Discontinued Thermovape Cera

[OF]

Now the lab supply will limit the voltage down to only allow 5A to flow. The voltage of the supply is higher than 3.61V, it bumps up to to whatever is required to give 3.61V at the EO cart inputs so 5A will flow. The leads are dropping about 220mV each (pos red and neg black). That is ~0.5V round trip. So the supply goes to about 4.1V...

I must say with a AC supply powering a Cera EO cart you can blast away oil quickly.

I like the idea of CC drive in general, but think you should rethink this a bit. The actual spec for the cart is four Amps, not 5. 5 Amps is a 'worst case' deal, intended to be withstood for a very short time as a 'fresh off the charger' battery collapses. It's a spec for the switch, not the core.

As I said a while back, you have to look at it as a system. The carts were adjusted to run with the various resistances (internal resistance of the battery, switch, strap, welds and so on). You've systematically eliminated them and increased the current (and therefore power) over the intended level.

I've no doubt it can "blast away the oil quickly" since you're overdriving it by what, 40%? If that was a good idea, I suspect TV would have adjusted the stock core values to do so? The fact that performance was higher should be a clue that you're not replacing the power source directly. The goal should be, I think, to duplicate the conditions the core is designed to work at, not hot rod it past what the maker considers maximum?

Edit: The little voices have been bugging me again.....this time they have a good point. While it's true that going from 5 Amps back to four is a 20% reduction (1/5), that's not the right way to look at overloads. It should have been 4 is 5, that's 25% too much. It's 1/4 too high. This of course raises the current a like amount, multiplying the two together says it's like a 56% percent overload. The difference between 60 and 90 mph? Not trivial. Remember TV pushed it up as far as their testing showed it was prudent, in response to our 'demands'. IMO there's not much margin left.

OF

 

[VapoRoor]

What halted you from getting a switch?
My Cera LL is in the shop right now.
Don't know if it was the body or the cart but the body was soldered. And it worked the first day, then when I came back to it on the second day the cart never powered on. I tried different batteries. Hopefully it goes out back to me today

 

[Mynameismud]

What halted you from getting a switch?
My Cera LL is in the shop right now.
Don't know if it was the body or the cart but the body was soldered. And it worked the first day, then when I came back to it on the second day the cart never powered on. I tried different batteries. Hopefully it goes out back to me today

Told you not to get a soldered one! I had the same exact issue, worked great for about a week, then one day nothing. It was definitely the body on mine and it sounds it was the same issue on yours. They got my body on a Wednesday and they shipped it back out to me on the next Monday...

 

[VapoRoor]

Told you not to get a soldered one! I had the same exact issue, worked great for about a week, then one day nothing. It was definitely the body on mine and it sounds it was the same issue on yours. They got my body on a Wednesday and they shipped it back out to me on the next Monday...

I know I know man! I couldn't help myself with a lifetime warranty of defects & such a long warranty on cores. I couldn't pass up the opportunity.
They recieved mine on Friday & said it will be finished up most likely today. Not banking on that happening. But if it ships today ill be so happy

 

[darkrom]

I'm hoping they email me soon so I can get this done.

I'm frustrated that I can't just go pick up a similar screw and put it in place myself.

I LOVE my cera and thermovape, but its just not as reliable as the T1. In every other aspect it seems to be much better though.

 

[Skored]

Once I connected that modded switch at that time the LL cart came back to life and started to glow at the usual 3 seconds and came to full brilliance in no time. I am able to easily get 3 bowls on one battery again. So, my guess was that my switch was degrading for some reason unbeknownst to me. through.

I do not think anything is wrong at all. I have a similar experience, however, I do not give the glow-thing a second thought. I use vapor production as my gauge. My LL core works great though there was a break-in period and a taper off of heat production but everything is working swell. I do not ever expect to get much beyond one battery per bowl and I could not be more satisfied. My expectations of my Cera have all been exceeded. I love it. I think you are possibly still adjusting to the Cera's personality.

Thanks for the feedback guys. @buchee, I'll try the paperclip. I used the paperclip a while back, but then took it off when I got my EO cart since I didn't want power on the whole time. @steama, I too base things on vapor production, and it wasn't producing the way it used to/should. That's when I went through a series of tests to determine my problem was Step 1: not letting it heat up long enough since that time period has changed. So let it heat longer and it works great... still love it. Guess I have to get used to using a fresh battery every time. BTW, I now judge when it's ready not by heat up time (since that can be a moving target), but when the body by the cart feels a bit warm. I accidentally let it heat up yesterday until the body by the cart felt hot... and OMG I got a huge hit on the first try with a 10 second draw. Honestly the best I've ever had it produce. So maybe I'll just go for a long heat up time, and swap the battery every time.

 

[Mynameismud]

I know I know man! I couldn't help myself with a lifetime warranty of defects & such a long warranty on cores. I couldn't pass up the opportunity.
They recieved mine on Friday & said it will be finished up most likely today. Not banking on that happening. But if it ships today ill be so happy

Yeah, sounds like it will be finished today and most likely go out tomorrow so either way you should have it by the end of the week.

 

[Tweek]

Do not do the switch mod. The wire in there can cause the spring to collapse.

 

[buchee]

Skored,

If you don't want to do the switch mod as Tweek suggests then just as a test to determine if your switch is working 100% try the wadded up tinfoil test. Although I haven't had an issue with my wire collapsing I don't want to give bad advice if something bad were to happen.

Thanks for the feedback guys. @buchee, I'll try the paperclip. I used the paperclip a while back, but then took it off when I got my EO cart since I didn't want power on the whole time. @steama, I too base things on vapor production, and it wasn't producing the way it used to/should. That's when I went through a series of tests to determine my problem was Step 1: not letting it heat up long enough since that time period has changed. So let it heat longer and it works great... still love it. Guess I have to get used to using a fresh battery every time. BTW, I now judge when it's ready not by heat up time (since that can be a moving target), but when the body by the cart feels a bit warm. I accidentally let it heat up yesterday until the body by the cart felt hot... and OMG I got a huge hit on the first try with a 10 second draw. Honestly the best I've ever had it produce. So maybe I'll just go for a long heat up time, and swap the battery every time.

 

[Skored]

Skored,

If you don't want to do the switch mod as Tweek suggests then just as a test to determine if your switch is working 100% try the wadded up tinfoil test. Although I haven't had an issue with my wire collapsing I don't want to give bad advice if something bad were to happen.

The switch mod worked beautifully! I have a separate switch laying around that has the paper clip... This is the way I used it prior to getting the EO cart. Popped it on, heat up time was back to normal and production was just like it used to be... fast dense vapor. Got through a full bowl drawing directly from the cera, like I used to, without the device getting too hot. I was having to use a silicone tip when heat up times where longer as it was getting way too hot. @steama no way I use that condom. It turns yellow and enhances the perception of you sucking on a you know what. Just wasn't for me, but the silicone tip worked well for me.

Not sure if this mod is the ideal solution given Tweaks caution. But I will say that I used it this way for at least two months prior to getting my EO cart a while back, and didn't have any issues. But it does bring into question the viability of the switch. Again, even with a new battery, heat up time was almost 2 minutes for it to work well, an the body and switch were getting uncomfortably hot as sessions were pushed to over 6 minutes. And it was getting impossible to have a battery go longer than one session.

Thanks again for the suggestion! Back to normal here and I'm glad I don't have to send it back and be without it.

 

[PhotoRider]

I like the idea of CC drive in general, but think you should rethink this a bit. The actual spec for the cart is four Amps, not 5. 5 Amps is a 'worst case' deal, intended to be withstood for a very short time as a 'fresh off the charger' battery collapses. It's a spec for the switch, not the core.

As I said a while back, you have to look at it as a system. The carts were adjusted to run with the various resistances (internal resistance of the battery, switch, strap, welds and so on). You've systematically eliminated them and increased the current (and therefore power) over the intended level.

I've no doubt it can "blast away the oil quickly" since you're overdriving it by what, 40%? If that was a good idea, I suspect TV would have adjusted the stock core values to do so? The fact that performance was higher should be a clue that you're not replacing the power source directly. The goal should be, I think, to duplicate the conditions the core is designed to work at, not hot rod it past what the maker considers maximum?

Edit: The little voices have been bugging me again.....this time they have a good point. While it's true that going from 5 Amps back to four is a 20% reduction (1/5), that's not the right way to look at overloads. It should have been 4 is 5, that's 25% too much. It's 1/4 too high. This of course raises the current a like amount, multiplying the two together says it's like a 56% percent overload. The difference between 60 and 90 mph? Not trivial. Remember TV pushed it up as far as their testing showed it was prudent, in response to our 'demands'. IMO there's not much margin left.

OF

OF - I almost follow your numbers. Yes going from 4 to 5 is a 25% increase since the reference point is 4 amps. The overload in power is a square since it effects both the current and voltage so P=v*I so yes I understand the math...

However, not sure I follow your "system" stuff. I have characterized the cart with a 3.61V at the inputs and there is constant draw at 5A not 4 on all 3 carts - all three are with in my .1 amp measurement tolerance . Given the constant 3.6V 5A flows. The EO stays at the same resistance, so unless the voltage changes the 5A will flow.

Now, I characterized a 18650 battery fresh out of charge voltage curve at the EO input. At first hit the battery stays about 4V and 5.5A draws. As time does on the battery drops, but it takes awhile to drop to 3.6V. Since the resistance is constant a 4A draw would use 4/5 X(3.6V) or 2.88V. So I went to my current source and programmed 4A. At the cart is 2.92V much below the operating range of the 18650 battery. if you ran the battery that low = dead battery normally. So I left 4a flowing for 30 seconds, voltage stayed the same so again the resistance is constant. At no time durring the characterization did the voltage at the cart ever go below 3.3V and at 3.3V 4.5A is flow (approx) this takes in account any lose inside the system upto the 610 connector. If the battery's resitance caused a drop in voltage under the load of 5A it would show at the connector to the EO cart and the voltrage would drop. It does not do that. The battery is made for a 5A draw.

I looked up the V/I verses time curve someone here posted for a standard AW 2000ma 18650. It took minutes to drop below 3.6V on a 5A load and a 3.6V 5A flows - period. The EO resistance does not charge so ohm law wins here

So my question to you is please explain this "SYSTEM" effect again that the Cera base only supplies 4 amps to the EO cart after initial burst - I simply don't understand how.... Physics proves otherwise as does my meter. Using a Cera base 5A draws for over a min straight measured with my Fluke using a a fresh AW 2000mah 18650 and any of my EO carts You want a video as proof (just razing ya...)

So is there data from TET that shows this 4A draw... Maybe then, but not now on my setup and Cera base. Something change?

So I think I am not overdriving it, I believe your data is incorrect or your memory you stoner, what was I talking about again oh yes, the light is green now and the stop sign isn't changing color.

 

[darkrom]

I hope they email me back today, no reply yesterday about my LL screw falling out of the cart.

I'm really kicking myself in the ass for selling my pax. The cera is still my preferred vape, but this is time 3 I'm going to have to mail at least part of it back to them. The T1 I had to have upgraded ONCE and that was because I got an early design. 2 steps forward 1 step back is still progress though I guess, but IMO one needs to have a backup vaporizer if you were to make this your vape of choice. The reliability simply isn't what I've come to expect from a thermovape product. It is because of the changes we asked for, but it is still an expensive product, so I'd like it to work more often.

I too notice a definite increase in time needed to produce enough heat, and there is literally NO way to combust in my cera LL. I've sat there and tried, it simply won't happen.

While it sounds like I'm complaining (because I am) there is still nothing on the market that can compete with this in terms of efficiency and vapor quality, so I really don't know how I feel at this point.

 

[Mynameismud]

I hope they email me back today, no reply yesterday about my LL screw falling out of the cart.

I'm really kicking myself in the ass for selling my pax. The cera is still my preferred vape, but this is time 3 I'm going to have to mail at least part of it back to them. The T1 I had to have upgraded ONCE and that was because I got an early design. 2 steps forward 1 step back is still progress though I guess, but IMO one needs to have a backup vaporizer if you were to make this your vape of choice. The reliability simply isn't what I've come to expect from a thermovape product. It is because of the changes we asked for, but it is still an expensive product, so I'd like it to work more often.

I too notice a definite increase in time needed to produce enough heat, and there is literally NO way to combust in my cera LL. I've sat there and tried, it simply won't happen.

While it sounds like I'm complaining (because I am) there is still nothing on the market that can compete with this in terms of efficiency and vapor quality, so I really don't know how I feel at this point.

I love my Cera! Had to send it back once in the short time ive had it but thats because I bought a soldered one from the classifieds. Hopeful

 

[darkrom]

I love my Cera! Had to send it back once in the short time ive had it but thats because I bought a soldered one from the classifieds. Hopeful

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.

 

[Tweek]

I agree on the switch when it comes to herb. It's a pain in the ass. For oil, it is not a bother to me...but in hindsight I really do wish there was a latching switch or some form of switch on the side. I also think the LL cartridge could benefit from better airflow, but that's just my unscientific opinion.

 

[OF]

So my question to you is please explain this "SYSTEM" effect again that the Cera base only supplies 4 amps to the EO cart after initial burst - I simply don't understand how....

Sure. The idea is you have to look at it as it's used in the original design. That not only includes a battery and a core, but all the stuff between. Measuring the voltage on the battery elsewhere is interesting but not art. I think I suggested your repeating some of the measurements I made early on to see what the 'real world' voltage at the core is? It was easy when my Beta unit still had the ill fated sliding switch but now you can carefully probe through the big holes to get to the top of the battery/bottom of the core. The other lead goes on a retention screw head (screw plate voltage). This removes the Ir of the battery, switch, spring, strap and so on out of the game. The cores were adjusted in this environment. TV does not have a test bed like yours or mine that I ever saw. Nor, either, did they have a way to actually measure the current I ever saw in those days. A lot of 'cut and try' early on.....which is cool by me.

When I asked Noah what his design for the core was (to make my test bed) he gave me the four Amp number. He repeated it later in the great latching switch search and again when we talked about making a PA for Cera.

Another clue is the winding of the heaters was 'tweaked' a bit when system losses were reduced early on. Same battery but the system had changed so they changed the cores to compensate. It's an open loop system after all.

You mentioned the (IMO excellent) empirical evidence of 'burning through the oil fast'? I think I know why.

OF

 

[PhotoRider]

Sure. The idea is you have to look at it as it's used in the original design. That not only includes a battery and a core, but all the stuff between. Measuring the voltage on the battery elsewhere is interesting but not art. I think I suggested your repeating some of the measurements I made early on to see what the 'real world' voltage at the core is? It was easy when my Beta unit still had the ill fated sliding switch but now you can carefully probe through the big holes to get to the top of the battery/bottom of the core. The other lead goes on a retention screw head (screw plate voltage). This removes the Ir of the battery, switch, spring, strap and so on out of the game. The cores were adjusted in this environment. TV does not have a test bed like yours or mine that I ever saw. Nor, either, did they have a way to actually measure the current I ever saw in those days. A lot of 'cut and try' early on.....which is cool by me.

When I asked Noah what his design for the core was (to make my test bed) he gave me the four Amp number. He repeated it later in the great latching switch search and again when we talked about making a PA for Cera.

Another clue is the winding of the heaters was 'tweaked' a bit when system losses were reduced early on. Same battery but the system had changed so they changed the cores to compensate. It's an open loop system after all.
torlance
You mentioned the (IMO excellent) empirical evidence of 'burning through the oil fast'? I think I know why.

OF

LOL on why.

Maybe something has changed and we are both right here... Well I used two different methods of measuring the voltage to the EO cart. Of course I am not measuring the actual voltage at the heater, but at the connector of the cart....

I used one of those VM that screw on the 510 threading. This gives the voltage out of the base including any drop from anything like the battery, switch and socket., Of course it doesn't include any resistance or voltage drop after the VM... I also connected the meter up directly (Fluke meter) via wires to the EO cart inputs. Both measurements were with in tolerance.

So if the voltage at the cart is 3.6V, all three of my carts draws 5A. The Cera base actually provides higher than that and more than 5A flows for at least 10 mins of use... This is from direct V/I measurements...

So I still don't think I am over driving it. In fact I never give the same current a real system does using the Cera base because it yields more than 5A.

OF - did you yourself actually measure 4A using your base, or are these numbers you are writting about from TET and you have not seen it personally? My carts do not draw 4A unless the voltage on their inputs are under 3V and that never happens with a Cera base properly used on my 3 carts (good batteries).

Sorry to beat a horse to dead here, but I just don't see it. However, I am not trying to over drive the cart - was not my motivation here nor to be "right". I thought I was driving it in its sweet spot and that's my intention. So I want to understand this and why my carts seem to yield different data. Maybe the winding changed, and the resistance dropped on new carts... production difference, don't know, but I stopped my old work today and used a 4 wire ohm meter we use to characterize 10ppm calibration loads to calibrate our programable high precision V/I's in the ATE. As you know a 4 point kelvin meter removes all loses in the connection and the current is programmable on the ohm metter. I set the current to 2.5A (it only goes to 3) and the cart measured 0.69 ohms with 2.5A flowing through it. 3.6V/0.69 = > 5A.

So I have tried measuring this several ways using different test equipment and all correlate. My carts draw 5A+ in real system use on my Cera. I will say that is a fact with my carts. a Fact.

 

[darkrom]

Still no reply today unlike them so I'll shoot them another email tomorrow.

 

[OF]

OF - did you yourself actually measure 4A using your base, or are these numbers you are writting about from TET and you have not seen it personally?

Yes, I have. Close enough for jazz anyway. The last 3 EO carts I've measured were 4.24, 4.09 and 2.95 Amps, the last being the custom high voltage one I had Tim make me.

Once more, the guy that designed them gave me 4 Amps as the number to shoot for. 5 is a maximum worst case condition, not expected full time. I find production parts to be similar and trust his advice/direction.

Your call, I just suggest rethinking. Or at least measuring them in place. You can use the strap as a shunt. Measure the drop on it, then set up your bench supply to dump current down it (I threaded a 3/8-24 bolt into it for this test) to calibrate.

Your call. But I believe what I'm saying or wouldn't be bothering you.

OF

 

[Haywood]

... The last 3 EO carts I've measured were 4.24, 4.09 and 2.95 Amps, the last being the custom high voltage one I had Tim make me...

Do you happen to also have the resistance of the three EO carts you mention? I vaguely remember maybe 8 months ago, discussing the resistance with you, hoping to find one that'd work with a regulator that would only drive down to 0.6-0.8Ω loads, but I can't find the message to see what you said.

Since both of you seem to agree that ohm's law is truth , and since PhotoRider has painstakingly measured the resistance of his cores, you'd both have a good starting place to figure out why 4A≠5A, without taking into account IR losses in the handle, or measuring rig, etc. Sort of a really good place to start; maybe TET change the resistance of the core...

Just a thought.

Haywood

EDIT: OK, I found it:

Don't bet the farm on Cera cores. I'm looking at my actual test results (current and voltage readings and Ohm's Law) on 3 LL cores and 2 EO carts, one of them is over .80 Ohms (.83), the other EO core, my Ti one, is .78 Ohms, the LL cores are .66, .74 and .79. I believe the final LL core is the first listed. That is they're all seriously under .80, let alone the guarantied 1.00. As with the LL, I think my Ti core is the final production value (give or take), the first is my Beta core on it's third rebuild IIRC. Late in the program the decision was made to up the powers across the board, I think other testers were suggesting it, I was asked and said I was OK with lower powers but understand how many want 'all the law allows'......and maybe a wee bit more.

OF

So way back then, you thought the EO core's production value was going to be .78 Ohms. Not sure if that hold true since you were speaking at the very beginning of the beta testing, and lots of little things changed since then. Do you happen to know the resistance of your current three EO cores?

PhotoRider measured his three EO cores at .69Ω (quite a difference from .78Ω). At 3.6V, a .69Ω load draws 5.2 amps and a .78Ω load draws 4.6 amps. That's already .6A closer to 4=5.

 

[PhotoRider]

Yes, I have. Close enough for jazz anyway. The last 3 EO carts I've measured were 4.24, 4.09 and 2.95 Amps, the last being the custom high voltage one I had Tim make me.

Once more, the guy that designed them gave me 4 Amps as the number to shoot for. 5 is a maximum worst case condition, not expected full time. I find production parts to be similar and trust his advice/direction.

Your call, I just suggest rethinking. Or at least measuring them in place. You can use the strap as a shunt. Measure the drop on it, then set up your bench supply to dump current down it (I threaded a 3/8-24 bolt into it for this test) to calibrate.

Your call. But I believe what I'm saying or wouldn't be bothering you.

OF

Actually the data measured by me differs and I must go with the data not opinions... Science. I trust my methodology since I work with pA through 200A supplies used to power Intel processors on ATE. less than 1ms response time from 0A to 200A. If I didn't know what I was doing Intel fellows would tear me a new hole and that has never happened in my career. Think I can measure and characterize a heater wire and a battery base supply...

I suggest you rethink your methodology or except that my 3 carts are what I say. For one the image I posted showing the lab supply shows 3.61V at the brass block and clearly 5A flowing - facts. The impedance from there is much under 0.05 ohms measured with NBS traceable equipement at work in the cal lab.

I respectfully request you present similar data and methodology or honestly OF your point is pure opinion and I disagree with it. So in the end we must agree to disagree unless there is scientific data to backup your points. Otherwise we are just BSing a point and it will never be resolved. That's OK with me because I think I understand the reality of the situation. That's all I have control over and must accept you think differently. I don't need to change your mind, but must ignore your suggestion because I see nothing to back it up and my data proves it wrong. Sorry, but I must follow my experience here, but be respectful to your POV.

EDIT - I must add my experience is different that yours. I only know my 3 EO carts. You have much more history with TET and the equipment so I truly think your numbers were seen and were real. I trust your capability truely. Not my point. I am only discussing what I measure on mine. So perhaps they changed the winding or mine being built together (I assume since they were bought within a few days) could have a production tolerance situation on the equipment set up in manufacture. Who knows... Only that mine measure this so I use them that way. Purely defending my operation only, not trying to prove anybody right or wrong Hope I don't piss ya off.

 

[OF]

Do you happen to also have the resistance of the three EO carts you mention? I vaguely remember maybe 8 months ago, discussing the resistance with you, hoping to find one that'd work with a regulator that would only drive down to 0.6-0.8Ω loads, but I can't find the message to see what you said.

Since both of you seem to agree that ohm's law is truth , and since PhotoRider has painstakingly measured the resistance of his cores, you'd both have a good starting place to figure out why 4A≠5A, without taking into account IR losses in the handle, or measuring rig, etc. Sort of a really good place to start; maybe TET change the resistance of the core...

Just a thought.

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....

I suggest you rethink your methodology or except that my 3 carts are what I say. For one the image I posted showing the lab supply shows 3.61V at the brass block and clearly 5A flowing - facts. The impedance from there is much under 0.05 ohms measured with NBS traceable equipement at work in the cal lab.

I respectfully request you present similar data and methodology or honestly OF your point is pure opinion and I disagree with it.

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

 

[Haywood]

I added to my previous message; if you (OF) and PhotoRider didn't see it (because I just edited it), check it out.

tl;dr = PhotoRider measured his three EO cores at .69Ω (quite a difference from .78Ω). At 3.6V, a .69Ω load draws 5.2 amps and a .78Ω load draws 4.6 amps. That's already .6A closer to 4=5.

Oh, and the regulator in question turns out to work down to .5Ω-.6Ω after all.

 

[OF]

I added to my previous message; if you (OF) and PhotoRider didn't see it (because I just edited it), check it out.

tl;dr = PhotoRider measured his three EO cores at .69Ω (quite a difference from .78Ω). At 3.6V, a .69Ω load draws 5.2 amps and a .78Ω load draws 4.6 amps. That's already .6A closer to 4=5.

Oh, and the regulator in question turns out to work down to .5Ω-.6Ω after all.

Yup, all makes sense to me. Well most of it. As I said before, the values have been adjusted a couple of times, raised in value for the most part to compensate for lower losses in the Cera and battery. This was done, I think, to bring the power back down to the original range. The latest cores should be the highest values, although at one point they were high and were dropped to boost start up speed at the expense of battery (the e-cig guys I think?).

The part that doesn't work for me is the VV head part. It will not run the normal EO cores. Only that one custom. It's marginal. It actually displays "1.2 Ohms", but two of Tim's attempts also read 1.2 and yet went 'Lo Ohms' when you hit the magic button.

If we can figure out how to make cores in the 1.4 to 1.6 range I think we'll be in tall cotton. Also a factor is the 15 Watt limit. It's nice to VP (although with the heater alloy it doesn't really matter.....) and it would be nice to get as many steps in the working range as possible. That is use the full 6 Volt maximum.

15 Watts is 'a great plenty' IMO, if we can figure out how to make more.....

OF

 

[Haywood]

Evolv just released the "Kick 2". It's designed to go in any 18mm metal tube mod. Takes up 15mm of depth, so if you have an 18650 tube, you can use it with an 18500 battery; if you have an 18500 tube, you can use it with an 18350 battery. Or you can use it in a tube that is 15mm longer than an 18650 tube (there are a number available that are designed for a kicked 18650).

Handles coils down to 0.5Ω (guaranteed) and supplies up to 15W. Adjustable variable wattage. About $35-$40, as I recall. So you get yourself a kick ass mechanical mod, with exactly the design and button type you like (I like a magnetic bottom button; no spring, great feel, short throw, locking ring), and put the kick 2 at the top, between the top of the battery and its contact in the lid.

And the Evolv DNA20 is reported by many to handle down to 0.5Ω-0.7Ω, and can supply 20W. The DNA20 is no longer restricted to custom made mods; there are three metal tube mods coming on the market right now with the DNA20. (But with a 510 connector, of course). Still the DNA20 isn't guaranteed to work below 0.8Ω, so I suppose it's a risk, especially if the EO cores being made now are in the 0.7Ω range rather than the 0.8Ω range.

Still, if TET could come up with a 1.5Ω coil, it would open up a zillion choices. I run 1.5Ω bridgeless dripping atty's on my Vision Spinner eGo style VV batts all the time. But I only pump about 8-9 watts into them, and trying to get 15 watts out of an eGo is a fleeting experiment, at best...

Oh, and I just got this WONDERFUL "replacement" for an Alpha Ultra body. I'm gonna grab a picture or two and post about it in the DART/REVO thread for those that might want a dressier handle for 14500 batteries now that the Alpha Ultra is long discontinued. This one is easily as good electrically, and far superior in look, feel, and usage. Well under $30 including shipping. More in the appropriate thread.