User talk:Louis/Dragonfly Energy trade libel suit Will Prowse: Difference between revisions
Jackalgirl (talk | contribs) →UL Listed/Certified: Reply |
→UL Listed/Certified: Reply |
||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
:::How they managed to pass these might be worth looking into. [[User:Traste|Traste]] ([[User talk:Traste|talk]]) 12:27, 9 June 2026 (UTC) | :::How they managed to pass these might be worth looking into. [[User:Traste|Traste]] ([[User talk:Traste|talk]]) 12:27, 9 June 2026 (UTC) | ||
::::Okay, got it. This has to do with my non-engineer's ignorance (at this point) of what UL actually ''is'' -- is it an overall set of standards that other entities can use for testing, and therefore vouch on behalf of UL that the item is certified to UL's standard? If that's the case, and if Intertek is then verifying that this battery is UL 2054-compliant, got it. | ::::Okay, got it. This has to do with my non-engineer's ignorance (at this point) of what UL actually ''is'' -- is it an overall set of standards that other entities can use for testing, and therefore vouch on behalf of UL that the item is certified to UL's standard? If that's the case, and if Intertek is then verifying that this battery is UL 2054-compliant, got it. | ||
::::But correct me if I'm wrong: this does ''not'' mean that the battery is "UL Listed" or "UL Certified" -- you'd still have to go through UL for this, right? | ::::But correct me if I'm wrong: this does ''not'' mean that the battery is "UL Listed" or "UL Certified" -- you'd still have to go through UL for this, right? | ||
::::I'm also curious about what the testing process is at Intertek -- what their own requirements are for testing and then reporting that something is UL-compliant. The cynical part of me says that Intertek is the company you go to when you know your product won't pass UL testing (or perhaps UL is just freakishly expensive, which would not surprise me at all, which drives business to Intertek, assuming that testing through them is less expensive). [[User:Jackalgirl|Jackalgirl]] ([[User talk:Jackalgirl|talk]]) 12:40, 9 June 2026 (UTC) | ::::I'm also curious about what the testing process is at Intertek -- what their own requirements are for testing and then reporting that something is UL-compliant. The cynical part of me says that Intertek is the company you go to when you know your product won't pass UL testing (or perhaps UL is just freakishly expensive, which would not surprise me at all, which drives business to Intertek, assuming that testing through them is less expensive). [[User:Jackalgirl|Jackalgirl]] ([[User talk:Jackalgirl|talk]]) 12:40, 9 June 2026 (UTC) | ||
:::::To be fair, I am perhaps just hours ahead of you in my understanding, if even that. As you say, there are different agreed sets of standards, and then there are the testing services who tests the actual products - like Intertek in this case . I doubt a company or organisation who makes a business from testing product standards compliance would devalue themself by not testing properly. I find it more likely that Dragonfly has submitted better constructed products for testing and then let the retail product line "enshittyfy". The Intertek listing includes far from all Dragonfly models, like BB1275 is stating Certification in the spec document, but is not listed. This might be "OK", I do not know if each variation and model needs a specific certificate (but since the the specs are very different and the listed certifications differ in the documents, it would make sense if it IS required). | |||
:::::So either the observed faults were not applicable to the sample batteries tested and certified, Dragonfly did a switch, or the certifications are worthless. I started looking into how to hold companies with such claimed certification accountable as well as the testing services, because I refuse to accept that the heat, arcing and molten plastics would successfully pass such a certification. | |||
:::::Maybe it is worth sending Intertek a link to the videos and ask them? [[User:Traste|Traste]] ([[User talk:Traste|talk]]) 14:13, 9 June 2026 (UTC) | |||
::As an example: on eTrailer, I found some other RV batteries: | ::As an example: on eTrailer, I found some other RV batteries: | ||
::o Dometic's "Go Power" battery, quick-start guide here: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/catsy.549/GP-LiFePO4-100+Quick+Guide.pdf - this battery doesn't show any UL marks; it just claims that it "conforms to UL 2054", which is the standard for "Household and Commercial Batteries" (https://www.shopulstandards.com/ProductDetail.aspx?productId=UL2054_3_S_20211117). I can't, of course, tell what this standard actually details from the source, but found this from a company in Germany: https://www.vri-gmbh.de/en/vri-knowledge-base/standards-and-regulations/ul-2054: "UL 2054 is a safety standard for portable primary (non-rechargeable) and secondary (rechargeable) batteries used as power sources in products. The standard covers both single cells and multi-cell configurations (battery packs) and defines construction requirements, test procedures and marking requirements. Unlike UL 1642, which focuses on lithium cells at the cell level, UL 2054 addresses the battery and battery pack level for all chemistries. For lithium cells used in battery packs, UL 2054 references the requirements of UL 1642 [JG: which is the safety standard for lithium batteries, both rechargeable and non-]." | ::o Dometic's "Go Power" battery, quick-start guide here: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/catsy.549/GP-LiFePO4-100+Quick+Guide.pdf - this battery doesn't show any UL marks; it just claims that it "conforms to UL 2054", which is the standard for "Household and Commercial Batteries" (https://www.shopulstandards.com/ProductDetail.aspx?productId=UL2054_3_S_20211117). I can't, of course, tell what this standard actually details from the source, but found this from a company in Germany: https://www.vri-gmbh.de/en/vri-knowledge-base/standards-and-regulations/ul-2054: "UL 2054 is a safety standard for portable primary (non-rechargeable) and secondary (rechargeable) batteries used as power sources in products. The standard covers both single cells and multi-cell configurations (battery packs) and defines construction requirements, test procedures and marking requirements. Unlike UL 1642, which focuses on lithium cells at the cell level, UL 2054 addresses the battery and battery pack level for all chemistries. For lithium cells used in battery packs, UL 2054 references the requirements of UL 1642 [JG: which is the safety standard for lithium batteries, both rechargeable and non-]." | ||