The thing with multi- or poly- is they denote more than 1.
Most “non-sub-ohm” set ups are still only between 1.0 - 1.99 so its still a singular ohm until you get up past 2. Then once above 2 you get into your supras and ubers
So to be completely correct it should be just “Ohm”
(unless you’re puffing up at 2.4 ohms in which case i think you can call yourself whatever the hell you want!)
If I understood him correctly @Iambu was making the point that subohm can’t be synonymous with DTL, not if you compare those two poll results. (The maths doesn’t work out, as he implied with his “I was always bad at math, but …”)
In any case. I used to make that assumption that "MTL is the opposite of sub-ohm ", but I’ve been pulled up by more knowledgeable people too often to make that assumption again. Can’t find the post now, but I’m pretty sure that somebody got that same pulling-up on the other thread.
I think you are on the mark here. Builds greater then one ohm lend nicely to MTL vaping per their heating characteristics but there is no reason that MTL has to be limited to only builds greater than one ohm. Another plus of using greater than one ohm is the battery life in most cases. MTL vs DTL is obviously a primary function of airflow. Creating a build to support an airflow is not necessarily delineated at the one ohm mark.
I completely agree with that!
And I guess it’s why I look more at the MTL vs DL as being the "key identifier’ these days.
Once you have become (even passingly) familiar with the idea that either impedance (high or low) can be done in either MTL, or DL (with some of the modern atties), IMO the impedance doesn’t hold the same weight (as a way to identify ‘what style’ a vaper prefers) that it once did. So it’s lost importance/relevance (comparatively speaking).
I “get” trying to find a way (or, in this case, term) I think… But I guess I’m just failing to see the ‘need’ for such.
I appreciate your thoughts, and helping to clarify.
I hadn’t read it that way at all. So thank you!
While I can agree with the idea that it’s no longer exclusively sub-ohm (and likewise, MTL is not necessarily limited to higher impedance), the history, as well as the majority accept and understand it as such.
So, IMO, why create a new term?
Why not just focus on the style of airflow that a user prefers? And then discuss the needs of the individual device…
I know. I frequently have a unique outlook on things. I’m more trying to understand the goal I guess.
Compared to the .7 ohm build i had in before i would say battery life seems about double. Flavour is around the same possibly a bit better but new batch of juice so no guarantee. And vapor production is around the same maybe a bit less.
If nearly half of our family is either MTL or DL and DL means subohm/ MTL means over 1 ohm
how can it be
that only ca. 20% are above one OHM?
Shouldnt it be 50%?
And btw i was not calling for a new term.
A submarine is a kind of boat but a boat not a kind of submarine.
There is -as written before- no opposite for “sub”
and uber -from the german word “über” (=± over) may apply…
like a boat over and under water…
Just my 2 cents
Language evolves continuously in every aspect of our lives around the world. Why should vaping vocabulary be any different? Newbs will learn the vaping lingo same as do tech lingo, with questions, reading (hopefully), and continued familiarity.
If you put it in an calculator he is only drawing 3.59 amps and vaping at 30 watts. The battery life should be phenomenal. I’m using a 1.4 ohm build at 11v and getting 2 and a half days before charging. But I have 2-3 mods in rotation.
it turns out that sub-ohm doesn’t neccessarily mean DL
and that supra-ohm (or whatever we call it) doesn’t necessarily mean MTL
indeed, the crossover is so great that whilst MTL vapers form almost half of this community, according to one poll, only approx. 20% of us are…ummm…non-sub-ohm.
This makes a nonsense of “the opposite of sub-ohm is MTL”. and we’re surely confusing the newbies (not to mention our own selves) by teaching them to think like that. This is one very clear case where a new bit of jargon would help to eliminate confusion , not create it.
That said, i’m not sure I trust us lot to come up with a suitable word , but it’s rather fun discussing it.
Now I’ll add another two, three, or maybe four cents.:
That submarine analogy is misleading, Iambu . We already had multiple words for surface vessels , long before the submarine was even dreamed of, let alone invented. So there was zero need to dream up a term for a non-submarine. English-speaking people just carried on calling them ships or boats. Vapers are in an entirely different …uh…boat. If we just carry on calling non-sub-ohm vaping “vaping” , same as before sub-ohm came up, that clarifies nothing does it? We have no word at our disposal that actually does that job. We need one.
Finally, another interesting little sidenote: I 'm pretty sure that the bastard EU regulations are responsible for much of this drift towards sub-ohm , even by MTL newbies. The fact is that high-nicotine devices like the Juul are no longer legal anywhere in Europe ( there’s a 20mg limit now). The result of these new regulations (in Britain, at least) has been a radical shift in the type of hardware on offer . Manufacturers like Aspire are now churning out dinky little sub-ohm AIO devices for beginners, all to enable the quitter to get his nicotine fix in spite of thos regs. So your newbie vaper on this side of the pond is now born sub-ohming …whether he knows it or not.