Disclaimer: This post is simply about a concern of mine, after watching Phil Busardo's review on the Kanger Subtanks. This isn't meant to steer anyone away from these tanks, or to criticise Kanger's judgement calls; this is just my take on what I've seen. I'm throwing this post out there for everyone to mull over, and draw their own opinions. If anyone is able to give me some insight on what happened, feel free to chime in! With that out of the way...
This is something I've brought to the attention of all my coworkers, including my boss, and I've seen some very mixed reactions. After viewing Phil Busardo's video review of the Kanger Subtanks, I had a very interesting thought.
Phil talks about Kanger switching out the insulators in the 22mm tank's RBA, after complaints of flavour contamination from the RBA's were coming in. What is Kanger's response? Well, they changed out the insulators, and the flavour is now fine. Perfect- right? Well, not in my opinion; and here's why.
Look at the difference between the two atomisers he shows you in this video- PBusardo Review - Mini & Nano Subtanks (video starts exactly where he compares the two, so a quick pause will help you see what I'm talking about). The one on the left is from the original 25mm tank, and the one on the right is from the 22m tank. You'll notice the positive terminals are significantly different in size. Design aside, the positive terminal has been put on a diet, in order to fit in the 22mm tank. Unfortunately, I think this was the real cause of the flavour contamination. Why?
Well, let's look at the original tank first. There was no flavour contamination in the original tank, which uses the same insulator that is in the first version Subtank Mini. The original tank has no flavour contamination, whereas the Mini's RBA did. What's the difference? Well, let's consider the fact that smaller pieces of metal will heat up faster than larger pieces of metal (under identical circumstances). When I look at the original RBA, I would estimate the positive terminal has at least twice as much mass as the Mini's. Accuracy of that perception notwithstanding, the mass of the Mini's positive terminal is significantly less than that of the original. With that said, under similar circumstances, only one of the RBAs will cause flavour contamination. My guess is that the Mini's positive terminal is heating up to a high enough temperature that will cause the insulator to essentially leach something into your eliquid. When Phil takes out the insulator (at a different part of the video), it doesn't appear to have melted, or even become deformed; however, it still contaminates the juice.
This brings up some good questions, in my books. Since the only true way to find out what temperature the positive terminal is reaching in both RBAs, when in use, is under lab settings... we really don't know what is going on here. Could the lack of metal be causing the positive terminal to heat up to a high enough temp that it causes some reactions with the eliquid? I can't say; but I definitely would like to know. Even though they replaced the insulators (claimed to be PEEK insulators, but verification is needed), I'm willing to bet the temp of the positive terminal hasn't change very much (I'd say no more than a couple degrees C). I'm also starting to wonder what is in the pre-made coils, and what temps the positive terminals are reaching... even though I'm unaware of them causing any flavour contamination.
I left a massive comment, just about as detailed as this, on Phil's video, and it hasn't received any attention since I posted it 5 days ago. I figured I should spread this idea around, to reach a larger audience, and see if there is anyone who might have some answers. I think Kanger should really look into this; it would definitely make me feel more comfortable. Until I have some realistic answers, I've even gone as far as telling my boss that I won't be selling these Mini and Nano Subtanks with as much enthusiasm as I used to; and, in fact, I might steer a customer to another product, if they aren't set one of these tanks.
For the sake of everyone, I'd like to see some answers. Am I right with my deductions? Should I be worried about the temperature, even if the insulator was replaced? Anyone know what insulators are in the pre-made coils? Also, does anyone have any insight on how exactly Kanger handled this problem? If Kanger actually did some serious investigations, and found that replacing the insulator was all that was needed, I'd be much more comfortable... but I'm far too sceptical to assume that happened. From what I've seen with major companies, I'd have to (and I hate saying this) assume they simply switched out the insulators and called it good. It could have gone any number of ways, but I really don't know.
Anyone have anything to add?
This is something I've brought to the attention of all my coworkers, including my boss, and I've seen some very mixed reactions. After viewing Phil Busardo's video review of the Kanger Subtanks, I had a very interesting thought.
Phil talks about Kanger switching out the insulators in the 22mm tank's RBA, after complaints of flavour contamination from the RBA's were coming in. What is Kanger's response? Well, they changed out the insulators, and the flavour is now fine. Perfect- right? Well, not in my opinion; and here's why.
Look at the difference between the two atomisers he shows you in this video- PBusardo Review - Mini & Nano Subtanks (video starts exactly where he compares the two, so a quick pause will help you see what I'm talking about). The one on the left is from the original 25mm tank, and the one on the right is from the 22m tank. You'll notice the positive terminals are significantly different in size. Design aside, the positive terminal has been put on a diet, in order to fit in the 22mm tank. Unfortunately, I think this was the real cause of the flavour contamination. Why?
Well, let's look at the original tank first. There was no flavour contamination in the original tank, which uses the same insulator that is in the first version Subtank Mini. The original tank has no flavour contamination, whereas the Mini's RBA did. What's the difference? Well, let's consider the fact that smaller pieces of metal will heat up faster than larger pieces of metal (under identical circumstances). When I look at the original RBA, I would estimate the positive terminal has at least twice as much mass as the Mini's. Accuracy of that perception notwithstanding, the mass of the Mini's positive terminal is significantly less than that of the original. With that said, under similar circumstances, only one of the RBAs will cause flavour contamination. My guess is that the Mini's positive terminal is heating up to a high enough temperature that will cause the insulator to essentially leach something into your eliquid. When Phil takes out the insulator (at a different part of the video), it doesn't appear to have melted, or even become deformed; however, it still contaminates the juice.
This brings up some good questions, in my books. Since the only true way to find out what temperature the positive terminal is reaching in both RBAs, when in use, is under lab settings... we really don't know what is going on here. Could the lack of metal be causing the positive terminal to heat up to a high enough temp that it causes some reactions with the eliquid? I can't say; but I definitely would like to know. Even though they replaced the insulators (claimed to be PEEK insulators, but verification is needed), I'm willing to bet the temp of the positive terminal hasn't change very much (I'd say no more than a couple degrees C). I'm also starting to wonder what is in the pre-made coils, and what temps the positive terminals are reaching... even though I'm unaware of them causing any flavour contamination.
I left a massive comment, just about as detailed as this, on Phil's video, and it hasn't received any attention since I posted it 5 days ago. I figured I should spread this idea around, to reach a larger audience, and see if there is anyone who might have some answers. I think Kanger should really look into this; it would definitely make me feel more comfortable. Until I have some realistic answers, I've even gone as far as telling my boss that I won't be selling these Mini and Nano Subtanks with as much enthusiasm as I used to; and, in fact, I might steer a customer to another product, if they aren't set one of these tanks.
For the sake of everyone, I'd like to see some answers. Am I right with my deductions? Should I be worried about the temperature, even if the insulator was replaced? Anyone know what insulators are in the pre-made coils? Also, does anyone have any insight on how exactly Kanger handled this problem? If Kanger actually did some serious investigations, and found that replacing the insulator was all that was needed, I'd be much more comfortable... but I'm far too sceptical to assume that happened. From what I've seen with major companies, I'd have to (and I hate saying this) assume they simply switched out the insulators and called it good. It could have gone any number of ways, but I really don't know.
Anyone have anything to add?