It’s all good. Glad to see you enjoy the discipline. Carry on. Always enjoy the read.
6 Likes
That makes sense, in that the coil (inner) “surface area” is made up of locations of coil/wick contact on the cylindrically shaped wire - and larger gauge wire makes somewhat less physical contact with the wicking material than smaller gauge wire does (per unit distance along the wound coil).
There is indeed quite a lot going on simultaneously (in what might seem to be a relatively simple situation). One informative paper that describes the modeling of such systems is:
… and an informative paper that describes results of some testing of the measured Nicotine flux in vapor:
“Nicotine delivery from the refill liquid to the aerosol via high-power e-cigarette device”
4 Likes
Personally I like the term “over-ohm”
3 Likes
Could be Ohmageddon
5 Likes
uber-Ohm
3 Likes
I read Uber and think taxi these days.
4 Likes
That has potential 
Sub-Ohm and Taxi-Ohm
Like raising your hand to call a taxi meaning 1.0 and above 1.0 Ohm.
Taxi-Ohm
4 Likes
As one of your Traditional English speakers, I suppose (not guess) it’s up to me to point out that supra-ohm would be the only correct choice (as I neither suppose, nor guess but absolutely know of course, being English ) from amongst all those , ummm, Latin prefixes proffered.
But , hang on. since when did Latin get to be called English? Ohh,. I remember, it was brought over by those invader chappies. A bit before my time, I hasten to add. But ever since then, we English like to imagine that we sound more intelligent when we talk like those poncy Romans.
So, well, actually , I’m fine with plain old Anglo Saxon 
but for some reason i just keep thinking of rude words, now i’ve said that (Fuck yeah ohms, anyone?)
Well… Ok , Ok, how about inventing a whole new word. ohmiferous? ohmificent ? ohmigawd (no strike that, already taken)
6 Likes
My whole point of view through the majority of this thread has been “We already have sub-ohm and MTL. We don’t need additional clutter to play ‘confuse-a-newb’ with.”
But that’s just me. 
It’s made for mildly entertaining reading (occasionally) though.
10 Likes
Entertaining and educational 
Which language came first Latin or Greek?
Its alphabet, the Latin alphabet, emerged from the Old Italic alphabets, which in turn were derived from the Greek and Phoenician scripts.
So we go back farther and we get Poly-Ohm
British Dictionary definitions for poly-
- more than one; many or much polyhedron
Thats where the root Politics comes from also.
POLY-TICS = Many - Bloodsuckers 
12 Likes
I did think that this was the whole point. The new mega-hyper-supra-over-ultra-turbo-maxi-extra-uber-taxi-ohm build I am working on should be epic.
13 Likes
I am a MHSOUTMEUTΩ user! With Japanese pronunciation.
Please don’t… I’m trying to learn English, not to forget greeks 
9 Likes
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!)
6 Likes
No big deal!
It’s not like you (or they) did anything wrong.
I was just trying to say (in effect) that if someone started talking to someone who’s been vaping a while, most wouldn’t be familiar with the term ‘Super-ohm’ (as it’s being used there, or here).
Just sharing my opinion/point of view.
YMMV
5 Likes
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 …”)
Am I reading you right, @lambu?
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.
5 Likes
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.
5 Likes
Do you notice a big difference in battery life between this build and a subohm build in that tank? How about the vapor production?
Most people here associate >1ohm builds with MTL but this is an obvious example where it’s not the case.
Would love to see the inner works 
4 Likes
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.
@jay210
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.
I appreciate everyone’s input!
5 Likes