The stick, Spade and eGO are all great units that product lots of tasty vapor. Stay away from the DSE905 as they tend to break easy. If you want the original design of the 905 get the screwdriver.
I understand about wanting huge amounts of vapor. That's what I want, too.
I've gone through a few different models and in my opinion the 510 atty gives the best vapor all around. The problem with the 510 kits is that the battery life is horrible. I now own the eGo and it's got fantastic vapor and fantastic battery life. So that has to be my recommendation for the 510 now.
I also own the VP/PT. It's a 5 volt device and even though I am a huge fan of the 510 atty, once I tried the low bridge 801 (or the 302 which is basically the same thing, but maybe a tad bit better) I liked it better. But I only like it on the VP/PT. With the 302/801 low bridge, you get huge, massive, clouds of vapor. It's vapor heaven. Really. I don't use my VP/PT that much because of the amount of juice I go through with it, but I do use it daily. A little bit in the mornings and a little bit in the evenings. Oh, and the best vapor comes when the VP/PT is plugged into an outlet, not plugged into the computer.
As far as juice goes, the more VG you have, the better the vapor production. Straight VG is very thick, but doable. I usually use about 50/50 VG&PG when I mix my own. Sometimes a little more VG than PG.
Of course these are just my opinions. I'm sure you'll get some more before too long.
Good info and good point McQuinn. Honestly considering the controversy right now, we really should be taking a 'devils advocate' approach to some things.
I honestly have no idea how many mils of juice I'm vaping per day, b/c I really switch around soooooo dang much. But I'll gaurantee it's a heck of a lot more than what I smoked in my analog days. Granted, some of that is zero nic juice (I only have a few). But all of my main juice is 11mg. So am I getting more nicotine than when I was smoking? I'd be stupid to say no.
Do I think vaping is harmless? Heck no. Do I think it's healthier than smoking? Heck yes. Vaping is a vice, and there's no point in thinking otherwise or trying to market it as anything but a healthier alternative. That's what I tell my friends and family, and for the most part, they're happy I've made the switch.
But you bring up a good point in that we should never think vaping is 100% harmless. I just can't believe that my health is the same as someone that doesn't vape. But for now I'm ok with that, and we'll see what the future brings.
Vaping is a hobby, a lifestyle, and a chemical addiction all rolled into one package. That's a big statement, but it satisfies the three major necessities of my personality
NOTICE: This post as been updated and edit by the Admin. This is a direct copy from ECF created by Executive Director Smokefree Pennsylvania. Please take a moment to read it - Christopher
***
Alert: Urge FDA to protect health of smokers and vapers, not cigarettes
Dockets now available to submit comments urging FDA to protect the health of smokers, not cigarettes
The Citizens Petition by the American Association of Public Health Physicians (AAPHP) urging the FDA to reclassify and regulate electronic cigarettes (nicotine vaporizers) as tobacco products (instead of trying to ban the products by classifying them as drugs or devices) is at Regulations.gov
To submit a comment urging supportive action by the FDA, go to Regulations.gov
Suggested talking points:
- since e-cigarettes (nicotine vaporizers) are derived from tobacco, the FDA can legally reclassify and regulate them as "tobacco products",
- by choosing to classify e-cigarettes as "drugs" or "devices", the FDA was/is attempting to ban the products,
- hundreds of thousands of smokers already have significantly reduced their health risks by switching to e-cigarettes,
- by reclassifying e-cigarettes as tobacco products, the FDA would ban their sale to minors, can establish other reasonable and responsible product regulations, would help to reduce (instead of maintain) cigarette consumption, and would save taxpayers money that FDA continues to waste,
- in SE vs FDA, federal Judge Richard Leon has ruled that the FDA can regulate e-cigarettes as "tobacco products", but not as "drugs" or "devices",
- sales and use of e-cigarettes have continued to sharply increase despite the FDA's ongoing attempt to ban the products,
- banning e-cigarettes would primarily protect cigarette markets at the expense of consumer and public health,
- if applicable, describe your personal experience using e-cigarettes.
- - - -
The Citizens Petition by the American Association of Public Health Physicians (AAPHP) urging the FDA to clarify/correct inaccurate and misleading claims about electronic cigarettes (nicotine vaporizers) made at the FDA's July 22, 2009 press conference, and to truthfully inform the public of existing evidence about the products is now available at Regulations.gov
To submit a comment urging supportive action by the FDA, go to Regulations.gov
Suggested talking points:
- the FDA Electronic Cigarettes grossly mispresented its own laboratory test findings on two brands of e-cigarettes http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/S.../UCM173250.pdf
- in contrast to claims made at the FDA's press conference, there is no evidence that e-cigarettes have ever harmed any user or nonuser, and there is no evidence that e-cigarettes are marketed to youth,
- the FDA failed to acknowledge any evidence (sent to the agency) that e-cigarettes are far less hazardous alternatives to tobacco cigarettes, and that thousands of e-cigarette users informed the agency they had quit smoking by switching to the products,
- cigarette smokers have a human right to truthful information about, and legal access to, less hazardous alternatives,
- FDA officials have an ethical duty to protect consumer health and to provide truthful health risk information,
- if applicable, describe your personal experience using e-cigarettes.
- - - -
More than TWO YEARS have passed since NY State Health Commissioner Richard Daines submitted a Citizens Petition to the FDA at Regulations.gov to (1) allow FDA approved Over The Counter NRT products (i.e. nicotine gums, patches and lozenges) to be sold in all stores that sell cigarettes; (2) allow NRT products to be sold in less expensive daily dose units; and (3) change labels on NRT products to inform consumers of the health benefits of NRT compared to cigarettes, to eliminate unsubstantiated health warnings, and to encourage use of NRT if tobacco use continues.
To submit a comment urging supportive action by the FDA, go to Regulations.gov
Please note that another petition very similar to Richard Daines' petition was recently submitted by SRNT and ATTUD, which is now awaiting docketing by the FDA.
Suggested talking points:
- many more smokers would try using NRT products if they are sold in $5-$10 packages instead of just in $35+ packages,
- more smokers would try using NRT products if they are sold at more retail stores alongside cigarettes,
- current warning labels on NRT products mislead many consumers to believe they pose far greater health/safety risks than is the case,
- NRT products are far less hazardous than cigarettes, and are often used as temporary and/or long term substitutes for cigarettes,
- smokers can reduce their health risks by concurrently using NRT products and cigarettes, with risk reduction proportionate to cigarette reduction,
- many/most NRT products are consumed by people who have used the products longer than the twelve weeks currently approved by the FDA, and
- although clinical trials find that just 7% of NRT users remain smokefree after six months, many NRT users consider them acceptable alternatives to cigarettes.
Bill Godshall
Executive Director
Smokefree Pennsylvania
1926 Monongahela Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15218
412-351-5880
smokefree@compuserve.com
So far this is turning into a fantastic topic and I'm going to pin this thread.
@Kmel there is absolutely zero scientific proof that nicotine alone causes cancer. None. I've looked. In fact the benefits seem to be of positive nature rather than negative. That said however California requires that stupid statement and although the state as not specifically contacted us about the use of nicotine in our liquid, it was suggest that we place the warning and hope the users are smart enough to see past the warning. I believe the warning was tied in to the use of traditional tobacco products used in apartments and business. I believe it has become outdated as it refers to cigarette use and not the use of nicotine/ecigs. However the way the law is written is applies to anything containing nicotine. I'm on the fence about removing the statement. Especially in the VT store. It's more than counterproductive.
If Vapor Talk ever builds enough capital I've actually thought about going up against the state about it. Who wants to open Pandoras box with me?
I ended up pulling it apart. The little atty heat coil was completely black and pretty much flaked apart when I touched it. The built in wick was also burnt up.
I'm not sure how I fried it, since I was putting in fresh carts all the time and dripping a drop or two on the wick whenever I would replace the cart.
I am chalking this up to a crappy knock off. I have 2 other atomizers that are 3-4 weeks old and had a good amount of use with no problems.
