Maybe we need to create a Vape Drama thread
. The Jai Haze rda clone can go in there as well.
. The Jai Haze rda clone can go in there as well.
Njord RDA by Morten Oen and AtomVapes
- Thread starter SouthernCelt
- Start date
-
- Tags
- rda
So Wayne says when looking at the Njord to him it was obvious that flavour would be lacking...this is a person that doesn't just chase flavour he made a career out of it. Guys it pains me more than you know but I'm throwing in the towel as well.
For interest sake a would love to hear the opinions from guys like @Andre @KZOR @Rude Rudi @RichJB , when looking at this Rda is it as obvious as Wayne states to you as well?
- Joined
- 16/6/16
- Posts
- 3,515
- Awards
- 37
- Age
- 54
Had my suspicions but after i watched three reviews i immediately cancelled my order.
The three biggest issues i thought i would have with this RDA by inspecting photo's are the following :
1) Paint job looked skimpy
2) Juice building up in the cotton column.
3) Airflow entering the airflow holes is being SUCKED in and hence will follow the path of least resistance which means that they will be pulled up alongside the coils as the coils are so far away from the airflow holes. Less juice particles will be drawn up and hence less flavour.
I really hope i am wrong about these points as i was also really looking forward to this release of his and as a sub of him, really like his tutorials. I will wait till one of my friends get it and test theirs and then decide on a possible purchase.
The three biggest issues i thought i would have with this RDA by inspecting photo's are the following :
1) Paint job looked skimpy
2) Juice building up in the cotton column.
3) Airflow entering the airflow holes is being SUCKED in and hence will follow the path of least resistance which means that they will be pulled up alongside the coils as the coils are so far away from the airflow holes. Less juice particles will be drawn up and hence less flavour.
I really hope i am wrong about these points as i was also really looking forward to this release of his and as a sub of him, really like his tutorials. I will wait till one of my friends get it and test theirs and then decide on a possible purchase.
Thanks @KZOR, that actually makes a lot of sense.
I can't venture an opinion because I don't know the science and tbh I'm not really interested in it. The bottom line is that Morten claims his dripper is a leap forward in airflow design and every reviewer so far seems to think it's a leap back to the atties of five years ago. In this case, I'll happily go with the consensus view.
Props to Morten though, he has created drama. You just know that will go down well. Now we need Jai to review the Njord, smash it with a hammer and scream abuse at the camera that his Hazers will pwn Morten's Nerd Army. That should keep us going on the drama front until Rip can find a new way to outrage the community and thereby boost his subscriber base.
Props to Morten though, he has created drama. You just know that will go down well. Now we need Jai to review the Njord, smash it with a hammer and scream abuse at the camera that his Hazers will pwn Morten's Nerd Army. That should keep us going on the drama front until Rip can find a new way to outrage the community and thereby boost his subscriber base.
Morten apparently posted this in one of his videos:
Then they don't like it. Simple answer. Although perhaps a more accurate way of phrasing the question would be:
That is equally simple and can be answered by a question: if they can't taste the flavour, is it perfect airflow?
Then they don't like it. Simple answer. Although perhaps a more accurate way of phrasing the question would be:
That is equally simple and can be answered by a question: if they can't taste the flavour, is it perfect airflow?
What is wrong with Morten's 'science'?
Stationary air surrounding an atomizer being sucked into the air holes will flow differently than air being piped directly through them under pressure. Air has mass thus momentum and subject to inertia.
His experiments ignore the effect of hot vapour being ejected from coil surfaces.
No mention was made of scalability in terms of his large scale replications, probably not thought of.
A single experiment containing a single control specimen renders no signifficant result.
Unless all variables are accurately replicated, or at least recognised/accounted for in some form, results will not reflect a true representative result.
Just a few. Let me just also admit, the results of a flawed experiment may not be wrong in all cases, so one can not claim them to be wrong. One can however not claim them to be fact either.
Regards
Stationary air surrounding an atomizer being sucked into the air holes will flow differently than air being piped directly through them under pressure. Air has mass thus momentum and subject to inertia.
His experiments ignore the effect of hot vapour being ejected from coil surfaces.
No mention was made of scalability in terms of his large scale replications, probably not thought of.
A single experiment containing a single control specimen renders no signifficant result.
Unless all variables are accurately replicated, or at least recognised/accounted for in some form, results will not reflect a true representative result.
Just a few. Let me just also admit, the results of a flawed experiment may not be wrong in all cases, so one can not claim them to be wrong. One can however not claim them to be fact either.
Regards
Last edited:
I think you hit on the nail.
aerodynamics vs thermodynamics
Restricted airflow and small chamber size really do affect the concentration of flavour in a positive way, for me at least. It seems like this RDA will produce huge clouds and little flavour, based on the characteristics of the design.
I'm going to potentially put my 2c foot in it here but hear me out. Disclaimer: This is a long one, you have been warned.
First, I want everyone to please know that this is purely my opinion, based on my own knowledge and experience. I am not bashing or shaming anyone, and I really don't want to make enemies, but I feel some potential flaws need to be pointed out in the testing methods used by this gent. I haven't watched all his videos, but this is what I personally feel about the ones that I have seen. My reference point is that I come from aviation (ex-commercial pilot and flight instructor, airflow quite important to us...) and I also spent a few years with friends and colleagues designing and building model aircraft. That included time with 3D airflow and turbulence modeling programs as well as real life experiments. I know it's not the same exact science as an RDA's airflow, but the principles remain the same.
One thing I learnt very early on is that it isn't easy to change the scale of a real-life experiment, either up or down. That was the first thing that came to mind when I saw his cardboard box atty "wind-tunnels". It seems to me that he does not accurately scale the airflow in his experiments, just the atty. I don't know the exact science behind human inhalation, but to get an accurate airflow pattern inside a scaled up atty you would need to scale up the flow rate and volume of air and vapor being introduced. I did see on his Drop video that he used a vacuum cleaner for suction, and this is the most accurate airflow representation I saw, although I think it needs to be reminded that the vapor introduced in this experiment is not an indication of how the atty would vape, but rather it is representative of the airflow through the atty when it's not firing.
The same is true with his computer airflow models. They are more accurate to scale, but as far as I have seen they are shown mainly as an open system. In the top-down views his model attys appear to have no sides, and in a side-on view they have no top/bottom (there is some evidence of a bottom/sides in certain videos even though they're not visible, but they are placed so far away that the scale would be way off, again affecting overall airflow). If air comes in but misses the coil, it doesn't just disappear. Another big point here is that it appears in the computer model system that the air is being blown in from the intake holes rather than sucked in. This changes flow patterns, as air blown in creates high-pressure areas, with air gathering inside and trying to find a way out, whereas air sucked in creates low-pressure areas where air is pulled to various spots on it's way to the suction source. Again, there was the vacuum cleaner that I will consider as an exception.
The last major issue I have is when he models airflow he doesn't add into his computer models or box experiment a coil that is producing vapor. Vapor occupies more space than liquid. A kettle full of steam won't give you a kettle full of water. Because of this a coil that is busy atomising liquid will be producing an airflow all of its own because the produced vapor occupies more space than it did as a liquid. We have all seen it. Take the cap off your dripper and fire. The vapor doesn't just hang around, it radiates out, normally quite vigorously. This is also due to the heat the coil produces. Heating air causes it to expand outwards. In short, the area around a firing coil is an area of expanding air and vapor that wants to increase overall pressure in the atty and escape, so it naturally migrates to your lower-pressure area of suction making it's way back to your mouth.
Finally, in my opinion I think his drawn models on paper are actually quite good, but unfortunately they can't benefit from real-time airflow modeling, otherwise they would be a far more accurate reflection of airflow. I feel however that his experiments and models, while well thought out, are not well executed.
As I said, by no means do I claim to be some expert or scientist with regards to airflow. These are my opinions based on my experience and applied to vaping. I could be wrong, and I welcome people to correct me if I am.
First, I want everyone to please know that this is purely my opinion, based on my own knowledge and experience. I am not bashing or shaming anyone, and I really don't want to make enemies, but I feel some potential flaws need to be pointed out in the testing methods used by this gent. I haven't watched all his videos, but this is what I personally feel about the ones that I have seen. My reference point is that I come from aviation (ex-commercial pilot and flight instructor, airflow quite important to us...) and I also spent a few years with friends and colleagues designing and building model aircraft. That included time with 3D airflow and turbulence modeling programs as well as real life experiments. I know it's not the same exact science as an RDA's airflow, but the principles remain the same.
One thing I learnt very early on is that it isn't easy to change the scale of a real-life experiment, either up or down. That was the first thing that came to mind when I saw his cardboard box atty "wind-tunnels". It seems to me that he does not accurately scale the airflow in his experiments, just the atty. I don't know the exact science behind human inhalation, but to get an accurate airflow pattern inside a scaled up atty you would need to scale up the flow rate and volume of air and vapor being introduced. I did see on his Drop video that he used a vacuum cleaner for suction, and this is the most accurate airflow representation I saw, although I think it needs to be reminded that the vapor introduced in this experiment is not an indication of how the atty would vape, but rather it is representative of the airflow through the atty when it's not firing.
The same is true with his computer airflow models. They are more accurate to scale, but as far as I have seen they are shown mainly as an open system. In the top-down views his model attys appear to have no sides, and in a side-on view they have no top/bottom (there is some evidence of a bottom/sides in certain videos even though they're not visible, but they are placed so far away that the scale would be way off, again affecting overall airflow). If air comes in but misses the coil, it doesn't just disappear. Another big point here is that it appears in the computer model system that the air is being blown in from the intake holes rather than sucked in. This changes flow patterns, as air blown in creates high-pressure areas, with air gathering inside and trying to find a way out, whereas air sucked in creates low-pressure areas where air is pulled to various spots on it's way to the suction source. Again, there was the vacuum cleaner that I will consider as an exception.
The last major issue I have is when he models airflow he doesn't add into his computer models or box experiment a coil that is producing vapor. Vapor occupies more space than liquid. A kettle full of steam won't give you a kettle full of water. Because of this a coil that is busy atomising liquid will be producing an airflow all of its own because the produced vapor occupies more space than it did as a liquid. We have all seen it. Take the cap off your dripper and fire. The vapor doesn't just hang around, it radiates out, normally quite vigorously. This is also due to the heat the coil produces. Heating air causes it to expand outwards. In short, the area around a firing coil is an area of expanding air and vapor that wants to increase overall pressure in the atty and escape, so it naturally migrates to your lower-pressure area of suction making it's way back to your mouth.
Finally, in my opinion I think his drawn models on paper are actually quite good, but unfortunately they can't benefit from real-time airflow modeling, otherwise they would be a far more accurate reflection of airflow. I feel however that his experiments and models, while well thought out, are not well executed.
As I said, by no means do I claim to be some expert or scientist with regards to airflow. These are my opinions based on my experience and applied to vaping. I could be wrong, and I welcome people to correct me if I am.
Uh uhm....couldn't have chimed in like 5 days ago and mention something before I got my hopes up???
Sorry @Steyn777, i really wanted to and it took quite a bit of self control to keep quiet. I just felt that were I to contradict a person you and many others quite clearly admire I stood little chance of being taken seriously. Actually i would have looked like a box.
Regards
You are an ex commercial pilot and flight instructor...and quite noticeably very humble good sir. Thanks for the detailed write up. This is how you give feedback and certain reviewers could learn a thing or two from this way of approaching things.
I am also a huge fan of fire...by all means stop me when I feel like hugging it!!! Knowledge is something I chase more than flavour, so please never be afraid of sharing it. Thanks for the post @Raindance it's well received.
From the experiments shown in the video i DID find it strange that he did not seem to test airflow vertically, only on the same plane as the airholes. I might have missed it and he might not have shown other tests. Still in retrospect it might explain issues mentioned above.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
This one popped up on my Youtube notifications this morning on my phone. My first reaction was just to leave it until I get home this evening and can make some popcorn. It's always fun to watch this guy's fuse run out.
Indeed. He is quite a weird chap - borderline psychoticThis one popped up on my Youtube notifications this morning on my phone. My first reaction was just to leave it until I get home this evening and can make some popcorn. It's always fun to watch this guy's fuse run out.
.
Similar threads
