User talk:Louis/Dragonfly Energy trade libel suit Will Prowse: Difference between revisions
Jackalgirl (talk | contribs) |
Jackalgirl (talk | contribs) →UL Listed/Certified: Reply |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Wow great job Louis == | ==Wow great job Louis== | ||
I am not sure why there isn't any discussion here so I was going to jump in here. It really looks like the "small guy" is going to win here. Kudos to the solar forum community and to Louis and his diligent work. If I was a betting man I would bet Dennis isn't going to save face and will melt the company like these batteries. What sucks are all the people/businesses who have these batteries and they are good to maybe discharge to 37.5 amps. They aren't going to have a place to make a future warranty claim or someone to call if they have a question about the product. [[User:Blairski|Blairski]] ([[User talk:Blairski|talk]]) 09:22, 8 June 2026 (UTC) | I am not sure why there isn't any discussion here so I was going to jump in here. It really looks like the "small guy" is going to win here. Kudos to the solar forum community and to Louis and his diligent work. If I was a betting man I would bet Dennis isn't going to save face and will melt the company like these batteries. What sucks are all the people/businesses who have these batteries and they are good to maybe discharge to 37.5 amps. They aren't going to have a place to make a future warranty claim or someone to call if they have a question about the product. [[User:Blairski|Blairski]] ([[User talk:Blairski|talk]]) 09:22, 8 June 2026 (UTC) | ||
== Review of ULs certifications? == | ==Review of ULs certifications?== | ||
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? | If they are indeed UL Listed as branded? | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
--[[User:Traste|Traste]] ([[User talk:Traste|talk]]) 06:43, 9 June 2026 (UTC) | --[[User:Traste|Traste]] ([[User talk:Traste|talk]]) 06:43, 9 June 2026 (UTC) | ||
== 100 AH (BB10012) vs 75 AH (BB1275) == | ==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. | 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. | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
[[Special:Contributions/108.76.115.238|108.76.115.238]] 16:58, 8 June 2026 (UTC) | [[Special:Contributions/108.76.115.238|108.76.115.238]] 16:58, 8 June 2026 (UTC) | ||
== UL Listed/Certified == | ==UL Listed/Certified== | ||
I'm only doing a really cursory search, but I don't see any of the UL Listed or Certified marks on the battery (as imaged here on 8 June 2026: https://battlebornbatteries.com/products/100ah-12v-lifepo4-deep-cycle-battery ) -- I haven't fully read through the filing yet, but if they are claiming that the batteries are UL Listed, it's curious that the actual UL Listed mark doesn't appear to be on the battery (the BB10012 at least), and isn't showing up in the listing registry. I *think* they're only claiming that the batteries are made "...to UL 2054...standards", which is a different thing than claiming to be actually certified or listed (I think). | I'm only doing a really cursory search, but I don't see any of the UL Listed or Certified marks on the battery (as imaged here on 8 June 2026: https://battlebornbatteries.com/products/100ah-12v-lifepo4-deep-cycle-battery ) -- I haven't fully read through the filing yet, but if they are claiming that the batteries are UL Listed, it's curious that the actual UL Listed mark doesn't appear to be on the battery (the BB10012 at least), and isn't showing up in the listing registry. I *think* they're only claiming that the batteries are made "...to UL 2054...standards", which is a different thing than claiming to be actually certified or listed (I think). | ||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
The "UN38.3" mark has to do with the item being a lithium battery certified as being safe for transporation: https://www.intertek.com/batteries/un-38-3-testing/ [[User:Jackalgirl|Jackalgirl]] ([[User talk:Jackalgirl|talk]]) 22:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC) | The "UN38.3" mark has to do with the item being a lithium battery certified as being safe for transporation: https://www.intertek.com/batteries/un-38-3-testing/ [[User:Jackalgirl|Jackalgirl]] ([[User talk:Jackalgirl|talk]]) 22:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC) | ||
== Updated documentation's author's email and creation date are attached to the PDF == | :I didn't include this in my original comment, above, but UL's site for marks is here: https://markshub.ul.com/ | ||
:I'm finding this whole situation (as a non-engineer) very confusing (I feel for the poor consumer). For example, I have yet to find the "shield" UL standard mark that's on Traste's image for the battery on the "Marks Hub". The standard for Lithium batteries is not 62133; it is 62133-2 (62133-1 is the standard for alkaline batteries): https://www.shopulstandards.com/ProductDetail.aspx?productId=UL62133-2_1_S_20200110 but the standard's page here does not list any associated mark (like the shield mark). | |||
:I can't look at the actual standards document (I think), because if I'm reading this page correctly, I would have to purchase a copy of the standard (at a minimum of $688 and a max of $1719), which is...weird. I'm probably not finding it, or I'm looking in the wrong place, but it's just driving home for me how difficult it is for the average, not-especially-technical consumer to independently verify marks that companies slap onto their products (which, to be honest, makes me ''lesss'' confident in the UL mark). [[User:Jackalgirl|Jackalgirl]] ([[User talk:Jackalgirl|talk]]) 11:39, 9 June 2026 (UTC) | |||
==Updated documentation's author's email and creation date are attached to the PDF== | |||
A funny detail I noticed is that if you view the metadata of the [https://battlebornbatteries.com/cdn/shop/files/BB1275_Data_Sheet.pdf updated documentation PDF], it says it was created by <code>[email protected]</code> on 2026-06-01 20:38:36 UTC. The [https://defender.com/assets/pdf/battle-born/bb1275-standard-datasheet_v2-compressed.pdf previous file] was created on 2024-12-30 23:43:34 UTC and does not have an author attached. [[User:Je|Je]] ([[User talk:Je|talk]]) 00:40, 9 June 2026 (UTC) | A funny detail I noticed is that if you view the metadata of the [https://battlebornbatteries.com/cdn/shop/files/BB1275_Data_Sheet.pdf updated documentation PDF], it says it was created by <code>[email protected]</code> on 2026-06-01 20:38:36 UTC. The [https://defender.com/assets/pdf/battle-born/bb1275-standard-datasheet_v2-compressed.pdf previous file] was created on 2024-12-30 23:43:34 UTC and does not have an author attached. [[User:Je|Je]] ([[User talk:Je|talk]]) 00:40, 9 June 2026 (UTC) | ||