If you are trying to reduce your nicotine spending in 2026, one question naturally comes up: is vaping cheaper than smoking cigarettes?
For most adult smokers who switch completely to vaping, the answer is still yes. However, the size of the saving depends on how much you smoke, what type of vape you use, how frequently you replace pods or coils, and where you buy your products.
In the UK, the cost gap is also being influenced by changes to tobacco taxation and the introduction of the Vaping Products Duty (VPD) from October 2026. Even with the new vape tax, vaping is expected to remain less expensive than smoking for many users.
For a regular smoker, vaping can cost substantially less than buying cigarettes every day.
The NHS says that, once the initial vape kit has been purchased, vaping has been estimated to cost about one-third as much as smoking.
The exact saving will vary, though. A refillable pod system with e-liquid can have a very different running cost from frequently buying premium disposable or prefilled products.
Here’s a simplified comparison:
| Cost factor | Smoking | Vaping |
|---|---|---|
| Initial equipment | None | Vape device required |
| Main consumable | Cigarettes | E-liquid/pods |
| Replacement parts | None | Coils/pods may be required |
| Daily cost | Generally higher | Generally lower |
| Long-term cost | High | Usually lower |
| UK tax pressure in 2026 | Very high | Increasing |
| Potential savings | — | Significant for many smokers |
The biggest reason cigarettes are expensive is taxation.
UK cigarette prices include tobacco duty and VAT. The government increased tobacco duty in November 2025, and another increase is scheduled for 1 October 2026. From that date, the cigarette duty rate will rise to £394.09 per 1,000 cigarettes plus 16.5% of the retail price, subject to the minimum excise duty of £518.75 per 1,000 cigarettes.
For someone smoking every day, these costs add up quickly.
Imagine an adult smoker buying one 20-cigarette pack every day.
At a hypothetical retail price of £15 per pack, the spending would be:
This is only an example because cigarette prices vary by brand and retailer. If the price of a pack rises, the annual cost rises accordingly.
The important point is that smoking creates a recurring expense that is difficult to reduce without cutting consumption.
Vaping separates the cost of the device from the cost of the consumable.
A reusable pod system or vape kit may require an upfront purchase, but the device can then be used repeatedly. The ongoing expenses generally involve:
This can make the running cost considerably lower than buying a new packet of cigarettes every day.
The NHS specifically states that vaping costs much less than smoking and estimates that, after purchasing a kit, vaping can cost around one-third as much as smoking.
If your primary goal is reducing ongoing costs, a reusable refillable vape is generally worth considering rather than treating vaping as a series of disposable purchases.
A typical cost-conscious setup might include:
Once the device has been purchased, you only need to replace the consumables.
This is particularly important because the UK has already prohibited the sale or supply of disposable vapes. The NHS notes that disposable vapes can no longer legally be sold or supplied in the UK, while reusable and refillable products remain available.
One of the biggest changes affecting the vaping-versus-smoking calculation in 2026 is the UK’s new Vaping Products Duty.
From 1 October 2026, the duty on vaping liquid will be £2.20 per 10ml. HMRC’s guidance confirms that the duty is calculated according to the volume of vaping product.
For example:
This tax is incorporated into the supply chain and can ultimately affect the retail price paid by consumers.
The government has also increased tobacco duty at the same time. It announced a £2.20 increase per 100 cigarettes alongside the introduction of the £2.20-per-10ml vaping duty, with the stated aim of preserving the price difference between vaping and tobacco.
So while vaping is becoming more expensive, cigarettes are also facing substantial tax increases.
When comparing vaping costs, it is important not to treat every vape product as equally economical.
Refillable pod systems can be one of the more economical approaches because you purchase e-liquid separately and reuse the device.
Their costs include:
For someone who vapes regularly, spreading the cost of the hardware over many months can reduce the effective daily cost.
Prefilled pod systems are convenient because there is less maintenance and no need to manually fill a tank.
However, convenience can come with a higher cost per unit of nicotine or e-liquid compared with buying larger quantities of refillable e-liquid.
Disposable vapes were once popular partly because of their simplicity, but they are no longer a legal retail option in the UK. The NHS confirms that disposable vapes cannot legally be sold or supplied.
For UK consumers in 2026, therefore, cost comparisons should focus mainly on reusable and refillable vaping products.
Let’s use an illustrative example rather than claiming a universal retail price.
Suppose a smoker spends £15 per day on cigarettes:
£15 × 365 = £5,475 per year
Now suppose a hypothetical vaping setup costs £5 per day on average, including e-liquid, pods/coils and the annualised cost of the device:
£5 × 365 = £1,825 per year
That would represent a potential saving of:
£5,475 − £1,825 = £3,650 per year
The numbers are illustrative rather than a prediction of what every vaper will spend. Your actual cost could be considerably higher or lower depending on consumption and product choice.
The NHS’s estimate that vaping can cost around one-third as much as smoking provides useful context for why these savings can be substantial.
Vaping is not automatically cheap.
Your spending can increase if you:
Someone who regularly buys new devices and premium products may spend much more than someone using a basic refillable pod system.
In other words, your vaping style matters almost as much as the product itself.
Smoking costs can also rise beyond the price of cigarettes.
A smoker may spend additional money on:
More importantly, smoking is a daily expense. Even a relatively small increase in the price of a packet can translate into hundreds of pounds of additional spending over a year.
With further tobacco duty increases scheduled for October 2026, this pressure is unlikely to disappear.
For an existing adult smoker, switching completely from cigarettes to vaping may reduce nicotine-related spending while also reducing exposure to many toxic substances found in cigarette smoke.
The NHS states that vaping is not risk-free, but that nicotine vaping is less harmful than smoking and exposes users to a smaller fraction of the risks associated with smoking.
However, the financial calculation should not be interpreted as a recommendation for non-smokers to start vaping.
If you do not smoke, starting vaping simply to save money does not make financial or health sense. The NHS advises that non-smokers should not vape.
For smokers considering switching, the greatest financial benefit comes from switching completely rather than maintaining both habits.
One of the biggest mistakes in a vaping-versus-smoking comparison is assuming that someone will completely replace cigarettes with vaping.
For example, if you continue smoking half a pack of cigarettes per day while also vaping, you are paying for two nicotine products.
That can result in:
Cigarette spending + vaping spending = higher total nicotine spending
A complete switch can therefore be much more economical than simply adding vaping to an existing smoking habit.
The NHS also notes that smokers only get the full benefits of switching when they stop smoking completely.
For most adult smokers, vaping remains the cheaper option in 2026, particularly when using a reusable refillable device and buying e-liquid efficiently.
The cost advantage is being narrowed somewhat by the introduction of Vaping Products Duty from October 2026, but tobacco products are also facing higher taxation. The UK government’s policy continues to maintain a price differential between vaping and tobacco.
If you’re comparing the two purely on running costs:
Smoking: High and continually rising cost, largely driven by tobacco duty.
Vaping: Lower potential running cost, but affected by device, e-liquid and replacement-pod expenses.
Refillable vaping: Usually the most cost-conscious vaping approach.
Disposable vapes: No longer legally sold or supplied in the UK.
Dual use: Can eliminate much of the potential financial saving.
For a regular smoker, switching completely to a reusable vaping system can potentially save hundreds or even thousands of pounds per year, depending on previous cigarette consumption and vaping habits.
However, cost is only one part of the decision. Vaping is not harmless, and non-smokers should not start vaping. For smokers who want to quit, both financial considerations and health considerations should be taken into account.
Generally, yes. The NHS estimates that vaping can cost about one-third as much as smoking once the initial vape kit has been purchased.
Yes. The UK is introducing Vaping Products Duty at £2.20 per 10ml of vaping liquid from 1 October 2026.
Yes. UK tobacco duty is scheduled to increase again on 1 October 2026, including higher cigarette duty and a higher minimum excise duty.
No. The NHS states that disposable vapes cannot legally be sold or supplied in the UK. Reusable and refillable products remain available.
No. Vaping is not risk-free. However, NHS guidance says nicotine vaping is less harmful than smoking cigarettes.
For an adult smoker who chooses to switch, a reusable refillable pod system can generally provide a lower ongoing cost than repeatedly buying prefilled or single-use products. Actual savings depend on e-liquid consumption, hardware costs and purchasing habits.
The post Vaping vs. Smoking: Which Is Cheaper in 2026? appeared first on IGeeKphone China Phone, Tablet PC, VR, RC Drone News, Reviews.
Samsung smartphones are known for their excellent camera performance, but the camera shutter sound can sometimes be inconvenient, especially when taking photos in quiet environments such as libraries, meetings, museums, or during personal moments.
Depending on your Samsung phone model, region, and software version, the method for disabling the camera sound may vary. This guide explains the common ways to turn off or reduce the camera shutter sound on Samsung Galaxy devices.
The camera shutter sound is designed to provide an audible confirmation that a photo has been captured.
However, in some countries and regions, smartphone manufacturers are required by law to keep the shutter sound enabled to protect privacy and prevent unauthorized photography.
Because of these regional regulations:
If you cannot find the option, it may be restricted by your device’s region settings.
On many Samsung Galaxy phones, you can turn off the shutter sound directly from the Camera app.
Follow these steps:
Launch the built-in Camera application on your Samsung phone.
Tap the gear icon (Settings) in the top-left or top-right corner.
Look for:
Shutter sound
or
Camera sounds
Toggle the option off.
After disabling it, taking photos will no longer produce the camera shutter sound.
Note: This option is not available on every Samsung model.
If your Samsung phone does not provide a shutter sound option, you can try muting system sounds.
On many Galaxy devices, the shutter sound follows the system volume settings.
Another simple method is reducing the system sound volume.
Settings → Sounds and vibration
Volume
System volume
to the lowest level.
Then test the camera again.
Depending on your Samsung model, the shutter sound may disappear.
Samsung’s Modes and Routines feature allows automatic sound control.
You can create a routine that switches your phone to silent mode when entering specific locations or situations.
For example:
Settings → Modes and Routines
Routines
This can automatically disable camera sounds when needed.
If the Samsung Camera app does not allow shutter sound control, some third-party camera applications may offer additional options.
Examples include:
These apps may provide settings such as:
However, availability depends on your phone model and Android version.
Some Samsung phones sold in regions where shutter sounds are mandatory cannot disable the sound.
Advanced users sometimes change the device region or firmware version to another market where disabling the shutter sound is allowed.
However, this method is not recommended for most users because it may:
Always check your local laws before changing regional settings.
For Galaxy S models:
If the option is missing:
Foldable Galaxy phones usually follow the same camera settings:
Camera → Settings → Shutter sound
If unavailable:
Budget and mid-range Galaxy A phones may have different software versions.
Try:
If the shutter sound cannot be turned off, possible reasons include:
Some countries require phones to make a camera sound.
Carrier-specific software may remove the option.
New One UI versions may change camera settings locations.
Not all Samsung Galaxy models support shutter sound control.
It depends on your phone model and region. Some devices allow it through Camera settings, while others only allow muting through sound modes.
Not always. Some Samsung phones still keep the shutter sound active due to regional restrictions.
Screenshot sounds are controlled separately and may also depend on your region settings.
No. Turning off the shutter sound only changes audio feedback and does not affect camera performance or image quality.
Turning off the camera shutter sound on a Samsung phone is usually simple if your device supports the option. Start by checking:
Camera App → Settings → Shutter Sound
If that option is unavailable, try:
Keep in mind that some Samsung phones sold in certain regions are required to keep the shutter sound enabled, so the available options may depend on your device model and location.
The post How to Turn Off the Camera Shutter Sound on a Samsung Phone: Complete Guide appeared first on IGeeKphone China Phone, Tablet PC, VR, RC Drone News, Reviews.
A Aptoide Games é uma das primeiras lojas de terceiros aprovadas para distribuição através Play Store da Google nos Estados Unidos. De acordo com a empresa portuguesa, o novo enquadramento representa uma “evolução significativa no ecossistema Android”.
The post Play Store abre a porta a lojas de apps de terceiros nos EUA. Portuguesa Aptoide regressa à plataforma da Google appeared first on Tek Notícias.
Descubra as melhorias do Apache NetBeans 31 para desenvolvimento Java, incluindo lambda breakpoints e integração aprimorada com Maven e Gradle.
O post Apache NetBeans 31: Novidades em Lambda, Maven e Code Completion para Java apareceu primeiro em Blog do Edivaldo - Informações e Notícias sobre Linux.
A quiet shift in silicon manufacturing could be taking shape inside a new study on porous reaction-bonded silicon nitride, a ceramic material valued for its strength, thermal stability and resistance to chemical attack. Researchers T.G. Aguirre, E. Cakmak, M.D. Richardson and colleagues are investigating how the size of additively manufactured silicon components affects their conversion into silicon nitride through a pressureless nitriding process. Published in npj Advanced Manufacturing, the work connects binder jet 3D printing with a manufacturing route that could make complex ceramic structures easier to produce.
The central idea is deceptively simple: print a component from silicon powder, then expose it to nitrogen so that the silicon reacts and forms silicon nitride. In practice, however, the transformation is governed by a network of interacting physical and chemical processes. Nitrogen must penetrate the part, reach reactive silicon surfaces and diffuse through newly formed ceramic layers. Heat must also move through the structure, while gases generated or trapped during processing must escape. As component dimensions change, these processes can behave very differently.
Binder jet additive manufacturing offers a distinctive route for creating such parts. Instead of melting powder with a laser or electron beam, the process selectively deposits a liquid binder to join powder particles layer by layer. The resulting “green” component is then typically dried and thermally treated to remove the binder, leaving a fragile, porous body. For silicon-based structures, that interconnected porosity can become a processing advantage, allowing nitrogen to travel through the material during the subsequent reaction.
The researchers’ focus on size effects addresses a major challenge in scaling ceramic additive manufacturing from laboratory specimens to useful components. A thin printed sample may nitridize relatively quickly because nitrogen has only a short distance to travel. A thicker or larger part presents a far more demanding environment. Its interior can receive nitrogen more slowly, and the reaction front may progress unevenly from the outer surface inward. Differences in heating rate, temperature distribution and gas transport can produce variations in conversion, density and final microstructure.
The term “pressureless nitriding” is crucial to the study’s technological appeal. Many advanced ceramic manufacturing methods depend on external pressure, specialized furnaces or high-energy consolidation steps to achieve the desired structure. A pressureless route instead relies on controlled heating and the chemical affinity between silicon and nitrogen. If the reaction can be managed uniformly, manufacturers could potentially create intricate silicon nitride components without applying mechanical pressure during conversion, simplifying equipment requirements and expanding the range of printable geometries.
Silicon nitride is an especially attractive target because it combines several properties that are difficult to obtain in a single engineering material. It can withstand high temperatures, resist wear and corrosion, and maintain useful mechanical performance under demanding conditions. Those characteristics have made silicon nitride relevant to applications ranging from bearings and cutting tools to heat-resistant components and advanced energy systems. A porous version offers additional possibilities, including lightweight structures, filtration, thermal management and engineered surfaces where controlled pathways through the material are valuable.
The study’s attention to porosity is equally important. In reaction-bonded ceramics, pores are not merely defects; they can serve as channels for reactant transport. At the same time, excessive or poorly distributed porosity can weaken the final component and interfere with complete conversion. The scientific challenge is therefore to balance openness and strength. The printed silicon body must remain permeable enough for nitrogen to reach its interior, while the reaction must generate a coherent silicon nitride framework rather than leaving unreacted silicon or creating damaging gradients.
By examining components of different sizes, the researchers are addressing a question with direct implications for industrial design: can processing rules developed for small printed samples be applied to larger parts? The answer depends on how reaction kinetics, diffusion and heat transfer scale with geometry. A process that appears reliable in a small coupon may produce a different result in a thick wall, enclosed channel or complex lattice. Understanding those differences can help engineers determine allowable dimensions, optimize furnace schedules and design structures around the chemistry of nitridation rather than treating manufacturing as a purely geometric exercise.
The broader significance of the work lies in the convergence of three fields: powder-based additive manufacturing, reaction-bonded ceramics and transport-driven materials processing. Instead of printing a finished ceramic directly, the approach uses additive manufacturing to create a carefully engineered precursor and then transforms it chemically. That strategy could unlock shapes that are difficult to machine from dense silicon nitride, while reducing the need for conventional molds and tooling. As manufacturers seek lighter, more complex and more resource-efficient components, controlling size-dependent reactions may become as important as improving printer resolution.
The research arrives at a moment when additive manufacturing is moving beyond demonstrations of intricate shapes toward repeatable production of functional materials. Its emphasis on pressureless nitriding of binder jet additively manufactured silicon highlights a practical bottleneck often hidden behind spectacular 3D-printing images: the printed object is only the beginning. The final performance depends on what happens during post-processing, when gases, heat and chemical reactions determine the internal structure. By clarifying how component size influences that transformation, Aguirre, Cakmak, Richardson and their collaborators are helping map a route from powder and binder to porous silicon nitride parts designed for the high-temperature technologies of the future.
Subject of Research: Porous reaction-bonded silicon nitride produced through pressureless nitriding of binder jet additively manufactured silicon, with a focus on size effects.
Article Title: Porous reaction-bonded silicon nitride: Size effects for pressureless nitriding of binder jet additively manufactured silicon
Article References: Aguirre, T.G., Cakmak, E., Richardson, M.D. et al. “Porous reaction-bonded silicon nitride: Size effects for pressureless nitriding of binder jet additively manufactured silicon.” npj Advanced Manufacturing (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44334-026-00110-y
Image Credits: AI Generated
DOI: 10.1038/s44334-026-00110-y
Keywords: Silicon nitride, reaction-bonded ceramics, pressureless nitriding, binder jet additive manufacturing, silicon, porous materials, size effects.
CsoundQt no Linux traz editor avançado, widgets interativos e suporte ao Csound 7 para compor com mais controle.
O post CsoundQt chega ao Linux com editor poderoso e suporte a Csound 7 apareceu primeiro em Blog do Edivaldo - Informações e Notícias sobre Linux.
Login