Jump to content

Talk:Construction of electronic cigarettes/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Notice regarding merger

Just a note to say that there is a merger proposal regarding this article and Cloud-chasing. However I am proposing that cloud-chasing be merged into both this article and the main e-cig article. Therefore the discussion for the merger proposal can be found here.Levelledout (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration committee discussion

(Notice cross posted to: Electronic cigarette, Safety of electronic cigarettes, Legal status of electronic cigarettes, Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes, Electronic cigarette aerosol, Cloud-chasing & vape shop. Please focus any discussion on the main page

There is an ArbCom case pending related to this family of topics. SPACKlick (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Eliquid

This article (Eliquid) only has two unique references, doesn't go into as much detail as the section here and a separate article isn't totally necessary.  Seagull123  Φ  21:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The sources were promotional and unreliable. The text was redundant and unsourced. I redirected Eliquid. QuackGuru (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Ref maintenance

Changing the names of references while I am going down the page looking for them is not helpful. I gave them names so I would remember then for later use. QG, if you absolutely must change the names of references, something I an not sure needs to be done, then wait awhile after the page is stable to do so. Wait a week at least, thanks. AlbinoFerret 17:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Over requesting of sources

There have been requests for sources for common sense statements. Like an electronic device has a switch and in an article where we list the atomizers separate from the power source, the complete device is 2 parts. Why? AlbinoFerret 01:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

4th Generation

I checkend the Source of the " 4th Generation " devices. In the document, the authors refer to a product of " iSmoke ", which was reviewed from a third party. The product is aimed to extract nicotine from regular tabacco-cigarettes and has nothing to so with a " new generation of digital e-zigarettes". Therefore i suggest the source is not really valid for the topic and I recommend to delete the related part from the main article ( - or to provide a "valid" source for 4th generation e-cigarettes ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.57.82.77 (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I also have trouble with the source in that it is misstating its source. It calls the 4th generation digital because of battery monitoring . But we have had microchips in e-cigarettes checking batteries since the second generation ego devices. An example can be found here.[1]. I think a better description can be found here [2] by Dr. Farsalinos with new generation tanks like Sub ohm tanks and temperature control devices. AlbinoFerret 18:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The source is WP:MEDORG compliant and if you do a google search you will find 4th generation e-cigarettes. QuackGuru (talk) 23:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
My last post does not question if there are 4th generation devices, but what those devices are. We have 2 sources that say different things. The one you added makes a claim that is wrong by evidence that it easily found. That calls into question the source, its a red flag. It doesnt matter in this article if it is WP:MEDORG compliant because this isnt a medical article and the fact isnt a medical finding or about health. AlbinoFerret 01:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
You have not presented WP:MEDRS sources that say 4th generation e-cigarettes are not available. Therefore, we can keep the text or similar in the article.
I don't think the first source you presented is reliable. I can't find where in the second source it mentions 4th generation e-cigarettes.
If you want to add more information about 4th generation e-cigarettes please use sources that have a reputation for fact checking or other quality sources.
If the issue is just the word "digital" then it can be removed. QuackGuru (talk) 03:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
The title of the source is "Electronic cigarette evolution from the first to fourth generation and beyond" The final generation mentioned is the fourth, right before what "Future developments" on the last page. As Dr. Farsalinos has authored multiple journal articles (studies and reviews), some of which are in our articles, I am pretty sure he falls under the "established expert" exemption in WP:UGC for hardware claims. In fact he is probably over qualified. That the source is hosted on the website for the Global Forum on Nicotine only adds to its reliability. AlbinoFerret 03:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The articles size, and the lede.

At present these are the stats for the page. File size: 222 kB Prose size (including all HTML code): 36 kB References (including all HTML code): 14 kB Wiki text: 49 kB Prose size (text only): 20 kB (3164 words) "readable prose size" References (text only): 808 B

According to WP:LEADLENGTH for articles from 15k-30k of readable prose the lede should be 2 or 3 paragraphs. The lede needs serious work, I will be working on it soon. AlbinoFerret 20:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The lede is four concise paragraphs and the page is 50,679 bytes.
The first paragraph is generally about the function and appearance.
The second paragraph is generally about the different generations.
The third paragraph is generally about the main parts.
The fourth paragraph is generally about what is in the e-liquids.
The lede seems to be well written and is the appropriate length. QuackGuru (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:LEADLENGTH "article length" refers to readable prose size", that is currently 20k. There is a script to check page sizes, feel free to install it and check for yourself. [3] As for well written, it looks like someone wrote claims down on slips of paper, tossed them in a bag, and pulled them out and then tried to group them. It is not well written. AlbinoFerret 20:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid you have not shown what the issue is with the wording in the lede. An e-cigarette is a complex device and the paragraphs are short. The last three are particularly short. QuackGuru (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
1. its to long per the guidelines. 2.Its choppy and doesnt read well. 3. Its a jumbled mess. That you see nothing wrong is apparent, but that does not indicate that there is nothing wrong. AlbinoFerret 21:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
We can start with the last paragraph in the lede. It summarises Construction_of_electronic_cigarettes#E-liquid. What is the issue? QuackGuru (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
You dont see that the flow is bad and that its a mess of claims one after another in that paragraph?AlbinoFerret 21:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
The first sentence of the fourth paragraph is "The main ingredients in the e-liquid usually are propylene glycol, glycerin, water, nicotine, and flavorings.[18]" What is the issue? QuackGuru (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I shouldnt have to explain to an established editor what readability is. If you take one sentence at a time, there probably isnt that much wrong with them. But they are not stand alone sentences. The lede needs work, not that anything needs to be added of the top of my head. But there are things that may need to be moved to the body to make it 3 concise paragraphs. I will be doing some work later. If you have objections when its done feel free to raise them then. AlbinoFerret 22:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
The lede summarises the body and it is relatively short. Moving text to the body will create duplication in the body. You have not explained which paragraph in the lede is an issue. QuackGuru (talk) 01:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
It isnt so much as removing a whole paragraph, but rewriting it so that the information is there, and presented in a easily readable concise format. Some sentences that are over detailed may have to be only in the body. I am pretty much done with the e-liquid one. The work there is inline with what I plan on doing. AlbinoFerret 01:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm taking a break, its looking a whole lot better and most of the jumbled claims are gone. There is more of a flow from one thing to the next.AlbinoFerret 02:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I added simpler wording rather than the previous wording. I did not understand how the devices turned on until I read the sources. QuackGuru (talk) 03:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I think its good to have in there, but I might reword it slightly to shorten it a bit. I have added notes in the code to show what each section covers. I also swapped the second and third paragraphs, the components should come before the progression of the technology. Because in the paragraph there isnt a lot of room to go into components like there is in the generation sections in the body. AlbinoFerret 05:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The top photo

If you click on the photo and go to the commons you will find the photo is up for deletion because of licensing problems. I think it may be best to remove it rather than wait. Its a nice photo, and I hate to loose it, but copyright and licensing are serious issues. AlbinoFerret 05:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks QG for removing the photo. But I think the lede should have photos of common objects. The e-cig that looks like a pen photo is from 2010, ancient history in the fast paced development of e-cigs, and I cant even find mention of it online so it probably isnt used anymore. While it doesnt hurt to have it in the article, perhaps one of the second or third generation images would be better at the top. AlbinoFerret 23:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
The second and third generation photos are in the appropriate section for each generation. QuackGuru (talk) 00:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
The thing is, its the lede and talks about more than cigalikes. A image of a different type at the top is a good idea. Thats better than a gimmick product from 2010 that no ones likely to see or recognise. If you need another, here is one in the commons. [4] AlbinoFerret 01:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
That photo looks like it is sideways. I added a better photo of a variable voltage e-cigarette. QuackGuru (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced sentence

"The solution is often sold in bottles or pre-filled disposable cartridges, or as a kit for consumers to make their own e-juices."[citation needed] Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 04:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The kit is going to be hard to source, the rest should be relatively easy, any source that talks about juice should cover that. AlbinoFerret 04:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I remember reading somewhere about a kit. It can be sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 04:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Cut and pasting text from the lede

This version added duplication. See "The aerosol provides a flavor and feel similar to tobacco smoking, but there are differences.[1]" E-cigarettes provide a flavor and feel similar to tobacco smoking, but there are differences.[1][5] QuackGuru (talk) 04:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I reverted all of it, went back to the version before my edits and saved it. I was treying to find the claims once I had copied in the lede paragraph. But I had to do something so I reverted it all. AlbinoFerret 04:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I think most of the text in the lede is already in the body. I went ahead and organised it. QuackGuru (talk) 04:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Function and usage section

The lede and body are not in the same order. QuackGuru (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

They dont necessary have to be. Ill think about it for a bit. Good work on the function section. But it does contain things outside of how the device functions or works. AlbinoFerret 03:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I changed the section name to "Function and usage". QuackGuru (talk) 04:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Organisation

Is there anything left to organise in the body? Should more text be moved to the Function and usage section? QuackGuru (talk) 04:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

There is one main problem left with organizing. Some claims are not true across generations, and some sections still need work. One main problem I see, because I have some knowledge of how these things are put together by reading sources for this article, is that we are not specific about which device we are making claims about. Here is just one example of many. "The volume of vapor created by e-cigarettes declines with vaping". Its sourced to Caponnetto from February 2012. In the review they describe the device they are talking about. Its a cigalike. The problem is that cartrages have narrow centers for airflow. This isnt the case with the later generations. This claim is from 2012 and its on old technology, the review doesnt discuss 2nd and third generation devices because in 2011 when the material for the review was probably gathered cigalikes were pretty much all that was available as the second generation devices were just coming out. We are giving half truths, and I think the device that is mentioned in the review needs to accompany the claims when the review is specific on hardware. AlbinoFerret 04:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
"The volume of vapor created by e-cigarettes declines with vaping". Is this statement still true for any e-cigarette?
The organising I am referring to is the placement of the text. I do not know how to adjust the wording when the source does not say which device or devices they are discussing. QuackGuru (talk) 04:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
No, and to me it would be OR to apply it to devices they never looked at. A lot of the sources do describe the device they are discussing, its in the beginning of most reviews. Caponnetto may not use "cigalike" but its clear from the descriptions of the device and the images they use thats what they are talking about. AlbinoFerret 04:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
With 2015 "cigalikes" models the volume of vapor created does not decline with vaping? QuackGuru (talk) 04:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Not 100% sure, but they are probably just as bad as the technology used in them hasnt changed. AlbinoFerret 05:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I tweaked the wording for now. QuackGuru (talk) 05:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Temperature control devices section

There is no mention of the voltages for temperature control devices. Can any voltage be used or only certain voltages for temperature control devices be used. Is this a device bought separately that you add to any e-cigarette. QuackGuru (talk) 04:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I have been looking for non commercial sources for the temp range, and how it works. That should evently surface in some source. The reason I added it as a sub subsection of Variables is that its a sub category of them. Most TC devices also have adjustable power/voltage as a separate mode. The temperature is set by the user. Most have a rage of 200 F to 600 F. or 100 C to 300 C. That alone calls into question the 55 C claim. AlbinoFerret 05:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Is there another source for a different claim than the 55 C claim. I thought around 55 was correct. It is possible different devices have different ranges. QuackGuru (talk) 05:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
It could be another cigalike problem. The batteries in them as so small and so are the coils. But its a chemical question. To produce vapor the eliquid needs to boil. 55 C = 131 F that shouldnt be enough to boil e-liquid. The boiling point of PG is 370 F and VG is 554. AlbinoFerret 05:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
The source may have researched cigalikes to get to the 55 C claim. The only way to improve the wording is with sources that go into more detail. QuackGuru (talk) 06:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
It shouldnt be hard to find sources that tell what the boiling points of the chemicals components in e-liquid are. AlbinoFerret 06:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Voltage claims

The recently added review misrepresents the technology. Second generation devices could go as high as 6v. The ego spinner is a second generation device that could go up to 6v.[6] AlbinoFerret 13:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I adjusted the wording for the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes I added more information. For the first generation there is no adjustability. Saying the voltage of cigalikes is 3.7 volts looks ok, and I have no sources that say otherwise. The problem is second generation devices, and I already added some information on them and a reference. Ego type batteries are second generation devices, we have claims for this and references already in the article. You can look here and see an ego twist.[7] Its a second generation device, but it has adjustable voltage. I will also caution you about using the wattage claims from the source you used. The problem is that it gives incomplete and/or wrong information. The way we can tell is Ohm's law. A 3.7v device (unregulated simple battery) hooked up to a .5ohm coil will put out 27.3 watts. A 3.7v device hooked up to a 1ohm coil will put out 13.6w. Ohm's law is not something someone can have a difference of opinion on. This calls into question the accuracy of that source. Its now wrong on 2 things and is a red flag. AlbinoFerret 18:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
The adjusted wording for the lede is "The voltage for first generation e-cigarettes is about 3.7[16] and second generation e-cigarettes can be adjusted from 3 volts to 6 volts,[17] while more recent devices can go up to 8 volts.[16]" It is accurate. QuackGuru (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Its accurate, and that paragraph was small to begin with. AlbinoFerret 18:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Main article sync

I noticed you are editing the entry for Construction in the main article QG, Are you doing a complete sync? AlbinoFerret 18:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm doing a close sync. QuackGuru (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest doing a complete sync. The lede looks good and I dont see any changes I plan on doing for awhile. AlbinoFerret 19:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
"Once the user inhales, the airflow passes through a pressure sensor which activates the heating element that atomizes the liquid solution inside the cartridge into vapor.[3] Other e-cigarettes have a push-button switch to turn on the device manually.[4]"
For the summary I kept the more detailed wording. QuackGuru (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
The reason it was shortened is the claim after it has the same information in more detail. "The e-liquid is heated to a temperature of about 55 °C within the e-cigarette to create an aerosolized vapor.[11]" So keeping the wording adds to duplication. AlbinoFerret 19:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
55 °C is about the temperature while the other claim is comparing the device turning on automatically and others turn on manually. I adjusted the wording for both pages. QuackGuru (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thats true, but the duplication is this. "the heating element that atomizes the liquid solution inside the cartridge into vapor." compared to "The e-liquid is heated......within the e-cigarette to create an aerosolized vapor." its just two ways of saying the same thing. The way its turned on is good and prodable should remain. But we dont need to say the same thing twice. Thats why I edited this articles lede as I did and why it should be the same in the main article. AlbinoFerret 21:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
That wording is no longer in the lede or body. I made some adjustments. QuackGuru (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I', going to think about it, and find a way to reword it. It no longer has a good flow to it as the sequence is broken up. AlbinoFerret 22:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I split the long run on sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 23:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I edited it again. I would like to keep the activation together in the beginning. I think the wording now shows a sequence of events. I also removed that some dont look like cigarettes. We say this in 2 other places in the lede "tank systems, bigger than cigalikes with refillable liquid tanks" and "Second generation devices are larger overall and look less like tobacco cigarettes". AlbinoFerret 00:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC) Let me also mention why I am taking the wordy parts out. The lede is supposed to be concise and easy to read. I think less words to describe things makes it easier. We can go into more detail in the body. AlbinoFerret 00:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Tank systems don't have cartridges but tanks. That's the whole point of them. We are already inaccurate in the first line. Johnbod (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Johnbod I agree, remove the cartage you want. I have done a lot of work to the page, but there is still much to do. This part of the "cigalike" problem I mentioned above. We have a mix of technology on this page and it makes it inaccurate and possibly OR in spots. AlbinoFerret 05:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed the confusing cartridge bit. QuackGuru (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The quest to find a component source

QG. Your latest source trying to find the parts of a e-cigarette has the same problems as all the others. Other interested editors can find a copy of it here. [8] I quote from the source, my bold

These products are designed to resemble their conventional tobacco counterparts but deliver nicotine through vaporizing a humectant carrier, the most common of which is propylene glycol, and can be mixed with flavorants. (3,6-8) Devices consist of a disposable nicotine-containing cartridge, a heating element, a flow trigger, battery, and LED light. Nicotine along with the propylene glycol humectant and any flavorants are drawn from the cartridge towards the heating element as the user applies suction to the mouthpiece.

We see that it is describing a specific type of e-cigarette, a cigalike. It is not a description of e-cigarettes in general. AlbinoFerret 02:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

See "The average e-cigarette contains six essential parts: first,..."[9] The PDF file has an image. Next to the image there is the text I used to verify the claim. Do you have another source for a general claim? QuackGuru (talk) 03:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Provide the pdf then pleae. I gave a source that applies to the great majority of all e-cigarettes here Talk:Electronic_cigarette#How_many_parts.3F. AlbinoFerret 04:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a proposal to replace the current text using the PDF file?[10] QuackGuru (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I added "The primary parts that make up an e-cigarette are a mouthpiece, a cartridge (tank), a heating element/atomizer, a microprocessor, a battery, and possibly a LED light on the end.[2]" using the PDF file. QuackGuru (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Edits that harm readability

QG, you have redone the edits that separate activation in the lede? Why? Why have you replace the duplicate information on some ecigarettes look diffrent? Why? Here is the edit. [11] AlbinoFerret 18:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I improved the readability. I did not add the general claim that some e-cigarettes look different. I added a claim about cigalikes using another source. You can read page 15 to verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Even if the source is different it is still duplication. AlbinoFerret 19:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what is duplication. Where in the lede is the specific claim about cigalikes duplication? QuackGuru (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I will show you the duplication. This is the claim you reinserted "Most cigalikes look like traditional cigarettes, but some do not" This is just another way of saying "E-cigarettes are generally cylindrical, with many variations" "looking like cigarettes, either disposable or with rechargeable batteries and replaceable nicotine cartridges; tank systems, bigger than cigalikes with refillable liquid tanks" and "First generation e-cigarettes tend to look like tobacco cigarettes and so are called "cigalikes".[12] Second generation devices are larger overall and look less like tobacco cigarettes" It all has the same meaning with different words. That is duplication. I think that it being covered in the lede three times is enough, we dont need a 4th. AlbinoFerret 19:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
The definition of a cigalike is that it looks like a cigarette, you cant have a cigalike that doesnt look like a cigarette. AlbinoFerret 19:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
This was the previous claim. "Some e-cigarettes look like traditional cigarettes, but others do not."
I added a different claim and adjusted the wording and moved the text to a better spot. The definition of a cigalike is a first generation e-cigarette. QuackGuru (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Look at the word QG "cig a like" turn it around, "like a cig" that first generation devices look like cigarettes is true. But the word cigalike is descriptive of appearance, not what generation its in. AlbinoFerret 20:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

"Most cigalikes resemble cigarettes, although it is important to note that some do not;"[12] See page 15 to verify the claim. The source thought this was important. QuackGuru (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
They introduce the sentence with their own definition on what a cigalike is, instead of how the colloquial definition is. So without their context, it becomes unverfiable. --Kim D. Petersen 20:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC) [and thus they have to make that important note... exactly because their definition doesn't follow the regular use --Kim D. Petersen 20:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)]
There are first generation e-cigarettes that look like cigars and pipes. The report is accurate. QuackGuru (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Cigalikes are a subset of first generation devices. Cigars and pipes are not cigalikes. --Kim D. Petersen 03:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC) [not to mention that if you really want to dwelve into this, then there are 2nd and 3rd gen cig-a-likes. Here is an example[13]. Cig-a-like is a description of the shape -not the generation --Kim D. Petersen 03:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)]
The rare exception Kim, but it is a 2nd generation device, it has a tank.AlbinoFerret 03:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
iirc once upon a time there was a cigalike with a dial-ring for voltage. But just like the above it was a rare exception :) --Kim D. Petersen 03:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The wording in the lede is "Most cigalikes look like cigarettes but there is some variation in size.[18]" QuackGuru (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Why is this section titled "Edits that harm readability"? The current wording is more coherent than the previous wording. QuackGuru (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Request image of fourth generation electronic cigarette

See Construction of electronic cigarettes#Fourth generation. There is room for one image. QuackGuru (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The cigalike problem

As mentioned in a few places on this page we have a problem. The problem is this, some of the claims in the article are clearly about first generation devices (cigalikes). Here is an example "Once the user inhales, the airflow activates the sensor, and then the heating element atomizes the liquid solution" The claim in the source references Figure 1, a cigalike. The sources describe what they are talking about. We also have sources that show 2nd generation devices are activated by a button. The problem in this claim isnt easy to fix, some first gen devices also had a button, but no second gen device is airflow activated. But other will be, I am only giving one example, there are lots more. I think we need to get this fixed, its widespread across the articles. I think construction is a good place to start fixing this issue. AlbinoFerret 11:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed - we should start here, at the most relevant and detailed article. Johnbod (talk) 12:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Actually iirc there was an Joyetech EGO with airflow activation - and that wasn't the only 2nd gen device with airflow activation. It is problematic to document old equipment - but here is a video with one EGO style automatic[14]. They never were that popular. So typically it is correct that 2+ gen devices are button activated, but it isn't the whole truth. --Kim D. Petersen 12:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I think it may be best to stick with whats generally true. There is an exception to everything. If we had a fantastic article without issues, then putting in the rare things might be a good idea. Perhaps in a small paragraph on the subject of rare devices. That might still be a good idea even now. But we would need sources for them. The main point I was trying to bring out in this section is should we attribute design and component claims based on what the source describes or shows (as cigalike/first, second, third, or forth generation) and not a general claim to "e-cigarettes"? AlbinoFerret 13:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we should say what is typical of each type, with suitable qualifications in the language. Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Creation of an E-LIQUID specific page. SEEDED with the E-Liquid Section.

To the Editors who created the E-Liquid section here I thank you.
To attempt to keep consistency I began with the content here, after QuackGuru changed the redirect from generic Electronic Cigarettes, to this Construction page.
E-Liquid is its own thing, that is why it has now a page. I am requesting editors to come in and improve the content. As time goes by I hope to put a link back here to the main page for E-Liquid.
Thank you Mystery Wolff (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Mystery Wolff What we have now is two articles with identical content. Normally pages do not have identical content. The normal course of action is when a page is to large a topic is branched off and a summery is left on the page it came from. But this page is relatively small at only 22kb of readable prose. Normally it doesnt happen until about 50kb-60kb. The other problem is the summery, what to have on this page if a summery is needed. There is a discussion on the e-liquid page creation and what should happen next on the main article, Electronic cigarette, talk page AlbinoFerret 08:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I understand. This page will be worked on quickly. E-Liquid is a very broad subject. There is a banner at the top asking for editors to help with the content, which I have every faith will occur promptly. Categorizing content by size of kilobytes, is not something I think is germane to good information. Thank you. Mystery Wolff (talk) 08:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Page splits are covered by WP:SPLITSIZE, and its usually done by kb. AlbinoFerret 09:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Construction of electronic cigarettes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Construction of electronic cigarettes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Failed verification?

The text that was restored appears to not be supported by the source.[15] The part "usually approximately" FV and the source did not state there were "many" variations. The source does say there are "cigarette-shaped" e-cigs and they give examples of the different variations such as pen-styles, tank-styles. The text from the image does not verify the current text, but it does verify the text that was removed. QuackGuru (talk) 06:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Power section needs improvement.

The section on power needs to be more concise, clear, complete, and accurate. It should be written by someone who understands not only components to the e-cigs but also the underlying electronics and physics principles.

  • at least one of the statements and corresponding references is absolutely wrong (non-resistance metals don't exist). Which brings into question the quality of the rest. Another statement misuses that reference.
  • variable power/wattage is described but variable voltage and 'both' are not.
  • the terminology 'variable voltage' and 'variable wattage' should be clarified since they are confusing especially when using it along side the terminology used in electronics for DC-DC power supplies. Better terminology would be 'adjustable voltage' and 'adjustable wattage'. DC-DC converters (which are used in these devices, specifically buck/boost) come in fixed (but potentially adjustable) voltage with variable current to maintain the voltage, or vise-versa with fixed current and variable voltage.
  • Some of the content seems way too technically trivial and not encyclopaedic. Or contain references for trivial information. (for example "The temperature can be adjusted in Celsius or Fahrenheit.[74]" or "Temperature control devices allow the user to set the temperature.[67]"
  • Need more underlying principles and their corresponding wikilinks. eg: incorperate wikilinks to temperature coefficient and the corresponding table for various materials. eg: should talk about the different battery chemistries with different max continuous discharge ratings and why the ratings exist (internal resistance leading to overheating, etc) or find a wiki page that does. The common 18650 format should be mentioned since there are at least two lithium ion chemistries used.
  • The cosmetics and appearance of devices such as size and shape should not be here and is already mentioned in more appropriate sections such as construction and device generations.

Devon (talk) 06:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it is about time we find some good sources to introduce the Evolv DNA chips that use escribe software and are built by a handful of manufacturers... allowing for large data to be compiled by the industry on usage trends and more importantly allow the user to customize the experience as far as how the chip displays information. The Yihi chips are also significant and might deserve mention. Evolv is the US company that introduced temperature control to the marketplace. The DNA250c was released last month after 3 years of R&D. These are more than just safety regulation chips. These are measurable puff consistency tools. That is significant for things like metered doses are used in more regulated industries and this could be a path to a standard.... if I took a stab at what might be easier to get approved in a restrictive marketplace. I can only find the usual company interviews on youtube and trade like pubs... anyone have thoughts on sources for EVOLV - leaving my suppositions out of all this. Mrphilip (talk) 06:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Failed verification content and unsourced content

A new source was added but the content was not rewritten to match the source.[16]

New content was added but the new content failed verification and new content was added that was unsourced.[17]

Maintenance tags were added to address the issues. QuackGuru (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

minthreadsleft = 4. Minimum threads left

minthreadsleft = 4

Minimum threads left = 4

This is the default setting at User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo. Example 2: Incremental archives.

It encourages discussion. Auto archiving avoids problems with arguments about premature closing of discussions. -- Timeshifter (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

E-liquid

Content about e-liquid belongs in this article. A splinter article would not improve this article. It should all stay in this article with a summary in the main article. See RfC. There is now consensus for the e-liquid content to remain in this article. QuackGuru (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Pod mods in the lede

There is no mention of pod mods in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Pod mods

I added more content about Construction_of_electronic_cigarettes#Pod_mods. It is too short for a separate article. That would create a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. QuackGuru (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Construction_of_electronic_cigarettes/Archive_1&oldid=1149826739"