VapingBad

Cheaper here? http://www.ecigone.co.uk/new/Wismec-Reuleaux-DNA-200-with-free-batteries

Evolv will do it, but they are not hard to line up as there are alignment holes in the cable and the board, here is a link to a very brief guide I did a while back.

can you do a picture of this? I still don't understand how to get the correct mod ressitance[/QUOTE] Make sure the mod resistance is set to zero before testing.

Maybe those having repeat problems should consider a mains surge protector extension lead (with ground protection) sold for computers, many USB charge devices advise against charging from a PC as the USB ground is normally connected to mains ground and can carry large voltage spikes, it is not impossible that some USB supplies could suffer the same problem.

Sorry about bringing up an old thread but.... I am going to build a unitwith two 50w resisters. Actually these https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0087ZCYTK/ref=ya_st_dp_summary I am assuming that I'll be good to run the test at 50w without any issues. Am I assuming correctly? Thanks Mike[/QUOTE] Fine for 50 W, should be fine for 100 W with a suitable heat sink.

Recovery charge only get the cells back to about 3 V so they can be charged normally. The only USB sullies that I have that cut the power at low current are power packs, but that doesn't mean that others don't, maybe try a computer or a hub with something else connected that will pull a little current.

As Awsun140 said, also if you put USB current in one one the optional fields for the charging screen it enables you to select a charger & cable combination that supplies 1 A (probably 997/998 mA) as many don't.

It was a bespoke board for VaporShark, so no sw upgrade possible.

Recovery charge is time limited for safety so can need several goes.

TBH I think it started from people using mods without pre-heat to speed up heating time, a bit like the "thou shalt use res lock" mantra they were originally ways of getting around the short comings of other devices. Again nothing wrong if that's how you like to do it.

As I first posted I have no objection to this as an option, but a lot of posts make three large assumptions to support the conjecture that wattage control in temp limited operation is redundant: 1) That everyone builds coils that do not have any head room, more contact area between the coil and wick will produce more vapour at a given temp and are an important part of the mix. If they cannot and not all atomisers have enough room to do this then you have to increase the temp to increase the vapour. You can have a coil with more area and adjust the amount of vapour using wattage and staying below the temperature and this does not affect the perceived warmth of the vape that is more to do with density (latent energy). 2) That everyone automatically sets the watts above what a they need so will always hit the temp limit. 3) That everyone just wants to vape at an exact temp and just adjust that temp as opposed to vaping an amount of vapour up to a temp. Also pre-heat is far less important when you just set the wattage high as you have already set it up to get to temp ASAP the pre-heat settings are now almost redundant operating like this. As for "Temperature = Flavor" and "Wattage = Vapor" it is as relevant as it always was, you can max the watts on the DNA40 just like the 200 and IMO what influences the flavour most is the max temp the liquid is cooked at in the wick before it vaporises. We all see the colour change in the liquid from the chemical reactions taking place triggered by temperature and that will affect the flavour. The mechanism for the temperature limiting is changing the watts, so the adjustment of watts dose have an effect, but on it's own it cannot adjust flavour. So IMO anyway "Temperature = Flavor" and "Wattage = Vapor" is a good analogy, although limited because it leaves out other important factors like contact area between wick and coil (how well the heat is spread out) and airflow. And is why I don't like to adjust the flavour setting once I have found the sweet spot for the liquid YMMV. The DNA200 datasheet says: Each to their own and they are just 2 ways of doing the same thing at the end of the day, both make sense and both work. I hope Evolv do implement this as an option soon as it is getting boring.

No small eInk screen with not back light will work in bright sunlight and use little battery

Also Evolv have always strived to make their mods as simple as possible to operate and profiles are a good way to extend that while keeping the devices clutter free. I would love to be able to separate pre-heat and materials profile, but that will probably be too much for the casual vaper and I can work with the current implementation very happily. We all have our way of doing things, but these have to work for everyone making this whole area a big challenge. I think they did a great job, we all want more now the DNA200 has broadened our horizons and I feel that since there are so many vapers that haven't yet migrated to temp limiting simplicity & stability are very important.

Those settings are OK, but I would change the low cut off to 3.09 V (Evolv default).

Ideally a setting in Escribe, BTW you can set what ever temp you want in Escribe EG 382 F than the up/down change it by 10 F.

Thanks I say temp limiting as it only technically limits the max temp, maybe being pedantic, but in my line of work being loose with technical terms can cause mistakes through miscommunication and being precise is part of the discipline. I often vape on the limit at a constant temp, I just don't use the temp to adjust vapour production as I match the temp to the liquid I use for flavour.

I think it is for refinement to be able to take into account the extra temperature from charging.

Pre heat adjustment would be cool, it would make it worth doing a basic phone app.

I asked them. They told me I can put it down to 3.09v. Then I asked if it's not too low and they said "well maybe 3.66 then". At the end of the day I'm not sure then. Is there any risk to damage the cell by putting at 3.09v or some battery failure/blow up ?[/QUOTE] No, 3.09 V is fine and would not significantly increase your risk of battery failure.

I meant the Evolv default of 3.09 V, LiPo voltages are determined by the chemistry so the top and bottom cut-off voltages are the same across standard LiPos, there are some special ones designed to take higher voltage but that doesn't apply here. The only reasons I can think of to increase the low cut off is the battery has a much too low C rating (I doubt that) or to extend battery life, but the Max Recharges setting would be better for that. I would put it to 3.09 V myself, but you could try and contact them first to confirm that.

Good advice from Mad Scientist

You would need a reason to have anything other than the default and I would stick to that 3.09 V.

Yes, the ground is from the board GND or mounting points to the negative (outside) of the 510.

There are a few in this thread not on that list [CODE]/* Function: Command Fire: F=#S Set Power Setting: P=#W Set Temperature Setting: T=#C or T=#F or T=OFF Set Profile: M=# (1 to 8) Get Power: P=GET Get Power Setting: P=GET SP Get Temperature: T=GET Get Temperature Setting: T=GET SP Get Voltage: V=GET Get Current: I=GET Get Profile: M=GET Get Battery: B=GET Get Battery Cell: B=GET CELL # (1 to 3) Get Charge: C=GET Get Resistance: R=GET Get e-cig Manufacturer: E=GET MFR Get e-cig Product Name: E=GET PRODUCT Get e-cig Feature info: E=GET FEATURE #(1 to 7) */[/CODE]

Opps, I didn't refresh before posting