>>108166771
why do you vape? are you a fag

>>108166771
yeah that's a microphone
i don't vape so i've got no clue what it does but my guess is that it has something to do with taking a hit and when to activate it
unless there's a cellular modem or it has a bluetooth function (do those exist) i wouldnt be worried

>>108166783
I'll fag your face, fag

But no I found it by the road in front of my house and just slammed it into the pavement and saw this in the guts

>>108166771
Yes. It's how they activate automatically when you draw on them.

>>108166771
It's a cheap way of detecting you sucking on it so it knows when to vaporize your cancer juice. You can also harvest perfectly good rechargable lithium ion batteries for diy projects from disposable vapes.

tweaker

>>108166771
>sound of air whooshing when you inhale
>microphone sends some current
>vape activates
Is it clear?

>>108166855
this guy is right

>>108166871
What are some practical uses for them? I find them all the time and several people at work vape

>>108166771
>there a mic
I think so. I've not actually ripped one to bits for the confirm.
I put it down to:
>>108166871
>It's a cheap way of detecting you sucking

I'm personally more concerned with that battery...

>>108166804
>it has a bluetooth function (do those exist)
Yes.
Wifi not a viable vector? n yeah. Non-issue. The accellerometer in your phone that no app asks permission to access that is sensitive enough to pull back speech is much more of a concern.

Bro don't inhale the goyfumes

>>108166814
>I'll fag your face, fag
Only lightly reeking of closeted homosexuality...

>>108166771
>my vape?
>>108166814
>I found it
As these two things contradict, are you a lying sack o shit, or a lying sack o shit?

>>108166919
Practical uses? For a low resolution microphone?
Or would you mean the device more as a whole? The batteries tend to be good to connect up to themselves before tossin' into a wastepaper basket to cause a building evac...
Scrape together a few hundred batteries and you might be able to get about as much power as fiver's worth of LiitoKala 18650.

>>108166943
Yeah.
I'll stick to the TCH. HHC. THCP. and maybe some THCA diamonds just beacuse I can.

File: 1770641038339162.jpg (255 KB, 1080x1350)

255 KB JPG

>>108166814
>hulk smash lithium battery

>>108166771
>>108166871
>>108166855
Yes the mic method is better so it doesn't auto fire from random air draft.

>>108166985
I'll call bullshit. What sorta batteries them supposed to be, anyhay?
Unless his house draw is literally something stupid like a 0.25W status indicator LED there's no way that 500 vape batteries is lasting 8hr.

I take *decent* 18650s and use 500 o them. 4A a piece. Gives about 7.4kW. Realistically, that could maybe hold up a decent PC for ~5-6hrs. Or maybe a hour or two of running a house. Assuming you're not using resistive heating, aircon, or electrical cooking...

>>108166989
>so it doesn't auto fire from random air draft.
So what you're telling me here is a device that actually measures flow rate is less reliable than trying to guess the flow rate from the sound it makes?

>>108166771
Putting fallic stuff in your mouth and sucking on them is very gay.
That's why I quit cigarettes years ago.

>>108166985
Retard here,
Disposable vapes as in the image use used power cells from the mid 10s which are commonly around 1300mah when new.
This comes out to 4.81Wh per cell when new
Or 2.4KWh when new
The batteries will all have degraded a random amount but assuming no other issues with combining cells a good number would be 75% capacity from new since they are used, so 1.8KWh
Which is 255W per hour.
If he's inverting it, take off 3%
I would certainly say this would power his home for 8 hours if all of those hours were at night with everything turned off and him sleeping.

>>108167058
>Gives about 7.4kW. Realistically, that could maybe hold up a
I spent a year living on a sailboat with a single 4kwh battery. I was able to handle a small refrigerator, corporate macbook, and a kind of retarded AMD based laptop along with the occaisonal use of electric propoltion for docking/setting anchor just fine except for about 1 week in the winter. I even experimented running a small AC off it although that was really too much, I settled on running a water pump loop into the refrigerator and blowing a radiator on myself from that.

This could last multiple overcast days in a row.

If you don't have a well, electric baseboard heat, and use solar/fuel for cooking/heating water you really don't need much electricity.

Your phone can read your mind and hear everything you say and you're worried about a vape?

>>108167058
>a device that actually measures flow rate is less reliable than trying to guess the flow rate from the sound it makes?
If only you knew how far guessing has gotten us

>>108166985
he has a youtube channel and made a video. i don't remember the name or anything, you can try to search. it seems like a huge fire risk.

>>108167058
These disposable vapes are like $20. a mic does the job better and cheaper than old atomizers.

>>108167169
i believe you but what is the mechanism they use to read my mind?

>>108167282
5G

File: 960518110-ECOM.jpg (65 KB, 564x564)

65 KB JPG

superior nicotine delivery device

>>108167292
what does 5G do in order to read my mind?

>>108167122
>if all of those hours were at night with everything turned off and him sleeping.
Kinda what I was thinkin'...

>>108167149
>you really don't need much electricity.
OFC, I *can* eat more. But about now I'm eatin' about ~70W up 'ere. I'm not a 'good' example. Most TV's will pull 100W+. Most houses got at least one, usually on when no cunt watchin' it. There's three just on the wall in me flatmate's bedroom. He's more the sort of cunt you should be specc'n load for, kickin' up the 3kW kettle to walk away distracted 'cause he's high returnin' 30min later to boil it n walk away again, eventually makin' a cuppa but leavin' it to go cold - 'cause high n distracted - and down the sink it goes to make another...

>>108167197
Cheaper? that's digestable.
More reliable? that's expecting a rhino covered in sandpaper used as a dildo to produce no complaints.

>>108167253
>a mic does the job better and cheaper than old atomizers.
By which you mean the microphone does a completely seperate job to the atmoser, right?
Would now be the time to point out that several of the systems on the shelf don't have microphones in them at all?

>>108167317
>superior nicotine
That's nice for you. Would now be the time to point out that vapes never were for nicotine? That came later when someone looked at the cannabanoid industry, after rick simpson knocked out the RSO for his cancer and research in that direction produced the distillates I fuck wit...

They just found a way to tie the chumps into batteries. With distillates and isolates it actually matters. Sure, I can eat the diamonds and my liver will metabolize the THCA into THC on the fly, or I can put one salt grain sized crystal onto my rig and fill my lungs wit pure THC vapor...

>>108167149
Idk I have 12.8kw and my shit fucked up in a winter storm running just a fridge, a pc with monitor off, a nvr and like a switch+ap+modem 24/7 while I was away for a few weeks.
1300w of solar wasn't enough despite being fine all summer.

>>108167334
similar to the mic discussion from this op. it reads all your body language and where you are and all the minutiae of your movement, even things like sending timing data in between when you tap the device, all this indicates your mood and they know the emotional context of what's going on in your life to a staggering exactitude which remote llms analyze and make predictions on, always correcting themselves and becoming more accurate.

>>108166814
Give the vape back Jamal. Also
>I found / I smashed it
Mmmhmmm, ok. Yeah my first sentence checks out.

>>108167493
> all the minutiae of your movement,
You do know that wifi is a sub-millimeter wavelength?
So, when your AP pings out a "I'm here" beacon, or your pone does, you can play with timing to impart echoreflection and build 3D point maps with sub-millimeter detail.
But luckily, you're never around wifi, eh?

>even things like sending timing data in between when you tap the device
Can do that entirely on the touchscreen...
But for a side channel, think of the accelerometer before 5G. Pulling back PIN input is trivial.

>make predictions on
>becoming more accurate.
I cannot deny accuracy is on the rise. But aint nuttin' ever been near being able to predict me. And these sorts of systems don't know me. They can't even prove I exist. They have never been given the data to learn from, and the data that has been supplied is incredibly rarely tied to an identity...

>>108167493
oh ok. i thought they knew the literal thoughts coming from brain waves

>>108167122
>inverting it, take off 3%
Inverting a small load is more like 30% loss, at the very least. Probably over 60% in reality.

>>108166771
big Vape is engaging in mass surveillance.
Maybe we'll finally get confirmation that vapers are massive faggots after all.

File: 1763878118975216.png (397 KB, 895x1002)

397 KB PNG

This is why I use a vape with a web app interface, no auto suck-start microphones.

>>108167793
>This is why I use a vape with a web app interface, no auto suck-start microphones.
Glowies btfo'd epic style

>>108166771
They've got you.

>>108167058
>So what you're telling me here is a device that actually measures flow rate is less reliable than trying to guess the flow rate from the sound it makes?
fundamentally a microphone is a device which measures air pressure. a vape only needs to know if you are sucking on it or not, it doesn't care about specific flow rates

>>108166960
vape some aPHP pussy

>>108167471
>Would now be the time to point out that vapes never were for nicotine?
No, since the device in OP is a nicotine vape. Nobody asked for or wanted your stoner input.

>>108167058
cheaply? yes

>>108167317
these literally give chemical burns to your gums every time ive tried them because my mate gives them to me the skin on the inside of my cheek peels off a few hours or the next day after

Who are you buying vapes from, israel?

>>108167471
>Would now be the time to point out that vapes never were for nicotine? That came later when someone looked at the cannabanoid industry,
not even true ecig vapes were made by some chink in the very early 2000s specifically for that purpose

File: 1770686909475211.png (827 KB, 1204x1302)

827 KB PNG

>>108166771

vape-fags deserve way worse

>>108167793
>no auto suck-start microphones.
>web app interface
You're scared by a low resolution microphone barely able to to detect the presence of sound - let alone spatial resolution that can define a sound - but you're perfectly happy with an entire API you're unware of the contents to?
As for "web app" you actually mean 'tardphone app, right? Meaning on the other end of this app wiht an API you're unfamiliar with is a microphone. But more importantly, there's an acceleromoter it doesn't need to ask permission to access that *can* deliver spatial resolution enough to yeild human speech.
What about all that data being transported offsite? Not only does it transport off the device for some reason it then transfers from the tardphone to... You do know where, right?

>>108168396
>it doesn't care about specific flow rates
True.
Now demonstrate - AS CLAIMED - that this is a more reliable detection method with regards to 'random air draught' than measuring the flow rate.
OR
Sit down. Shut the fuck up. And hang thy head in lacking reading comprehension shame.

>>108168505
Care to try again, in Englsh?

>>108168578
>No, since the device in OP is a nicotine vape.
OP being a retard really doesn't detract from the fact that this shit crawled into existence for a reason, and stupid cunts failing to grasp this reason have been gulliably lead for another cunt's profit.

>Nobody asked for or wanted your stoner input.
Well. You're free to handle it the way you do everything else. Impotent bitching.

>>108169353
>made by some chink in the very early 2000s specifically for that purpose
Sauce on that?
Alternately. Start at Rick Simpson and move forwards.

>>108169687
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hon_Lik

>>108169702
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hon_Lik
"He filed patents on his invention in China, the United States and the European Union based on his 2003 priority application in China. The first electronic cigarette was manufactured in 2004"
"Rick Simpson first created Rick Simpson Oil (RSO) in 2003."
Would need to add another twelve month mebbe to get near more refined distillates commonly, Mebbe 'ecig' *did* come first ... Certainly in terms of mass manufacturing... For quite some time concentrates still used fire ...

File: TayZonday.jpg (164 KB, 1280x720)

164 KB JPG

So what you're saying is you CAN'T move away from the mic to breathe in...

yes goy it's just for the sucking sound nothing else, move along

>>108169687
>As for "web app" you actually mean 'tardphone app, right
No, it's an actual website you can access from any web browser and connect to the vape via Bluetooth. As long as the device has Bluetooth, and a web browser, you can use the vape. No phone needed.

>>108166871
So if you played a very loud static/whooshing sound at a concert, everybody's vapes would activate in their pockets?

They're not microphones, they're flow sensors with integrated ASICs specifically for vapes.

http://www.xingangsd.com/enproduct/index_19.html

makes you want to reverse engineer the firmwares on these things and see if any are being nefarious if not why not market a vape that doubles as a part 15 fcc transmitter with an extra 1$ component

>>108169817
>>108169702
To be fair, THC had been slowly moving that way already.

Hot knifing hash was a thing even in the 1970s.
BHO was being produced at fairly wide scale (not commercially) since the mid to late 90s.

Ecigs just became an obvious delivery method once they saturated the market to any real degree in the mid to late 2000s.

Though traditional dabbing is far from dead and you get devices like this >>108167793 that split the difference between traditional dabbing and a modern vape.

>UK is known for its dystopian mass surveillance fetish and harsh nanny state laws against tobacco, alcohol and sugar
>surprisingly enough, barely any restrictions on vape devices
>in 2026 it will be illegal to sell vapes that are not explicitly and individually government stamped
>still no real restrictions otherwise
>OP discovers microphone in his vape
not even surprised at this point to be honest...

>>108171317
As a British citizen living outside of the UK, it would take a lot before I'd move to the UK.

>>108166771
I just dislike disposable electronics in general.
Even non-disposable vape tend to have disposable parts (the atomizer).

>>108171219
>As long as the device has Bluetooth, and a web browser
What could possibly go wrong with mixing two of the least secure technologies of the 21'st century...

Tho I appreciate the correction to my educational deficit in the matter, the other raised issues still apply...

>>108171234
In *theory*. But to put that much sound pressure onto an encased sensor would probably generate the sort of hearing damage that will be very costly in terms of lawsuits.

>>108171256
I had questioned - but as previously mentioned, not ripped one to bits yet...

>>108171317
>>still no real restrictions otherwise
Tank >2ml?

>>108171366
>disposable parts
Wear happens.
I've fumbled ideas of ultrasonic, that should have low failure rate.
But you can get ceramics... Kinda like a porous sponge... And as long as you don't burn the absolute shit outta what you're puttin' thru 'em they should last a long time. You shouldn't be gettin' 'em hot enough to melt ceramics, worst is tainting it and making it taste funky

>>108171611
I mean, there is no accelerometer or anything like that.

At most it's reporting how often I use the vape per day to a server, it doesn't have the hardware to collect anything else.

Also, not all vapes have components that wear significantly.

The Dr. Dabber switch 2 doesn't use an atomizer, it uses induction heating. The only component prone to wear is the battery, which is LiFePO4 and has 5000+ cycle life that should last over a decade of daily use.

>>108171611
>Tank >2ml?
this rule is confusing because since the new ban on disposable vapes plenty of them now have pods which hold like 10ml liquid like the lost maries

>>108166814
its not really yours then is it then

>>108171828
>I mean, there is no accelerometer or anything like that.
That you've seen.
But I was actually talking about the hardware runnin' the browser. Which for most people would be a 'tardphone. Win lose or draw piping a web browser to bluetooth deserves some sort of award for milk-in-the-toaster grade stupidity.

>wear significantly.
I don't recall specifying 'significantly'. Might have been a reason behind that.

>doesn't use an atomizer,
You're a retard.

>it uses induction heating
That's nice for you. How does that stop it from turning the concentrate/isolate into atoms dispersed into the air again?

>>108172591
>this rule is confusing
I thought it was retarded... Only tangible reason I can provide is they don't want folk with a 6month stash. But the refill bottles screw that theory in the arse...

>>108173661
im not sure HOWEVER there are no atoms that you or ive seen

>>108166783
fpbp

File: 1770361880389461.jpg (655 KB, 3024x4032)

655 KB JPG

>>108173661
>>doesn't use an atomizer,
>You're a retard.
How?

It literally DOESN'T have an atomizer inside of it.

it has an induction heating well where you can use 3/4 different inserts.

Pure Quartz (OEM or 3rd party)
Pure Sapphire (OEM)
Titanium (OEM or 3rd party)
Ceramic (only 3rd party)


Pic related is the sapphire insert. It sits inside the induction heating well and the heating well is the mass heated by the induction field, that mass heats the sapphire insert where your material is vaporized. The induction coil is quite large and beefy and shouldn't have any appreciable wear for the life of the device. The battery is the ONLY wear part on the device, and again it should last a decade or more if you're fine with reduced capacity (60-70% instead of 80-100%).

Also you can use it from your desktop PC, which is what I do 90% of the time since the device itself is really intended for non-portable use.


And again, this is a THC vaporizer, not an ecig. Technically it's an "erig". Most other erigs (Puffco/Carta/etc) use ceramic atomizers that wear out after a few months or years (depends how well you treat it). Puffco's 3DXL atomizers are $100 each and somewhat known to shit themselves within a few months sometimes so having an erig that doesn't use atomizers at all is a nice advantage.

>>108166871
>vaping cancer juice
Faggots who say this probably load themselves up on seed oils and other processed foods.

>>108174498
At least smoke real cigs if you're going to moralfag over this shit instead of "muh health food cancer sticks"

>>108169687
>OP being a retard really doesn't detract from....
Meanwhile you type out inane details of your marajuana addiction complete with implied accent as if they're Cormac Mccarthy dialogue.

Take note; nobody cares what you are talking about. Even other stoners probably do not care. But especially, normal people do not care.

>>108174498
but what about

File: 1637741475811.gif (465 KB, 500x600)

465 KB GIF

>>108166771
this shit is why you should just smoke cigarettes like an actual man.

>>108174560
>man
>post cigarettes meant for woman

>>108174574
the primary consumers of cigarettes have always been men you ackshually fucking retard, even since they were first invented. now why don't you go to scotland and tell the first jock you meet that kilts are for women. have fun with that.

File: 1740991956357107.png (953 KB, 854x928)

953 KB PNG

>>108174574

>>108174574
golds are for women

>>108166814
likely story

>>108174526
It's proven that seed oils are more harmful than smoking a pack of cigarettes a day.

>>108173682
>there are no atoms that you or ive seen
I see atoms all the time chump. Literally everything I look at? That's atoms.
Well. Light reflected off atoms if you'd really want to get all pedantic on the matter.

>>108174164
>It literally DOESN'T have an atomizer inside of it.
By which you mean it doesn't have a *wick* inside it. Or possibly mean it doesn't have a heating element inside the reaction chamber.
In either case, that doesn't stop it atomising the concentrate/isolate and dispersing it into the air.
Y'know. It's primary f'kin function.

>Pic related is the sapphire insert
Build it out of f'kin metallic hydrogen for all I give a fuck. An atomiser does, not is.

>Also you can use it from your desktop PC, which is what I do 90% of the time
...
>>108173661
>Win lose or draw piping a web browser to bluetooth deserves some sort of award for milk-in-the-toaster grade stupidity.

>this is a THC vaporizer,
And?
This changes what an atomiser does.... How, precisely?

>>108174555
>inane details of your marajuana addiction
You have some evidence there's an addiction?
I can evidence I like being stoned. Good luck evidencing negative effects caused by it's absence.

>implied accent
Implied? where? How?

>Cormac Mccarthy
Who?
That's not even me trying t'be funny, I've literally no idea who you talky...

>nobody cares what you are talking about
Prove it.

>Even other stoners probably do not care. But especially, normal people do not care.
Even more importantly: I don't care.
I'm not doing this for what other people think. I don't suffer from the retardations that govern your every action.

>>108174560
I do.

>>108175226
>This changes what an atomiser does.... How, precisely?
Because THERE IS NO ATOMIZER
I really don't know how else to explain it to you.

Atomization is a mechanical process of breaking a bulk liquid into tiny droplets suspended in a gas (creating an aerosol). Think of a perfume bottle, a fuel injector, or a spray nozzle.


That doesn't technically happen in ANY of these devices, but it's an ecig term that stuck around. These days it's generally an accepted term for a ceramic vaporization chamber that uses resistive heating to bring it up to vaporization temp.

The Switch2 has an induction heating vaporization chamber that is lined with either quartz/sapphire/titanium/ceramic.

The difference being the induction vaporization chamber is NOT replaceable, nor does it wear out with regular use. The induction coil itself creates a magnetic field, it doesn't get particularly hot itself, it heats up a large mass of titanium, inside that titanium is where you put the sapphire/quartz/titanium/ceramic insert.

So the ONLY things getting hot are the titanium heating mass that is heated by the induction field, and the insert that sits inside of that heating mass.


The ceramic vaporization chambers do wear out since they're using resistive heating (a wire embedded in the ceramic) and the wire gets more worn with repeated heat cycles (regular use).


So to recap, atomizers are an industry term, the mechanical process of atomization doesn't occur in vaporizers it's purely thermal vaporization, no mechanical aerosolization occurs, and the Dr. Dabber switch 2 does not have an atomizer OR a vaporization chamber that faces wear.

>>108175615
>I really don't know how else to explain it to you.
Start with how lacking a wick stops it being an atomiser.

>That doesn't technically happen in ANY of these devices
True. But that's the generic terminology. I didn't start this shit up but you say anyfink else and folk get confuddled.
But you can call it a lowload swazzlwgwonk for all I give a fuck. All it actually adjust is what you're calling it.

It does. Not is.

>it's purely thermal vaporization
So. On some level you can actually grasp the concept. Keep thinkin'. It'll catch up one day.

>>108175770
...again what the fuck are you ACTUALLY trying to argue here?

It's not an atomizer
It's not a wearable part unlike normal "atomizers" (that are also not actually atomizers).

Are you mentally ill or something?

>>108175783
>...again what the fuck are you ACTUALLY trying to argue here?

Oddly enough:

>It's not an atomizer

It's almost as if that's been incredibly centric with the multiple references and direct challenges for what precisely stops it being an atomiser - The core function of which being to aerosol the distillate/isolate.

>Are you mentally ill or something?
Clearly. That'll explain the inability to track a single tangent with clear and specific references provisioned for the hard of thinking...

>>108175858
Because again, it ISN'T creating an aerosol is the point.

Vapor itself is not an aerosol

The Switch 2 does not create the aerosol; it creates a gas through pure vaporization.

>>108175906
>it creates a gas through pure vaporization.
Right. It uses temperature to throw it into the air. AKA vapourisation.
Is now the time to tell you that the "atomisers" use thermal energy to gassify the isolate/distillate?

So. Explain what stops that being an atomiser, as this is fulfilling the precise same *FUNCTION* as an atomiser, operating on precisely the same *METHODOLOGY*.

Dipshit.

>>108175948
NTA but my 2 cents is
>atomizer
>mechanically splits a liquid into extremely fine particles, most particles are still in a liquid phase while some may acquire enough energy to vaporize but the resulting mix is still heavily in the liquid phase
>vaporizer
>uses heat to create a gas from the distillate, most of the resulting mix is gas with some liquid particles condensing in cooler air.

They both can do a similar job but the resulting mixture from each will be different enough where you might have a preference for one or the other.

>>108176179
*Functionally* they are the same. They're operating on the same principles (heat to gassify).

No vapes have actual atomisers (tho I wager I can get something on with ultrasound) but this is what they're called. Isn't my choice or preferance.

Regardless of labelling nomenclature, they seem convinced that somehow this is a different device. If this was a diferent device, it should be relatively easy to evidence this by highlighting what precisely stops it from being an atomiser...
There seems to be some nonsense regarding a wick I seem to recall, to which I'll offer up my Kandypen Pearl. Essentially a ceramic pencil sharpener. It's still a f'kin atomiser...

>>108175046
No it’s not

>>108175226
>I don't suffer from the retardations that govern your every action.
You are insufferable and addicted to weed though

>>108176281
>You are insufferable
As evidenced by your continued presence...

>and addicted to weed
That's the second time you've made this claim - based entirely on my free admittance that I like to get stoned.
You've not provisoned any evidence that this constitutes an addiction, despite being specifically prompted. For that matter, you've failed to provision any tangible evidence that addiction is even possible.
You'll be able to find anecdotal evidence, from the sort of weak willed mogaloid that would claim chocolate is addictive.
It's not addictive, it tastes nice. There's a large difference. Being absented chocolate might install tantrums in the mal-adjusted but it's a complete non-issue for anyone that's not trying to use it as an excuse for their own shortcomings.

Same rewls apply with weed.

Also, would now be the time to tell you I don't really buy weed? I can play with shit like THCp...

>>108176256
You seem to just fundamentally not understand the difference between a disposable "atomizer", and the non disposable induction heating well of the switch 2.

You seem to think that because the switch to has the ability to vaporize THC that it must somehow have a limited life expectancy just like your "atomizer", when that isn't the case.

>>108176382
Remind me again. Where did I use the word "disposable" ?
What stops that being an atomiser?
Your continual struggle to achieve this incredibly simple ask should be telling to you, but stil...

> that it must somehow have a limited life expectancy
Please highlight where limited life span is a core functionality of an atomiser. You've hit precisely one difference. Shall we count them?
1) Induction
Hmm. Well. That hasn't adjusted the *FUNCTION* at all now, has it? It's still using heat to gassify the distillate. Just like every other available atomiser on the market.

>You seem to think
How nice of you to tell me what I think...

>>108176256
>They're operating on the same principles (heat to gassify).
Only a vaporizer works on heat. An atomizer is mechanical and often doesn't actually impart enough energy to turn a liquid fully into a gas.

They are different enough, it's why for a simple humidifier they have ones that operate strictly off heat and vaporization producing steam while others are ultrasonic/mechanical that produce a mist

>but this is what they're called. Isn't my choice or preferance.
Doesn't mean it's correct. Seems like atomizer is just a different word used just to pretend it's different from a vape. Anything that directly imparts heat energy into an oil/liquid is a vaporizer. Anything else with a pump, sling, spray or other mechanical movement is an atomizer.

>>108176441
Yes but again THE ENTIRE FUCKING POINT is that the switch 2's heating element doesn't ever wear out. THAT'S what sets it apart.

You keep saying it's the same thing when it fucking isn't. The whole god damn difference IS the fact it isn't disposable and doesn't need replacing because it doesn't wear.

Jesus christ you might genuinely be retarded.

>>108166783
fpbp

>>108176450
>Only a vaporizer works on heat. An atomizer is mechanical
Well done.
But we'd already covered the fact that none of the available devices on the market actually use mechanical dissemination but they're still generally called atomisers regardless. Multiple times across several posts.
Was there a particular reason you felt the need to highlight your massive failures in paying attention to the world generally and the thread specifically?

>Doesn't mean it's correct
I'm not the one you'd need to take that up with.

>>108176462
>THAT'S what sets it apart.
But it's not what stops it being an atomiser, now, is it?

>You keep saying it's the same thing when it fucking isn't.
Except that it is. You swap out your hobs for induction, do they stop being hobs?
That's not a rhetorical question.

>Jesus christ you might genuinely be retarded.
C'mon then. In the name of the magical jewish zombie I command thee to answer the previous question.

>>108176531
Again, atomizers are a marketing term, so why the FUCK are you hung up on a WRONG marketing term being used for something that ISN'T an atomizer, and IS demonstrably different in function, size, layout, makeup, etc. So why the fuck SHOULDN'T it be marketed differently?

It does not have an atomizer, it sets itself apart from other erigs on the market because it's the ONLY erig that doesn't have a disposable "atomizer" that inherently kills itself over time due to the resistive heating wire embedded within the ceramic chamber walls degrading after repeated heat cycles.

The Switch 2 has an induction coil that itself doesn't get hot, it creates a magnetic induction field that interacts with a solid brick of titanium, that solid titanium brick gets hot, inside of which is where you have the sapphire/quartz insert that you actually vaporize your THC on.

It's a radically different way of vaporizing, and it's the only vaporizer that functions this way, so again, why the fuck should they call it an "atomizer" when it looks nothing like an atomizer, isn't replaceable or removable, and has no lifespan (it's just a chunk of titanium).

>>108176578
>IS demonstrably different in function,
Okay.
My atomisers *FUNCTION* by using heat to disperse material into the air.

Remind me, how does that disperse material into the air, again?

>size, layout, makeup, etc
Meh. I've things similar in size. Layout. But that's not really much of the point.
The only thing that seperates it from anything I've already got onna shelf is "induction". The core functionality is precisely the same...

>It does not have an atomizer
As demonstrated by using precisely the same priciples as every other atomiser on the market ...

>doesn't have a disposable
I do like that feature. I *really* do. But nowhere in the specification for "atomiser" is "disposable". That's just a implimentation fail (or, from another perspective, a sales win).

>It's a radically different way of vaporizing
Not really. It's just making heat in a 'novel' format for a handheld/desk toy.

>when it looks nothing like an atomizer
RFCs for the visual specifactions on an atomiser?
Whitepapers?

>isn't replaceable or removable, and has no lifespan
And you've gained the notion that these are functions of an atomiser, as opposed to consequences of poor implimentation.... Where?

>has no lifespan (it's just a chunk of titanium).
Might outlive you... But there's still a lifespan...

imagine using a vaporizer to get high in the first place, it's not for me

>>108176647
>RFCs for the visual specifactions on an atomiser?
>Whitepapers?
I mean, 90% of the market is either basic 510 carts, the rest use similar concepts but are all different and generally proprietary.

The Switch 2 is the only one that doesn't use resistive heating, and the only one that has a FULLY separated heating element and vaporization surface. Every other e-rig design, the vaporization surface IS the heating element (the ceramic with an embedded wire that a current is run through).

The fact I can dab on a single crystal optical grade sapphire surface that is 100% separated from the heating element, is fully open and is cleaned after EVERY hit, so i can ensure there is ZERO carbonization, and ZERO residual oils on the vaporization surface.

Hell, if I really want I can take the insert out after every dab and give it a whole ISO dip and have it ready for another dab in less than 10 minutes.

It is the most technically advanced vaporizer on the market at the moment as far as heating method, and risk mitigation from exposure to anything that ISN'T the concentrate itself.

File: IMG_20260218_051921.jpg (885 KB, 1440x1080)

885 KB JPG

Disposables ruined vaping

>>108176355
spergings of a weed addict
>muh its not even weed its molecules
you know what i mean

>>108177262
It's true

>>108177028
Then you'll be wastin' the high end offerings, or stuck with fire compatible.

>>108177148
>The Switch 2 is the only one that doesn't use resistive heating
The only thing that makes this special. It's not an entirely different paradigm. But if they make it sound really special then some absolute spastic will give them 30x what it cost to make.

You replace your hobs with induction, they are still hobs.
There. That wasn't hard now. Was it?

>and the only one that has a FULLY separated heating element and vaporization surface.
Pure.
Undiluted.
Bullshit.
There's loads of products on the market with a seperate heating element, and reaction surface. There's even other products on the market with ceramic and metallic inserts.

So how many posts you up to now with completely failing to prove that this isn't in actual fact an atomiser, just like everything else on the market performing precisely the same function?

>>108178234
>you know what i mean
I *DO* know what you mean.

Which is why I challenged you on it.

And incidently. Why you failed on it.
But you're used to that, eh?
Faililng.
That's you default state. Twenty three fails before breakfast. That'll be your biography title.

>>108180074
>There's loads of products on the market with a seperate heating element, and reaction surface
Post one

>>108180074
>You replace your hobs with induction, they are still hobs.
Retard

You're basically arguing that a gas hob (an actual atomized reaction) is identical to a resistive hob (electric coils) or induction hob (magnetic induction heating). You're trying to argue that since they all make food hot they're all the same thing.


>There's loads of products on the market with a seperate heating element, and reaction surface. There's even other products on the market with ceramic and metallic inserts.
Ehhh, kinda. None of those devices do what the Switch2 does.
If you put a quartz insert into a Puffco, the heating element underneath it is still a resistive ceramic plate embedded with wires that will eventually burn out. The Switch 2 entirely eliminates that consumable wire.

Im sorry you're so retarded that you think the Switch2 is somehow JUST like every other product on the market despite all of the things that set it distinctly apart.

Maybe some day you'll get your head out of your ass and actually learn something instead of assuming (you clearly haven't looked into the actual device at all if you're still this confused about how it functions on the most basic level).

>>108166771
Could be a mic, but could also be a simple pressure sensor. Same purpose either way.
There are sensors built into the same shell as microphones (cost saving I guess), which are just a conductive mylar sheet that flexes and touches a contact when air flows by it. Saw a teardown of one of them a while ago.

>>108169339
Chemical burns? What the hell are you ingesting?
Yeah Zyn pouches are really alkaline, they have a high pH level apparently because nicotine absorbs better this way.

>>108180084
*yawn*
As previously mentioned, I've got a kpen Pearl. them looks like: https://www.dabdude.com/product/kandypens-pearl-attachment/ it's a ceramic pencil sharpner as a reaction surface. The heating elelment is a seperate piece of wire internal.
And just on that one site, https://www.dabdude.com/product-category/parts-accessories/atomizers-coils/ has an entire page of offerings that feature heating elements in a different place to the reaction surface.
But you'd know that's common if you'd pulled your head out of your arse far enough to see more than your own teeth.

>>108180120
>You're trying to argue that since they all make food hot they're all the same thing.
Yes.
A hob is a hob, regardless of if you use fire, resistive heating, induction...
Trying to pretend that this stops being a hob just because you fell for a marketing meme just makes you look retarded.

>The Switch 2 entirely eliminates that consumable wire.
This was never in question.
What was in question is what stops that from being an atomiser. Something you're spending a lot of time, effort, and posts with failiing...

>despite all of the things that set it distinctly apart.
All of those one things. For it to perform the precise same *FUNCTION* using the precise same *METHODOLOGY*.

>Maybe some day you'll get your head out of your ass
Thoroughly amusing. You should go for stand-up.

>and actually learn something instead of assuming
Uh-huh... How about paying attention to the task in hand? Could that be useful?

>you clearly haven't looked into the actual device
I don't need to. You shill it as regular.

> you're still this confused
The only confusion I feature is why you even bothered trying.

File: Ol-Musky-Smoking.jpg (80 KB, 700x700)

80 KB JPG

>>108169339
I get a sore throat the next day whenever I use a zyn, I hate those fucking things and would rather just smoke a cig
Are there pouches that don't suck ass?

File: file.png (57 KB, 533x533)

57 KB PNG

>>108177262
i actually prefer those little pod vapes you get now i used to have a pretty large mod and fuck around making my own coils and stuff for years but prefer small hits form little mtl devices. most of the brands are shit and leak tho
>>108180387
zyns kek or nordic whatever my friend gets different ones, and yeah pretty sure its a chemical burn killing the skin and making it peel off where it contacts the pouch. never had that with actual tabacco snus.
>>108180520
no idea i dont use them

>>108180487
Almost every single one of those has the resistive coil embedded WITHIN the reaction surface, the exact thing i'm talking about.

Thanks for confirming, you're just a genuine moron.

>>108180487
You really don't see a difference between a porous surface (ceramic) with an embedded wire heated via electrical resistance as being different from a block of titanium heated via magnetic fields. It has a 100% single crystal pure sapphire dish with zero imperfections, zero embedded wires, zero physical way for the barrier between the heated titanium and the sapphire and your concentrate to be compromised.

You're really just showing you fundamentally have no idea what you're talking about and your entire argument boils down to:
> WeLl TheY bTOh geET hoT!!!!!!1111


Yeah but i'll take the surface that gets hot in the safest, easiest to clean, and easiest to verify it's clean device possible.

All the atomizers you're talking about have electrical wear components, all of them have surfaces that are enclosed (sealed atomizers), difficult or impossible to clean, or made from materials that expand and contract with heat cycles and trap oils inside of itself which causes multiple heating cycles and eventually carbonizes and potentially even pyrolyzes the material potentially causing toxic VOCs.

So yeah, i'll stick to pure sapphire that I can clean to perfection after each day within a few qtips over a ceramic surface that I can't be sure is actually clean.

>>108180536
>those little pod
I dislike pods for vendor lock-in. If there was some ubiquitous standard, like 510 thread, I'd entertain it. Otherwise you're locked into a manufacturer, and locking out part of your target market.

Functionally, pods are carts. What differs is the form factor. A "well designed" pod can cut down on the metal, a 510 thread wil allways use more, but the metal isn't the recycling problem.
510 carts I uses is quartz glass, for scaling. As in, glass outer, glass center post, ceramic substrate 'wick'... Glass and ceramic hit with hammer until sand then use for more glass... Metal equally solved issue... From a recycling perspsective.

>most of the brands are shit and leak tho
Not occurred many leaks. But what I'm playing with is likely much thicker than what you're playing with...
Tried many of the 'postless' designs?

>>108180741
>>most of the brands are shit and leak tho
>Not occurred many leaks.
i mean with those little disposable pod things, they always seem to leak after a whie end up with liquid all over my pocket and stuff lol

>>108180632
>Almost every single one of those has the resistive coil embedded WITHIN the reaction surface
But which you mean a completely seperate heating element on the other side of a completely seperate material, yeah?
You'll have sway with "embedded" for my kpen pearl, as it enters the bottom then coils around the 'tube' of the 'pencil sharpener' before exiting the other side, but technically, that's a seperate heating element on the other side of seperate ceramic surface.
For "Embedded" you'll wanna be lookin' at things like the BBGear Boil... Where the heating element is printed into the ceramic substrate like a PCB...

> It has a 100% single crystal pure sapphire dish with zero imperfections, zero embedded wires, zero physical way for the barrier between the heated titanium and the sapphire and your concentrate to be compromised.
That's nice for you.
But what about any of that stops it from being an atomiser, again?

>You're really just showing you fundamentally have no idea what you're talking about and your entire argument boils down to:
> WeLl TheY bTOh geET hoT!!!!!!1111
I've actually a very solid understand down to the quantum level of what I'm talking about. But, yes, functionally my argument does boil down (pun intended) to "they both get hot".
Because this is precisely what they both do. This is the methodology by which they both perform the same function.

When you have something that can perform the same function as something else, operating on the same methodology, and someone claims that it isn't something that is performing this role it is not unreasonable to expect for a challenge to prove claims.

If your fork has five spikes and I show you a fork with seven, then tell you that yours isn't a fork because it's only got five spikes, You'll be needing to tell me why your five spiker isn't a fork, isn't it?

>>108180700

>So yeah, i'll stick to pure sapphire
I can see the appeal. I don't discount the practical angles of your argument.
None of them address the actually posed question: What stops that being an atomiser?

>>108180827
Because it functionally isn't?


At this point "atomizer" is an industry term for a replaceable heating chamber.

We've already agreed they do not “atomize” anything and are not named according to function, but rather a marketing term that exists from Ecigs, which again, also don't atomize.


When I say it doesn't use an atomizer, I mean it has ZERO wearable parts that need replacing for vaporization.

Buy once, cry once.
Unlike literally EVERY other vaporizer on the market that uses "atomizers".

If anything, Dr Dabber are the only ones NOT lying, since they're not using some marketing BS term like "atomizer" for a device that DOESN'T and cannot atomize.


You're basically crying "WHY WONT THEY KEEP THE LIE UP THAT EVERYONE ELSE IS USING!?!?!?!??!?!?!"

>>108174498
Worse: they believed propaganda spread by the tobacco industry and boomer politicians.

>>108167493
>>108167292
>unironic 5gschizo
>>>/pol/

>>108180520
Fully Loaded. They have both those weird powders, and actual mint leaf pouches. The selection for 3mg is pitiful though. Actually, last I saw, the mint leaf pouches had a small selection for 3mg and 7mg, and a huge selection of 0mg wuss shit.

>>108174555
>hurr durr addiciton
>muh normal people
Go the fuck back to the facebook republican group you came from.

>>108180846
>At this point "atomizer" is an industry term for a replaceable heating chamber.
I'll grant "heating chamber". Don't see anywhere implying replacable is required. Just implimentation fails, potentially intentionally to make off the continual sales.

>When I say it doesn't use an atomizer, I mean it has ZERO wearable parts that need replacing for vaporization.
But you can accept that 'atomiser' is just 'heating chamber', making no specification as to how the heat is applied, or how often any particular part requires maintainence???

If it was a pure "mines better n yours" argument, you'd prolly get somewhere near a 'win'. I can't compete on the lacking disposability. Got a few pure ceramics a dozen cycle in, but them has lifespan shorter than mine. Even filled with different terp'd options and rotated so they take a few week to empty...
"Mine is something completely different" is just blatently false. Truly the only thing that differs is the 'how' on applying the heat, which functionally adjusts nothing. Better maintainence regime? prolly. But consider I can get carts for a couple o £, spend an couple hour batching up a few hundred and then just treat them as disposable because they're only glass and metal...

>You're basically crying "WHY WONT THEY KEEP THE LIE UP THAT EVERYONE ELSE IS USING!?!?!?!??!?!?!"
Genuinely, the term 'atmomiser' agitates me. Deep in the 'tisms. You can be assured the crux of my argument is *not* that.
It's purely that you seem to think this device performing the same function as the competing devices, using the same methodology as the competing devices, is somehow a different device...

This isn't a fork, it's got nine spikes!

>>108181006
It's the only device that is doing what it does in the way that it does, I think that easily justifies placing it in a category of it is own.

Every other device on the market has direct hardware/technical parallels you can point to.

The only other induction device is the ispire daab, but its implementation is worse and has a lot more pieces/parts that can't be as easily cleaned and instead of having a titanium mass with a 20mm chamber, they use a chamber with a stainless steel ring embedded under the dab surface.

This is a technology board the fact you're so ADAMANT that two drastically different technologies are the same thing because the end result is you get vapor is just sad. How about discussing the ACTUAL technology instead of being a turbo retard
>"DEY GET HOT DOE"

>>108166771
you can use that mic as charging controller

>>108166871
>perfectly good rechargable lithium ion batteries for diy projects from disposable vapes.
Ive actually seen some videos of peoeple turning mass disposable vapes into giant batteries, kind of neat

>>108181080
>category of it is own.
I'll offer that to be in a seperate catagory it'll require a different operating methodology...

You dump a battery on a motor, wrap bowstring round a stick, or use a notched slider on a heliptical plane for an archemedies screw you build a drill. They all look very different... They all apply forces diffently to achieve the same task. They are the same thing... Ultrasonic cavitation could still be classified as a drill, but probably belongs in a seperate catagory because the operating methodoloy is vastly different...

>they use a chamber with a stainless steel ring embedded under the dab surface.
From a technological perspective, that's a good move? I mean, iron would be 'better'... But that's what induction impacts? I suppose, thinkin' it'll put the heat in one spot...

>you're so ADAMANT that two drastically different technologies are the same thing because the end result is you get vapor
Which leads back to my initial starting question:
What stops this being an atomiser?

They're performing the same function using the same methodology. "My tesla isn't a car because it's using induction motors instead of combustion". That's the scale of argument you're hitting me with.
Unsurprisingly you've managed to cover a lot of ground with completely failing to prove that - as you claim - this is an entirely different device.

>How about discussing the ACTUAL technology instead of being a turbo retard
Okay. Here's an experiment for you.
Count how many times I've directly requested technological explaination of what stops this being a heating chamber (or, as the rest of the world calls this: atomiser).
Count how many times you've provisioned tangible supporting evidence, and then total up the number of tangental unreleated information you've brought up to avoid the inevitable conclusion that just like every other device on the market, it uses an atomiser.

File: Screenshot_20260218_165855.jpg (452 KB, 1440x1619)

452 KB JPG

>>108176256
>No vapes have actual atomisers (tho I wager I can get something on with ultrasound)
Enters path.
Whistles in high pitch.

I think they produced this mainly to avoid the cotton / juice thermal oxidation issue and replace it with a clogged piezoelectric element issue.

This is the only example I know of off the top of my head and they seem to have been a complete flop. For now.

>>108181090
Um. Whut?
How does that work?

>>108181278
Wow, it's ALMOST like ELECTRIC cars have their own category within the car world.

ELECTRIC cars have their own tax rebates, their own mechanics, etc, etc.

You really are just an autistic retard being an autistic retard.

Enjoy.

>>108177262
I'm with grimmgreen on that one, whatever help people quit.

Got to say, I've yet to achieve anywhere near the same flavour or longevity from any standard tank based setup as I do from the refillable pods.

>>108181252
>kind of neat
Kind of NEET
FTFY.

Seriously, do the math.
Time to locate sufficient devices - think thousands - lets take a shortcut and hit recycling centers. Get 'em by the sack.
You're gonna need to assume for leaks. You prolly don't want this shit on you. Write off two hours for the station setup, and cleandown.
Lets be kind, lets say y'can "safely" strip down a unit and snip out the pouch cell and store safely in 30s. Lets say you only have one thousand. That's a sixteen hour run just in strippin' batteries.

Disposable vapes tend to rock in about 150mA, lets be kind, say 250mA. 1000 o them'll give you 25A. At 3.7V, ~93W.

This doesn't take into account any of your time assuring all the cells are actually capable of task, ensuring they're all not mostly dendrite internally and imminent fire risk when they discharge at a rate vastly different to the other cells and the BMS can't cope...

OR

I can spend 16hrs of my time at minimum wage strippin' batteries on Liitokala. And measure the capacity in kilowatts instead of watts. For the same cost. If your time is worth more than minimum wage, then your Liitokala stack will be that much larger...

For an experiment with battery management, sure. "something to get rid of the ewaste" ... maybe. But it's not a viable proposition...

>>108166771
it's the CIA nigger job classic they sell shit and it's hooked with mics so they can hear what are you doing.

>>108181283
>Enters path.
TYVM - hadn't seen that. As I've been mumblin' ultrasound since ~2016 I'll still say them stole my idea...

>replace it with a clogged piezoelectric element issue.
lol.
What I'd wanna throw in there even thicker. Diamonds come like salt crystals...
But doesn't the effect happen elsewhere? as in the inducer reflects off a cavitator and it's where the two waves interact the effect forms?

>>108181296
>it's ALMOST like ELECTRIC cars have their own category within the car world.
But at what point do they stop being cars?

>ELECTRIC cars have their own tax rebates, their own mechanics, etc, etc.
These are all external properties, entirely unrelated to the actuality of a car.

>You really are just an autistic retard being an autistic retard.
Possibly. But when I'm claiming I'm not an autistic retard because I'm using accuracy to be an autistic retard, you might actually have a point.

>>108181454
I never argued they're not both vaporizers, i'm arguing HOW it functions is fundamentally different, which it is.

>microphone activated vape
what the fuck is wrong with a simple button?

>>108174164
You're retarded. An "atomizer" is not a specific method, it's any method that creates vapor. It doesn't matter how it's heated or if it's even heated at all, whether it's an ecig being heated directly with a cotton wick or a ceramic wick or a ceramic well makes no fucking difference. An atomizer doesn't need to be heated at all to atomize something e.g. a fucking fuel injector aka a fuel atomizer. It doesn't need to be heated, or pneumatic, or mechanical, or chemical it doesn't NEED to be anything except something that atomizes.

FUCK

>>108181611
Lmao you're even more retarded.

> It doesn't need to be heated, or pneumatic, or mechanical, or chemical it doesn't NEED to be anything except something that atomizes

A fuel injector uses high mechanical pressure to force liquid gasoline through microscopic holes. This physically shears and shatters the liquid bulk into microscopic liquid droplets suspended in air (an aerosol). This is a mechanical process to atomize a liquid (gasoline) into a gas (the air).

Crucially, the fuel does not undergo a phase change. It goes into the injector as a liquid, and it comes out of the nozzle as tiny droplets of liquid. That is the literal, scientific definition of atomization.

The Dr. Dabber Switch 2 (and other e-rigs) do not mechanically pressurize and spray your concentrate through a nozzle. They apply intense heat to a liquid until it reaches its boiling point, causing a thermal phase change from a liquid into a gas (vapor).


Going from solid/liquid/gas through heat ALONE is not atomization, it's a pure phase change.

>>108180536
dunno man mine never leaks, a single strand of 28ga coil last months, its way smaller than a double 18650 mod, and its mtl too.

>>108181301
True, but most of the dispo's are used up by broccoli cuts

>>108167149
Were you charging off of shore power or did you have solar or what?

>>108180487
>>108176256
>Kandypen Pearl
NTA, you were talking to, but that's the exact kind of device he's talking about. The Pearl uses a porous ceramic coil with an embedded resistive wire. It is the exact consumable, carbon-trapping, impossible-to-fully-clean technology that the other anon was specifically calling out.
When you dab on the Pearl, the oil seeps into the porous ceramic directly against a hot electrical wire. You can never fully clean it out, which means every time you use it, you are reheating and inhaling carbonized, burnt oil from your last 50+ dabs.
The Switch 2 uses a non-porous sapphire insert that is completely physically isolated from the heating mechanism. No wires, no pores, zero carbonized reclaim.
Trying to act like they're the same thing because they both get hot and make vapor just makes you look incredibly dumb.

>>108166985
>uses a battery to do battery stuff
>ERMAGHERD HE A GENIUS!

>>108181469
>I never argued they're not both vaporizers
Explaining the number of times triggering: Error: Our system thinks your post is spam. Please reformat and try again.
Should one attempt to reference them.

>i'm arguing HOW it functions is fundamentally different, which it is.
This is precisely what I've been asking for. How is heating the substance until it disperses into the air different from heating the substance until it disperses into the air. This should have been easy for you to explain should there have been an actual difference. But instead you thought you'd attempt to redirect the subject into unrelated facets to avoid directly answering the question.

AKA what stops that from being an atomiser.

Or to frame within another reference, when you swap out the electrical resistive hob for an induction hob, what stops that from being a hob?

Or another previously framed reference, when you swap out an internal combustion engine for an induction motor, what stops that from being a car?

>>108182221
>It is the exact consumable, carbon-trapping, impossible-to-fully-clean technology that the other anon was specifically calling out.
And where does it specify that this is a core feature of an atomiser?
As opposed to a consequence of poor implimentaiton.

>The Switch 2 uses a non-porous sapphire insert that is completely physically isolated from the heating mechanism. No wires, no pores, zero carbonized reclaim.
That's nice for you.
Now what stops that from being an atomiser, again?

>Trying to act like they're the same thing because they both get hot and make vapor just makes you look incredibly dumb.
Not half as dumb as trying to pretend it's something different because the power transfer dynamic isn't as direct. That motor I got that turns screws because I'm lazy? That's not a screwdriver because the torque is generated with induction...

>>108182564
If you want to use an overarching term, then the term is vaporizer.

If you want to call the heating chamber a specific term, you can defer to how each company markets them; in your case, it's a removable and disposable 'atomizer' made of ceramic with a wire embedded within it. In the Switch2's case, it's an induction heating well made of titanium heated via magnetic eddy currents with a sapphire/quartz insert.

They differ fundamentally in the surface material: a porous ceramic vs. a non-porous single crystal sapphire. The type of heat applied: resistive heat vs. magnetic induction. How thoroughly it can be cleaned: no matter how it's cleaned, it has oil trapped inside it, carbonizing and creating toxic volatile organic compounds, vs. it can be fully cleaned within minutes after every dab with zero carbonization or pyrolyzation. As well as how they wear: a small wire having high current passed through it to generate a lot of heat every time it gets used vs. a copper coil creating a magnetic field that heats up ANOTHER block of titanium with no physical contacts, no wear points, etc.


And again, basically everyone in the industry calls disposable ceramic resistive heating chambers "atomizers", Dr. Dabber differentiating their product because it DOESN'T use that same technology everyone else is using (or slight variations of), is a totally valid reason to NOT call it an atomizer (as again, we've already agreed it DOESN'T atomize at all, and it ISN'T at all like other 'atomizers' in the industry.

The ONLY thing they both do is create vapor, but that doesn't automatically make it an 'atomizer'. Especially when it has specifically set itself apart in how it functions, how it doesn't ever need to be replaced, and how the heat is applied in a much more controlled way (surrounding the sapphire insert with a block of titanium instead of a thin wire wound around a ceramic chamber that creates hot spots all along the wire).

>>108182750
>If you want to use an overarching term, then the term is vaporizer.
I'm not the one what started callin' the f'kin things atomisers...

>you can defer to how each company markets them
*you* can. As evidenced by your continual insistence - based on marketing - that this isn't an atomiser, despite fulfilling the same function and operating on the same methodology.

>it's a removable and disposable
Citation?
Where does it say that to be an atomiser it requires to be removed, and that it must be disposable?
You keep on with that. You continually fail to provision any evidence that this is actually a measure of "atomiser".

>And again, basically everyone in the industry calls disposable ceramic resistive heating chambers "atomizers", Dr. Dabber differentiating their product because it DOESN'T use that same technology
That's a lot of posts, and a lot of talking about completely unrelated things to avoid saying: "They just want to call it something else and I'm dumb enough to think that's valid".

>The ONLY thing they both do is create vapor, but that doesn't automatically make it an 'atomizer'
Which does lead to the initially posed question:

What stops that being an atomiser?

>Especially when it has specifically set itself apart in how it functions
By functioning in precisely the same way: Get hot => disperse into air.

>how it doesn't ever need to be replaced, and how the heat is applied in a much more controlled way (surrounding the sapphire insert with a block of titanium instead of a thin wire wound around a ceramic chamber that creates hot spots all along the wire).
Yes.
You keep on about all that.
You also fail to explain how any of that is relevant to preventing it from being an atomiser.

Which is defined by it's function.

>>108166771
Don't be stupid.
It says "Mic1" so there are at least two microphones in your vape.

>>108182876
Again, we ALREADY agreed they're NOT atomizers, they DON'T atomize, calling them atomizers is NOT accurate and is a marketing term.

And you're arguing with me that NOT calling it an atomizer is "marketing"?

Get fucked you stupid faggot cuck.

>>108182899
>And you're arguing with me that NOT calling it an atomizer is "marketing"?
That's not what I'm saying.

I've a vehicle. It has four wheels. The world collectively identifies this as a car. You have a vehicle. It has four wheels. You're trying to tell me this isn't a car.

So. Explain.

>Get fucked you stupid faggot cuck.
I'm the stupid faggot cuck? You cannot see your faggorty from all the cuckholdery.... And you're too stupid to realise it.

>>108182962
Again, you're now arguing Dr. Dabber HAS to call it an atomizer, despite the fact it functionally DOESN'T atomize anything, and is fundamentally different from almost every other e-rig device on the market. The ONLY similarities are they get hot and create vapor, that's it.

You're arguing THAT similarity ALONE is enough that Dr. Dabber MUST call their heating chamber an "atomizer", again, despite well knowing "atomizer" is an industry marketing term that itself IS NOT accurate to what is going on?

And you seem to think Dr. Dabber NOT calling their FULLY INERT sapphire insert an "atomizer" is marketing?

Your argument makes zero fucking sense and hinges ENTIRELY on you wanting them to call something that ISN'T an atomizer, an atomizer, simply because OTHER companies also use that term incorrectly for marketing reasons?

>>108182962
To help the other anon out and throw you an analogy you might understand, you're basically saying cars have gas tanks, which makes the combustion motor go. Electric cars have batteries which makes the electric motors go. You're trying to say Tesla should call their batteries "gas tanks" because the rest of the industry does.

>>108183029
Don't bother, he's retarded.

>>108182995
>you're now arguing Dr. Dabber HAS to call it an atomizer,
Not what I said. Please provision evidence of this.

While you're failing on that, you can yet again fail to explain why fullfiling the same funciton bia the same methodology isn't an atomiser.

*you* said it isn't. I asked for proof.
You attempted to derail into irrelevant details that don't actually define what is or isn't an atomiser in the hopes that I'd be as simple as you and just accept whatever bullshit I'm told.

I request evidence. You respond with tangents.

>You're arguing THAT similarity ALONE
Yes.
And you're completely failing to provision any tangible evidence that discounts my posit that performing the same function using the same methodolgy makes it the same device.

So - yet again - what stops this from being an atomiser?

>Your argument makes zero fucking sense
Yeah. Where is the sense in logic...

>and hinges ENTIRELY on you wanting
It doesn't hinge on "wanting". Basing descisions on emotions is your department.
My argument is centered purely on the function of the device: What stops that being an atomiser?

>simply because OTHER companies also use that term incorrectly for marketing reasons?
This is your scale of cuckthink. It doesn't apply to everyone.
All I'm "concerned" about is what stops this being an atomiser. As you seem so convinced that it isn't you should be able to tell me.
But instead you can only respond with tangents, irrelevence, and ad-hominem...

So. Yet again.
What stops this being an atomiser?

>>108183029
>You're trying to say Tesla should call their batteries "gas tanks" because the rest of the industry does.
I am?
What precisely gave you that impression?

Would it be:
>>108182962
>I've a vehicle. It has four wheels. The world collectively identifies this as a car. You have a vehicle. It has four wheels. You're trying to tell me this isn't a car.
???

File: >a car.png (337 KB, 800x530)

337 KB PNG

>>108182962
>I've a vehicle. It has four wheels. The world collectively identifies this as a car. You have a vehicle. It has four wheels. You're trying to tell me this isn't a car.

>>108183124
>I've a vehicle. It has four wheels. The world collectively identifies this as a car. You have a vehicle. It has four wheels. You're trying to tell me this isn't a car
No.

It's a gas car (atomizer erig); it has a combustion engine (the resistive wire in the heating chamber) and a gas tank (the ceramic walls of the chamber).

I have an electric car (induction Erig); it has an electric motor (the induction coil and titanium mass) and a battery (the sapphire insert).

Both are vehicles, but they differ fundamentally in several ways. You are welcome to call them both vehicles (vaporizers). But don't insist the electric one HAS to use gasoline because all the other cars do, and it does everything else a normal car does, so it HAS to have gas, right?

You're basically saying how something happens is irrelevant; just the result matters. The physics or egineering don't matter even if they differ drastically.

And again, you're arguing for a term which is NOT technically accurate in the first place, None of these devices "atomize". They vaporize. They both have vapor chambers where they produce vapor (in different, though similar, ways).

Once again, the industry uses the term "atomizer" incorrectly to refer to disposable (even if yours still works, it IS disposable by design), replaceable resistive vaporization chambers. Dr. Dabber is differentiating themselves by making sure the consumer knows their devices does NOT use an 'atomizer' as defined by the industry.

If you really still fail to see the differences here, you might want to see a doctor.

>>108183210
I can explain why that isn't a car.
Now explain why the referenced device isn't an atomiser.

>>108183231
>But don't insist the electric one HAS to use gasoline because all the other cars do, and it does everything else a normal car does, so it HAS to have gas, right?
Please point out where I said they need to all feature gasoline.
And demonstrate how any of that stops it being a car.

>you're arguing for a term which is NOT technically accurate in the first place
I'm aware of the technical shortcomings with the nomenclature.
As are you.
So what stops that from being an atomiser?

> to refer to disposable
Evidence of requirement for atomiser?

>replaceable
Evidence of requirement for atomiser?

>resistive
Evidence of requirement for atomiser?

>their devices does NOT use an 'atomizer' as defined by the industry
So. AGAIN.
What stops this from being an atomiser?

>if you really still fail to see the differences here
It would really help if you actually provisioned a difference, instead of repeating the same things unrelated to the function of an atomiser.

>>108166771
Replace the board with a custom pcb or microcontroller and store the audio data. Nobody will ever suspect.

>>108166871
>You can also harvest perfectly good rechargable lithium ion batteries
These batteries, as well as the ones in many chargeable devices, are usually from gutted laptop batteries.

>>108183438
>store the audio data
Your plan for retrieval?

>>108183440
>are usually from gutted laptop batteries.
Lappies usually 18650's. Most dispo vapes is pouch cells. Much smaller. Much cheaper.

File: ultra_info.png (365 KB, 960x540)

365 KB PNG

>>108166950
>Practical uses? For a low resolution microphone?
You'd be surprised.

>>108183496
sd card or a disassembly-required 1-wire connection. It's a disposable vape.

>>108183440
>gutted laptop batteries.
Laptops use cells designed for capacity not high current, they struggle with a few amps, power tool batteries are better for this application

It's also cheaper to make a custom shit capacity 18650 (by putting in a smaller cell roll) than to recycle, which can be easily tested by measuring the weight of a good quality one and a cheap one found in work lights and such

>>108183383
You demand I prove something, but you refuse to accept the actual definitions of the words we are using.

Let's make this incredibly simple. There are only two accepted definitions for the word 'atomizer' in this conversation.

1. The Scientific Definition
A device that uses mechanical force/pressure to shatter a liquid into an aerosol without a phase change (e.g., a fuel injector or spray bottle).

Does the Switch 2 do this? No. It uses a thermal phase change (boiling liquid into gas). Therefore, scientifically, it is not an atomizer.

2. The Industry Slang Definition
A consumable, replaceable heating chamber that uses resistive electrical wires/coils to generate heat through electrical friction.

Does the Switch 2 do this? No. It uses solid-state magnetic induction on a permanent, non-replaceable titanium mass with zero wires. Therefore, by industry manufacturing standards, it is not an atomizer.

You have openly admitted the nomenclature is technically inaccurate. You have acknowledged the heating methodology is different. Yet you keep asking, 'What stops it from being an atomizer?'

The answer is: It fails to meet both the scientific definition AND the industry slang definition.
The only way the Switch 2 is an 'atomizer' is if we use your personal, made-up definition where Atomizer = literally anything that makes vapor. If you want to invent your own definitions for words, you can win any argument in your head. But in the real world of engineering, it doesn't fit the criteria. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

>>108183623
Get out of here with that logic

>>108166771
Did you know a lot of microwaves have a mic in them to detect the first pop when using the popcorn button?

>>108183545
>You'd be surprised.
Would I?
Do you even know how your picrel differs? >>108183794
>You demand I prove something, but you refuse to accept the actual definitions of the words we are using.
Because none of the words you are using are relevant to the function of an atomiser.
You seem laser focused on features of implimentation failures in competing products more than what actually stops that from being an atomiser.
Beyond the marketing hype you've obviously fallen for to be pushing it this hard in your failure to prove this is not an atomiser.

>1. The Scientific Definition
We've both agreed this isn't actually what's happening in any of the devices on the market.
Multiple times.
In multiples posts.
Your purpose in bringing this up again - logically - is to avoid explaining how this is not an atomiser.

>2. The Industry Slang Definition
AKA what everyone walking around you meet day-to-day refers to as the device in question
The device you claim this isn't yet can offer only reinforcement that this device performs the same function operating under the same principles.

>No. It uses solid-state magnetic induction
Evidence this is required to avoid being an atomiser?

>permanent, non-replaceable titanium mass
Evidence this is required to avoid being an atomiser?

>with zero wires.
Evidence this is required to be an atomiser?

>Therefore, by industry manufacturing standards, it is not an atomizer.
Evidence that any of these unrelated properties are requirements of an atomiser?
As there are apparently industry standards on these things you should have delivered seom RFCs or some whitepapers by now. At least some form of technical documentation that can support your spergings.

>Yet you keep asking, 'What stops it from being an atomizer?'
This could be becuase the device is performing the function of an atomiser. Using the same principles as every other atomiser on the market.

>>108183794

>The answer is: It fails to meet both the scientific definition AND the industry slang definition.
By which you mean it fails to meet *your* definition.

>>108188013
>>108188007
You are demanding formal engineering whitepapers and RFCs to define informal weed industry slang. Read that out loud to yourself so you can hear how ridiculous it sounds.

You keep claiming they operate under the 'same principles.' They don't. Joule heating (running a current through a resistive wire) and Magnetic Induction (using an electromagnetic field to induce eddy currents in a titanium well) are two entirely different principles of physics.

The fact that you don't know the difference between the 'result' (vapor) and the 'principle' (the physics used to get it) is exactly why you're so confused.
I gave you the scientific definition. I gave you the industry manufacturing standard. You rejected both because you desperately want 'atomizer' to mean 'anything that makes vapor' so you don't have to admit you were wrong.

I can't force you to understand basic thermodynamics or electromagnetism, and I am officially done trying. Have a good one.

>>108188198
>to define informal weed industry slang.
No. That's not what I asked for, was it?
I ased for the definitions of an atomiser that you're so adamant that this doesn't conform to.

>Read that out loud to yourself so you can hear how ridiculous it sounds.
I invite you for the same. Whilst you're at it, you cna be sounding out some other things you've been failing with on this subject, like:
- How swapping an electrically resistive hob for an inductive hob stops it being a hob
- how swapping an internal combustion engine for a indictive motor stops it being a car

>are two entirely different principles of physics.
But this precise piece you're focussing on doesn't actually impact the operation of the device in the slightest.
It certainly provisions nothing to stop this from being an atomiser - just like everything else that performs the same role with the same methodology. Get hot => put material into air.

>difference between the 'result' (vapor) and the 'principle' (the physics used to get it)
There's a difference in putting current thru wire until it gets hot and putting current thru wire until it gets hot?
Mayhaps you'll be able to explain this difference?

> gave you the industry manufacturing standard
No. You listed properties you don't like. Properties that no-where has been defined as a requirement of an atomiser.

>I can't force you to understand basic thermodynamics or electromagnetism
Good news. I'm comfortable wtih both, and your explaination shouldn't require either.

>I am officially done trying
Like the rest of your life, eh? Half-ass it until you meet logical impairment, give up and blame everyone else...

>>108188290
> There's a difference in putting current thru wire until it gets hot and putting current thru wire until it gets hot? >Mayhaps you'll be able to explain this difference?
Thank you for finally proving my point. You literally do not know how an induction heater works.
The copper wire in an induction coil does not get hot. It passes an alternating current to create a magnetic field. That magnetic field induces eddy currents inside a completely separate piece of metal (the titanium well), causing that metal to get hot. If the copper coil in the Switch 2 got hot enough to vaporize oil, it would melt the internal electronics.

Resistive Joule heating (an atomizer) = Wire gets hot.
Magnetic Induction (Switch 2) = Wire stays cool, creates magnetic field, magnetic field heats a separate mass.

Yes. There is a massive, fundamental difference in physics.

As for your analogies, you are still confusing the overarching category with the internal component.

Car = Vaporizer.
Combustion Engine = Atomizer.
Electric Motor = Induction well.

You are pointing at an electric car and screaming, 'IT HAS WHEELS, WHY WON'T YOU CALL IT A COMBUSTION ENGINE?!'
You demanded technical differences, and when I gave you the literal laws of electromagnetism, you proved you didn't understand them.

>>108188383
>You literally do not know how an induction heater works.
/me shakes head sadly.

>The copper wire in an induction coil does not get hot
That stops this from being an atomiser, how, precisely?

>It passes an alternating current to create a magnetic field
That stops this being an atomiser, how, precisely?

>That magnetic field induces eddy currents inside a completely separate piece of metal
Hmm. Current throu a wire making it hot. That sounds remarkably famailar.
So how does that stop this being an atomiser, again?

>causing that metal to get hot
And functioning as an atomiser.

>As for your analogies, you are still confusing the overarching category with the internal component.
No.
*YOU* are confusing the internal components with the catagory.
*YOU* are the one maintaining that merely the act of induction stops this being an atomiser, despite multiple and very clear examples of the same principle applying in other fields and not adjsuting what the device actually is.

>You are pointing at an electric car and screaming, 'IT HAS WHEELS, WHY WON'T YOU CALL IT A COMBUSTION ENGINE?!'
Please highlight this. Try to use my actual words, not the shit you just make up as you go along.

>You demanded technical differences, and when I gave you the literal laws of electromagnetism, you proved you didn't understand them.
No.
I proved they do not constitute what makes an atomiser, or more accurtely you consistently failed to prove this is what constitutes an atomiser, and you just keep doubling down on the same retardations...

File: 1763342029603337.png (176 KB, 600x472)

176 KB PNG

This is what Terry spoke about

YOU NEVER SHOULD HAVE TRUSTED HIM

>>108188419
> Hmm. Current throu a wire making it hot. That sounds remarkably famailar.

A solid titanium well is not a wire. Eddy currents swirling inside a solid mass of metal is not 'running current through a wire.' You just proved, again, that you have absolutely no idea what the physical components of this device actually are.

> Please highlight this. Try to use my actual words, not the shit you just make up as you go along.

Gladly. Here are your exact words:
> I've a vehicle. It has four wheels. The world collectively identifies this as a car... You're trying to tell me this isn't a car.

Here is why your own analogy destroys your argument:

Car = Vaporizer.
Gas Engine = Atomizer.
Electric Motor = Induction well.

I never said it wasn't a car (Vaporizer). I said it doesn't have a gas engine (Atomizer) because it uses an electric motor (Induction). You are demanding I call the electric motor a gas engine because 'they both make the car move.'

You asked what stops it from being an atomizer. I answered: It does not use mechanical aerosolization (the scientific definition), nor does it use a consumable resistive heating wire (the wider industry definition). It uses magnetic induction on a solid titanium mass.

If you want to redefine 'atomizer' to mean 'literally anything that makes vapor,' go ahead. But the rest of the tech world uses actual engineering terms to differentiate hardware.

Your entire argument hinges on everyone else accepting YOUR (entirely unsourced and undefined) definition of 'atomizer' while ignoring the actual definition, and the slang terms usage as well. I'm the only one who HAS sourced the scientific definition, and has repeatedly pointed out exactly what the industry DOES call an atomizer, and it ISN'T your made up fantasy definition of 'any surface that gets hot and can create vapor'

>>108188534
>A solid titanium well is not a wire.
This is something obvious. As is the fact that this makes no difference to actuality.
So what other reason do you have to mention this other than to avoid explaining how this device is not an atomiser?

>Eddy currents swirling inside a solid mass of metal is not 'running current through a wire.'
The difference between 'wire' and 'metal' is only the physical dimensions.
Unless you're able to prove that the dimensions involved define what consititutes an atomiser, we'll just add this into the ever growing pile of things you want to bring up in order to avoid explaining what stops this from being an atomiser.

>You just proved, again, that you have absolutely no idea what the physical components of this device actually are.
Despite you very clearly explaining it multiple times over multiple posts?
Not everyone has the same inability to absorb information as you.
You keep explaining the configuration but completely fail to impart any information that can support your claim that this prevents it from being an atomiser.

>Here is why your own analogy destroys your argument:
Procedes to deform my analogy in a desperate attempt to reframe reality...

>You are demanding I call the electric motor a gas engine because 'they both make the car move.'
No.
The device that causes the material to be dispersed into the air is commonly known as an atomiser.
You say this doesn't have one.
I prove you're full of shit.
You attempt to deflect into unrelated tangents.
I prove you're full of shit.
You attempt to deflect into unrelated tangents.
I prove you're full of shit.
You attempt to deflect into unrelated tangents.
I prove you're full of shit.

Spot a pattern?
I mean beyond your consistent failure.

>our entire argument hinges on everyone else accepting YOUR (entirely unsourced and undefined) definition of 'atomizer'
Isn't *my* definition. It's what literally everyone else calls the device.

>>108188593
Argumentum ad Populum fallacy, how quaint.


A wire requires a direct, physical electrical connection to push electrons through it, creating friction (Joule heating).
The Switch 2's titanium well has zero electrical connections. The base projects a magnetic field through space (and glass), which the titanium absorbs to generate heat via eddy currents.


You're really just a smooth brained retard that can't figure out HOW somethings happens can be just as if not more important than the end result.

Yes, both devices get hot and create vapor, that's where the similarities end, the fact you want to die on this atomizer hill, that you yourself have already admitted is just marketing anyway is fucking crazy.

Enjoy pretending 'atomizer' means ANY surface that creates a vapor.

I guess a butter knife heated until red hot and pressed into a chunk of hash is also an 'atomizer' according to you.

>>108188693
>A wire requires a direct, physical electrical connection to push electrons through it, creating friction (Joule heating).
>The Switch 2's titanium well has zero electrical connections. The base projects a magnetic field through space (and glass), which the titanium absorbs to generate heat via eddy currents.
And this stops it being an atomiser, how?

>You're really just a smooth brained retard that can't figure out HOW somethings happens can be just as if not more important than the end result.
That wasn't the argument, now, was it smoothbrain?
The argument was this device performing the same function as the other devices isn't the same device. Something you're consistently failing to back up, and instead desperately floundering with failures to tangent.
How does that stop this device being an atomiser, again?

>Yes, both devices get hot and create vapor, that's where the similarities end
They both perform the same function. By the same method. It's a screwdriver if I'm turning it by hand, by motor, by wind, by waves, by the power of f'kin good intentions - as long as it's turning that screw it's a f'kin screwdriver.

>that you yourself have already admitted is just marketing anyway is fucking crazy.
But you're unable to understand the deviation from the "standard" is pure marketing that you've fallen for?

>Enjoy pretending 'atomizer' means ANY surface that creates a vapor.
It's a pity someone didn't ask you to prove the definition of an atomiser really, or about now you'd have some solid details to slap around instead of vague feels.

>I guess a butter knife heated until red hot and pressed into a chunk of hash is also an 'atomizer' according to you.
Worked back in the day.
But what precisely stops that from being an atomiser?

>>108166871
>the future is repacking electric vehicles with salvaged vape batteries

>>108188745
You just unironically argued that a hot butter knife is an 'atomizer.'

You have officially rendered the word completely meaningless just to protect your ego. By your definition, a frying pan is an atomizer. A soldering iron is an atomizer. A piece of asphalt on a hot summer day is an atomizer.

Your screwdriver analogy is equally embarrassing. A hammer and a screwdriver both join wood together (the same function/result). But if you call a hammer a 'kinetic screwdriver,' you look like a fool.

I gave you the scientific definition (mechanical fluid dispersion without a phase change). I gave you the industry manufacturing standard (consumable resistive coil). You rejected both because you realized you've been using a buzzword incorrectly for years and can't handle the bruised ego.

You literally think silverware is an atomizer. There is nothing left to debate here.

>>108166771
A chink is listening to you sucking on this thing and masturbating. I'm pretty sure your vape connects straight to starlink and if it doesn't have a clear sky it finds the nearest wifi (it has every password for every wifi access point in existence). If all fails they'll try connecting through their chinese 5G cellular equipment.

Basically, you're fucked.

>>108166919
Attach to a 6V solar panel with a 3.7V charge controller and automate a watering system using an ESP8266 (32 if you need bluetooth) to keep your plants topped up during the hot summers

>>108188783
>You just unironically argued that a hot butter knife is an 'atomizer.'
It's performing that function?
In what way is it *not* an atomiser?

>just to protect your ego
Not everyone suffers from your deficencies.
I'm purely centric on the fact you're trying to tell me this device isn't what it is.

>Your screwdriver analogy is equally embarrassing
Not so at all. Regardless of the method used to provide rotation, it's still a screwdriver.
Regardless of the method (which, is still the same method in this case) used to disperse the material, it's still an atomiser.

>But if you call a hammer a 'kinetic screwdriver,' you look like a fool.
You call it a hammer. Because everyone else calls it a hammer.
When someone adjusts the material and disconnects the action then claims this isn't a hammer, you point at them and laugh.

>I gave you the scientific definition (mechanical fluid dispersion without a phase change).
Which as we'd both previously agreed mulitple times isn't actually the principle involved, simply stacks into the very large pile of shit you've dragged up in order to avoid explaining what stops this device being an atomiser..

>I gave you the industry manufacturing standard (consumable resistive coil).
You said it.
You completely failed to provision any evidence that resistive coil or consumable is a defined standard. As opposed to an implimentation fail.

>You rejected both because you realized you've been using a buzzword incorrectly for years and can't handle the bruised ego.
No.
I rejected both because the first you only introduce to avoid explaining what stops this being an atomiser, and the latter because it doesn't contain any information that prevents this from being an atomiser.

>There is nothing left to debate here.
Except the consistent failure of what stops this device being an atomiser.

>>108188830
>You call it a hammer. Because everyone else calls it a hammer.
>When someone adjusts the material and disconnects the action then claims this isn't a hammer, you point at them and laugh.

My guy...
you just described yourself. Everyone else calls a piece of heated silverware a "knife" or a "hot piece of metal." You're the one pointing at it and screaming, "IT'S AN ATOMIZER!" while everyone else points and laughs at you. You tried to rely on the "everyone else says so" argument, but completely ignored that nobody on planet Earth calls a hot butter knife an atomizer.


I genuinely think you should seek mental help, you need it.

>>108188861
>I genuinely think you should seek mental help, you need it.
I accept your repeated and abject failure in explaining how this device isn't an atomiser.

>>108188878
Your entire reasoning for why it IS an atomizer is nonsensical and not rooted in reality, so I don't see why I should "prove" otherwise beyond what i've already posted.

It's not my fault you're too retarded, or stubborn to change your opinion when it's clearly wrong.


I would equally challenge you to prove it IS an atomizer. So far it's just your retarded non-definition that ANY surface that can vaporize matter is magically an atomizer despite no scientific or dictionary definition for that usage of the word existing.

>>108188890
>so I don't see why I should "prove" otherwise
Possibly because you was the one claiming that it isn't?

>It's not my fault you're too retarded, or stubborn to change your opinion when it's clearly wrong.
But is it "clearly wrong"?
What *EVIDENCE* have you supplied that any of the properties you keep returning to are properties of an atomiser? As opposed to your feels...

>I would equally challenge you to prove it IS an atomizer.
That's easy. You do that for me, each time you load it up n has a go.

So what precisely stops that being an atomiser?
I mean apart from marketing bullshittery and your gulliability?

>>108188915
So lets boil it down, you're now arguing
> any device you use to make vapor is an atomizer
and as such
> proof that it is an atomizer is the fact that you are using it to make vapor.

With that kind of circular logic you can argue literally anything.

If you honestly got this far and still think you're arguing logically and from a place of ACTUAL knowledge/experience/reasoning, there is no help for you.

File: 1755173417068868.webm (2.71 MB, 728x672)

2.71 MB WEBM

>>108188915
So by your logic, ALL dab surfaces are "atomizers"?

This webM for example is an example of a $400+ full quartz "atomizer" in your mind?

>>108188945
>With that kind of circular logic you can argue literally anything.
I accept your repeated failure in explaining how this device is not an atomiser.

>>108189035
>So by your logic, ALL dab surfaces are "atomizers"?
and what *EVIDENCE* do you offer for the opposite?
As that's the crux of this matter. Some dipshit trying to say something isn't, then completely failing to back up their posit with any tangible evidence - but they seem real adept at attempting to displace into other directions...

>>108189115
By your logic, if I hold a piece of dry ice in my bare hand, the heat from my skin causes the dry ice to sublimate into a gas and creates a thick vapor cloud.

Because my skin is a surface that transferred energy to create a vapor, is my hand an atomizer?

You already admitted a piece of silverware is an atomizer by the same principle.

Your definition for "atomizer" is so hilariously broad that you could say almost anything was an atomizer.

>>108189115
>and what *EVIDENCE* do you offer for the opposite?
Why would I need to prove an inert piece of quartz isn't an atomizer?

It clearly isn't an atomizer, it has no electrical/mechanical/chemical action, it is purely a piece of quartz.


I can't find any definition for "atomizer" that would include a bare piece of quartz.

Hey /g/, I've never smoked cigarettes or taken any nicotine products but I want to get started. Does anyone know a good starter cigarette?

>>108189166
>>108189115
Yeah if you take his logic to the logical end point, everything is an atomizer.

Hot sidewalk after rain? Atomizer since water vapor is being created from the surface.

Flowing Lava? Atomizer since anything the lava flow touches is vaporized.

The entire planet is an atomizer since it's constantly creating vapor of various types.

>>108166771
>sucking robot dick
kwab

>>108189166
>is my hand an atomizer?
What evidence are you able to provision that this isn't?

>Your definition for "atomizer" is so hilariously broad that you could say almost anything was an atomizer.
And your definition is so laughably self-disproving it ceases to actually be funny.
As you desperately try to displace into other directions to avoid explaining what stops this being an atomiser.

>I can't find any definition for "atomizer" that would include a bare piece of quartz.
Could it be - just possibly - because that has absolutely nothing to do with what constitutes an atomiser?

>>108189326
>Yeah if you take his logic to the logical end point, everything is an atomizer.
If you're that determined to be a retard about it, sure, you can stretch it that far.
I note you still fail to provision any actual evidence to support the claims this isn't an atomiser.

>>108189401
You've made the definition for "atomizer" so broad that it has lost all meaning.

We already agree, atomizers do not atomize. Calling them "atomizers" is a misnomer that you seem to think HAS to be observed, despite knowing it's factually incorrect, all because the wider industry has adopted the term, despite it NOT being at all related to what the ACTUAL definition of the word means.

Because this term is being used incorrectly by the wider industry, with no formal definition, anyone could call anything an atomizer.

You're saying BECAUSE these companies use this word incorrectly, ALL companies HAVE to use the same term incorrectly, and if they don't it's purely for marketing reasons, not functional/physical reasons.


And again, you're now arguing that HUMAN SKIN and the SIDEWALK OUTSIDE YOUR HOUSE are "atomizers" because it's possible to make vapor from the surface...


I urge you not to blow your brains out when you finally kill yourself, we need someone to study that thing you call a brain.

>>108189444
Here's the thing. You said a "jackdaw is a crow." Is it in the same family? Yes. No one's arguing that. As someone who is a scientist who studies crows, I am telling you, specifically, in science, no one calls jackdaws crows. If you want to be "specific" like you said, then you shouldn't either. They're not the same thing. If you're saying "crow family" you're referring to the taxonomic grouping of Corvidae, which includes things from nutcrackers to blue jays to ravens. So your reasoning for calling a jackdaw a crow is because random people "call the black ones crows?" Let's get grackles and blackbirds in there, then, too. Also, calling someone a human or an ape? It's not one or the other, that's not how taxonomy works. They're both. A jackdaw is a jackdaw and a member of the crow family. But that's not what you said. You said a jackdaw is a crow, which is not true unless you're okay with calling all members of the crow family crows, which means you'd call blue jays, ravens, and other birds crows, too. Which you said you don't. It's okay to just admit you're wrong, you know?

>>108189463
The Overarching Family (Corvidae) = Vaporizers: Just like crows, ravens, and blue jays all belong to the broader Corvidae family, atomizers and induction wells all belong to the broader category of Vaporizers.
The Specific Species (Crow) = Atomizers: He is insisting that because a jackdaw (the Switch 2) is in the same family and looks similar, it MUST be called a crow (an atomizer).


> So your reasoning for calling a jackdaw a crow is because random people "call the black ones crows?"
Seemingly he calls a jackdaw (the Switch 2) a crow (an Atomizer) because random people (the industry) "call the vape ones atomizers"

>>108167058
>trying to guess the flow rate from the sound it makes
microphones are pressure sensors, m8. it's not some hacky work around, it's literally the same shit

>>108189444
>You've made the definition for "atomizer" so broad that it has lost all meaning.
I'm not responsible for it's common use at all.

> Calling them "atomizers" is a misnomer
I agree.
But however, everybody already calls it a 'car'. Calling it an 'automobile' or trying to pretend it's not a car to suit some companies profit seeking agenda is simply retarded.

>Because this term is being used incorrectly by the wider industry, with no formal definition, anyone could call anything an atomizer.
But you can't call everything with four wheels a car, now, can you?
You seem convinced this device is not an atomiser. I've *REPEATEDLY* requested information on what would stop this being an atomiser. You can only offer disconnected and unrelated informaiton in your floundering.

>and if they don't it's purely for marketing reasons
Like the Dr Dab Switch 2 that - purely for marketing purposes - claims that it doesn't have an atomiser...
Glad you can admit that even if it is in a roundabout fashion.

>>108189578
>it's not some hacky work around
Except that it is. As flow rate and the sound of the flow rate are two seperate - albeit related - things.
I've occured information that suggests this is actually a flow rate sensor, and not a microphone... If it was 'just a microphone' then plausibly it'll be possible to trigger with a vibration of the 'correct' frequency applied??

>>108189656
>You seem convinced this device is not an atomiser. I've *REPEATEDLY* requested information on what would stop this being an atomiser. You can only offer disconnected and unrelated informaiton in your floundering.
Again, you're asking me to PROVE something that HAS no ACTUAL established definition IS or ISN'T that thing, with no definition...?

>>108189656
>If it was 'just a microphone' then plausibly it'll be possible to trigger with a vibration of the 'correct' frequency applied??
not him, but using a microphone to detect a drop in pressure in an enclosed environment would only necessitate detecting a DC offset, not any particular frequency. while microphones are usually intended to detect AC frequencies, there's nothing stopping someone from using them to detect DC static pressure changes instead

>>108189656
Walk into a smoke shop and ask for a 20mm quartz bucket "atomizer" and they'll call you a fucking retard, because they're not atomizers, aren't sold/advertised/marketed as atomizers, and will never be atomizers.

>>108189694
>Again, you're asking me to PROVE something that HAS no ACTUAL established definition IS or ISN'T that thing, with no definition...?
As you're the one so convinced that it isn't. Yeah. You *should* be the one to tell me why it isn't.

>>108189732
>aren't sold/advertised/marketed as atomizers
So the measure of what something *IS* would be advertising, sales, or marketing?
That's what you're trying to tell me?

>>108189752
That's your entire argument for why it SHOULD be called an atomizer, is because it's marketed that way and "everyone" uses the word for that now.

Bangers have been called bangers for well over a decade, and "everyone" calls them that, it's a well understood item with an established name and it distinctly isn't at all like "atomizers" that you're describing.

And you're arguing it IS an atomizer simply because it can also create vapor.

>>108188808
It's kind of crazy that every day thousands of these capable devices just get thrown into the trash.

Seeing formal and articulate academic debate while thinking about the DUDE WEED stereotype is funny. Some weed heads really be about their knowledge.

>>108189830
>That's your entire argument for why it SHOULD be called an atomizer,
No.
My entire argument is why *SHOULDN'T* I call that at atmomiser, as that is what this device is called everywhere else.
So far you've entirely failed to provision any tangible reason to support your stance.

>is because it's marketed that way
There's plenty of devices whos name does not ascribe the function. None of that is my doing. Attempting to call it anything but whatever the existing nomenclature is, is unlikely to be productive.

>and "everyone" uses the word for that now.
So provision evidence that this device does not fit that description.
Oh. That's right. You fell for the marketing and are floundering with backing up the very simple premise.

>Bangers have been called bangers for well over a decade, and "everyone" calls them that,
When you put one into a product, then try to tell me that isn't a banger - then you'll apples:apples with that analogy.

> it's a well understood item with an established name
But you thought you'd call it something else anyawy?

>And you're arguing it IS an atomizer simply because it can also create vapor.
Provision evidence that contradicts.

>>108189901
You're just sealioning; you're either genuinely retarded, or just like arguing.

You're using marketing bullshit terminology to justify your OWN argument, while also using it as a way to invalidate my own argument. You're not even logically consistent within the same post, let alone the entire thread.

The ONLY ONE ham-fisting "atomizer" to mean ANY AND EVERY surface that could EVER CONCEIVABLY produce a vapor is you.

The industry itself (which again, you're using to justify calling it an 'atomizer') uses the term almost exclusively to refer to resistive heating chambers that are designed to be replaceable.
That's simply a fact. You're taking what that device DOES (vaporize) and telling me ANYTHING that has the same function (vaporization) is ALSO an atomizer.

Again, if you walked into a store and tried to buy a banger by asking for an "atomizer" they'd look at you like you're a fucking moron, because you are one.


So once again, the term ITSELF is wrong and being used incorrectly by the industry, but even WITHIN that wrong incorrect usage, the industry does not call quartz bangers "atomizers", despite the two devices existing within the same industry and sold by the same stores and sales people and both devices are used to create vapor from concentrated THC.

This isn't 1 or 2 brands, this is almost the ENTIRE industry.

You can't use the "well everyone calls it a car so it has to be called a car" argument while also saying "just because everyone calls it a banger doesn't mean it isn't an atomizer"

>>108166871
nice
I'll need to first read up on how to safely handle Li-Ion batteries tho

>>108189977
>You're just sealioning;
You're entitled to that opinion.

>genuinely retarded
that'll be all the needing evidence before believing marketing claims, eh?

>or just like arguing.
I personally see it as highlighting the bullshit people try to peddle in a desperate attempt to make themselves feel special as they try to convince themselves they didn't just overpay for the shiny toy.

>You're using marketing bullshit terminology to justify your OWN argument
But, by your admittance, this product specifically markets this feature?
The feature you're entirely unable to back up.

>while also using it as a way to invalidate my own argument
So far you haven't presented an argument.
You've highlighted operating mechanics that don't actually impact the function.
You've offered vague feels and emotional intterconneciton.

>You're not even logically consistent within the same post, let alone the entire thread.
Please.
Highlight.

>The ONLY ONE ham-fisting "atomizer" to mean ANY AND EVERY surface that could EVER CONCEIVABLY produce a vapor is you.
So you should easily provision evidence that contradicts?
As opposed to two days of bitching and whining that the thing you spent three times what it costs on is special because the marketing said so.

>uses the term almost exclusively to refer to resistive heating chambers that are designed to be replaceable.
Is that a consequence of almost exclusively the market products *are* resistive heating chambers
OR
is that a consequence of atomisers can only be resistive heating chambers?
That isn't a rhetorical question. But we can add that to the stack of them that you just keep on avoiding.

>So once again, the term ITSELF is wrong
I'm not the one you need to take that up with. I fully agree with that point.
None of that changes the fact that this is what they are commonly called.

>>108189977
>"well everyone calls it a car so it has to be called a car"
But that isn't what I said at all, is it smoothbrain?
If you want someone else to accept that isn't a car you need to be provisioning *REASONS* why that isn't a car.
Pointing at the motor and saying: look, it's induction not combustion
Doesn't quite do the trick...

>>108190035
Bucket of sand and good airflow....

>>108190051
It does to anyone not as mentally challenged as yourself.

This isn't even a debate in niche vape communities online; this is just you, being absurd.

>>108190110
>It does to anyone not as mentally challenged as yourself.
Explaining why the induction motored vehicles are called 'cars' as much as the combustion motored vehicles...

>this is just you, being absurd.
Explaining all the evidence you're bringing to bear that supports your marketing-prompted claims...

I note yet another post where you completely fail to define what stops this from being an atomiser...

>>108190147
Again, they're called "vaporizers", your analogy is shit and it doesn't hold up.


The way the car (vaporizer) is powered (heated) is what we're debating.

You're saying ANY vaporizer heating element is an "atomizer" because that's what a LARGE number of a SPECIFIC type of heating chamber is called.

And you you think ALL heating chambers, REGARDLESS of how they function HAVE to use that same INCORRECT term.

Just fucking give it up, you're only looking more and more retarded with every post. This has been explained to you from every single possible angle, and you still act like this is some esoteric concept you can't comprehend.

>>108181642
You are legitimately beyond saving braindead. Actual fucking retard.

>>108190167
So are you.

Atomization is a physical process

These devices induce a phase change via heat alone to create a gas, that gas then CONDENSES into a vapor. That process is NOT atomization. The result of both processes is a vapor, but they're physically different processes.

>>108166771
last weeks reddit repost

File: file.png (1021 KB, 800x800)

1021 KB PNG

everyone iTT is retarded.

>>108190165
>your analogy is shit and it doesn't hold up.
So you'll be able to explain this, without attempting to twist it into unrelated concepts?

>Again, they're called "vaporizers"
Actually that tends to refer to the entire device, with 'atomiser' being the common terminology for the reaction chamber

>The way the car (vaporizer) is powered (heated) is what we're debating.
As evidenced by the multiple references to the power source not actually adjusting what the device *IS*?

>And you you think ALL heating chambers, REGARDLESS of how they function HAVE to use that same INCORRECT term.
Demonstrate otherwise. If, as you claim, this is not the case then evidence should be abound. Reaction chambers and heating are well researched things.

>you're only looking more and more retarded with every post
*YOU* are looking more and more retarded every post.
Every time you fail to explain what stops this being an atomiser, you look more retarded.
But what *really* makes you look retarded is the multiple attempts to reframe reality in your floundering.

>>108190283
....anon you're using a car as your example for your analogy, that IS the "entire device".

So yes, Car = Vaporizer.

>>108190301
I note further failure to define what prevents this from being an atomiser...

Whilst referencing the analogy that proves the power source doesn't adjust what it is. Like a retard.

>>108190373
Anon, if the car = vaporizer, why WOULD I dispute that?

I agree, they're BOTH vaporizers (cars).

However, they differ in how they deliver heat to the material. (in your analogy, how you get power from a fuel to the road)

I'm not disputing that they're both vaporizers, i'm disputing that a resistive coil "atomizer"(combustion engine) and an induction heating well (electric motor) are both the same thing because they're both providing the vapor(motion) in the vaporizer (car).

>>108190406
>'m not disputing that they're both vaporizers
No.
You told me there's no atomiser. That's a very very different thing.

>i'm disputing that a resistive coil "atomizer"(combustion engine) and an induction heating well (electric motor) are both the same thing because they're both providing the vapor(motion) in the vaporizer (car).
And repeatedly failing to define what stops that from being an atomiser.

For days now. Plural.

You've spent days fixating on induction and failing to define what stops this being an atomiser.

Showing you that cars swapping conbustion for induction doesn't stop them being cars seems to make you spaz out and reframe reality repeatedly to imply the device is different whilst provisioning zero evidence.
Highlighting that swapping a resistive hob for an incution hob - almost an apples:apples analogy here - fails to stop that being a hob seems to have straight over your head.
Drawing attention to turning the shaft by hand, or using an electrical motor, or even making the thing turn by the infinite depth of your stupidity in no way detracts from it being a screwdriver.

You can point at an object and I can tell you why that isn't a screwdriver. I can tell you why that isn't a car.

You're still failing to explain how that isn't an atomiser. Days later.

>>108190493
It stops it from being an atomizer beause it DOESN'T atomize, and DOESN'T function the same as other "atomizers".

Just like a Banger DOESN'T atomizer and DOESN'T function the same as other "atomizers" despite also producing vapor.

>>108190555
>It stops it from being an atomizer beause it DOESN'T atomize
No less so than the other resistive devices you're failing to impart any difference to. You know. Those devices collectively referred to as atomisers.

>and DOESN'T function the same as other "atomizers".
So this isn't using heat to create vapor?

>Just like a Banger
But when you try to tell me that isn't a banger, expect me to challenge you on what stops that being a banger.

So. After another post completely failing. What stops this from being an atomiser?

>>108190590
You really just don't seem to understand how different devices, made with different functional principles to accomplish the same task, are in fact different and shouldn't called the same thing

Using heat to create vapor is NOT the definition of “atomization” no matter how many times you want to pretend it is.

>>108190612
>You really just don't seem to understand how different devices, made with different functional principles to accomplish the same task, are in fact different and shouldn't called the same thing
So.
Explain why putting an induction motor into a vehicle should stop this being called "car".
Explain why driving the shaft via a motor instead of turning by hand should stop this being a screwdriver.
Explain why swapping over resistive for induction stops it being a hob.

Bonus points if you can achieve this without sounding insane.

>Using heat to create vapor is NOT the definition of “atomization” no matter how many times you want to pretend it is.
Evidence that I've claimed this is the definition?
I mean outside of your head.

>>108190681
Again, I don't despite it's I car, I despite it's an ICE car.

It's an ELECTRIC car.

Holy shit you REALLY can't even understand your own analogy proves my point after posting it THIS many fucking times.

>>108190706
>Holy shit you REALLY can't even understand your own analogy proves my point after posting it THIS many fucking times.
*YOU* fail to understand your own points.
Which is why you've spent two days failing to explain how this isn't an atomiser.

Fuck analogies. You just told me different functional principles to achieve the same task shouldn't be called the same thing.

So. Explain precisely why putting an induction motor into a vehicle stops this being a car.

Back up your bullshit.

>>108190741
Bumpin' for a fail on that explaination...
(and to prolong the humiliation)