want both units improved. Nothing is perfect and I use both. This is not bashing the Cera. It is looking for areas to improve from an user's POV. A win - win. Or one can take this as bashing and dismiss it. In the end, the users move on. Cisco's claim to fame is they worked with all customers, not just ones of like minds. To me they were a perfect example of how a startup grows very quickly and self funds. Objectively accept feedback and continue improvement. Now, not that things have not improved. My base is the latest and it works well. Never an issue for me...

IMHO there are definitely benefits to the fact that the Cera is ceramic. I really like having a ceramic airpath all the way through, but then that only requires the part of the Cera above the cartridge's battery terminal to be ceramic. But then, if the rest of the Cera was metal, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to take the big rips off of my loose leaf through my friends' high end glass without a heavy duty oven mitt (obviously ceramic is a much better heat insulator than metal). But then, I suppose a heavily insulated thin metal body would do the trick (heck, with enough insulation maybe my friends wouldn't sting their hands taking said big rips), but that comes at the cost of design and manufacturing simplicity.

Everything is a traedoff...

but then I would be quite the happy camper if the Cera's impedance was lower- it would heat my batteries less and my cartridges more (and more importantly, faster! :D) Thus me considering going off the deep end with military/audio hi fi contact cleaners and enhancers (I figure with the low impedance and voltage numbers involved, it might just make a noticable difference). IMHO we should continue our Cera R&D on this forum, and I'm all :nod::nod::nod: as long as Thermovape is doing the same.

Carry on Gentlemen! :D
 

OF

Well-Known Member
Everything is a traedoff...

but then I would be quite the happy camper if the Cera's impedance was lower- it would heat my batteries less and my cartridges more (and more importantly, faster! :D) Thus me considering going off the deep end with military/audio hi fi contact cleaners and enhancers (I figure with the low impedance and voltage numbers involved, it might just make a noticable difference). IMHO we should continue our Cera R&D on this forum, and I'm all :nod::nod::nod: as long as Thermovape is doing the same.

Well put, life is a compromise.....but the best game in town. I'll play.

A minor quibble, it's not "impedance" in play here. Impedance is an AC thing and involves an agreed to frequency (different values at different frequencies generally) and also includes a phase angle (lead or lag between
V and I). We have a DC system here, 'internal resistance' is what we want, measured in Ohms. Or more import however, is another issue, changing the remaining internal resistances in Cera won't change the internal resistance in the battery, it's going to actually heat a little more, not less, if you improve power delivered to the cart.

FWIW I agree with your 'take' on an improved Cera. Keep the carts, lighten up the body, change the switch, make is smaller if possible...... I'm pretty sure that's exactly where they're going. They want a 18650 powered Cera that fits in your pocket better. Dumping the outstanding cores for that would be dumb.....something I don't think they are......

Thanks, love the comments.

OF
 
Top Bottom