I'm a couple weeks late to this discussion, but thought the following might be useful data . . . There were a number of questions and comments re the whip method continuously delivering vapor, could the flow be safely blocked, comparisons in that regard to the Q and Oracle forced air methods, etc. I discussed these exact questions directly with both Arizer and Oracle. So I'll share their responses as you may feel they are relevant to the Vaporfection questions. I have on occasion used the Q's fan assist with the whip, both with and without it attached to my bubbler. The short answer is that Arizer recommends that the vapor flow not be blocked with the fan running. The fan is not powerful enough even at top speed to push vapor thru a water chamber, so attaching to a bong with the fan running is just like stopping the flow at the end of the whip with one's thumb. Arizer indicated that this would create back-pressure to the fan, forcing the motor to work harder. Obviously how much time will pass before that will eventually affect the performance or life of the fan will vary based on use and fan speed, but ultimately even a Delta quality fan will be affected and hence Arizer's recommendation. The Oracle uses a pump. Bogdan stated that it is powerful enough to push vapor thru a water chamber. However, this requires using the direct connection method to the bong, bypassing the bag (otherwise the pressure simply diverts into the bag). Once the bag is filled and pump turned off, the unit would need to be turned on/off to facilitate taking a hit, since there is not a passive draw capability. Consequently there would be no back pressure to the pump (the negative effect if any would be on the emitter, from more frequent powering on/off's). Comparison relative to the Vaporfection whip doesn't appear applicable. Vaporfection appears to provide zero information on the mechanics of its system. But given how quiet it is and the bag fill time, that does suggest a fan (as the Novus used) as opposed to a pump. The only apparent reason for continuous flow would seem to be a convenience feature like that of the Q. Clearly the (assumed) fan is being engaged at a lower speed compared to the bag method. But even with a very low speed, hot air is still passing thru the herb continuing the convection process. And if blocked for an extended period of time, eventually there will be back-pressure. The web site indicates this is a "re-engineered improved" version of the Novus, which is a fan forced air system. Checking the Novus might be instructive, i.e., does it continue to push air as long as the unit is on, does it dis-engage the fan when the wand is removed? There is this FAQ on the website: "Q: How can I maximize the lifetime of my heating element? A: Its important to always remove the whip from the heating chamber when not in use." Since the element is obviously turned off when the machine is turned off, this implies that insertion of the wand engages the element and presumably also the fan. Or it may be that the fan is engaged when the unit is turned on, but the element only when the wand is inserted. This is just speculation, but if so it might address the concerns that have been raised. Why would the fan be engaged at all with the whip? Again, one could speculate it to be a convenience feature ala the Q, but without the same flexibility on/off & speed control. Personally, I could overlook the lack of any documentation on the website if there were a company presence on a site such as FC so that questions from veteran users could be addressed. Consequently, I would not purchase this unit without obtaining answers from Vaporfection. There is a Contact page on the website. Oh, and btw, re the question about the touchscreen: The FAQ indicates it is not like Apple's which is heat sensitive. It is pressure sensitive. Vaporfection recommends pressing with "your fingernail".