Info for HCigar VT133 Owners

[dwcraig1]

0.004 is in the expected range.

[VapingBad]

You should find when testing that the Raw and both Nominal values are the same and that nothing at all shown in cold ohms in Atomiser Analyser.  Take the test piece out, check the Mod Resistance is set to zero and that setting has been uploaded to the device, press fire while the 510 is empty then put the test piece in and only then view in Atomiser Analyser.

[timbomfg]

Right, done that again, set mod resistance to 0, upload back to device, back into atomizer analyzer, and once i crank it down, its wavering between 0.004 and 0.005 tho the blank is night and tight.

Split the difference and call it 0.0045?

[timbomfg]

 

[VapingBad]

I would use the lower value 0.004 as if to high it can affect the temp sensing stability.

[Jentz9517]

Thank you Timbomfg

[Jentz9517]

VapingBad said:

I would use the lower value 0.004 as if to high it can affect the temp sensing stability.

So a few months back I had heard from one of the employees to go with 85-90% of the actual value should I use 0.0036?

[VapingBad]

Jentz9517 said:

So a few months back I had heard from one of the employees to go with 85-90% of the actual value should I use 0.0036?

Yes, that is good advice and what I do for mods reading a stable 0.004, I'm assuming the one here alternating between 0.004 & 0.005 is about 0.0045.

[scooby]

I believe that most who are using the 99.9% pure tool input the exact reading.

The 85-90% margin was due to the use of thick pieces of indeterminate copper in atties before these tools were available.

I also made sure that the 510 positive pin is really clean and use a little noalox when using the tool, doubt it makes and difference but like to be sure.  

[Jentz9517]

0.0045 is riding the line well but only with my manual values on excel with SE as starting Edit- atty trouble. 0.0045 is just about right for the TCR's I tested

[timbomfg]

Update:

Been running 0.005 for the last week or so with good results. Need to play with the case analytics further i think tho, as tc wavers a little more than my VT200 did when i step outside.

[Jentz9517]

timbomfg said:

Update:

Been running 0.005 for the last week or so with good results. Need to play with the case analytics further i think tho, as tc wavers a little more than my VT200 did when i step outside.

Was thinking along the same lines.

[Jentz9517]

This vt133 isn't helping my cause! My other DNA's hit way harder with little to no punch or preheat? Can't figure it out... ? I'm wondering if the 510 spring is not stiff enough? It just doesn't have the "authority" power wise as my others .. Any input is greatly appreciated..

[SteelDriver]

Could be difference between lipo and 18650s

[SteelDriver]

Think I may sell my vt 200 and buy vt 133

[timbomfg]

Been another week, i'm happy with how the mod vapes. Largely in line with how my VT200 used to vape, and that was my only prior benchmark with this sorta mod.

Can't say i've experienced a lack of punch compared to any other mod i own

[Thelostrican]

I have to thx you guys for the settings, they have been very useful, how's the battery life for you guys?

[igipit]

could someone tell me what am I missing?

Using the copper calibration tool does not reproduce actual vaping conditions. An atomizer 510 connector  is not a  full copper contact, it has a copper (or brass) central pin and an SS screw. Furthermore the static resistance of an atomizer is not determined by the 510 contact only  but by  the entire chain of contacts from the 510 to the resistance wire contacts.

If I measure one  coil resistance  with a precision milli-ohmmeter i get 329 mOhm, but if I place that coil into the  KFL deck and screw it into  my Vt233, it  reads 355 mOhm: 26 mOhm  difference!  But if I screw in a soldered cartomizer, than I get 4-5 mOhm, likely the same value I would get with the copper calibration tool.

[igipit]

Look at the two pictures. In the first one I measure the resistance of the soldered cartomizer and i get 4 mOhms. In the second picture i measure the resistance of a UD RDA deck with the two pins short circuited by a 1 mm thick copper wire and get 14 mOhm. Note that both the RDA deck pins and the RDA 510 connector were carefully cleaned before I placed it on the VT133.

 


 

I think that the entire contact chain resistance should be accounted for as the  device resistance and not merely that of the 510 cnnector.

[BillW50]

igipit said:

If I measure one coil resistance with a precision milli-ohmmeter i get 329 mOhm, but if I place that coil into the KFL deck and screw it into my Vt233, it reads 355 mOhm: 26 mOhm difference! But if I screw in a soldered cartomizer, than I get 4-5 mOhm, likely the same value I would get with the copper calibration tool.

I noticed for your first post, you didn't bother asking the easy questions first. 

igipit said:

I think that the entire contact chain resistance should be accounted for as the device resistance and not merely that of the 510 cnnector.

Why would you think this? All quality ohm meters always nulls out its own internal resistance. And how would TC work if it didn't know what was the TC resistance vs. the static resistance? What am I missing here? 

[igipit]

May be you misunderstood me, it is exactly what i'm saying : the whole static resistance must be known to precisely estimate the temperature variation.

I have argued  on the fact that  the 510  connector resistance  (that measured by means of the copper tool) is only a fraction of the whole static resistance. Which is the utility to know only the 510 resistance?

[dwcraig1]

igipit said:

May be you misunderstood me, it is exactly what i'm saying : the whole static resistance must be known to precisely estimate the temperature variation.

I have argued  on the fact that  the 510  connector resistance  (that measured by means of the copper tool) is only a fraction of the whole static resistance. Which is the utility to know only the 510 resistance?

This threads a good read for those unfamiliar with it. The subject that your talking about seems to begin around here:
https://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/threads/tc-beyond-ni200-nickel-purity-dicodes-ti-ss-resistherm-nife30-coefficient-of-resistance.676506/page-2#post-15852083

[Swainesmatee]

http://smokefreemods.m.webs.com/site/wrap?url=http://smokefreemods.webs.com/apps/webstore/&back=http%3A%2F%2Fsmokefreemods.m.webs.com%2Fsite%2Fmobile%3Furl%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fsmokefreemods.webs.com%2F%26dm_package%3D1 That's what I use. Practically zero resistance. Cheap and works great.

[Swainesmatee]

DrewBurton50 said:

  If you do this I would appreciate a share of your result as I don't own a soldering iron.
I am currently using 0.022 as the mod resistance which seems to work pretty well (the value given on djlsbvapes for the vt200   )
  I too owned and loved the vt200 before selling it to buy this device. I am loving this. The battery life is excellent. Just hope VapingwithTwisted420 didn't put too many people off this device when he did a full review with the battery door installed the wrong way round. 

That would be a really badly made mod. Should be def under 0.01. I think mine was 0.0045