Search This Blog

Saturday, October 14, 2017

On the Astrological Importance of Vaping...

Attached is a image of the in-process construction of Open Source Power One (OSP-1).

As promised it supports a "deans" connector for RC use (left above batteries), USB power out (lower left, converter lower left on protoboard) for phone charging and 510 top right.

Along the way here I have discovered that the war against vaping being waged by ANTZ and the FDA has some interesting history or, perhaps, back story.

I have been reading about Paul Feyerabend and his comments on "science."

Like Feyerabend I am probably considered "anti-science" by some and certainly for my views on vaping relative to FDA dogma on cigarettes in general.  I find Feyerabend's comments and approach to the history of science and the application of science in "modern culture" quite fascinating.

What's even more interesting is other folks, often considered "gods" of science, are not always out of disagreement with him.

(Be forewarned the discussion below is not for the feint of heart.)

From, no less, consider this (full text here).  It starts out:

"Objections to Astrology - A Statement by 186 Leading Scientists

(The following statement first appeared in The Humanist of September/October 1975.)

Scientists in a variety of fields have become concerned about the increased acceptance of astrology in many parts of the world. We, the undersigned - astronomers, astrophysicists, and scientists in other fields - wish to caution the public against the unquestioning acceptance of the predictions and advice given privately and publicly by astrologers. Those who wish to believe in astrology should realize that there is no scientific foundation for its tenets.  ...[ it goes on quite predictably ].

Before getting to Feyerabend, consider Carl Sagan's (yes the same one that says "billions and billions") response first:

"Response from Astronomer, Carl Sagan (1934-1996), who was invited to sign the statement (underline mine):

"In the middle 1970s an astronomer I admire put together a modest manifesto called 'Objections to Astrology' and asked me to endorse it. I struggled with his wording, and in the end found myself unable to sign, not because I thought astrology has any validity whatever, but because I felt (and still feel) that the tone of the statement was authoritarian. It criticized astrology for having origins shrouded in superstition. But this is true as well for religion, chemistry, medicine and astronomy, to mention only four. The issue is not what faltering and rudimentary knowledge astrology came from, but what is its present validity. Then there was speculation on the psychological motivations of those who believe in astrology. These motivations - for example, the feeling of powerlessness in a complex, troublesome and unpredictable world - might explain why astrology is not generally given the sceptical scrutiny it deserves, but is quite peripheral to whether it works."

One might also consider at this point the placebo effect and it's opposite, the nocebo effect and how they apply here.

Finally here is Feyerabend's comment in full:

"Response from Paul Feyerabend (1924 - 1994), Professor of Philosophy at University of California, Berkeley 

"Now what surprises the reader whose image of science has been formed by the customary eulogies which emphasize rationality, objectivity, impartiality and so on is the religious tone of the document, the illiteracy of the 'arguments' and the authoritarian manner in which the arguments are being presented. The learned gentlemen have strong convictions, they use their authority to spread these convictions (why 186 signatures if one has arguments?), they know a few phrases which sound like arguments, but they certainly do not know what they are talking about.1 

Take the first sentence of the 'Statement.' It reads: 'Scientists in a variety of fields have become concerned about the increased acceptance of astrology in many parts of the world.'

In 1484 the Roman Catholic Church published the Malleus Maleficarum, the outstanding textbook on witchcraft. The Malleus is a very interesting book. It has four parts: phenomena, aetiology, legal aspects, theological aspects of witchcraft. ... "

"The book has an introduction, a bull by Pope Innocent VIII, issued in 1484. The bull reads 'It has indeed come to our ears, not without afflicting us with bitter sorrow, that in ...' - and now comes the long list of countries and counties - 'many persons of both sexes, unmindful of their own salvation have strayed from the Catholic Faith and have abandoned themselves to devils... ' and so on. The words are almost the same as gthe words in the beginning of the 'Statement,' and so are the sentiments expressed. Both the Pope and 'the 186 leading scientists' deplore the increasing popularity of what they think are disreputable views. But what a difference in literacy and scholarship!

Comparing the Malleus with accounts of contemporary knowledge the reader can easily verify that the Pope and his learned authors knew what they were talking about. This cannot be said of the scientists. They neither know the subject they attack, astrology, nor those parts of their own science that they undermine their attack. ...

We see: the judgement of the '186 leading scientists' rests on the antedeluvian anthropology, on ignorance of more recent results in their own fields (astronomy, biology, and the connection between the two) as well as failure to percieve the implications of the result they do know. It shows the extent to which scientists are prepared to assert their authority even in areas in which they have no knowledge whatsoever."

From this, a pretty good summary of the above:

"So, both Sagan and Feyerabend were attacking Kurtz and his 186 not because they were wrong in criticizing astrology, but rather because they didn’t actually criticize it, resorting instead to a medley of ad hominem and irrelevant arguments because they knew they were right. That’s the definition of dogmatism, which, in theory at the least, is not a scientific virtue."

Sounds eerily like the many scientists who endorse things like climate science and the war against vaping.

Doesn't it...

We, the n undersigned scientists blah blah blah...  

I have often commented (here and here for example) on how the will of smokers has been crushed by this very scientific bully you see Feyerabend attacking here.

Modern smokers in general have been cowed by the very thing Feyerabend derides.

Feyerabend taught at the University of Berkeley, California no less... 

I wonder how he would view the Antifa protests? 

I have ordered Feyerabend's Against Method which should be quite interesting.

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

The Shop Owner and the King - A Parable

The Parable of the Shop Owner and the King: "Once upon a time there was a shop keeper who sold food and beverages.  One day the shop keeper realized that if he put the numbers one through ten into a hat people would bet on which numbers would be pulled out and in what order.  The shop owner began making a lot of money. 

One day the king, hearing what was going on at this shop and other shops who learned of this game, realized that he was not receiving his fair share of taxes on the shop owners profits.

So the king decreed that all games of chance should be illegal believing that he, the king, would be able to take over the betting games and fill his royal coffers.  The king then sent his sheriff to confiscate the hats from the shop owners so the betting game could not longer be player.  Then he open his own grand casino, filled with the finest gold, silver and jewels to attract the bettors who used to go to the shops.

But our original shop owner, however, was very clever, and told those betting on the numbers that the prize in his shop would be paid to the first bettor who not only guessed the right number but could also calculate the sum of the remaining numbers in the hat.

The next time the king's sheriff confiscated the hat the shop owner went to the high court and made the following argument: "Oh great your honors, the king has wrongfully confiscated my hats for betting on the premise that my game is a game of chance.  I do not offer a betting game but in fact a game of skill, for the winner must not only guess the right number but also be the fastest at adding and the best at remembering numbers."

After great deliberation the honored judges realized that in fact the shop owner was correct and that, though chance was involved, only a skilled individual could win the prize.  The judges then granted our shop owner an exemption from the kings degree.

But the king was even more clever!

The king realized that as long as a shop owner did not hear of the great court victory the bettors would continue to support the kings casino.  So he sent his minions out to the shops where they told the shop keepers "Do not fear!  I, thou the representative of the king, am on your side.  I will warn you whenever the sheriff is about to call and take your hat so that you may hide it."

The king had realized that once all the shop owners went to the high court and argued that their shop was no different than the original shop owner and hence exempt from the kings decree his casino would have no customers because all the bettors would bet in their local shops much closer to home.


A little over a year ago I wrote about how the general class of air freshener products meet the definition of an FDA "ENDS" device (see link).

Recently I had a discussion about this and I realize I had missed out on some interesting new products.

For example, this air freshener system from Walmart:

- With a Great Value Automatic Spray Dispenser, you will enjoy a room full of the fragrance you choose.

- The dispenser automatically releases a fine mist with 3 timed intervals. You can select the time interval that works best for you - 5 minutes, 15 minutes or 30 minutes. 

Then there is this and this from ebay.

So we discussed what, exactly, distinguishes these items from FDA "ENDS" products?

Certainly not their construction or operation.

And here in Pennsylvania it surely seems like these devices meet the definition of "electronic cigarettes:"

“Electronic cigarettes.” As follows:

(1) An electronic oral device, such as one composed of a heating element and battery or electronic circuit, or both, which provides a vapor of nicotine or any other substance and the use or inhalation of which simulates smoking.

(2) The term includes:

(i) A device as described in paragraph (1), notwithstanding whether the device is manufactured, distributed, marketed or sold as an e-cigarette, e-cigar and e-pipe or under any other product, name or description.

So let's break this down a bit.

The only thing distinguishing these devices from e-cigarettes is either "vapor of nicotine" or "simulates smoking."

Since I currently do not vape nicotine let's skip to the second item...

A google search of "simulation" with regard to the law brings up things like:

1) A "simulated contract" (from this): "Simulated contract, in Civil law, is a contract that, by mutual agreement, does not express the true intent of the parties." - but this requires two parties.

2) A "simulated sale" (from this): "A simulated sale refers to the sale in which no price or other consideration is paid or intended to be paid."

3) And even simulated sexual behavior in various contexts: "(1) “minor” means any person under the age of eighteen years; (2) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated— (i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; (ii) bestiality; (iii) masturbation; (iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or (v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;"

But these would not seem to apply here.

On the other hand, these faux cigarettes designed for actors (as in freedom of speech) would:
Clearly I am not simulating "burning" - Wikipedia defines "smoking" as "Smoking is a practice in which a substance is burned..."  These items would be banned based on "... any other substance and the use or inhalation of which simulates smoking." (Other substances might include, for example, water vapor... after all, humidity in Pennsylvania is not 0%)

So exactly what is not allowed in Pennsylvania?

Pretending to "smoke" as you would in grade school using a stolen cigarette (you are inhaling a substance, a vapor actually: water vapor)?

Clearly this is not well defined or even rationally defined.

I suppose they expect to go after people blowing out big clouds of vapor.

Yet, of course, vapor is not smoke.

I have a giant orange phone charger which I use to vaporize some of the ingredients of cake frosting.

How, exactly, can this be a simulation of smoking?

The issue here is one of force, not logic or science.

It looks bad so it's banned I guess.

This is complete and utter nonsense.  Legal mumbo jumbo trying to express an intent.

And failing.

The FDA, on the other hand, relies on "nicotine" - but only nicotine from tobacco.

Another faux distinction.

But as I think this over, the real problem for the FDA is also "dual use."  The FDA "deems" lighters as "accessories" to "tobacco products."  Similarly for rolling papers, plastic extenders from the 1950's to make you look cool, etc.

Since these have other uses they must be left out of the regulation.  Just like pure, chemically created nicotine not "derived" from tobacco (as I have written about before).

These "accessories" are acknowledgement of "dual use," plain and simple.  The class of things we wish we could regulate but can't.

We will see that, for example, 18650 batteries are "accessories" and not "components" of an ENDS device (unless built in, of course).

SO what does this have to do with the parable?

The FDA doesn't want us to see that virtually everything is an "accessory" - like a lighter - that has another purpose other than vaping related.

You are the ignorant shop owner.

The same is true of Pennsylvania.

You pay taxes because you don't realize what's not a "dual use" item.


Sunday, October 1, 2017

OSM 1 becomes Open Source Power (OSP)

I have been using OSM 1 for some time.  It works quite well.  Time to move on to the next phase, I guess OSM 1.1 (red).

The new version has a USB output (5V 2A for fast charging iPhone and Android) for phone charging as well as a dean's connector and a 510 connector.  The dean's connector will make it possible to use this for a variety of high-power applications.

Note that I am switching to the Adafruit Bluefruit Huzzah.

This is no longer a "mod" nor is it confined to vaping.

The Huzzah is the same Atmel processor as the Arduino Micro.  However, it all has a nRF51822 Bluetooth radio that will speak freely (using software available in the respective iPhone and Android stores) to your phone.

Currently I imagine that this will be purchased without software and, like Ghost Gunner IP, you'll simply download software to make it into whatever you want it to be.

I need to change the name, perhaps to OSP for Open Source Power.

Parallels between CNC Firearms and DIY Vaping

There are many interesting parallels between the vaping industry and firearms.  In particular I am intrigued by the correspondence between DIY in the vaping world and companies like Ghost Gunner (GG).

For those fearful of firearms and guns in general its probably worth gritting your teeth for a short while to learn about what Ghost Gunner has done in the highly regulated world of firearms.

Much like DIY vaping, at least so far, making your own gun is a right granted by the federal government (so much for a Constitution).

"The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, requires persons who engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms to obtain a license from ATF. The term “manufacturer” is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(10) as any person engaged in the business of manufacturing firearms or ammunition for purposes of sale or distribution. The term “dealer” is defined by 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(11)(B) and in ATF's regulations at 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 to include “any person engaged in the business of repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms…” This type of dealer is commonly referred to as a “gunsmith.” The marking requirements of the GCA apply to firearms imported by a licensed manufacturer or manufactured by a licensed manufacturer. 18 U.S.C. § 923(i). Firearms altered or manufactured by a licensed dealer/gunsmith are not subject to the marking requirements.

The above quote is from here.  The underline is mine.  Basically if you're just a regular "joe" (gunsmith in this context is anyone doing things privately) you can build your own fire arms.  (Meaning you don't have to put serial numbers on them.)

Hmmm...  Kind of like a DIY vaper.  If you are not manufacturer you are free - more or less - to do whatever you like.

The government really had no problem with all this because no one could realistically make a "gun" at home.  Pretty much everyone had to buy and register their firearms-maker manufactured gun at some sort of store.  What happened after that was okay because at a crime scene for some gun crime at least there was a serial number and a place to start looking.

Ghost Gunner changed all that.  They sell a CNC machine (see more here) for around $1,5000 USD that can make things out of metal.  In particular "receivers" for guns - hand guns, AR-15, pretty much anything else you can machine out of aluminum and fit into their CNC machine.  (A decent AR probably costs around the same.)

God forbid!  Now there are "build parties" for AR-15's and people publishing specs and files on the internet to make all this easy.  (Note that the ATF initially went after GG for simply publishing designs of guns online.  There was a lawsuit and eventually GG was free to do what they liked (EDIT: So far able to do what it liked: see

The parallels here with vaping and it's interaction with government are striking.

Simply substitute "FDA" for "ATF" and away you go...

I am writing this because of the 80% rule (see this ATF page).

The basic idea is that something that is less than 80% completed (in the case of a gun the "lower reciever - part with trigger, holds the barrel, firing mechanism, etc.) does not meet the statutory regulation of a "manufactured firearm" (I am paraphrasing).

Of course the ATF FDA wants everything to be a gun vape.

Then there's FedEx.  Since GG is busy doing what is not prohibited by law, but wanted to be illegal, FedEx decided simply not to do business with GG.

(Good think FedEx wasn't in the business of baking cakes in Colorado!)

The legal case for Ghost Gunner has been going on for several years and has now reached the Supreme Court.  (See more here.)

Much like the Larry Faircloth vs FDA suit (see this) requesting that the FDA's violation of the First Amendment through restriction of truthful info on vaping (and requiring 0mg e-liquids to be labeled as containing nicotine).

In any case, at least so far, DIY vaping has not been attacked in quite the same way as GG.

And, with Gottleib at the FDA one hopes there will be some relief in general (though Zeller is still at the CTP).

As far as DIY and intellectual property for vaping is concerned, though, the proverbial cat is out of the bag.

And, on the "dual use" front, the GG CNC machine, just like a 510 flashlight, is hardly illegal on its own. 

Saturday, September 30, 2017

The Secret Life of USB Chargers

I am writing this so that I and you can understand what USB charging technology is about.  One thing that's clear is that all phone and vaping charging system are not created equal.  Some work better and/or faster than others.

I want to create one that does as good a job as possible so that my new creation can, as quickly and efficiently as possible, charge you phone.

So first we need to understand the standard USB interface.

First off, the USB 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 interface has the same pins on the top of the connector.  Typically these are used for the charging process (from here):
You can see more here but the basic idea is that all three standards are compatible from the charging perspective.

Another common issue is why do certain chargers work better than others charging a given device?

Well, for one thing USB communicates information.  In the case of non-charging applications D+ and D- are basically very fast serial lines for sending data around.  

From this site we see that the way a charger sets D+ and D- allows the phone to determine if the charger supports its needs.  This table showing how D+ and D- are set by the charger, taken from the linked site, shows some options:
  • 2.0V/2.0V – low power (500mA)
  • 2.0V/2.7V – Apple iPhone (1000mA/5-watt)
  • 2.7V/2.0V – Apple iPad (2100mA/10-watt)
  • 2.7V/2.7V – 12-watt (2400mA, possibly used by Blackberry)
  • D+/D- shorted together – USB-IF BC 1.2 standard
  • 1.2V/1.2V – Samsung devices
So you can see that your generic USB 1A charger does no good on your iPhone.  In fact your iPhone will generally barf if offered a mere 1A.

So to build a generic device capable of usefully charging most or all phones (and everybody has their own phone favorite) it will be necessary to emit the proper D+ and D- voltages.

The basic wiring diagram looks like this (from here):

Apparently the values of the resistors don't matter except in the contexts of battery drain.  The specific voltages as indicated above matter exactly.  How we get there probably does not.

Note that all the values in the table above are above 3.3V so that we can use Atmel GPIO pins to set them via a resistor network.

If we replace these resistors with potentiometers then a user can set them for their phone if they have a voltmeter.  Typical Atmel's used here don't have digital-to-analog converts (DACs) but we would need that to drive this directly.

Here's some ideas:

In order to get 5V from 18650's we need a regulator such as the Pololu 5V, 2.5A Step-Down Voltage Regulator D24V22F5.

This will generate 5V from series/parallel 18650's.  In addition, it supports an enable feature (EN pin) allowing it to be disabled via a control signal (drawing a 5-10 micro amps - normally 1ma if no EN).

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

A Mod You Can't Regulate or Tax as Such

(I spend far too much time on this vaping shit...  Oh well.  And yes, Virginia, your DIY mod is free and clear - but this is not about that.  I want to see end-user, finished, ready-to-go products sold in stores everywhere that have the same legal properties as home built DIY.  And, yes, sales tax cannot be avoided here.)

As I discussed in the last post I am now making an open source "battery pod" (OSM1 is now "the battery pod.")  The pod will probably support a deans connector, a USB-A female connector and a 510 connector.

This device is not and will not be, in my opinion, a thing which can be regulated as a "tobacco product" nor is it, in my opinion, taxable as a "vaping product."


Because it's dual use.

A battery pod for charging a cell phone AND 510 flashlight AND it's up to the user as to how they, the user, not me or anyone else who makes one of these, use it.

Here's the idea (lower left):

Or this (my big ugly OSM1 mod)...

Again, you can see the little USB connector on the lower left.

I uploaded a new case in ShopBot format (basically set of CNC commands) under the file names n2*.sbp on the GitHub.  I am redoing the big orange version above to add a USB as well (it's under

(Red = V (sign) cut, black = alignment holes, blue = holes, green = cut out with tabs)

(Also looks like I have found at least one enthusiastic user!)

In order to deliver power at 5V 2A via the USB A female I'm going to try out this buck power converter.

I should have this put together and working, i.e., charging my phone, next week.

So the question is "what is my gadget now?"

It's a USB battery pack and has at least two uses: one is to charge my phone, the other to run my R/C helicopter.

Perhaps I can even vape with it... or use it for a 510 flashlight module...???


Before we go further there's a general problem with doing this in "the real world," e.g. China.

Everybody and their brother uses boost power supplies to create steady voltages for powering things, e.g., mods, robots, etc.  Steady means "continuous" DC voltage.  I get why but it makes no sense for certain applications, e.g., a flash light or vaping, where you can more efficiently switch the power on and off via a square wave (PWM).

So for this design you could tap off the batteries before my Arduino PWM and run the little buck converter to down sample the 8.2V-7.4V from the batteries to 5V @ 2A.  This particular buck supply shouldn't draw any current unless it's in use, i.e., charging a phone.

The four 18650's in the big orange case give me plenty of phone charging power.

Next is to put some weaponized frosting into the mix...

The Chinese can't really do this because they have so much invested in boost-style power supply systems for things (of course they can but will they catch on?)  No one in China pays the kind of taxes we pay to have to vape.


Going back to the original post on this we can use the radio to tell our phone if our charging pod is running out of power.

We can take this all the way up to Facebook if we want, i.e., data from by battery pod moved wirelessly up into the internets...

Sunday, September 17, 2017

Thoughts on "Dual Use," Regulation and Vaping

In order to make a power system "dual use" it's necessary to ensure at least two, simple, obvious, legitimate uses a given device.  Similarly, the device must operate as-is under those circumstances.

For example, a USB charger with a micro-USB connector cannot control what a user plugs it into.  So whether I plug it into a vape or phone it does the same job.  Hence it cannot be, as the FDA says, a "tobacco product" or necessarily taxable as a "vaping" product.

As far as I can see this is due to legal "intent" - the intent of the seller (see this example).

The example describes a modern "glass" seller where all the glass is labeled "for tobacco use only."

The question is whether the state can prosecute if the glass item has multiple purposes (use for marijuana or tobacco in the case of the example).  Clearly if the seller intends to sell the item for illegal use (consumption of marijuana for example) then it's a crime.

However, by selling the item labeled "tobacco use only" it's clear the item, if purchased in that context, by itself does not determine how it will be used.

I think just like the USB charger.

If the purchaser uses it for marijuana then that's their problem.

How the user will use an item is the user's business, not the sellers.

So what does this mean?

In practical terms it means that, for example, an 18650 battery, which works well in fancy flash lights I own, and which fits in a variety of vaping devices, is "dual use."

Here's a couple of example of "dual use" power systems from

Clearly the batteries work in vapes, but still sells these units and the batteries (see this).

Quite honestly nothing interesting here.

So if I sell these items in a vape shop, USB charger, 18650 battery, etc. no problem, no tax, no FDA.

Now if I build a 18650 (or 21700 or 20700 or whatever) battery pod that has a variety of connectors (usb, 510, whatever) then clearly the device, specifically if labeled "for charging use only" is not a vaping product or a tobacco product, at least as far as I see it.

It really can't be.

Just like my iPhone is not really a tobacco product (even though the FDA says it is), or is it???

And what about 0 nic e-liquid?

(Really, how about flavoring.  "0 nic" anything is not a tobacco product.)

Is it in fact a "tobacco product" (even though the FDA labels it as such) or just flavoring for cooking like King Arthur's Coconut (ingredients: flavoring, PG)?

So what I imagine is the following being sold anywhere (like amazon, Walmart, etc. because they already are):

1) A line of "flavoring" sold in regular bottles (as below):

2) A line of battery pods with a USB charger output port (USB A female) along with other ports such as 510's, deans connector, etc. (as below):

3) As far as I know I can buy liters of 100mg nicotine (for example) or a liter of synthetic nicotine (say here) or in a plant (say a tomato or pepper) without concern for regulation or taxes.  But if I sell small quantities in some specific context, like to make insecticide, there is no tax or, at least today, regulation.  But somehow in smaller quantities when sold in conjunction with #1 and/or #2 above (or in a vape shop) magically it's "regulated."

Given all this it's very hard to understand what is not actually a product which can be regulated.

Vaping tanks, for example, and perhaps other similar things...

But then I can use them for marijuana or "wax" - so in fact is that no "dual use" as well?

The FDA doesn't regulate Coconut flavoring today.  If I sell it in the vape shop will they?

I suppose somehow only if I intend it for "vaping."

In any case in the short term I plan to build generic, multi-use open source items and publish their plans.

It also seems prudent that devices be configured for their final purpose electronically by their users.  So any battery pod I build won't do anything at all until after you purchase it and configure it to do so with your phone.

And, for example, on the hardware side, adding a female, USB-A output to the giant open source mod so that it will charge my cell phone.