User talk:Louis/Dragonfly Energy trade libel suit Will Prowse: Difference between revisions
→100 AH (BB10012) vs 75 AH (BB1275): new section |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
One thing that might be tangential to the core of this specific topic, yet potentially even more worrying is that these batteries are sold and marketed as UL Listed. If this is really the case, how can they display such major flaws during normal use? | One thing that might be tangential to the core of this specific topic, yet potentially even more worrying is that these batteries are sold and marketed as UL Listed. If this is really the case, how can they display such major flaws during normal use? | ||
If they are indeed UL Listed as branded? I can not find any UL Listing for Battle Born batteries over at https://productiq.ulprospector.com/en/search?term=Battle%20Born&page=1 | If they are indeed UL Listed as branded? I can not find any UL Listing for Battle Born batteries over at https://productiq.ulprospector.com/en/search?term=Battle%20Born&page=1 | ||
== 100 AH (BB10012) vs 75 AH (BB1275) == | |||
It appears Will is testing the BB10012 (100AH), where the max charging current is listed as 50A. I have this battery and that's what my spec sheet (downloaded in 2018) has listed. The Battle Born website is also still showing the max for the BB10012 as 50A. | |||
So either Battle Born is claiming Will tested a BB1275 (75AH) battery, which the spec may have conveniently changed from 50A to 37.5A, or they are claiming the max charging current on the BB10012 is now somehow 37.5A - even though their website still lists it at 50A. | |||
[[Special:Contributions/108.76.115.238|108.76.115.238]] 16:58, 8 June 2026 (UTC) | |||