User talk:Louis/Dragonfly Energy trade libel suit Will Prowse: Difference between revisions
Jackalgirl (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
::Will did actually test a BB1275 battery at 49A (YT: /watch?v=GIE1-hIhbvM). The datasheet did say 50A at some point on BB's website but I did find a datasheet dated Sep 30 2022 that says 37.5A (can't post the link because the Wiki doesn't allow me to). This still is a screwup on Dragonfly's part BUT I'm afraid they might have some ground here. [[User:Pmichniewski|Pmichniewski]] ([[User talk:Pmichniewski|talk]]) 20:51, 9 June 2026 (UTC) | ::Will did actually test a BB1275 battery at 49A (YT: /watch?v=GIE1-hIhbvM). The datasheet did say 50A at some point on BB's website but I did find a datasheet dated Sep 30 2022 that says 37.5A (can't post the link because the Wiki doesn't allow me to). This still is a screwup on Dragonfly's part BUT I'm afraid they might have some ground here. [[User:Pmichniewski|Pmichniewski]] ([[User talk:Pmichniewski|talk]]) 20:51, 9 June 2026 (UTC) | ||
:::Possibly they changed it to 37.5A, and then changed it back to 50A? @[[User:Je|Je]]posted about it below, having taken a look at the metadata of the new file, as well as one that is still on Defender's site about this battery model, with a metadata "last modified" date of 30 December 2024. Plus, Louis just posted today (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3QaHx0--mU) about the Wayback Machine having the pre-June 50A datasheet for the BB1275 here: https://web.archive.org/web/20251016152325/https://battlebornbatteries.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/BB1275-Standard-Datasheet_V2-compressed.pdf (note that it is "V2" in the filename). | |||
:::I don't have exiftool yet (my Mac is complaining about it), so I can't check the file that you can download from Archive.org (which might be different from the one on Defender's website). [[User:Jackalgirl|Jackalgirl]] ([[User talk:Jackalgirl|talk]]) 21:38, 9 June 2026 (UTC) | |||
==UL Listed/Certified== | ==UL Listed/Certified== | ||
| Line 64: | Line 66: | ||
:::::::-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | :::::::-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | ||
:::::::To whom it may concern, good morning, | :::::::To whom it may concern, good morning, | ||
::::::: I'm writing to you to ask about your certification for Dragonfly's Battle Born 100AH battery, model BB10012, which is listed in your database here: https://ramuk.intertekconnect.com/webclients/its/dlp/products.nsf/4c8700f3b75987a08525777700583333/8080c4204b23df7d86258b880059c69a?OpenDocument | :::::::I'm writing to you to ask about your certification for Dragonfly's Battle Born 100AH battery, model BB10012, which is listed in your database here: https://ramuk.intertekconnect.com/webclients/its/dlp/products.nsf/4c8700f3b75987a08525777700583333/8080c4204b23df7d86258b880059c69a?OpenDocument | ||
:::::::For reference, please see this video by Will Prowse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m7DSCKO-Bo&list=PL7bvIB2TPsCgD4TxUxf3szWyxRz_HwUd1&index=5&pp=iAQB - it's part of a larger Battle Born review and testing series, and I will summarize this for you since I respect your time. | :::::::For reference, please see this video by Will Prowse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m7DSCKO-Bo&list=PL7bvIB2TPsCgD4TxUxf3szWyxRz_HwUd1&index=5&pp=iAQB - it's part of a larger Battle Born review and testing series, and I will summarize this for you since I respect your time. | ||
:::::::Will tested a brand new Battle Born BB10012 model battery, charging at 49A, through cycle testing in accordance with the battery's specifications (charged at -1A of the rated 50A, discharged at 99A, -1A from the max discharge of 100A). He was trying to test for a repeatedly-reported issue with the battery: that the positive terminal is bolted to its bus using aluminum bolts with a plastic spacer (PA-765), which deforms under the heat load of current passing through the bolt and nuts, and result in a loose terminal. However, what happened during his testing (after he had to lower the testing specifications because the battery was disconnecting when cycled at its advertised rate) was that the negative side of the battery heated up so badly after 30 cycles (far fewer than the 3,000-5,000 cycles advertised by the company) that it deformed the battery's case and the battery completely ceased to function. | :::::::Will tested a brand new Battle Born BB10012 model battery, charging at 49A, through cycle testing in accordance with the battery's specifications (charged at -1A of the rated 50A, discharged at 99A, -1A from the max discharge of 100A). He was trying to test for a repeatedly-reported issue with the battery: that the positive terminal is bolted to its bus using aluminum bolts with a plastic spacer (PA-765), which deforms under the heat load of current passing through the bolt and nuts, and result in a loose terminal. However, what happened during his testing (after he had to lower the testing specifications because the battery was disconnecting when cycled at its advertised rate) was that the negative side of the battery heated up so badly after 30 cycles (far fewer than the 3,000-5,000 cycles advertised by the company) that it deformed the battery's case and the battery completely ceased to function. | ||
| Line 73: | Line 75: | ||
:::::::o If so, was the plastic spacer used in the connection of the positive terminal present in the model that you tested? | :::::::o If so, was the plastic spacer used in the connection of the positive terminal present in the model that you tested? | ||
:::::::o If so, could you explain how a plastic spacer that deforms and leads to loose connections (not "disconnects" as the manufacturer claims) could still conform to a safety standard? | :::::::o If so, could you explain how a plastic spacer that deforms and leads to loose connections (not "disconnects" as the manufacturer claims) could still conform to a safety standard? | ||
:::::::o Do you require companies that make changes to their products to retest with you, or submit their changes to you for review? | :::::::o Do you require companies that make changes to their products to retest with you, or submit their changes to you for review? | ||
:::::::o If so, are there any changes that are considered minor enough to not require retesting/recertification? | :::::::o If so, are there any changes that are considered minor enough to not require retesting/recertification? | ||
:::::::o If so, do you have any kind of guidelines as to what would characterize a change as "minor" in this sense? | :::::::o If so, do you have any kind of guidelines as to what would characterize a change as "minor" in this sense? | ||
:::::::o Would the insertion of a PA-765 spacer within the assembly of the positive terminal's connection to the bus be qualified as a "minor" change, or would it require you to retest the unit? [[User:Jackalgirl|Jackalgirl]] ([[User talk:Jackalgirl|talk]]) 16:38, 9 June 2026 (UTC) | :::::::o Would the insertion of a PA-765 spacer within the assembly of the positive terminal's connection to the bus be qualified as a "minor" change, or would it require you to retest the unit? [[User:Jackalgirl|Jackalgirl]] ([[User talk:Jackalgirl|talk]]) 16:38, 9 June 2026 (UTC) | ||