ndb

You're unfortunately in good company, you can at least count me in... As I said, I've practically shelved both 75C mods as TC is not at the expected-from-a-DNA top level. I now use them only to test/experiment and try help with the next firmware iteration providing as much feedback and information as possible. I do really have high hopes for the next iteration of the firmware, as I'm sure everybody at Evolv is doing everything to nail it down.

Nope. No new version that I'm aware of as of today

On my side, I instead did a test with a higher TCR material, TEMCO Titanium 1, but with the same 26g as the SS316L I was using before, and in the same K5 atomizer. More specifically, the coil is a 3mm ID, 8 wraps, 26AWG Titatanium1, which steam-engine predicts @0.368 and that dna200 and dna75 report respectively 0.372, 0.374. Therion 75C reads as 0.356, Vapedroid X1C2 reads as 0.349. (both mods with internal resistance configured, and case analyzed: vapedroid by manifacturer, therion by me) I unfortunately can't remember the reported room temperature of such readings, but it always seemed somewhat higher than expected. Of course if I vape straight off those baselines I get a weaker vape, and if I manually correct the cold res value, than it's pulsiness galore... Also, I didn't investigate too much as I was already getting nic-buzzed, but it seems like with titanium, setting the 0.0625 COB doesn't have such a dramatic positive effect and pulsiness seems to just reduce a bit, but not disappear. But, again, take this with a grain of salt as I couldn't keep testing it for too long. I'll see if I have some more time later and test further, possibly reporting some screenshots...

That's great news. I'm looking at this thread several times a day since my last post on June 20th, hoping to see something new popping up. Sadly I've had to shelve both my therion and vapedroid 75C at the moment since Temperature Controls is simply not there. Tried 3 different atomizers (Kayfun 5, Kayfun 3 mini, Squape X) with 3 different SS builds and none of them performs on the 75C in an even remotely comparable way to the 200 (evolv reference, vaporshark) and/or the straight 75 (smy 75, hcigar nano). It's either a weak vape at my usual settings (~18W, ~400F) or it is badly pulsing (unless I first program that X=0.0625 COB parameter, but that is lost after some idle time). I do really hope a new FW will make the 75C the board it is expected to be, and that I love for all its features. Well, that would be more than awesome! I'm counting the days I can get rid of this "for-escribe-only" windows VM And now I'm going to wear-out my "refresh page" shortcut. Let the wait begin...

@James, yes you're right. I didn't notice it but the steady state power for COB=0.025 is about 10W, while for COB=0.0625 is about 15W. Both puffs were taken with power set to 16W, TEMP=400F, pre-heat 32W 395F. I tried with COB=0.04 and I got this COB=0.04 The "first" steady power is ~15W (as you can see from the cursor), while the "second" one is again down to ~10W. Tried also with COB=0.05, got a first puff still pulsy, then the following ones were pretty much like COB=0.0625 (with steady power ~15W), but it felt like it was less repeatable and on the verge of pulsiness... As a side note: while on COB=0.0625, for a couple of time I got immediate "temp protection" when trying to fire. Then at the 3rd or 4th attempt it started firing again.

Hi @James, sorry for the late reply but I've been again on the move and couldn't access Escribe until today. Whatever this setting is doing, it works! I just got a bit confused initially because it seemed like it worked just "for a while", then I realized that after a while (maybe when the device locks/unlocks or when I reconnect to Escribe?), the setting reverts to 0.025, as confirmed by X=GET COB. I couldn't really nail down exactly when/why, but I then started to always setting it back to 0.0625 before testing and then I got repeatable results. For comparison, here are two consecutive puffs, the first with 0.025 and the second one with 0.0625: COB=0.025 COB=0.0625 I hope this is what you expected and gives you all you need to maybe prepare another service pack which makes this a permanent setting? Eagerly waiting for your feedback, thanks again.

@James I don't know enough to follow your reasoning, but here's the screenshot of the puff#1774 once I downloaded it in Escribe. I've put a pair of peak/valley cursor for you to see the TEMP/POWER levels

@James I did some testing with the last cold values (.08253@83F). I did a series of puffs, approximately 3 seconds each, every 5-10 seconds, giving the "X=READ DEBUG" command after each. The vape parameters where: COIL: SS316L, Steam-Engine profile TEMP: 380F POWER: 17W PREHEAT: 35W, 365F I then saved the log of the terminal session and annotated each result with the classification of the puff it refers to: REGULAR for a good stable puff for the entire puff duration PULSING (PARTIAL) for a puff that pulsed at the beginning of the puff and then stabilized PULSING (FULL) for a puff that kept pulsing for the entire duration Below is the annotated log, and after that, the screenshot taken on the device for the last puff which was the worst in terms of pulsing. (I'm not attaching the screenshots for the other partial as these images are quite heavy and I've no reliable internet connection at the moment, but if you want to see some of them just let me know and I'll upload them too. You can just picture them has being the same as the attached one, with just the power square wave lasting for about just 1/3rd of the puff). Here we go: ANNOTATED TERMINAL LOG: X=READ DEBUG X=-0.050 REGULAR X=READ DEBUG X=-0.097 REGULAR X=READ DEBUG X=-0.101 REGULAR X=READ DEBUG X=-0.096 REGULAR X=READ DEBUG X=-0.098 REGULAR X=READ DEBUG X=-0.129 PULSING #1 (FULL) X=READ DEBUG X=-0.098 REGULAR X=READ DEBUG X=-0.021 REGULAR X=READ DEBUG X=-0.096 REGULAR X=READ DEBUG X=-0.122 PULSING #2 (PARTIAL) X=READ DEBUG X=-0.096 REGULAR X=READ DEBUG X=-0.092 PULSING #3 (PARTIAL) X=READ DEBUG X=-0.100 PULSING #4 (PARTIAL) X=READ DEBUG X=-0.096 REGULAR X=READ DEBUG X=-0.166 REGULAR X=READ DEBUG X=-0.121 REGULAR X=READ DEBUG X=-0.122 PULSING #5 (PARTIAL) X=READ DEBUG X=-0.080 REGULAR X=READ DEBUG X=-0.126 PULSING #6 (PARTIAL) X=READ DEBUG X=-0.224 PULSING #7 (FULL) ON-MOD DEVICE MONITOR SCREENSHOT FOR "PULSING #7 (FULL)" PUFF: Hope this will be of some use...

@James, Following up on my previous post: after another ~3 hours of resting, I re-sampled the resistance and this time I got a 0.8253@83F which seemed ok both in terms of resistance and room temperature, and indeed with that baseline everything is working well. I think I can confirm the beta is definitively working better, I have 2/3 samplings that led to good performance, I'm just unsure if there's still something that might have caused that mis-reading, and if/how that might be related to pulsing. If you think the thermals obtained with the current version of escribe might be worse than the default ones, I can restore them and see if makes any difference. I would be happy to hear what you think. Oh, and did I mention that I'd like to understand what's the story with the dry coil / cotton-burn test?

Ok, here's a first feedback after trying this beta on my therion, with the same K5, same SS316L coil with a "nominal" value of around 0.83ohm when put on all non 75C dnas: The coil was measured as 0.8299, with a cold temp of 93F (which is a bit higher than normal, as I at the time the room temp was around 83F). Vape was almost exactly as it was on the evolv reference DNA200 I was used to (vaping at 400F, 17W with a 35W preheat to 380F), of course after restoring the SS316L profile from Steam-Engine (i.e. the one that corresponds to a TCR ~= 84e-5). Maybe it was even a bit hotter than usual, but definitively a "normal" vape Then I left the mod rest for about 2.5 hrs and resampled the coil. This time I got a 0.817 ohm @83F, i.e. the room temperature is much more realistic, but cold res dropped quite a bit, and I don't think the difference of 0.8299-0.817=0.0129 can be justified by the lower room temperature (-10F with regard to the first reading) since with that TCR=0.84e-5 a 0.0129 resistance jump should correspond roughly to ~ 33F. The weird thing is that with this current sampling of 0.817@83F , the vape is not just weaker (I have to up the temp to ~420F to get the same vape as before, no surprise here), but if I remain with a 400F temperature, I get a clearly perceivable pulsing, which can be clearly seen in the screenshot from the device monitor on the device: While the same puff on escribe's device monitor doesn't show all that pulsiness: That's just maybe a lower sampling rate in escribe's device monitor? Nonetheless, staying with a set temp of 400F causes pulsiness at almost every puff, and I suspect it will persist until I resample the resistance and get back a value more in the 0.83 range... @James, for your reference, keep in mind I've restricted the min ambient temp in escribe to 60F (max is still at 110F), I restored the mod resistance to be 0.004 (as it was originally and as I was able to measure with the copper plug) and that the 316L profile I've used is the csv from SE and not the one that comes with escribe. Oh, and I'm also using the thermals I got from case analyzer on the therion which pretty much corresponds to the ones found by @Jasonvillamil A final note: I still can't seem to be able to do a reliable cotton burn test: I was curious to have a feeling for the real temps after applying this beta FW, but I cannot evidently mark cotton even at ~600F, power seems just to be shut off in a totally dry condition.

Double post

Thanks @James , really appreciate your efforts. I'll be able to test the beta tomorrow and report back as soon as I have a meaningful feedback.

Hi @James, really glad to see your reading this. ;-) Yes, I first reset mod resistance to 0 (therion came with a 0.004 preset), the copper-plugged the mod and indeed could see a 0.004 in atomizer analyzer. Then, assuming you're using some sort of PID control, to avoid problems with the res becoming negative, I applied a safety reduction factor and set mod resistance to 0,0032, which left atomizer analyzer showing a 0.001, but didn't actually made any improvement to mod performance. And yes, showing again raw resistance (i.e. Not compensated) would be useful. Yes, it's fairly stable hovering around 0.800-0.802. While you're here: can you confirm that something changed and a now with a totally dry condition the firmware shuts power down? I can't seem to be able to evidently singe cotton while trying cotton burn tests.. I'm currently not at home, but tomorrow I can perform any test that you might need to gather further information. Thanks

Exactly my concern too Yes, definitively reading cold ohms too low, even after fixing the thermal properties of the meod. That seems to only have fixed the room temperature sensing and yes, it'll probably show the same behavior with other wires as well, although I haven't tried anything else than 316L That's why I'm trying in all ways to get some attention about this issues, hoping Evolv will eventually come back with some explanation/fix. I'm unfortunately not really succeeding for now, gladly welcoming anyone else that might want to voice up...

^^^ This! 1K times! I love this board for its customizability. I want to love it for its accuracy too, as I've always loved previous DNAs. Having to go through hoops and tricks as if it was a 20$ chinese board makes absolutely no sense. I do really hope someone from Evolv gives us some feedback and takes an official position about this. The difference btw 316 and 316L is so negligible with regards to TCR/TFR (just look at the data points of the 2 csvs on steam engine or in Escribe, and you'll see that at all temperatures the resistance factors are pretty much the same) that I'm quite sure you can just take the "workaround" csv from Daniel and use it as it is with 316 too. Let us know how do you find the vape with it

While waiting for some feedback from anybody who might shed some light onto this, a quick follow up with a couple of other findings: Daniel (DJLSB) published a dedicated csv for 316L on the 75C on his website saying it would make temperatures match with previous DNAs. I tried it and it indeed makes the vape quality much more similar to what I was used to. Looking at the csv, it seems to be generated by a TCR value (there are only 68F and 800F data points) and given that @800F the resistance factor is ~1,407, this roughly corresponds to a TCR=100 (I'm not considering the 1e-5 multiplier). The original SS316L has a resistance factor of 1,337 @800F, which roughly corresponds to a TCR=83 (again leaving out the 1e-5 multiplier) So, this workaround restores, so to say, normal TC behavior (with SS316) with an increase of around (100-83)/83*100 = 20% in TCR. I honestly don't know what this means in the end, I'm just spitting out some results hoping this might make some bell ring...

I finally had a chance of running case analyzer on my therion 75C. It was with a starting room temp of around 76F, I have no A/C but run it after dinner, so there shouldn't have been any significant increase in room temp during the measurement. My number are pretty much in line with what @Jasonvillamil found: Case Cooling Time Constant: 163.33 s Case Heating Time Constant: 309.16 s Case Static Temp Rise: 12.01 degF Case USB Connect Temp Rise: 0 degF Case USB Charge Temp Rise: 25.1 degF/Amp After uploading those values and letting the mod cool down for almost an hour, I could verify that the room temperature measured by the mod is now much closer to reality, but unfortunately I think there's something more substantial with the 75C with regards to Temperature Control, confirmed by some tests that I did on another 75C mod that I got in the meantime, the VapeDroid X1C2 (which fortunately comes with all thermal properties already set by the modder). So I'm quite confident I can say what I've found does not seem to be mod related Cold ohms is still definitively always lower than expected. I have tried the same K5 atomizer, with a 316L coil, and I get (note: all mods have the proper internal res configured in escribe after measuring with a copper plug) 1) vaporshark dna200: 0.837 2) evolv reference mod: 0.83 3) hcigar vt75nano: 0.839 4) smy dna75: 0.833 5) Therion 75C: 0.809 6) VapeDroid X1C2 (75C): 0.805 This, of course, leads to a weak vape unless I crank the temperature up from the usual 390/400F that I normally vape, up to 460/470F. Phil Busardo and Daniel DJLSB have both just released reviews about 75C mods and they both reported exactly the same impression: "You must run TC with higher temperatures than usual". Now, I could accept the fact that we've always been wrong before, i.e. the 75C is more accurate and all previous DNAs were a bit off in TC, but I performed both a cotton-burn and water test on the therion and the VapeDriod, with the same K5 atomizer and same wire profiles (once with evolv stock 316L, and once with the slightly different TFR you can get from steam-engine) and here's what I consistently found: A) Cotton burn test: cotton just very slightly singed starting from 460F (on all other DNAs this happens since 410F) B) Water test: fully water-saturated wick, live temperature hovers around 240-270F (on all other DNAs temperature hovers around 210-225F) So I'm now a bit confused, and I say it again: there's something weird with TC on the 75C. It is definitively neither a sensation nor a mod-specific issue (I now have two completely different 75C mods and they do the same thing, and two reviewers have given almost the same exact initial feedback). My concern is that I've always trusted evolv boards as the only ones where you could treat the set temperature value not just as a number, but something you could rely upon as a reference if you wanted to stay away from dangerous temperatures. More so now that some studies (to which evolv itself contributed with research) are coming out with warnings about potential nasties being released in relation with certain temperature ranges. I want to keep trusting evolv to keep my vape as safe as possible, so I would really like to hear some official statement about the current status of Temperature Control on the 75C.

Thanks James, as soon as I get back home tomorrow I'll try it

Well, to be honest, this is something I've always been questioning myself about. On one side I perfectly agree with you and can see the physical reasoning behind that, on the other hand, for the same "affects thermal properties of the whole unit" argument, I've lately been thinking that it would make "case-analyzing" become a "case+that-particular-atomizer-analyzing". IOW: The thermal profile would be detected for that particular combination and not for the mod itself, which means there will be some mismatch going on when using a different atomizer. By the same token though, you could certainly say that a profile obtained for the mod alone would mismatch with any atomizer... Now, what is better? 1) A thermal profile obtained with a specific atomizer being used with other atomizers OR 2) A "mod-only" thermal profile used with any atomizer I don't really know, this is something I'd really like to hear some evolv folks' input about. Does anybody want to chime in?

Yes, please! I'm sick of buying mods which use the best chip on the planet, but don't do all they could to leverage it at its best. You gave the tools to makers, but they are apparently too lazy and this falls on customers. If you can you should try to shield customers from their laziness and provide accurate thermal profiles whenever possible. OK. I'm currently on the move with no access to escribe (yes, I'm one of those with the Mac, and can't bother keeping a Windows VM on my laptop... But that's another story...). I'll hopefully be at home in a couple of days and will run the case analyzer on the Therion 75C and post results here. Only thing is that I don't have a super-thermally-stable environment: my PC is in a non-AC and not-too-big room, so I take the occasion to ask for some suggestions. This is how I usually perform case analysis: 1) ensure batteries are at around 50% charge 2) remove atomizer 3) put the mod on a book or piece of wood 4) keep it in the middle of the desk as far as possible from the monitor and the PC Any other particular suggestion to improve the accuracy of the process?

Eheh, I'm a software developer myself, I "genetically" try to reduce-chaos-to-patterns when I see weird things ;-) Looking forward to SP3 then... Oh, I didn't even notice that. Could it be because I changed Help->Units to "English" (to have temps in profile shown in F insted of C) as you suggested in this post?

And exactly the same happens here, on a therion 75C as well. I always have to manually fix-up the cold ohm reading to the value I get from my other DNAs (200 and 75), my SS316L is sampled at around .72 on those, but always less than .71 on the 75C. But as I've reported in another thread, I can see the measured room temperature is around 10F off. I have not tried to run case analyzer to see if that fixes the miscalculation of room temperature and hence fixes the low-ohm reading as a consequence. I'll try as soon as I can get a 3 hours time slot...

Ok, so that's what I expected it to be. Mmmm. Ok, I think I get it. And actually I think the theme on the VapeDroid X1C2 which I've just received does indeed use that Now the plot thickens... Because, as I said I just received a new 75C mod, the VapeDroid X1C2 and I immediately (as in "I didn't change/customize anything") went to escribe to check how it was doing the re-reading, without touching anything, but with a different atomizer (a K5 now, my previous attempts on the therion were with a merlin). Well this sounds crazy, but I think I've found a pattern: all odd-numbered profiles (1,3,5,7) work as expected, all even-numbered profiles (2,4,6) don't update neither the ohms nor the temperature when I click on "Measure Ohms". Regardless of the profile odd/even-ness, atomizer analyzer correctly samples the ohm value. Please have a look at this screenshot for profile 3 (a "working" one), where the values for Ohms and temperature have just been updated after clicking on "Measure ohms" and the corresponding analyzer window opened right after that: This is the same thing, but on an even-numbered profile (number 2): Of course you have to trust me that I pressed "Measure Ohms" in both cases... I'm completely lost. Tonight when I get back home I'll try the same with the therion to see if the odd/even thing is really a repeatable pattern... Any idea in the meantime? Thanks in advance...

Ok, here I am with another one... Same Escribe 2.0, latest SP2, same lost-vape therion 75C. I'm experiencing an apparently weird behavior with the re-reading of atomizer resistance (see attached screenshot for what part of the interface I'm referring to): If I press the button I can see the resistance being updated (which I suppose is the expected behavior, since we're re-reading it) BUT ONLY ON CERTAIN PROFILES. I'll try to explain: I have 8 different profiles, with 1 for power and the other 7 for different pre-heat setups all of which for TC, with the same temperature-dominant setting and material (SS316L, csv loaded from Steam-Engine). In my particular case, re-reading only seems to update the resistance (and the text field for the temperature, which is another thing I don't fully understand, but let's keep that aside for a moment) on profiles 1 (the watt only) and profiles 3, 4, 5 (all TC, just different pre-heat). I can press it a thousand times on e.g. profile 2 and it never updates neither the displayed resistance nor the temperature. I'm not fully sure about profiles 6,7,8 as I'm again not in front of my pc right now, but I'm sure it doesn't re-read (or at least I don't see the usual behavior) on profile 2, which is again TC, temperature dominant, no pre-heat, SS316L). So my 2 questions: 1) What is this function really doing? Is there something I'm missing that could explain what I'm seeing? 2) As hinted above, I don't fully understand what the reported temperature field should be expected to show. Is it the actual room temperature as sensed by the chip at the moment I was re-reading the resistance? In other words, is that expected to be the "cold" temperature as in "the temperature at which the cold ohm reading is acquired"? Because, on the profiles where re-reading works, the values for temperature that I see there all seem a bit too high for my room temperature, but maybe that can be due to the mod slightly heating up during this procedure and/or the mod (unfortunately) not coming temperature calibrated by lost-vape, and I haven't yet had a chance to complete the case analyzing procedure? I'm a bit confused...

Yesssss! That's even better, thanks