Discontinued The Persei Vaporizer for herbs and concentrates.
- Thread starter THC SCIENTIFIC
- Start date
JoeKickass
Well-Known Member
G had that same thought... maybe he'll add a spare body product if we ask nicely
Anyone remember this bad boy?
OF
Well-Known Member
Actually, if you look carefully at the photo above you'll notice the center part of that long tube is a different color? That's because the boy and girls threads on the tube are the same pattern. That is you can screw another tube on rather than the end cap. Pull the spring plate out first and you can now stack batteries in there. So an extra tube and perhaps a spacer to take up the extra space and you're good to go. You too can have a vape like a cop's flashlight......
OF
OF
Well-Known Member
Like a cross between Luke Skywalker and a Samuri? With some King Arthur overtones? THC should sell capes or something to go with it, perhaps?
Or maybe a cross between the long awaited PA and a battery backpack like on Ghost Busters? You could vape away until you ran out of protons, right? What was the half life? 2500 years? Should be long enough battery life for most.......
OF
OF
Well-Known Member
I hear you there, big guy. I used to think I had a handle on scale, then the seven gram blunt guy came along..... And the serious oil guys as you say. Those guys go through more in a slow morning than I do in a month. For sure it's not a linear thing. With some drugs guys would be dead long ago, but eventually we saturate effect wise, there are only so many receptors to act on.
For me, it's easy, don't go there. I can't afford to support that level of use even if everything else said to. I'd need to use my rights under Obamacare I guess? Keeping the tolerance down sounds like a better plan to me. For you it's not so easy. They are your customers too. So proton colliders are out. Probably too expensive anyway. How about solar panels? Guys could stand with their backs to the sun, unfold the wings and vape through the pass thru..... Need to do the pass thru for that one too I guess?
Of course it wouldn't work at night. Or indoors. We'd need the auxiliary light source package, maybe like those light things they use to do highway work at nights, or to light up football fields for night games, the user could stand in front of that. Vape 24/7 that way. Except for bathroom breaks, of course.
Too bad we didn't come up with this earlier, I could have got us a great deal on some Solindra panels.....
I can see how tough this being an industry leader really is. To quote one of my personal role models, Sgt. Schultz from Hogan's Heros, "All things considered, I would rather be me than you".
OF
JoeKickass
Well-Known Member
Just completed my 18650/17670 battery comparison, using a direct 0.75ohm load:
----------------------- 4.20v ---- 3.85v -----
===================================
AW IMR 1600mah ------ 4.2a ------ 3.8a -----
AW IMR 2000mah ------ 4.1a ------ 3.7a -----
AW 17670 1600mah ---- 3.9a ------ 3.6a -----
And it does seem the IMR 1600mah is a little more potent than the 2000mah, do you have any insight as to why OF?
----------------------- 4.20v ---- 3.85v -----
===================================
AW IMR 1600mah ------ 4.2a ------ 3.8a -----
AW IMR 2000mah ------ 4.1a ------ 3.7a -----
AW 17670 1600mah ---- 3.9a ------ 3.6a -----
And it does seem the IMR 1600mah is a little more potent than the 2000mah, do you have any insight as to why OF?
To make the assumption that the 1600 is better then the 2000 you would need min of 5 batteries of each model, and few different evo's, to see if it is a fluke or not. Just my take.
OF
Well-Known Member
That's as expected, really. It's part of the trade offs that happen with batteries. Notice that 'car batteries' have it as well. Those lead/acid batteries that need to produce high cranking currents (actually into the hundreds of Amps....) have lower Ah ratings than the one's for 'Marine' or other low power uses. It comes from the way the chemistry works. It's the volume of active material (in pounds) that determines capacity. Put more lead and lead dioxide in it and there's more lead to react to move more electrons. Simple. Lots and lots of thin plates and you're good to go.
But lots of thin plates (or big ones rolled up) also means long current paths though some not to ideal conductors (we pick the materials based on chemistry, not continuity) which means our old friend internal resistance goes up. Which is exactly what we see above. Par for the course. How much that matters depends on application, in our case I suggest it's important?
BTW, as a quibble, it's correctly an upper case A I think. Ampere is a proper noun. Mili is still '1/1000th part' , lower case, as is the normal abbreviation for time, "h". Makes for a funny units' label, "mAh" but it's actually correct format in a world shifting to not caring about details.....
But, what you see is most likely real (it's expected), however G raises a good point about 'the statistics of small groups' anyway. Once again, it's not as simple as picking the biggest number off the table.
Nice work, IMO. Thanks for the post.
OF
OF
Well-Known Member
It could be, and I said as much. However, it's also expected IMO for the reasons I said above. It's a small trade off, but it's a trade off I think. The 'old style' will probably remain in solid production for some time I bet. We see the same pattern in other secondary (rechargeable) batteries, within the same chemistry family the more/thinner plates against less/thicker ones have been fine tuned, I suspect that's what's going on as well.
I'm also not comfortable with 'published'. I see this as the exchange of data and ideas. JKA and others (myself included of course) need to be able to sling this kind of stuff around to have complete joy here you know. IMO if some fool wants to take such postings here as proven fact on their face, he'll learn the wisdom of that in short order. He, like the rest of us, should be doing a reality check routinely. Unfortunately you, as a Maker, are held to a higher standard.
Yes, someone with a pile of both types should do a wider study.....someday. Until then, this passes my 'reality check', a modest but real advantage in high current power delivery to the 'lesser' 1600 mAh cell. In exchange for 25% more capacity. A useful exchange to many no doubt.
OF
OF
Well-Known Member
Sorry, I don't see an argument, or even a disagreement. I think we'd both like more testing. For now this fits my understanding of the way the world works, tenuous as that might be. Yes, bring on the fully documented, peer reviewed, study. I'll try to understand it.....
Sorry, never met that Beckman.....sorry you're not getting along.
OF
OF
Well-Known Member
Like I said, never had the pleasure.
I can see it though, it's got 'tool of the Devil' written all over it....
Could be a real PITA to be chained to; even worse if it's down, the heat's on and you've got the only toolkit in sight. Trust me on that part.
OF
JoeKickass
Well-Known Member
I think it's intuitive to think a larger capacity battery of the same technology should be more powerful (1600mAh vs. 2000mAh times 5C or 10C discharge rating...)
But I think I get the trade off OF is talking about. If you have a limited space you can either make lots of really skinny electrodes (larger surface area=high current at expense of total capacity/longevity) or you can make fewer thicker electrodes (smaller surface area=lower current but with more capacity/life cycles)
But I think I get the trade off OF is talking about. If you have a limited space you can either make lots of really skinny electrodes (larger surface area=high current at expense of total capacity/longevity) or you can make fewer thicker electrodes (smaller surface area=lower current but with more capacity/life cycles)
I understand this also, cram the 5 fat people in a VW and then 3 Fat people in the same VW, but from my point the testing should be on a larger scale to make the call if the battery is a fluke or the real deal. Thats all im saying and im sticking to it, Scouts Honor.
