User:Louis/Dragonfly Energy trade libel suit Will Prowse: Difference between revisions
Userspace legal-research note Tag: Recreated |
Added inconsistently published BMS "1/2 Second Surge" data by Battle Born |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
No federal regulator has issued a recall or safety action on these batteries, and the defense does not claim one. The point is narrower and it is enough: the core message that these packs can overheat and fail at the terminal is substantially true, corroborated by other owners' documented failures, by a separate consumer class action, and by Dragonfly's own disclosures, and conceded in part by the complaint itself. Substantial truth is a complete defense, and the closest precedent is a manufacturer that sued a product-review organization over a critical test and lost, because sharp criticism of a product is ''"commonplace in the forum of robust debate."''<ref name="bose">''Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc.'', 466 U.S. 485, 513 (1984). [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/466/485/ Opinion via Justia].</ref> When the contested statement is a reviewer's evaluation of a product he tested, the Ninth Circuit has held a plaintiff simply cannot carry the falsity burden: ''"[a] reasonable jury could not find that Unelko met its burden of proving falsity by a preponderance of the evidence."''<ref name="unelko">''Unelko Corp. v. Rooney'', 912 F.2d 1049, 1053, 1057 (9th Cir. 1990). [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/912/1049/ Opinion via Justia].</ref> | No federal regulator has issued a recall or safety action on these batteries, and the defense does not claim one. The point is narrower and it is enough: the core message that these packs can overheat and fail at the terminal is substantially true, corroborated by other owners' documented failures, by a separate consumer class action, and by Dragonfly's own disclosures, and conceded in part by the complaint itself. Substantial truth is a complete defense, and the closest precedent is a manufacturer that sued a product-review organization over a critical test and lost, because sharp criticism of a product is ''"commonplace in the forum of robust debate."''<ref name="bose">''Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc.'', 466 U.S. 485, 513 (1984). [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/466/485/ Opinion via Justia].</ref> When the contested statement is a reviewer's evaluation of a product he tested, the Ninth Circuit has held a plaintiff simply cannot carry the falsity burden: ''"[a] reasonable jury could not find that Unelko met its burden of proving falsity by a preponderance of the evidence."''<ref name="unelko">''Unelko Corp. v. Rooney'', 912 F.2d 1049, 1053, 1057 (9th Cir. 1990). [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/912/1049/ Opinion via Justia].</ref> | ||
== Battle Born's technical note == | ==Battle Born's technical note== | ||
[[File:Battle-Born-technical-note-fullpage-2026-06-07.png|thumb|upright=1.25|Battle Born's "Technical Note on the Safety and Design of the Battle Born 100Ah Positive Terminal," published March 31, 2026, as captured by the Wayback Machine on June 7, 2026.<ref name="bbtechnote" />]] | [[File:Battle-Born-technical-note-fullpage-2026-06-07.png|thumb|upright=1.25|Battle Born's "Technical Note on the Safety and Design of the Battle Born 100Ah Positive Terminal," published March 31, 2026, as captured by the Wayback Machine on June 7, 2026.<ref name="bbtechnote" />]] | ||
| Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
The note arrived sixteen weeks into the dispute. Prowse's first video on the 100Ah terminal, documenting a 250 degree Fahrenheit reading on a sealed customer battery, was published December 10, 2025.<ref name="prowse-dec10">{{Cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP2yPY57Wjc |title=Battleborn 12V Battery: Major Safety Issue |publisher=DIY Solar Power with Will Prowse, YouTube |date=2025-12-10 |access-date=2026-06-07}}</ref> The next day he read on camera a Battle Born customer-service email from representative Matthew Adams defending the terminal; RV Travel quoted the email on December 18, 2025 as describing the ''"aluminum nut design as being a purpose-built thermal failsafe."''<ref name="prowse-dec11">{{Cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fD3yaRvp3o |title=Battleborn Batteries Responds! Their Overheating Device is a 'Feature' not a 'Problem'?? |publisher=DIY Solar Power with Will Prowse, YouTube |date=2025-12-11 |access-date=2026-06-07}}</ref><ref name="rvtravel" /> The ''Berdner'' class action over the same terminal was filed February 13, 2026.<ref name="10k2025" /> The note states its own purpose plainly: ''"We also address why the series of YouTube videos characterizing the design as unsafe is misleading."''<ref name="bbtechnote" /> Nowhere in its 11 pages does it mention the ''Berdner'' litigation.<ref name="bbtechnote-pdf" /> | The note arrived sixteen weeks into the dispute. Prowse's first video on the 100Ah terminal, documenting a 250 degree Fahrenheit reading on a sealed customer battery, was published December 10, 2025.<ref name="prowse-dec10">{{Cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP2yPY57Wjc |title=Battleborn 12V Battery: Major Safety Issue |publisher=DIY Solar Power with Will Prowse, YouTube |date=2025-12-10 |access-date=2026-06-07}}</ref> The next day he read on camera a Battle Born customer-service email from representative Matthew Adams defending the terminal; RV Travel quoted the email on December 18, 2025 as describing the ''"aluminum nut design as being a purpose-built thermal failsafe."''<ref name="prowse-dec11">{{Cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fD3yaRvp3o |title=Battleborn Batteries Responds! Their Overheating Device is a 'Feature' not a 'Problem'?? |publisher=DIY Solar Power with Will Prowse, YouTube |date=2025-12-11 |access-date=2026-06-07}}</ref><ref name="rvtravel" /> The ''Berdner'' class action over the same terminal was filed February 13, 2026.<ref name="10k2025" /> The note states its own purpose plainly: ''"We also address why the series of YouTube videos characterizing the design as unsafe is misleading."''<ref name="bbtechnote" /> Nowhere in its 11 pages does it mention the ''Berdner'' litigation.<ref name="bbtechnote-pdf" /> | ||
=== What the dispute is about, in plain terms === | ===What the dispute is about, in plain terms=== | ||
A battery terminal is the metal post the cables bolt onto. In a 100 amp-hour battery like this one, up to 100 amps of current passes through that post, and the connection only stays cool if the metal parts inside are pressed firmly together. In the Battle Born 100Ah design, the part doing the pressing is a layer of plastic that softens at 85°C, which is 185°F.<ref name="bbtechnote" /> | A battery terminal is the metal post the cables bolt onto. In a 100 amp-hour battery like this one, up to 100 amps of current passes through that post, and the connection only stays cool if the metal parts inside are pressed firmly together. In the Battle Born 100Ah design, the part doing the pressing is a layer of plastic that softens at 85°C, which is 185°F.<ref name="bbtechnote" /> | ||
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
What he filmed: a sealed customer battery whose positive terminal read 250°F during an ordinary charge and which randomly cut all power, with a forum-reported workaround of pushing the terminal sideways to bring it back;<ref name="prowse-dec10" /> and, the next day, the same battery passing 60 to 95 amps of charging current through a terminal at 202°F and climbing, with visible arcing inside.<ref name="prowse-dec11" /> A fastener that loosens at the design's own trigger temperature, keeps conducting, sparks, and reconnects when pushed is the behavior at issue. Whether that behavior is a safety feature or a defect is the question the rest of this section examines claim by claim. | What he filmed: a sealed customer battery whose positive terminal read 250°F during an ordinary charge and which randomly cut all power, with a forum-reported workaround of pushing the terminal sideways to bring it back;<ref name="prowse-dec10" /> and, the next day, the same battery passing 60 to 95 amps of charging current through a terminal at 202°F and climbing, with visible arcing inside.<ref name="prowse-dec11" /> A fastener that loosens at the design's own trigger temperature, keeps conducting, sparks, and reconnects when pushed is the behavior at issue. Whether that behavior is a safety feature or a defect is the question the rest of this section examines claim by claim. | ||
=== Claim-by-claim analysis === | ===Claim-by-claim analysis=== | ||
==== UL 2054 certification and test history ==== | ====UL 2054 certification and test history==== | ||
Battle Born's lead certification claim in the note: | Battle Born's lead certification claim in the note: | ||
| Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
The listing exists; it names a battery pack under a portable-battery standard, the test has more failure criteria than fire alone, and the 2017 pass date is the company's own. | The listing exists; it names a battery pack under a portable-battery standard, the test has more failure criteria than fire alone, and the 2017 pass date is the company's own. | ||
==== Terminal materials and the creep study ==== | ====Terminal materials and the creep study==== | ||
The note describes the construction: | The note describes the construction: | ||
| Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
The note's own chart shows the temperature dependence. Figure 1 (page 3) plots the Kang creep limit at approximately 34.8 MPa at 20°C and 28.5 MPa at 40°C, falling to approximately 1.5 MPa at 100°C, with the "Battle Born Operating Zone" marked at roughly 4.8 MPa at 40°C.<ref name="bbtechnote-pdf" /> 28.5 MPa against 4.8 MPa is a factor of about six, against the prose's ''"at least an order of magnitude."'' The material numbers are right; the cited study's temperature finding, and the note's own chart, both show the margin shrinking as the terminal heats toward its 85°C trigger. | The note's own chart shows the temperature dependence. Figure 1 (page 3) plots the Kang creep limit at approximately 34.8 MPa at 20°C and 28.5 MPa at 40°C, falling to approximately 1.5 MPa at 100°C, with the "Battle Born Operating Zone" marked at roughly 4.8 MPa at 40°C.<ref name="bbtechnote-pdf" /> 28.5 MPa against 4.8 MPa is a factor of about six, against the prose's ''"at least an order of magnitude."'' The material numbers are right; the cited study's temperature finding, and the note's own chart, both show the margin shrinking as the terminal heats toward its 85°C trigger. | ||
==== Interrupt physics at 12 volts ==== | ====Interrupt physics at 12 volts==== | ||
The note's mechanism story is that when the plastic softens, ''"aluminum’s most important electrical property takes over. Aluminum oxidizes,"'' and the remaining contact points are ''"rapidly and progressively extinguished by their own chemistry"'' until the joint sits in a permanent high-resistance state.<ref name="bbtechnote" /> On voltage, it argues: | The note's mechanism story is that when the plastic softens, ''"aluminum’s most important electrical property takes over. Aluminum oxidizes,"'' and the remaining contact points are ''"rapidly and progressively extinguished by their own chemistry"'' until the joint sits in a permanent high-resistance state.<ref name="bbtechnote" /> On voltage, it argues: | ||
| Line 106: | Line 106: | ||
The note predicts the contact points extinguish themselves; the NBS and Shea measurements document loose copper-aluminum joints sustaining glowing, watt-level heating instead, at DC voltages below the battery's. A boat-wiring standard names aluminum as a metal that shall not be used for terminal studs and nuts, the battery charges within the published 10 to 20 volt range for drawn arcs, and the note describes repeated 12-volt arcing two pages after declaring it self-extinguishing. | The note predicts the contact points extinguish themselves; the NBS and Shea measurements document loose copper-aluminum joints sustaining glowing, watt-level heating instead, at DC voltages below the battery's. A boat-wiring standard names aluminum as a metal that shall not be used for terminal studs and nuts, the battery charges within the published 10 to 20 volt range for drawn arcs, and the note describes repeated 12-volt arcing two pages after declaring it self-extinguishing. | ||
==== Lid-removal argument ==== | ====Lid-removal argument==== | ||
The note's answer to the video footage is that opening the battery created the failure being filmed: | The note's answer to the video footage is that opening the battery created the failure being filmed: | ||
| Line 114: | Line 114: | ||
The dated record shows the hazard behavior in sealed, intact units: | The dated record shows the hazard behavior in sealed, intact units: | ||
* The battery that started the series read 250°F at the terminal and showed heat-discolored epoxy while still sealed; Prowse displays the discoloration on camera before opening the unit (December 10, 2025, at 1:05).<ref name="prowse-dec10" /> | *The battery that started the series read 250°F at the terminal and showed heat-discolored epoxy while still sealed; Prowse displays the discoloration on camera before opening the unit (December 10, 2025, at 1:05).<ref name="prowse-dec10" /> | ||
* Prowse then bought a new 100Ah unit with his own money and cycled it sealed, within the datasheet's ratings; its case melted at the negative side after 30 cycles, a controlled test Hackaday covered in print: ''"After letting the battery cool down and trying again with 80 A discharge current the negative terminal side of the enclosure began to melt ..."''<ref name="prowsevid" /><ref name="hackaday-melt" /> | *Prowse then bought a new 100Ah unit with his own money and cycled it sealed, within the datasheet's ratings; its case melted at the negative side after 30 cycles, a controlled test Hackaday covered in print: ''"After letting the battery cool down and trying again with 80 A discharge current the negative terminal side of the enclosure began to melt ..."''<ref name="prowsevid" /><ref name="hackaday-melt" /> | ||
* His instrumented 75Ah cycle test ran the battery sealed for its entire 99-hour life and opened it only after it died (March 16, 2026, at 9:45); Hackaday's coverage notes it was ''"charged and discharged at a mere 49A, well below its rated 100A."''<ref name="prowse-invest">{{Cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIE1-hIhbvM |title=Battleborn Battery Investigation |publisher=DIY Solar Power with Will Prowse, YouTube |date=2026-03-16 |access-date=2026-06-07}}</ref><ref name="hackaday-death" /> | *His instrumented 75Ah cycle test ran the battery sealed for its entire 99-hour life and opened it only after it died (March 16, 2026, at 9:45); Hackaday's coverage notes it was ''"charged and discharged at a mere 49A, well below its rated 100A."''<ref name="prowse-invest">{{Cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIE1-hIhbvM |title=Battleborn Battery Investigation |publisher=DIY Solar Power with Will Prowse, YouTube |date=2026-03-16 |access-date=2026-06-07}}</ref><ref name="hackaday-death" /> | ||
* Independently of Prowse's bench, the RV creator Grand Adventure documented four of his own six in-service, sealed 100Ah units failing in his battery bank.<ref name="grandadv" /> | *Independently of Prowse's bench, the RV creator Grand Adventure documented four of his own six in-service, sealed 100Ah units failing in his battery bank.<ref name="grandadv" /> | ||
* Battle Born's own Section 4 test used ''"three sealed new BB10012 batteries,"'' lid on, drove the terminals to 121°C, and left all three permanently unable to deliver meaningful power.<ref name="bbtechnote" /> | *Battle Born's own Section 4 test used ''"three sealed new BB10012 batteries,"'' lid on, drove the terminals to 121°C, and left all three permanently unable to deliver meaningful power.<ref name="bbtechnote" /> | ||
Sealed units failed in an owner's installation, in Prowse's lid-on bench tests, and in Battle Born's own lid-on test. The lid-removal explanation addresses what the arcing demonstrations looked like on camera; the overheating and failures listed above occurred with the lids in place. | Sealed units failed in an owner's installation, in Prowse's lid-on bench tests, and in Battle Born's own lid-on test. The lid-removal explanation addresses what the arcing demonstrations looked like on camera; the overheating and failures listed above occurred with the lids in place. | ||
==== Battle Born's internal tests ==== | ====Battle Born's internal tests==== | ||
[[File:Prowse-75Ah-instrumented-cycle-test-disconnects.png|thumb|upright=1.3|A frame from Will Prowse's instrumented 75Ah cycle test ("Battleborn Battery Investigation," March 16, 2026): the cycle-machine graphs recording disconnect events that accumulated to roughly 23,000 over 99 hours, a dataset he published for download.<ref name="prowse-invest" />]] | [[File:Prowse-75Ah-instrumented-cycle-test-disconnects.png|thumb|upright=1.3|A frame from Will Prowse's instrumented 75Ah cycle test ("Battleborn Battery Investigation," March 16, 2026): the cycle-machine graphs recording disconnect events that accumulated to roughly 23,000 over 99 hours, a dataset he published for download.<ref name="prowse-invest" />]] | ||
| Line 140: | Line 140: | ||
Neither test is replicable as published. The fault test documents the company's protection destroying its own batteries at 250°F, and the cable the control test calls ''"correctly sized"'' is heavier than anything Battle Born's own chart requires at 100 amps for runs under 15 feet. | Neither test is replicable as published. The fault test documents the company's protection destroying its own batteries at 250°F, and the cable the control test calls ''"correctly sized"'' is heavier than anything Battle Born's own chart requires at 100 amps for runs under 15 feet. | ||
==== Warranty statistics and field record ==== | ====Warranty statistics and field record==== | ||
The note's field-data paragraph: | The note's field-data paragraph: | ||
| Line 152: | Line 152: | ||
The adjacent claim, which the note makes four times in varying terms, is most fully stated as: ''"Across that time, there have been no known instances of fire or cell damage caused by this design in the field."''<ref name="bbtechnote" /> No fire has been documented, and the defense section of this page does not claim one. The rest of the record sits outside the sentence's three qualifiers ("known," "caused by this design," "cell damage"): Hackaday's coverage of Prowse's autopsy of 15 field-failed units describes ''"the typical molten plastic at the terminals"'' plus widespread loose internal wiring, and a 300-amp industrial Battle Born model that vented a cell during his testing;<ref name="hackaday-autopsy" /> and the ''Berdner'' complaint pleads the terminal defect as ''"a serious fire hazard and safety risk."''<ref name="berdnercompl" /> Melted enclosures, a vented cell in a sibling model, and a pleaded fire hazard are all on the record; none of them is a documented fire, and none of them is counted by the sentence as written. | The adjacent claim, which the note makes four times in varying terms, is most fully stated as: ''"Across that time, there have been no known instances of fire or cell damage caused by this design in the field."''<ref name="bbtechnote" /> No fire has been documented, and the defense section of this page does not claim one. The rest of the record sits outside the sentence's three qualifiers ("known," "caused by this design," "cell damage"): Hackaday's coverage of Prowse's autopsy of 15 field-failed units describes ''"the typical molten plastic at the terminals"'' plus widespread loose internal wiring, and a 300-amp industrial Battle Born model that vented a cell during his testing;<ref name="hackaday-autopsy" /> and the ''Berdner'' complaint pleads the terminal defect as ''"a serious fire hazard and safety risk."''<ref name="berdnercompl" /> Melted enclosures, a vented cell in a sibling model, and a pleaded fire hazard are all on the record; none of them is a documented fire, and none of them is counted by the sentence as written. | ||
==== Terminal interrupt as a backstop to the BMS ==== | ====Terminal interrupt as a backstop to the BMS==== | ||
Appendix B places the terminal in a layered-protection architecture: | Appendix B places the terminal in a layered-protection architecture: | ||
| Line 162: | Line 162: | ||
The note presents the destructive interrupt as a second layer behind an active first line of defense. In the failures on the record, the documented BMS behavior was rapid disconnection and reconnection, not a protective latch-off, while the terminal heated toward the 121°C the company's own test measured. | The note presents the destructive interrupt as a second layer behind an active first line of defense. In the failures on the record, the documented BMS behavior was rapid disconnection and reconnection, not a protective latch-off, while the terminal heated toward the 121°C the company's own test measured. | ||
=== When the safety-feature claim first appeared === | ===When the safety-feature claim first appeared=== | ||
The note's FAQ contains an admission that frames this whole timeline: ''"We also made a deliberate decision to share details of our terminal design that we would not ordinarily disclose publicly. This is proprietary engineering, and we do not take that decision lightly."''<ref name="bbtechnote" /> The dated public record before and after December 10, 2025: | The note's FAQ contains an admission that frames this whole timeline: ''"We also made a deliberate decision to share details of our terminal design that we would not ordinarily disclose publicly. This is proprietary engineering, and we do not take that decision lightly."''<ref name="bbtechnote" /> The dated public record before and after December 10, 2025: | ||
* '''2017.''' The BB10012 Manual and Installation Guide (PDF created August 16, 2017) covers the BMS's voltage and temperature protections, including the 14.2 to 14.6 volt charging range and the 14.7 to 15.0 volt high-voltage cutoff. No terminal safety function appears in it.<ref name="bb-manual" /> | *'''2017.''' The BB10012 Manual and Installation Guide (PDF created August 16, 2017) covers the BMS's voltage and temperature protections, including the 14.2 to 14.6 volt charging range and the 14.7 to 15.0 volt high-voltage cutoff. No terminal safety function appears in it.<ref name="bb-manual" /> | ||
* '''November 12, 2020.''' The press release launching the heated BB10012H, as published on dragonflyenergy.com (earliest located Wayback capture April 11, 2026), describes the internal heating system, the BMS cold-temperature charging restriction, the 10-year warranty, and the line ''"Considered to be the pinnacle of quality and safety at an unbeatable price point."'' No terminal safety function appears.<ref name="pr2020">{{Cite web |url=https://dragonflyenergy.com/battle-born-batteries-launches-the-heated-100ah-12v-battery-the-bb10012h/ |title=Battle Born Batteries Launches the Heated 100Ah 12V Battery, the BB10012H |publisher=Dragonfly Energy |date=2020-11-12 |access-date=2026-06-07}} [https://web.archive.org/web/20260411115228/https://dragonflyenergy.com/battle-born-batteries-launches-the-heated-100ah-12v-battery-the-bb10012h/ Wayback Machine capture], April 11, 2026.</ref> | *'''November 12, 2020.''' The press release launching the heated BB10012H, as published on dragonflyenergy.com (earliest located Wayback capture April 11, 2026), describes the internal heating system, the BMS cold-temperature charging restriction, the 10-year warranty, and the line ''"Considered to be the pinnacle of quality and safety at an unbeatable price point."'' No terminal safety function appears.<ref name="pr2020">{{Cite web |url=https://dragonflyenergy.com/battle-born-batteries-launches-the-heated-100ah-12v-battery-the-bb10012h/ |title=Battle Born Batteries Launches the Heated 100Ah 12V Battery, the BB10012H |publisher=Dragonfly Energy |date=2020-11-12 |access-date=2026-06-07}} [https://web.archive.org/web/20260411115228/https://dragonflyenergy.com/battle-born-batteries-launches-the-heated-100ah-12v-battery-the-bb10012h/ Wayback Machine capture], April 11, 2026.</ref> | ||
* '''July 28, 2022.''' The Heat Enable Instruction Guide (edition HIM_HeatedRev007_07282022) instructs installers to tighten terminal connections with a ''"torque wrench set to 10 ft-lbs."'' No terminal safety function appears.<ref name="heatguide">{{Cite web |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241006111116/https://battlebornbatteries.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/BBHeat-Instruction-Guide-Edition.HIM_HeatedRev007_06302022.pdf |title=Battle Born Batteries Heat Enable Instruction Guide, Edition HIM_HeatedRev007_07282022 |publisher=Battle Born Batteries (Wayback Machine capture, October 6, 2024) |access-date=2026-06-07}} The original battlebornbatteries.com URL now redirects to a 2025 revision of the guide.</ref> | *'''July 28, 2022.''' The Heat Enable Instruction Guide (edition HIM_HeatedRev007_07282022) instructs installers to tighten terminal connections with a ''"torque wrench set to 10 ft-lbs."'' No terminal safety function appears.<ref name="heatguide">{{Cite web |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241006111116/https://battlebornbatteries.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/BBHeat-Instruction-Guide-Edition.HIM_HeatedRev007_06302022.pdf |title=Battle Born Batteries Heat Enable Instruction Guide, Edition HIM_HeatedRev007_07282022 |publisher=Battle Born Batteries (Wayback Machine capture, October 6, 2024) |access-date=2026-06-07}} The original battlebornbatteries.com URL now redirects to a 2025 revision of the guide.</ref> | ||
* '''June 5, 2023.''' Dragonfly's Form S-1 discusses product safety through lithium-ion cell risk factors, recall risk, LFP chemistry positioning, the proprietary BMS, and third-party validation ''"by a third-party lab, which includes UL Standard 2054, IEC 62133 and the UN 38.3 shipping certification."'' The word "terminal" does not appear in the filing's text.<ref name="s1-2023">{{Cite web |url=https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1847986/000149315223020044/forms-1.htm |title=Form S-1 (Dragonfly Energy Holdings Corp.), filed June 5, 2023 |publisher=U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission |date=2023-06-05 |access-date=2026-06-07}} [https://web.archive.org/web/20260107142356/https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1847986/000149315223020044/forms-1.htm Wayback Machine capture], January 7, 2026.</ref> | *'''June 5, 2023.''' Dragonfly's Form S-1 discusses product safety through lithium-ion cell risk factors, recall risk, LFP chemistry positioning, the proprietary BMS, and third-party validation ''"by a third-party lab, which includes UL Standard 2054, IEC 62133 and the UN 38.3 shipping certification."'' The word "terminal" does not appear in the filing's text.<ref name="s1-2023">{{Cite web |url=https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1847986/000149315223020044/forms-1.htm |title=Form S-1 (Dragonfly Energy Holdings Corp.), filed June 5, 2023 |publisher=U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission |date=2023-06-05 |access-date=2026-06-07}} [https://web.archive.org/web/20260107142356/https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1847986/000149315223020044/forms-1.htm Wayback Machine capture], January 7, 2026.</ref> | ||
* '''December 28, 2023.''' Dragonfly's patent application US 2023/0420204 A1, "Thermal Fuse" (filed June 23, 2023), publishes. It describes a thermal interrupt built on a different, reversible principle: ''"Based on a difference in the thermal coefficients of expansion, the insulating component may expand axially relative to the electrodes with increasing temperature,"'' so the device may ''"transition between an open and closed configuration"'' as temperature rises and falls. The technical note's production terminal works the opposite way, by a polymer that softens and a shutdown that is ''"permanent and irreversible by design."''<ref name="thermalfuse">{{Cite web |url=https://patents.google.com/patent/US20230420204A1/en |title=US 2023/0420204 A1: Thermal Fuse (Dragonfly Energy Corp.; filed June 23, 2023, published December 28, 2023) |publisher=Google Patents |date=2023-12-28 |access-date=2026-06-07}} [https://web.archive.org/web/20260607175226/https://patents.google.com/patent/US20230420204A1/en Wayback Machine capture], June 7, 2026.</ref><ref name="bbtechnote" /> | *'''December 28, 2023.''' Dragonfly's patent application US 2023/0420204 A1, "Thermal Fuse" (filed June 23, 2023), publishes. It describes a thermal interrupt built on a different, reversible principle: ''"Based on a difference in the thermal coefficients of expansion, the insulating component may expand axially relative to the electrodes with increasing temperature,"'' so the device may ''"transition between an open and closed configuration"'' as temperature rises and falls. The technical note's production terminal works the opposite way, by a polymer that softens and a shutdown that is ''"permanent and irreversible by design."''<ref name="thermalfuse">{{Cite web |url=https://patents.google.com/patent/US20230420204A1/en |title=US 2023/0420204 A1: Thermal Fuse (Dragonfly Energy Corp.; filed June 23, 2023, published December 28, 2023) |publisher=Google Patents |date=2023-12-28 |access-date=2026-06-07}} [https://web.archive.org/web/20260607175226/https://patents.google.com/patent/US20230420204A1/en Wayback Machine capture], June 7, 2026.</ref><ref name="bbtechnote" /> | ||
* '''July 29, 2024''' (page revision date; archived December 10, 2025)'''.''' The Tiffin Motorhomes component manual for the Dragonfly DFGC3 instructs: ''"Use a torque wrench to torque your hardware to the specification of 9 to 11 ft-lbs. Failure to adequately secure connections can result in severe damage and will void your warranty."'' Its safety content is generic electrical-handling warnings and the BMS. No terminal safety function appears.<ref name="tiffin">{{Cite web |url=https://knowledge.tiffinmotorhomes.com/Technical_Support/Resource_Library/All_Component_Manuals/Electrical/Dragonfly/Dragonfly_Game_Changer/DFGC3_Manual_and_Installation |title=DFGC3 Manual and Installation (Dragonfly Game Changer component manual) |publisher=Tiffin Motorhomes |access-date=2026-06-07}} [https://web.archive.org/web/20251210110553/https://knowledge.tiffinmotorhomes.com/Technical_Support/Resource_Library/All_Component_Manuals/Electrical/Dragonfly/Dragonfly_Game_Changer/DFGC3_Manual_and_Installation Wayback Machine capture], December 10, 2025; the page's own metadata gives a revision date of July 29, 2024.</ref> | *'''July 29, 2024''' (page revision date; archived December 10, 2025)'''.''' The Tiffin Motorhomes component manual for the Dragonfly DFGC3 instructs: ''"Use a torque wrench to torque your hardware to the specification of 9 to 11 ft-lbs. Failure to adequately secure connections can result in severe damage and will void your warranty."'' Its safety content is generic electrical-handling warnings and the BMS. No terminal safety function appears.<ref name="tiffin">{{Cite web |url=https://knowledge.tiffinmotorhomes.com/Technical_Support/Resource_Library/All_Component_Manuals/Electrical/Dragonfly/Dragonfly_Game_Changer/DFGC3_Manual_and_Installation |title=DFGC3 Manual and Installation (Dragonfly Game Changer component manual) |publisher=Tiffin Motorhomes |access-date=2026-06-07}} [https://web.archive.org/web/20251210110553/https://knowledge.tiffinmotorhomes.com/Technical_Support/Resource_Library/All_Component_Manuals/Electrical/Dragonfly/Dragonfly_Game_Changer/DFGC3_Manual_and_Installation Wayback Machine capture], December 10, 2025; the page's own metadata gives a revision date of July 29, 2024.</ref> | ||
* '''December 10, 2025.''' Prowse publishes "Battleborn 12V Battery: Major Safety Issue," documenting the 250°F positive terminal on a sealed customer battery.<ref name="prowse-dec10" /> | *'''December 10, 2025.''' Prowse publishes "Battleborn 12V Battery: Major Safety Issue," documenting the 250°F positive terminal on a sealed customer battery.<ref name="prowse-dec10" /> | ||
* '''December 11, 2025.''' Prowse reads on camera a customer-service email from Battle Born representative Matthew Adams defending the terminal as a thermal failsafe, and rebuts it line by line.<ref name="prowse-dec11" /> | *'''December 11, 2025.''' Prowse reads on camera a customer-service email from Battle Born representative Matthew Adams defending the terminal as a thermal failsafe, and rebuts it line by line.<ref name="prowse-dec11" /> | ||
* '''December 18, 2025.''' RV Travel reports the dispute and prints the Adams email span, describing the ''"aluminum nut design as being a purpose-built thermal failsafe. It is engineered so that the plastic deforms and disconnects when excess heat is present at the terminal."''<ref name="rvtravel" /> | *'''December 18, 2025.''' RV Travel reports the dispute and prints the Adams email span, describing the ''"aluminum nut design as being a purpose-built thermal failsafe. It is engineered so that the plastic deforms and disconnects when excess heat is present at the terminal."''<ref name="rvtravel" /> | ||
* '''February 13, 2026.''' ''Berdner et al. v. Dragonfly Energy Holdings Corp.'' is filed in Sonoma County Superior Court, pleading the positive terminal as a uniform design defect and fire hazard.<ref name="berdnercompl" /><ref name="10k2025" /> | *'''February 13, 2026.''' ''Berdner et al. v. Dragonfly Energy Holdings Corp.'' is filed in Sonoma County Superior Court, pleading the positive terminal as a uniform design defect and fire hazard.<ref name="berdnercompl" /><ref name="10k2025" /> | ||
* '''March 16, 2026.''' Prowse publishes the instrumented "Battleborn Battery Investigation" with the roughly 23,000-disconnect dataset.<ref name="prowse-invest" /> | *'''March 16, 2026.''' Prowse publishes the instrumented "Battleborn Battery Investigation" with the roughly 23,000-disconnect dataset.<ref name="prowse-invest" /> | ||
* '''March 30, 2026.''' Dragonfly files its fiscal-year 2025 Form 10-K, disclosing the ''Berdner'' action and stating the company ''"has yet to be served with the complaint"''; no terminal-as-safety-feature language appears in the filing. The same day is the technical-note PDF's internal creation date.<ref name="10k2025" /><ref name="bbtechnote-pdf" /> | *'''March 30, 2026.''' Dragonfly files its fiscal-year 2025 Form 10-K, disclosing the ''Berdner'' action and stating the company ''"has yet to be served with the complaint"''; no terminal-as-safety-feature language appears in the filing. The same day is the technical-note PDF's internal creation date.<ref name="10k2025" /><ref name="bbtechnote-pdf" /> | ||
* '''March 31, 2026.''' Battle Born publishes the technical note: the earliest located formal company document describing the mechanism, naming PA-765 and the 85°C softening point.<ref name="bbtechnote" /> | *'''March 31, 2026.''' Battle Born publishes the technical note: the earliest located formal company document describing the mechanism, naming PA-765 and the 85°C softening point.<ref name="bbtechnote" /> | ||
* '''April 9, 2026.''' Prowse publishes his section-by-section rebuttal of the note.<ref name="prowse-rebuttal" /> | *'''April 9, 2026.''' Prowse publishes his section-by-section rebuttal of the note.<ref name="prowse-rebuttal" /> | ||
* '''April 15, 2026.''' A Battle Born blog post, "Battery Safety by Design," becomes the earliest located standard marketing page to list ''"A purpose-built thermal disconnect at the positive terminal"'' and ''"Sacrificial electrical components intended to fail safely under abnormal conditions."''<ref name="bb-blog">{{Cite web |url=https://battlebornbatteries.com/blogs/articles/battle-born-battery-safety-by-design |title=Battery Safety by Design: How Battle Born Builds Lithium Batteries You Can Trust |publisher=Battle Born Batteries |date=2026-04-15 |access-date=2026-06-07}} [https://web.archive.org/web/20260418193532/https://battlebornbatteries.com/blogs/articles/battle-born-battery-safety-by-design Wayback Machine capture], April 18, 2026.</ref> | *'''April 15, 2026.''' A Battle Born blog post, "Battery Safety by Design," becomes the earliest located standard marketing page to list ''"A purpose-built thermal disconnect at the positive terminal"'' and ''"Sacrificial electrical components intended to fail safely under abnormal conditions."''<ref name="bb-blog">{{Cite web |url=https://battlebornbatteries.com/blogs/articles/battle-born-battery-safety-by-design |title=Battery Safety by Design: How Battle Born Builds Lithium Batteries You Can Trust |publisher=Battle Born Batteries |date=2026-04-15 |access-date=2026-06-07}} [https://web.archive.org/web/20260418193532/https://battlebornbatteries.com/blogs/articles/battle-born-battery-safety-by-design Wayback Machine capture], April 18, 2026.</ref> | ||
* '''June 1, 2026.''' Dragonfly sues Prowse for trade libel in Washoe County, Nevada (see [[#What Dragonfly actually filed|above]]).<ref name="complaint" /> | *'''June 1, 2026.''' Dragonfly sues Prowse for trade libel in Washoe County, Nevada (see [[#What Dragonfly actually filed|above]]).<ref name="complaint" /> | ||
* '''By June 7, 2026.''' Battle Born's "Safety Facts" page (undated; first Wayback capture June 7, 2026) describes ''"a passive thermal interrupt in the positive terminal"'' as ''"included specifically to meet UL 2054 certification requirements for commercial RV installations through the RVIA (Recreational Vehicle Industry Association)."'' That UL-2054-requirement rationale appears nowhere in the March 31 technical note.<ref name="bb-safetyfacts">{{Cite web |url=https://battlebornbatteries.com/pages/safety-facts-technical-resources |title=Battle Born Batteries Safety Facts & Technical Resources |publisher=Battle Born Batteries |access-date=2026-06-07}} [https://web.archive.org/web/20260607174902/https://battlebornbatteries.com/pages/safety-facts-technical-resources Wayback Machine capture], June 7, 2026; the page carries no publication or update datestamp.</ref><ref name="bbtechnote-pdf" /> | *'''By June 7, 2026.''' Battle Born's "Safety Facts" page (undated; first Wayback capture June 7, 2026) describes ''"a passive thermal interrupt in the positive terminal"'' as ''"included specifically to meet UL 2054 certification requirements for commercial RV installations through the RVIA (Recreational Vehicle Industry Association)."'' That UL-2054-requirement rationale appears nowhere in the March 31 technical note.<ref name="bb-safetyfacts">{{Cite web |url=https://battlebornbatteries.com/pages/safety-facts-technical-resources |title=Battle Born Batteries Safety Facts & Technical Resources |publisher=Battle Born Batteries |access-date=2026-06-07}} [https://web.archive.org/web/20260607174902/https://battlebornbatteries.com/pages/safety-facts-technical-resources Wayback Machine capture], June 7, 2026; the page carries no publication or update datestamp.</ref><ref name="bbtechnote-pdf" /> | ||
None of the six dated company artifacts above that precede December 10, 2025, the 2017 manual, the 2020 launch press release, the 2022 heat-enable guide, the 2023 Form S-1, the 2023 "Thermal Fuse" patent application, and the Tiffin DFGC3 component manual, describes the 100Ah positive terminal as performing any safety function. The earliest located dated public description of the terminal as a safety device is the Adams customer-service email, read on camera by Prowse on December 11, 2025 and quoted in print by RV Travel on December 18, 2025, one day and eight days after the first video; the March 31, 2026 technical note is the earliest located formal company documentation of the mechanism.<ref name="prowse-dec11" /><ref name="rvtravel" /><ref name="bbtechnote" /> | None of the six dated company artifacts above that precede December 10, 2025, the 2017 manual, the 2020 launch press release, the 2022 heat-enable guide, the 2023 Form S-1, the 2023 "Thermal Fuse" patent application, and the Tiffin DFGC3 component manual, describes the 100Ah positive terminal as performing any safety function. The earliest located dated public description of the terminal as a safety device is the Adams customer-service email, read on camera by Prowse on December 11, 2025 and quoted in print by RV Travel on December 18, 2025, one day and eight days after the first video; the March 31, 2026 technical note is the earliest located formal company documentation of the mechanism.<ref name="prowse-dec11" /><ref name="rvtravel" /><ref name="bbtechnote" /> | ||
=== Points where the technical note is accurate === | ===Points where the technical note is accurate=== | ||
In fairness, several of the note's claims check out against the primary sources. They share one trait. Each is accurate about something no one in this dispute contests, or about a bench standard that does not measure field reliability, and not one of them explains why packs used within Battle Born's own ratings overheated at the terminal: | In fairness, several of the note's claims check out against the primary sources. They share one trait. Each is accurate about something no one in this dispute contests, or about a bench standard that does not measure field reliability, and not one of them explains why packs used within Battle Born's own ratings overheated at the terminal: | ||
* '''The ETL listing is real.''' The Intertek Directory of Listed Products carries the BB10012 and DF10012 as ETL Listed lithium-ion battery packs found to comply with UL 2054, exactly as the note claims.<ref name="intertek-dlp" /> | *'''The ETL listing is real.''' The Intertek Directory of Listed Products carries the BB10012 and DF10012 as ETL Listed lithium-ion battery packs found to comply with UL 2054, exactly as the note claims.<ref name="intertek-dlp" /> | ||
* '''The test description matches the standard.''' The ten-sample structure, the 20°C and 55°C test temperatures, the single-fault application, and the no-fire requirement all match published excerpts of UL 2054.<ref name="ul2054-temps" /><ref name="ul2054-singlefault" /> | *'''The test description matches the standard.''' The ten-sample structure, the 20°C and 55°C test temperatures, the single-fault application, and the no-fire requirement all match published excerpts of UL 2054.<ref name="ul2054-temps" /><ref name="ul2054-singlefault" /> | ||
* '''The biannual-inspection claim matches a published Intertek program.''' The note's statement that ''"Intertek enforces this policy through random biannual inspections of our manufacturing facility"'' is consistent with Intertek's Semi-Annual Follow Up Inspections Program for ETL Listed products, announced in October 2013 as ''"Reducing the number of inspections from four per year to two per year"'' for qualified manufacturers.<ref name="bbtechnote" /><ref name="intertek-semiannual">{{Cite web |url=https://www.intertek.com/news/2013/10-10-semi-annual-follow-up-inspections/ |title=Intertek Launches Semi-Annual Follow Up Inspections Program For Its ETL Listed Certification |publisher=Intertek |date=2013-10-10 |access-date=2026-06-07}}</ref> | *'''The biannual-inspection claim matches a published Intertek program.''' The note's statement that ''"Intertek enforces this policy through random biannual inspections of our manufacturing facility"'' is consistent with Intertek's Semi-Annual Follow Up Inspections Program for ETL Listed products, announced in October 2013 as ''"Reducing the number of inspections from four per year to two per year"'' for qualified manufacturers.<ref name="bbtechnote" /><ref name="intertek-semiannual">{{Cite web |url=https://www.intertek.com/news/2013/10-10-semi-annual-follow-up-inspections/ |title=Intertek Launches Semi-Annual Follow Up Inspections Program For Its ETL Listed Certification |publisher=Intertek |date=2013-10-10 |access-date=2026-06-07}}</ref> | ||
* '''The PA-765 figures are accurate, and quoted selectively.''' The note's 2 GPa modulus matches the Chi Mei POLYLAC PA-765 datasheet's 2,070 MPa flexural modulus, and its 85°C softening figure corresponds to the datasheet's annealed heat-deflection temperature of 83.0°C; as the terminal-materials analysis above notes, it passes over the same datasheet's lower unannealed figure of 73.0°C.<ref name="pa765" /> | *'''The PA-765 figures are accurate, and quoted selectively.''' The note's 2 GPa modulus matches the Chi Mei POLYLAC PA-765 datasheet's 2,070 MPa flexural modulus, and its 85°C softening figure corresponds to the datasheet's annealed heat-deflection temperature of 83.0°C; as the terminal-materials analysis above notes, it passes over the same datasheet's lower unannealed figure of 73.0°C.<ref name="pa765" /> | ||
* '''The electrical arithmetic is exact, for a connection that holds.''' 200 microohms at 100 amps gives 20 millivolts and 2 watts, as stated, and a sub-200-microohm assembly is achievable: published busbar-joint benchmarks put a ''"Typical Healthy Joint"'' at ''"1-5 μΩ for properly torqued connections."''<ref name="bbtechnote" /><ref name="busbar">{{Cite web |url=https://industrialmonitordirect.com/blogs/knowledgebase/bus-duct-contact-resistance-test-neta-standards-and-acceptable-values |title=Bus Duct Contact Resistance Test: NETA Standards and Acceptable Values |publisher=Industrial Monitor Direct |access-date=2026-06-07}}</ref> The dispute is not about connections that stay tight. It is about a terminal that works loose, loses contact, and heats, the failure the documented units showed. Correct math for the healthy case says nothing about the failed one. | *'''The electrical arithmetic is exact, for a connection that holds.''' 200 microohms at 100 amps gives 20 millivolts and 2 watts, as stated, and a sub-200-microohm assembly is achievable: published busbar-joint benchmarks put a ''"Typical Healthy Joint"'' at ''"1-5 μΩ for properly torqued connections."''<ref name="bbtechnote" /><ref name="busbar">{{Cite web |url=https://industrialmonitordirect.com/blogs/knowledgebase/bus-duct-contact-resistance-test-neta-standards-and-acceptable-values |title=Bus Duct Contact Resistance Test: NETA Standards and Acceptable Values |publisher=Industrial Monitor Direct |access-date=2026-06-07}}</ref> The dispute is not about connections that stay tight. It is about a terminal that works loose, loses contact, and heats, the failure the documented units showed. Correct math for the healthy case says nothing about the failed one. | ||
* '''The cited literature is real, and it describes the failure mode.''' The Kang 2012 creep study exists with the exact citation printed in the note, and its 80-percent-of-tensile-strength room-temperature creep limit gives 30.5 MPa against the datasheet's 38.1 MPa yield, grounding the note's 30 MPa figure.<ref name="kang2012" /><ref name="pa765" /> Oberst et al. 2019 is a real IEEE Holm Conference study of aging in bolted aluminum-copper joints, and current constriction at microscopic contact points, the proposition for which the note cites Holm's 1967 text, is established contact physics.<ref name="oberst2019">{{Cite web |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337793159_On_the_Aging_of_Electrical_Joints_with_a_Copper_and_an_Aluminum_Contact_Member |title=On the Aging of Electrical Joints with a Copper and an Aluminum Contact Member (Oberst et al., 2019) |publisher=ResearchGate |access-date=2026-06-07}}</ref><ref name="contact-fund">{{Cite web |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344479337_Electrical_Contact_Resistance_Fundamental_Principles |title=Electrical Contact Resistance: Fundamental Principles |publisher=ResearchGate |access-date=2026-06-07}}</ref> These are the note's own authorities, and they describe creep in a polymer spacer and aging in a bolted aluminum-copper joint, the precise mechanism by which a terminal works loose and overheats. The note cites the physics of its own failure. | *'''The cited literature is real, and it describes the failure mode.''' The Kang 2012 creep study exists with the exact citation printed in the note, and its 80-percent-of-tensile-strength room-temperature creep limit gives 30.5 MPa against the datasheet's 38.1 MPa yield, grounding the note's 30 MPa figure.<ref name="kang2012" /><ref name="pa765" /> Oberst et al. 2019 is a real IEEE Holm Conference study of aging in bolted aluminum-copper joints, and current constriction at microscopic contact points, the proposition for which the note cites Holm's 1967 text, is established contact physics.<ref name="oberst2019">{{Cite web |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337793159_On_the_Aging_of_Electrical_Joints_with_a_Copper_and_an_Aluminum_Contact_Member |title=On the Aging of Electrical Joints with a Copper and an Aluminum Contact Member (Oberst et al., 2019) |publisher=ResearchGate |access-date=2026-06-07}}</ref><ref name="contact-fund">{{Cite web |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344479337_Electrical_Contact_Resistance_Fundamental_Principles |title=Electrical Contact Resistance: Fundamental Principles |publisher=ResearchGate |access-date=2026-06-07}}</ref> These are the note's own authorities, and they describe creep in a polymer spacer and aging in a bolted aluminum-copper joint, the precise mechanism by which a terminal works loose and overheats. The note cites the physics of its own failure. | ||
* '''The non-disclosure admission is accurate, and it cuts toward Prowse.''' The FAQ's statement that the terminal details are ones the company ''"would not ordinarily disclose publicly"'' matches the dated record: no company document before December 2025 describes the function (see [[#When the safety-feature claim first appeared|the timeline above]]).<ref name="bbtechnote" /> By the company's own admission, the safety-feature explanation it now offers is one it had never put in writing until after the videos it sues over. | *'''The non-disclosure admission is accurate, and it cuts toward Prowse.''' The FAQ's statement that the terminal details are ones the company ''"would not ordinarily disclose publicly"'' matches the dated record: no company document before December 2025 describes the function (see [[#When the safety-feature claim first appeared|the timeline above]]).<ref name="bbtechnote" /> By the company's own admission, the safety-feature explanation it now offers is one it had never put in writing until after the videos it sues over. | ||
* '''The Appendix B chemistry and cell-architecture claims are not in dispute, because no one challenged them.''' The note's statements that LiFePO4 ''"is the most thermally stable lithium cell chemistry available for this application"'' and that with cylindrical cells ''"if a single cell degrades or fails, the pack continues to operate, whereas a prismatic cell failure typically takes the entire pack offline"'' are standard industry positioning; Prowse's section-by-section April 9 rebuttal contests the terminal, bus bar, certification, and statistics claims and takes no issue with these.<ref name="bbtechnote" /><ref name="prowse-rebuttal" /> | *'''The Appendix B chemistry and cell-architecture claims are not in dispute, because no one challenged them.''' The note's statements that LiFePO4 ''"is the most thermally stable lithium cell chemistry available for this application"'' and that with cylindrical cells ''"if a single cell degrades or fails, the pack continues to operate, whereas a prismatic cell failure typically takes the entire pack offline"'' are standard industry positioning; Prowse's section-by-section April 9 rebuttal contests the terminal, bus bar, certification, and statistics claims and takes no issue with these.<ref name="bbtechnote" /><ref name="prowse-rebuttal" /> | ||
Granting the note every one of these points changes nothing about the suit. It is precise about undisputed chemistry, about a laboratory listing that does not test field reliability, and about arithmetic for a connection that stays tight. It offers no field-failure data and no account of the new, in-spec packs that overheated, which is the only question the lawsuit raises. A plaintiff holding proof that a reviewer's safety findings were false would not need to be this exact about everything except the failures. | Granting the note every one of these points changes nothing about the suit. It is precise about undisputed chemistry, about a laboratory listing that does not test field reliability, and about arithmetic for a connection that stays tight. It offers no field-failure data and no account of the new, in-spec packs that overheated, which is the only question the lawsuit raises. A plaintiff holding proof that a reviewer's safety findings were false would not need to be this exact about everything except the failures. | ||
==Battle Born's charge-current specification for the 75Ah battery== | |||
[[File:Battle-Born-BB1275-charge-current-datasheet-comparison.png|thumb|center|820px|Two Battle Born datasheets for the same BB1275 (75Ah) battery, page 3, Charging Specifications. Left: the datasheet on battlebornbatteries.com as of June 7, 2026, listing ''"Max Charge Current 37.5A"''.<ref name="bb1275-ds-current" /> Right: the "BB1275 Standard Datasheet_V2", listing ''"Max Charge Current 50A"'', the file that was on battlebornbatteries.com when the Wayback Machine captured it on October 16, 2025 and that Defender still serves.<ref name="bb1275-ds-v2" /> Every other charging-specification row is identical.]] | |||
One of the complaint's specific factual charges is that Prowse's instrumented test of the 75Ah battery overcharged it. The complaint pleads: | |||
<blockquote>''"Prowse's 'testing' is intentionally abusive and invalid. The abuses demonstrated in this video and accompanying released data include that (1) the charge current was simultaneously ~49A, 30% over the 37.5A maximum specified in the manual ..."''</blockquote><ref name="complaint" /> | |||
That charge depends on 37.5A being the maximum charge current Battle Born published for the battery. For the 75Ah BB1275, Battle Born has published two different figures. | |||
The owner's manual and the datasheet currently on Battle Born's website state 37.5A. The datasheet at battlebornbatteries.com lists ''"Max Charge Current 37.5A"'', alongside a recommended charge current of ''".5c"'', which for a 75Ah cell is 37.5A.<ref name="bb1275-ds-current">Battle Born Batteries, BB1275 Data Sheet, page 3, Charging Specifications row ''"Max Charge Current 37.5A"''. {{Cite web |title=BB1275 Data Sheet |url=https://battlebornbatteries.com/cdn/shop/files/BB1275_Data_Sheet.pdf |access-date=2026-06-07 |publisher=Battle Born Batteries (Dragonfly Energy)}} [[Media:Battle-Born-BB1275-datasheet-manufacturer-37A.pdf|Uploaded copy]]. The file's internal PDF metadata gives a creation date of June 1, 2026.</ref> | |||
Battle Born has also published, for the same battery, a datasheet stating 50A. The document is internally titled "BB1275 Standard Datasheet_V2" and its page 3 lists ''"Max Charge Current 50A"''. That file was hosted on battlebornbatteries.com, where the Wayback Machine captured it on October 16, 2025, and the same file is currently served by Defender, a retailer that sells the battery.<ref name="bb1275-ds-v2">Battle Born Batteries, BB1275 Standard Datasheet_V2, page 3, Charging Specifications row ''"Max Charge Current 50A"''. Served by Defender: {{Cite web |title=BB1275 Standard Datasheet (v2) |url=https://defender.com/assets/pdf/battle-born/bb1275-standard-datasheet_v2-compressed.pdf |access-date=2026-06-07 |publisher=Defender (Battle Born retailer)}} [https://web.archive.org/web/20251016152325/https://battlebornbatteries.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/BB1275-Standard-Datasheet_V2-compressed.pdf Wayback Machine capture] of the same file on battlebornbatteries.com, October 16, 2025. [[Media:Battle-Born-BB1275-datasheet-v2-50A.pdf|Uploaded copy]]. The file's internal PDF metadata gives a creation date of December 30, 2024.</ref> The two datasheets are identical page for page except for that one ''"Max Charge Current"'' figure. | |||
The two figures bracket the test. Hackaday's coverage of the 75Ah test records that the battery was ''"charged and discharged at a mere 49A, well below its rated 100A."''<ref name="hackaday-death" /> A charge of about 49A is below the 50A maximum stated in the datasheet that Battle Born's own site carried into October 2025 and that its retailer still serves, and above the 37.5A maximum stated in the manual and in the current datasheet. The complaint quotes Prowse's own account of the same point, that he ran the test ''"under the continuous charge current"'' and that the battery ''"was used within spec on the datasheet."''<ref name="complaint" /> | |||
== History of Battle Born publishing inconsistent data == | |||
[[File:BB10012-datasheet-inconsistency.png|center|thumb|756x756px|Comparison of the datasheet PDF for the Battle Born BB10012 model, showing the max amps load discrepancy for a "1/2 Second Surge". Left: Currently published on battlebornbatteries.com as of June 6th, 2026, shows 1/2 second surge for loads over 200 amps. Right: Currently published on defender.com as of June 6th, 2026, shows 1/2 second surge for loads over 500 amps.]] | |||
The published datasheet and the owners manual for the Battle Born BB10012, BB10012i, BBGC2, and BBGC2i models display inconsistent 1/2 second surge loads for the batteries internal BMS. | |||
The BB10012 model datasheet PDF file published on battlebornbatteries.com shows "1/2 Second Surge for Loads over '''200 Amps'''". Metadata for the battlebornbatteries.com PDF file shows version 1.7 with a creation date of 2026-03-11 15:32:27 MDT. The same BB10012 model datasheet PDF file published on defender.com shows "1/2 Second Surge for Loads over '''500 Amps'''". Metadata for the defender.com PDF file shows version 1.4 with a creation date of 2024-12-30 16:39:56 MST. <ref>1/2 Second Surge for Loads over 500 Amps (defender.com) [[Media:Bb10012-standard-datasheet v1-12.26.2024-compressed.pdf|Bb10012-standard-datasheet v1-12.26.2024-compressed.pdf]] ([https://defender.com/assets/pdf/battle-born/bb10012-standard-datasheet_v1-12.26.2024-compressed.pdf original]), | |||
1/2 Second Surge for Loads over 200 Amps (battlebornbatteries.com) | |||
[[Media:BB10012 Data Sheet.pdf|BB10012 Data Sheet.pdf]] ([https://battlebornbatteries.com/cdn/shop/files/BB10012_Data_Sheet.pdf?v=18279477212807915031 original])</ref> | |||
==Prowse's own history with these batteries== | ==Prowse's own history with these batteries== | ||