Ceramic Coil Tech Reaches New Milestone

Ceramic wicking has been commercially available for years, but its reputation has travelled ahead of its data. It is variously described as the answer to dry hits, the cause of them, or a marketing term attached to a sintered alumina block.

The reality is more boring and more useful: ceramic works well within a viscosity and power window, and performs poorly outside it. Our latest test programme was an attempt to map that window properly rather than rely on supplier datasheets.

What we tested

We ran three wicking structures — a conventional cotton-wrapped mesh, an early-generation sintered ceramic, and our current-generation ceramic with modified pore distribution — against four e-liquid formulations spanning 50/50 through 80/20 VG/PG.

Each combination was run to end-of-life under a standardised puff regime, with measurements at fixed intervals:

• Coil resistance drift across the device life.
• Aerosol mass per puff, as a proxy for delivery consistency.
• Carbonisation, assessed by visual inspection and by mass of residue on the heating surface.
• Sensory panel scoring at three points across the life cycle.

The findings that mattered

Resistance drift narrowed substantially

Across the 70/30 formulation, the current-generation ceramic held resistance within roughly ±4% across the full device life. The cotton-wrapped mesh drifted by closer to ±11%, with most of that movement concentrated in the final third of the life cycle.

This is the number that explains the flavour experience. Late-life drift is what produces the "burnt" character consumers report, and it is also what drives premature discard — a device thrown away with usable liquid remaining.

Carbonisation dropped, but not uniformly

Residue mass on the ceramic heating surface was roughly 40% lower than on the mesh at 50/50 and 60/40. At 80/20 the gap narrowed sharply, and at high power settings it reversed.

That is the window we were looking for. Ceramic is clearly the better choice up to around 70/30 VG/PG at moderate power. Above that, or with aggressive wattage curves, the advantage erodes and a hybrid mesh becomes the safer engineering decision.

Sensory scores tracked the instrumentation

The panel consistently rated ceramic devices as more stable across the life cycle, but did not rate them as more intense at first use. Ceramic is a consistency technology, not a flavour-amplification technology — a distinction worth setting with consumers honestly.

How we are applying this

Two practical changes follow from the data:

1. Viscosity-matched wicking. We now specify wicking structure against the partner's actual formulation rather than defaulting to a single platform. This sounds obvious; in practice it is rarely done because it requires the device builder to know the liquid.
2. Power-curve limits in firmware. Where ceramic is used, we work with partners to cap the wattage curve inside the validated window, which preserves the consistency benefit across the full life rather than just the first hundred puffs.

Test methodology availability

Full methodology and summary data are available to partners under NDA, including the puff regime specification, sampling intervals and panel protocol. We would rather share the method than just the headline, because the method is what lets you validate our claims independently.

Our testing capabilities cover aerosol characterisation, battery safety and environmental ageing. If you are developing a formulation and want it characterised before committing to a device platform, get in touch with the R&D team.