EEVblog® Electronics Community Forum
Electronics => Power/Renewable Energy/EV's => Topic started by: eTobey on December 12, 2025, 02:54:51 pm
-
I am a bit surprised, that this video hasnt made its way into this forum:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP2yPY57Wjc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP2yPY57Wjc)
Here is an answer from the manufacturer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fD3yaRvp3o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fD3yaRvp3o)
I wonder how many fires this battery has started, since this design is 6 years old. Also I wonder how nothing happend in all those years in regards to the design. There was one user in the comments, saying, that he has reached out to the manufacturer, and nothing happend. I am truly blown away, by the answer from the company. Companies these days... :palm:
-
Yes you're right
-
The creator of those videos is interested in gathering clicks and selling your eyeballs to advertisers[1].
It would be more useful if he showed the text of the correspondence with the manufacturer, rather than a pictures of his head and mouth nattering about an unclear screenshot.
[1]"FTC Disclosure Statement and Disclaimers:
Every video includes paid promotion or sponsorship (such as free products for review). Some links on this YouTube channel may be affiliate links. We may get paid if you buy something or take an action after clicking one of these. My videos are for educational purposes only. Information is subject to change/update at any time. Electricity is DANGEROUS and can kill. Be smart and use common sense :) DIY Solar Power with Will Prowse is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, An affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com
-
It would be more useful if he showed the text of the correspondence with the manufacturer, rather than a pictures of his head and mouth nattering about an unclear screenshot.
When I see the quality of this product, then I would not question the response, if it has the same "quality", for now.
Are you saying, that he just made it up, or is saying it a bit differently?
-
It would be more useful if he showed the text of the correspondence with the manufacturer, rather than a pictures of his head and mouth nattering about an unclear screenshot.
When I see the quality of this product, then I would not question the response, if it has the same "quality", for now.
Are you saying, that he just made it up, or is saying it a bit differently?
I am saying what I wrote.
-
It would be more useful if he showed the text of the correspondence with the manufacturer, rather than a pictures of his head and mouth nattering about an unclear screenshot.
Actually i had a look: the screenshot can be read. You may want to use some better devices to read it. :-//
You dont like him, do you?
-
The creator of those videos is interested in gathering clicks and selling your eyeballs to advertisers[1].
It would be more useful if he showed the text of the correspondence with the manufacturer, rather than a pictures of his head and mouth nattering about an unclear screenshot.
The screenshot is quite easily readable on my old 1080p 24" monitor. He didn't misrepresent anything the manufacturer said within that email:
"The aluminium nut used in our 100Ah packs' positive terminal is a purpose-built thermal failsafe. It is engineered so that the plastic deforms and disconnects when excess heat is present at the terminal"
This is blatant excuse to try to explain away a serious design problem. If you wanted to add thermal protection to a high current device, would you design in a high resistance contact that generates enough heat to melt the housing which may or may not result in a circuit disconnection depending on the external mechanical force on a terminal, or would you use a thermal fuse?
-
More of the design. :o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IHN-OK19uU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IHN-OK19uU)
-
The creator of those videos is interested in gathering clicks and selling your eyeballs to advertisers[1].
Certainly true, but there is certainly a design defect in this battery, and a very severe one IMO. The response from Battleborn is particularly shocking in its gaslighting.
That being said, the youtuber is being far too reckless when discussing safety. That's the kind of mistake which could easily open you up to a lawsuit.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m7DSCKO-Bo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m7DSCKO-Bo)
-
Its just common sense that you don't have a plastic interface involved in a high current circuit, as Prowse says.
It looks like they did this mechanically to hold the pack and cells together, and hold that busbar up high. Probably reduce assembly time and cost too. But there are 100 other ways to do it without clamping directly on the plastic.
There is no way that this is an intentional thermal failsafe, but presumably they wanted to double down instead of redesigning the pack and sending out replacements.
-
There is no way that this is an intentional thermal failsafe, but presumably they wanted to double down instead of redesigning the pack and sending out replacements.
It was said in the response of the manufacturer, that indeed this is a "feature". In other words: it was intentional (as they said). :o
-
There is no way that this is an intentional thermal failsafe, but presumably they wanted to double down instead of redesigning the pack and sending out replacements.
It was said in the response of the manufacturer, that indeed this is a "feature". In other words: it was intentional (as they said). :o
Because they are trying to hide the fact that it is a serious design flaw. The clamping force on the bus bar is already inadequate from new (because the plastic creeps) and gets hot enough to soften the plastic at currents below it's rated maximum, reducing clamping force further and entering a molten plastic death spiral.
-
There is a new video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUtbnbLpvFk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUtbnbLpvFk)
-
I have eight of these batteries, six in my RV and two powering a UPS, purchased about 4 years ago. I haven't had any issues, yet, but all these revelations are rather sickening given the price I paid. I need to do some serious testing when the weather gets warmer here in the northeast US.
Battleborn's warranty service is apparently very risky from a cost perspective, according to this RV'er who had a bunch of failed BB batteries:
http://grandadventure.tv/2026/01/28/ep-448-battle-born-battery-failure-warranty-reality-check-rv-lifepo4-lithium-batteries/ (http://grandadventure.tv/2026/01/28/ep-448-battle-born-battery-failure-warranty-reality-check-rv-lifepo4-lithium-batteries/)
TLDW: Once BB approved a return RMA, he would need to prepay a return shipping fee of $235, which would be refunded only if they determine it was their fault. PLUS he would also be charged a $300 labor fee if they determine it wasn't their fault. Per battery. And of course there's also the outgoing shipping cost, which is sunk in any case.
Given how BB has handled the PR on this so far, I don't think there's any chance they would admit fault.
The printed warranty that came with my batteries doesn't mention any of the extra fees. The guy in the video decided to throw his batteries away (properly), and replace them all with another manufacturer for not much more cost than ONE rejected warranty claim. Sounds like a good option to me.
-
If these teardown videos were done by someone with a bit more gravitas (purposefulness, humourlessness ?) they would be taken a lot more seriously, but while I can see the obvious problems with the batteries, I find the videos painful to watch.
-
Hey, what do you expect. These reviews are freebies. He normally charges manufacturers $15K or more to do a review. He has done quite well with this business model considering he was once homeless. He communicates well with the technical level of the solar world without having any technical education.
-
Designed by some clown who has zero clue what they're doing. Tightening through a plastic a big no. Passing current through a screw is ridiculous. Interconnects between cell blocks are as bad, the same tightening through plastic issue. Also I bet that BMS is not fused like 99% of such Chinese BMS, they're not safe with no additional fusing. They should rebrand to Arseborn.
-
Designed by some clown who has zero clue what they're doing. Tightening through a plastic a big no. Passing current through a screw is ridiculous. Interconnects between cell blocks are as bad, the same tightening through plastic issue. Also I bet that BMS is not fused like 99% of such Chinese BMS, they're not safe with no additional fusing. They should rebrand to Arseborn.
Yes he recommends using an external fuse or breaker: https://www.mobile-solarpower.com/fuses.html (https://www.mobile-solarpower.com/fuses.html)
Since the case is sealed, having a fuse inside would not be great if it blows.
-
Designed by some clown who has zero clue what they're doing. Tightening through a plastic a big no. Passing current through a screw is ridiculous. Interconnects between cell blocks are as bad, the same tightening through plastic issue. Also I bet that BMS is not fused like 99% of such Chinese BMS, they're not safe with no additional fusing. They should rebrand to Arseborn.
Yes he recommends using an external fuse or breaker: https://www.mobile-solarpower.com/fuses.html (https://www.mobile-solarpower.com/fuses.html)
Since the case is sealed, having a fuse inside would not be great if it blows.
Fuse is the last resort if BMS fails. What's even more not great, it setting your house on fire.
-
USD $500 three years ago. Now $3. Time to buy? ;D https://www.cnn.com/markets/stocks/DFLI (https://www.cnn.com/markets/stocks/DFLI)
-
Typically I don't look to stonks to evaluate a company or technology, but I am curious wtf happened there...
-
Another ridiculous design (in a different way). Like how difficult is it to actually connect cells to the busbars? I guess inventing square wheels is in fashion these days.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sQqZKlANlk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sQqZKlANlk)
-
And now think of that these batteries are quite expensive!
I am amazed, that this rubbish producing company even still exists!
-
I am curious wtf happened
Three months ago a boat company said they are starting to use of Battleborn batteries in their boats. Another company said they are starting to use the batteries in railroad cars. Battleborns reputation is ruined and somehow managers of these companies are using Battleborn batteries in their products. I don't know why they are so high in the clouds. I still haven't been able to uncover why the stock crashed to a penny stock.
-
USD $500 three years ago. Now $3. Time to buy? ;D https://www.cnn.com/markets/stocks/DFLI (https://www.cnn.com/markets/stocks/DFLI)
Funny, I'd say "not a Penny" worth (or "Cent" as we Mainlanders say) - riding on the wave of success at 40 million money units burnt per year. And that's before even doing a recall of all of their batteries.
They are just dead in the water now.
-
What's the deal with this positive terminal design?
Seems like something they have bodged into working, and marketed as some wizz-bang material tech?
https://battlebornbatteries.com/blogs/articles/technical-note-on-the-safety-and-design-of-the-battle-born-100ah-positive-terminal/ (https://battlebornbatteries.com/blogs/articles/technical-note-on-the-safety-and-design-of-the-battle-born-100ah-positive-terminal/)
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/battleborn-hazard-by-design/?action=dlattach;attach=2837712;image)
Executive Summary
This technical note describes the design and behavior of the positive terminal assembly used in Battle Born 100Ah batteries. It outlines how the terminal functions under normal operation and under sustained fault conditions, and clarifies the conditions required for its protective mechanism to operate as intended.
The terminal design is deliberate. It is based on well-understood principles of materials science, electrical contact physics, and thermal behavior, combined to create a passive, irreversible shutdown mechanism that activates under sustained thermal fault conditions. This function serves as a last-resort protective feature, designed to stop current flow before a thermal event can propagate to the cells.
This behavior has been validated through third-party certification testing, internal development and verification, and more than a decade of field performance across hundreds of thousands of batteries. Across all of these conditions, the outcome is consistent: when installed and used correctly, the system operates normally and efficiently.
That record is specific. The terminal design within the pack has been certified to UL 2054 Standards by Intertek (ETL Listed), passing the standard’s most severe short-circuit test, known as a Single Fault Short Circuit Test, repeatedly and consistently. Across batteries evaluated through our warranty process since early 2022, representing hundreds of thousands of units sold over the past decade, the terminal has triggered approximately 700 times, to the company’s knowledge, always as designed and without a single instance of fire or cell damage. Recent videos suggesting otherwise were filmed with the battery enclosure removed, which eliminates the structural constraint the mechanism depends on and does not reflect how the product behaves in its intended configuration. When subjected to sustained fault conditions, it responds as designed to safely interrupt current and prevent escalation.
1.Terminal Design and Safety Testing
This technical note describes how the design for Battle Born’s 100Ah batteries came to be and, more importantly, why it works. The focus is on the positive terminal, which utilizes multiple dissimilar metal junctions and a polymer serving the dual purpose of long-term low-creep compression and thermal risk mitigation. We also address why the series of YouTube videos characterizing the design as unsafe is misleading.
All available testing and field data consistently indicate that the design works and the battery is safe.
We are confident that this is the case, because we have a decade of data, hundreds of thousands of use cases, warranty cases, and hundreds of tests by Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories, including the Intertek lab listing these products under the ETL mark to UL 2054 and IEC 62133 standards. Moreover, the design is based in fundamental science.
The Intertek lab is world-renowned. Many of the electrical appliances in your home carry the same ETL safety mark as all of our 100Ah models. Achieving this listing is not trivial and should not be dismissed. The design and internal testing of the BB10012 ran for three years, from 2014 to 2017. The positive terminal design has remained unchanged since 2015 and it has already passed worst-case validation. Maintaining these listings also prevents us from changing even a single component in the product without getting it relisted. Intertek enforces this policy through random biannual inspections of our manufacturing facility.
The most stringent electrical test in the UL 2054 standard is the single-fault short-circuit test. In this test, the battery management system, the electronic protection circuit that would normally prevent an overcurrent event, is deliberately bypassed or dead-shorted. The battery is then subjected to a direct short circuit with no electronic protection of any kind. Any fire constitutes a failure. The test requires ten samples: five tested at 20°C and five at 55°C. A single failure across all ten samples is unacceptable. The standard requires a perfect result. Battle Born passed this test at the end of 2017 with all ten samples, at both temperatures, without fire. Standing between the battery and an uncontrolled short circuit in that test was the positive terminal. It did its job.
To our knowledge, this made the BB10012 the first deep-cycle lithium-ion battery pack in the RV industry to achieve UL 2054 listing. The test was repeated in 2020, when we updated some components unrelated to the terminal assembly, thus relisting the battery. The short-circuit test was also repeated on all models that feature this terminal design, including the GC2 and 1275 models.
2. How the Terminal Works
At the heart of the terminal is a deceptively simple mechanical assembly. A brass electrical contact and a copper electrical contact are held face-to-face by a horizontal aluminum bolt. Between them sits a layer of PA-765, a tough, flame-resistant engineering plastic chosen for its material properties: it has an elastic modulus of 2 GPa and it begins to soften at 85°C. The bolt is tightened to press the whole sandwich together, and current flows through the assembly in normal operation: from the external cable into the brass contact, through the aluminum bolt, and into the copper busbar connected to the pack’s internal circuitry through a thin nickel sheet.
In normal operation the terminal is stable and efficient. The electrical resistance of the entire assembly is less than 200 microohms, so small that even at 100 amps the voltage drop across it is less than 20 millivolts, and the heat it generates is under two watts. Due to the remarkably low creep of PA-765, the terminal has been shown to remain under 200 microohms for over ten years of normal use.
The long-term creep behavior of the PA-765 ABS plastic material was also one of the primary criteria for selection of that material. ABS has remarkably low creep at temperatures below the softening point of 85°C and under the necessary compression required to maintain the metal-metal contacts. The actual metal contact area is small compared to the area of contact with the ABS plastic, ensuring that the compressive pressure against the ABS is low. One study of low stress ABS creep (Suk Choon Kang, Journal of the Korean Society for Precision Engineering Vol. 29, No. 10, pp. 1137-1143, 2012) determined the creep limit of ABS under normal operating conditions to be 30 MPa, at least an order of magnitude greater than in our system (see Figure 1). In that study, creep limit is defined as the stress below which the strain rate is less than 10⁻⁷ per day. This corresponds to a characteristic creep time of 70 years. We operate far below the creep limit as long as the temperature stays below 85°C. Our long-term measurements of the terminal resistance prove this to be true.
Figure 1: Creep limit of ABS versus temperature (Suk Choon Kang, 2012). Normal operating stress well below the creep limit, confirming long-term dimensional stability. At 85°C the plastic softens by design, triggering the interrupt mechanism.
This stability is only possible because, below 85°C, the PA-765 layer behaves elastically over the relevant range of stress. Above it, that changes entirely. Under a fault condition, such as a loose external connection or undersized cable generating sustained heat at the terminal, the temperature climbs toward 85°C. This does not happen instantly. The thermal mass of the assembly absorbs heat gradually. At the maximum rated current of 100 amps and an undersized cable, it could still take on the order of tens of minutes or more for the terminal and joint to reach the trigger temperature. The protection is proportionate. A brief overload does not trip the terminal. A sustained fault that genuinely threatens the cells does.
When the plastic softens and contact pressure at the metal interfaces falls to near zero, aluminum’s most important electrical property takes over. Aluminum oxidizes. The instant a fresh aluminum surface is exposed to air it begins forming aluminum oxide, Al₂O₃, one of the hardest and most electrically insulating materials in nature. Al₂O₃ is an extremely well understood dielectric and used in many electrical applications, such as capacitors and magnet wire. Under normal conditions this film is nanometers thick and self-limiting. But the rate at which it forms is extraordinarily sensitive to temperature, according to Arrhenius kinetics. This has been shown specifically for the Aluminum/Copper interface (see for example, Oberst et al., IEEE Holm Conference on Electrical Contacts, 2019). Every ten degrees of additional heat roughly doubles the oxidation rate. At the temperatures reached by the microscopic contact points inside the joint between the aluminum and copper and aluminum and brass, the oxide forms almost instantaneously.
With contact pressure gone, the full current flowing through the terminal concentrates onto the tiny peaks, called asperities, on the aluminum bolt face that are still just barely touching the copper. The current density at these points is enormous, hundreds of times higher than in the surrounding metal, a consequence of current constriction at microscopic contact points that is well established in the electrical contacts literature (R. Holm, Electric Contacts: Theory and Application, 4th ed., Springer, 1967). They heat to hundreds of degrees within seconds. At those temperatures, a film of aluminum oxide just ten nanometers thick, thinner than the smallest virus, forms on each contact point and renders it completely non-conducting. One by one, the contact points are rapidly and progressively extinguished by their own chemistry. As each one fails, the remaining points carry more current, heat faster, and oxidize faster still. The process accelerates until it is complete.
Within seconds, the terminal rapidly transitions to a high-resistance state sufficient to collapse current flow. At 12 volts, a resistance of even a single ohm reduces the available current to a level that cannot sustain meaningful power delivery. The pack shuts down. The PA-765 material re-solidifies around the structures of the joint. The heat source is eliminated before it can reach the cells. The battery is safe.
The intent of this design is that nothing in the terminal moves to achieve this. No spring activates, no fuse element melts, no electronic circuit intervenes. The only change is an invisible ceramic film, ten nanometers of aluminum oxide, on the face of an aluminum bolt. That film is chemically stable, mechanically hard, and impervious to the voltages a 12-volt system can apply. The protection is permanent and irreversible by design.
This is not a conventional fuse and it is not an electronic protection circuit. It is a material system in which the properties of an engineering plastic, the chemistry of aluminum, and the physics of electrical contact are aligned so that the one condition that threatens the battery, sustained heat at the terminal from user error, is also the condition that triggers permanent, passive, fail-safe shutdown. The terminal protects the battery by design, not by intervention.
Initial skepticism about the design is understandable. Aluminum oxidation increasing resistance at an electrical joint is a well-documented phenomenon that created electrical issues in houses for decades. The difference in our oxidation system is the voltage and environment. At 120V, sustained arcs can repeatedly disrupt the formation of oxide layers, enabling a runaway cycle. At 12V, sustaining an arc across a growing insulating interface is more difficult, and once a stable oxide layer forms, the available voltage is insufficient to re-establish conduction. The mechanism that was problematic at 120V is permanently self-extinguishing at 12V. We did not invent new physics. We put known physics on the right side of a voltage threshold. Moreover, the presence of the compressive load-bearing PA-765 element ensures a clear trigger at the softening temperature.
Another material choice that may raise eyebrows is the dissimilar aluminum/copper interface. Engineers will rightly note that such an interface is susceptible to galvanic corrosion. However, this interface is sealed and dry inside the battery. There is no bulk moisture or electrolyte to sustain the reaction under normal operating conditions. From a materials standpoint, copper provides high electrical conductivity to rapidly distribute current past the joint, while the galvanic potential difference between copper and aluminum, copper being cathodic to aluminum, accelerates aluminum oxidation under fault conditions. This is the same electrochemical relationship that makes aluminum/copper contacts problematic in building wiring at line voltage; at 12V it becomes an asset, driving the protective oxide cascade faster and more completely than a same-metal interface would. Ten years of field data supports the conclusion that the sealed interface is electrically stable under normal conditions and triggered under the thermal fault conditions it was designed to address.
Figure 2: Cutaway diagram of the BB10012 positive terminal in normal operation (left) and following activation of the thermal interrupt mechanism under fault conditions (right). The PA-765 polymer layer is a mechanical element, not part of the electrical current path.
This diagram is a simplified representation for illustrative purposes only. Actual component geometry, materials, and behavior may vary. The illustration is not intended to represent exact construction or electrical pathways.
3. Lid Removal Invalidates Interrupt Testing
A critical feature of the positive terminal design is that the brass terminal is fixed to the lid of the battery with high-temperature epoxy after the aluminum bolt is tightened. When the PA-765 layer reaches its softening temperature, the compression drops to near zero, but the brass terminal remains rigidly fixed, and the aluminum bolt is held in place. This is the intended operating condition: contact pressure collapses, the oxidation cascade proceeds, and resistance rapidly rises.
YouTube videos showing disassembled battery packs under fault conditions led to a different and incorrect conclusion. When the lid is removed from a damaged pack, the brass terminal is no longer affixed by the epoxy bond to the structure. With the terminal free to move, the torque from the attached cables drives continuous relative motion between the brass terminal and the aluminum bolt. This continuously presents fresh aluminum surface to the copper and brass contacts, precisely the condition that prevents the oxidation cascade from completing. The result is repeated arcing as current is briefly interrupted and re-established at each new contact point. This appears dramatic on video, but is an artifact of the disassembly, not a characteristic of the intact assembly.
This behavior is consistent with a known measurement artifact. The act of removing the lid to observe the mechanism destroyed the mechanical boundary condition the mechanism depends on. The videos do not show a failed or dangerous interrupt mechanism. They show a correctly designed mechanism operating incorrectly because a critical structural constraint was removed. It is unfortunate that this artifact led some observers to conclude the interrupt was inherently unsafe, when the opposite is true: in the intact assembly, the terminal operates reliably and without hazard.
4. Direct Observation of the Interrupt Condition
Direct observation of the interrupt event in a fault scenario is not easy, because any disruption to the pack enclosure for viewing creates a measurement artifact. Here, we present our approach to this issue.
First, we performed the test with three sealed new BB10012 batteries by purposefully undersizing the cables to create heat at the terminals. Running a continuous 100A current through undersized cable generated a peak temperature of 121°C at the terminal, high enough to trigger the interrupt mechanism.
Figure 3: Discharge curves for three BB10012 batteries at 100A through undersized cables. Time is presented in 1 minute intervals, with interrupt occurring at approximately 35 minutes. Each point represents a 30-second average voltage.
As evidenced in Figure 3, the interrupt mechanism was triggered repeatably at around 35 minutes of continuous discharge. This response time reflects the thermal mass of the system and is designed to discriminate between transient overloads and sustained fault conditions. None of the three batteries was able to deliver meaningful power after the test, confirming that the interrupt mechanism is irreversible under the conditions tested. The photograph in Figure 4 shows the aftermath, including the result of ABS softening surrounding the terminal.
Figure 4: Photograph of opened BB10012 after triggered interrupt at positive terminal.
For comparison, when correctly sized 1/0 AWG cable was used at the maximum continuous rated current of 100A, the terminal temperature never exceeded 43°C and the battery cycled indefinitely without any softening of the terminal. This confirms that the interrupt mechanism is inert under correct installation conditions and responds only to a genuine thermal fault.
5. A Decade of Data
In addition to the insights gained from fundamental science, design, and testing, we are uniquely positioned due to the volume of real-world data available to us. Some of these data come from teardown and analysis of batteries that have gone through our warranty process over the last decade, allowing us to validate the efficacy and safety of the battery design, including the positive terminal, at scale.
We analyzed warranty return data collected since May 2022, corresponding to the introduction of our current ERP system (enterprise resource planning system used to track and manage operational data). By that point, hundreds of thousands of 100Ah batteries were already in the field, as the product first reached market in 2016. Between May 2022 and December 2025, Battle Born sold over 175,000 100Ah batteries. Just over 4,000 of these entered the warranty process. Some had no issues, others exhibited a range of conditions, such as batteries that had never been fully charged, had been improperly stored, or had been submerged in water. The vast majority, regardless of age, had intact positive terminals with normal resistance.
A fraction, just over 700 batteries, exhibited a positive terminal that could no longer deliver current: an interrupt event had been triggered. This represents approximately 0.4% of 100Ah batteries sold during that period, and approximately 0.2% of the total 100Ah installed base, which extends back to 2016. Consistent with years of testing and field observation, we observed no evidence of fire or cell damage among these 700 batteries. Every interrupt event resolved as designed. The battery stopped delivering power and nothing else happened.
The most telling statistic is the source of these events. During this period, ~63% of Battle Born’s sales were to OEM customers, professional integrators installing batteries into manufactured systems. Yet ~99% of interrupt events came from DIY installations. The implication is clear: the interruption mechanism is rarely triggered in professionally installed systems and activates when user error creates a genuine thermal fault. This is precisely the fault class the terminal was designed to catch.
6. Conclusion
The positive terminal of the Battle Born 100Ah battery is a protection device that contains no electronics, no moving parts, and no consumable elements. It is a material system, a sealed aluminum bolt, a thermoplastic layer, and dissimilar metal contacts, in which the laws of chemistry and physics are aligned such that the one condition capable of threatening the battery is also the condition that triggers permanent, passive shutdown.
The science is not speculative. Every mechanism involved, polymer stress relaxation, asperity Joule heating, Arrhenius oxidation kinetics, and arc suppression at low voltage, is well established in scientific literature and in practice. What is novel is the deliberate combination of these mechanisms into a protection system that requires no intervention, no awareness, and no maintenance to operate correctly. The terminal protects the battery by design. No human intervention is required to activate the mechanism.
The evidence supporting this design is equally unambiguous. A decade of internal and third-party testing, including repeated certification under independent laboratory supervision, validates that the terminal performs as designed under the most severe conditions the standard specifies Field data further reinforces this. Among BB10012 batteries evaluated through our warranty process since early 2022, approximately 0.2% of units in the field have exhibited elevated resistance at the positive terminal, with occurrences concentrated almost entirely in non-professional installations where issues such as loose connections or undersized cables were present. There has not been a single instance of fire or cell damage associated with these events. In professionally installed systems, the occurrence rate is far lower.
The YouTube videos that prompted this technical note do not show a dangerous terminal. They show a correctly designed terminal operating under an incorrect boundary condition, one created by removing the lid that is an integral part of the protection mechanism. The intact assembly, as deployed in hundreds of thousands of batteries in the field, behaves exactly as the science predicts and the certification data confirms.
Battle Born did not invent new physics. We identified a set of well-understood physical phenomena, recognized that they could be combined into a reliable and passive protection mechanism at low voltage and high current, and built a terminal around them that has now been validated across a decade of real-world deployment. The design works. The battery is safe.
Appendix A.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the concern raised in recent YouTube videos? Recent online videos show disassembled batteries under extreme conditions and suggest that the positive terminal design used in 100Ah Battle Born batteries is unsafe. These demonstrations do not reflect how the battery is designed to operate as a complete, sealed system.
Is the Battle Born battery safe?
Yes. Battle Born batteries are designed with multiple layers of protection and have been validated through third-party certification, internal testing, and real-world use across hundreds of thousands of batteries over more than a decade. Across that time, there have been no known instances of fire or cell damage caused by this design in the field.
What is the positive terminal designed to do?
The positive terminal includes a passive, built-in protective feature. Under normal use, it conducts power efficiently. Under sustained fault conditions, such as excessive heat caused by improper installation, it is designed to permanently interrupt current flow. This is a last-resort safety mechanism intended to prevent a thermal event.
What do you mean by “fault conditions”?
Fault conditions are situations outside of normal use, typically caused by installation or system issues. Examples include externally loose connections, undersized cables, or sustained high-resistance connections that generate heat at the terminal. The battery is designed to operate normally under proper installation and use. The terminal protection only activates under sustained abnormal conditions.
What happens when this protection activates?
When triggered, the terminal transitions to a high-resistance state and interrupts current. This response is intentional and irreversible. It removes the energy source from the fault condition, preventing further escalation. In simple terms, the battery shuts itself off in a way that prioritizes safety.
Why does the design look “unconventional”?
The design uses a novel combination of materials and physical principles to create a passive protection mechanism rather than relying solely on electronics or traditional fuses. While this approach may look different from typical terminals, it is based on well-established science and was intentionally engineered for this function.
Why is plastic used in what looks like an electrical connection?
It isn’t part of the electrical path. The material is an engineered component used to maintain contact pressure and to respond predictably to excessive heat under fault conditions. That behavior is intentional and enables the terminal’s passive safety mechanism.
Why do third-party videos show arcing or different behavior?
In the videos, the battery lid is removed and the terminal is no longer constrained as it is in normal operation. This changes how the mechanism behaves. With the structural constraint removed, the terminal components can move in ways they cannot in a sealed battery. This creates a test condition that does not represent real-world use and prevents the protective mechanism from functioning as designed.
Has this design been independently tested?
Yes. Battle Born Batteries have been tested and certified by Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories, including Intertek, to recognized safety standards such as UL 2054 and IEC 62133. These tests include severe fault scenarios and require that no fire occurs in order to obtain certification.
Why is Battle Born only responding to this now?
We take safety questions seriously, and that means responding accurately and completely rather than quickly. Preparing this response required verification of field and warranty data and new testing conducted under controlled conditions. 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. We made it because we believe transparency about how this product works is more important than protecting those details.
How often does this protection activate in the real world?
Based on field data, this type of terminal interrupt event is rare. It has been observed in a small fraction of batteries and is overwhelmingly associated with improper or DIY installations. In professionally installed systems, it is extremely uncommon.
What should customers take away from this?
When installed and used correctly, the battery operates reliably as intended. In the rare case of a sustained thermal fault condition, the terminal is designed to act as a final layer of safety protection by stopping current flow and preventing further risk.
Did the third-party videos uncover a safety issue?
No. The videos demonstrate behavior in a disassembled condition that does not reflect how the battery operates as a complete system. The terminal design functions as intended in real-world conditions and has been validated through testing and field use.
Appendix B.
Additional Safety Design Features
The body of this technical note addresses the positive terminal in detail. The terminal does not exist in isolation, however. It is one layer in a system where multiple independent design decisions each contribute to overall safety. Several of those decisions are worth noting here.
Lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4) chemistry
All Battle Born batteries use lithium iron phosphate, LiFePO4. Compared to the nickel manganese cobalt and nickel cobalt aluminum oxide chemistries found in many electric vehicle and consumer electronic products, LiFePO4 is significantly more resistant to thermal runaway, requires substantially higher temperatures to trigger it, and releases far less energy if it does occur. It is the most thermally stable lithium cell chemistry available for this application.
Battery management system
The BMS in Battle Born 100Ah batteries is not an off-the-shelf component. It is engineered specifically for our cell chemistry, pack architecture, and application requirements. It provides active protection against overcharge, over-discharge, overcurrent, short circuit, and temperature extremes. In normal use it is the first line of defense: the vast majority of fault scenarios are caught and interrupted by the BMS before any other protection mechanism is engaged. The positive terminal interrupt described in the body of this note is a passive, last-resort backstop for conditions in which the BMS has already acted or has been bypassed. The two systems are complementary and independent.
Flame-retardant enclosure
The outer case of all Battle Born 100Ah batteries is molded from PA-765 ABS injected with a flame-retardant additive. ABS was selected for several reinforcing reasons: it is a good electrical insulator, it has a high storage modulus below its glass transition temperature of 105°C, and it has very low creep under sustained mechanical stress. The flame-retardant formulation adds a further layer of passive protection: in the event of an internal fault that generates heat, the enclosure is designed to resist ignition rather than contribute to it.
Cylindrical cell architecture
Battle Born 100Ah batteries use cylindrical lithium iron phosphate cells rather than the prismatic cells found in many competing products. Cylindrical cells are individually more reliable: if a single cell degrades or fails, the pack continues to operate, whereas a prismatic cell failure typically takes the entire pack offline. Each cylindrical cell also incorporates its own burst cap, a pressure relief mechanism that vents safely in the rare event of an internal fault, preventing pressure buildup from propagating to adjacent cells. The physical assembly of cylindrical cells also provides passive thermal management by design, with natural air gaps between cells allowing heat to dissipate without active cooling systems conditions.
Layered protection by design
The LiFePO4 chemistry, the purpose-built BMS, the flame-retardant enclosure, the burst caps on individual cylindrical cells, the passive thermal management from the cell assembly geometry, and the positive terminal mechanism described in the body of this note represent a layered approach to safety in which no single element carries the full burden. Each layer is independently effective. Together they reflect a decade of deliberate engineering decisions made with safety as the guiding principle.
-
AL and Brass will electrolysis quickly if exposed to air and moisture.
This might more of an accident than a plan. I suspect one would need to clean this a lot.
-
AL and Brass will electrolysis quickly if exposed to air and moisture.
This might more of an accident than a plan. I suspect one would need to clean this a lot.
Except you can't because it's a sealed unit. And "built in protection" is BS they came up with after the issue with the plastic support softening (melting) was brought to attention. They are just trying to cover up poor design and material use so they don't end up going bankrupt from having to do a recall and replacement.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=lrORu-N6erY
-
What's the deal with this positive terminal design?
Seems like something they have bodged into working, and marketed as some wizz-bang material tech?
First, I can imagine this coming up as an idea during a brainstorming session, but it should have been quickly dismissed after just a little analysis by an engineer or metallurgist. It clearly will not act like a permanent disconnect or even a safe way to limit current as shown by the repeatable overheating causing significant internal damage.
Second, I believe it was said that this was never previously documented in marketing material. If it was such a great feature, you'd think it would get mentioned. Rather it seems it was only documented after the fact. Not 100% sure about this so I took a quick look for any relevant patents, but don't have the interest to read through them. Seems like they have 32 that are listed on Google Patents, so if this was such a clever idea in their mind you would expect them to patent it. I saw one for a thermal fuse, but it doesn't seem to cover this setup.
https://patents.google.com/?assignee=Dragonfly%2bEnergy&oq=assignee:(Dragonfly%2bEnergy)
-
Their claims of aluminium + plastic working as a reliable 12V fuse are extraordinary, and in turn require extraordinary evidence to substantiate. They need to provide reliable evidence (ideally experimental techniques they used in enough detail for others to recreate them exactly, and raw test data) for this one item. All the other items they mention are irrelevant, are secondary issues to their defence, rely on unverifiable claims or are extrapolated theories; ie noise and distraction.
EDIT: I am angered by the length and quality of their statement. I have had people use similar tactics before to confuse and deflect attention from serious problems. If you cannot explain a problem simply then you do not understand it.
-
Yeah, and for a moment lets forget about the whole fuse/disconnect thing. The fastening of electrical connections with plastic sandwiched in between is so bloody stupid. There is no way where over time that will stay reliable, especially when the device would regularly experience thermal cycles and vibrations. They used these bolted connections through plastic on both the positive and negative busbars, and Will saw failures of both. I don't think using a fire resistant plastic is going to significantly change the relevant properties of the plastic under compression, it is just chosen for the self-extinguishing properties required to pass safety certs.
-
What's the deal with this positive terminal design?
Seems like something they have bodged into working, and marketed as some wizz-bang material tech?
https://battlebornbatteries.com/blogs/articles/technical-note-on-the-safety-and-design-of-the-battle-born-100ah-positive-terminal/ (https://battlebornbatteries.com/blogs/articles/technical-note-on-the-safety-and-design-of-the-battle-born-100ah-positive-terminal/)
Holy moly, they actually released a mycrimes.txt
They keep referring back to UL/Intertek certification as if that somehow excuses the various criticisms. Such certifications basically just ensure that the thing won't explode or burst into flames under normal or single fault conditions, and when the product has been manufactured correctly. That last bit is critical, if your quality control is crap (i.e. someone sets the wrong torque when fastening those bolts, or forgets to apply loctite correctly), then good design and safety certs are basically meaningless.
Perhaps if Intertek had specifically tested this "protective mechanism" then the certification would have some meaning. But Intertek would only conduct such a test if prompted to by Battleborn. I'm assuming they didn't do so, for obvious reasons.
Though I don't think that they just have a quality control issue. Their explanation of the working principles of this "protective mechanism" is really bad. Specifically, they suggest that a few nanometers of oxide are going to interrupt current in the presence of substantial vibration (the kind of vibration which is expected in normal use). In theory, if the entire terminal/busbar assembly were kept perfectly rigid (preventing any wiping between contact surfaces from bypassing/disrupting the oxide), this might have a chance at working. But it won't work because:
1. They suggest that the plastic case and thermal epoxy around the terminal is sufficient to "fix" the terminal assembly in place. There's no way this is rigid enough to keep that oxide stable during normal use.
2. Even if the terminal was kept perfectly rigid, the busbar would also need to be fixed similarly. But their own document states that the contact pressure will decrease during the fault condition. This means the contacts will be more mobile, making the oxide less effective as a current interrupter.
I could keep beating the horse, but I don't see the point. It's clear they're grasping at straws to excuse an obvious design flaw. I guess at least we can use this as a case study in bad design (and also bad business).
-
What's the deal with this positive terminal design?
Seems like something they have bodged into working, and marketed as some wizz-bang material tech?
They simply try to gaslight people into believing their ridiculous design is actually a safety feature. Post factum, after it blew up in their face. Not to say it does not interrupt current, it produces a bad intermittent contact that emits a lot of heat and is a fire hazard.
-
I like how they also just completely ignore the conduction path through the bolt touching the walls where it passes through the terminal.
If it was some magical disconnect, they'd need a high temp insulating washer there as well.
Can look up PTC and CID for real world properly engineered disconnects https://batterybro.com/blogs/18650-wholesale-battery-reviews/18306003-battery-safety-101-anatomy-ptc-vs-pcb-vs-cid
Maybe the cells they were using already had them.
-
What's the deal with this positive terminal design?
Seems like something they have bodged into working, and marketed as some wizz-bang material tech?
They simply try to gaslight people into believing their ridiculous design is actually a safety feature. Post factum, after it blew up in their face.
Article date is March 31st 2026, and no additional archive versions, so yeah, looks like a response to criticism.
-
Something of note too, they have retroactively changed the spec on the battery and are now trying to sue Will.
Original spec stated 50A max constant charge current, which has been changed to 37.5A now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3QaHx0--mU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3QaHx0--mU)
-
The article is clearly a response to a video criticizing the design.
They claim that arcing does not happen at only 12 V, but they suggste series connection up to 48 V is possible with their batteries. With 48 V DC sustained arcing is very much a thing.
So far I have not seen many reports on fires. So at least the flame redardend in the plastics seems to work. Even if not a safety issue the construction is still a failure waiting to happen. It is very hard to ensure that the bolt and nuts are not already oxidized when new. Failure of the constacts is not just from too thin cables or similar. It can also from oxidized contacts (manufacturing defect) or reduced force from creep due to use at higher temperatures (they can get hot, even with propercontacts) and maybe thermal cycles.
A proper way to protect the terminals would be for the BMS to also measure the terminal temperatures. Ideally there should also be more than 1 temperature sensor for the cells: if the cells have build overpressure protection that interrupts the current, one could have the measured cell be deactivated and thus cold - the rest of the pack could still overheat. 2 largely different readings would be warning sign.
Testing such batteries should also include a measurement of the terminal temperatures.
-
Battleborn is suing the Youtube presenter. What I genuinely don't understand is that their case is dependent on a third party consultant saying at trial their battery is correctly designed. Is that correct?
-
Battleborn is suing the Youtube presenter. What I genuinely don't understand is that their case is dependent on a third party consultant saying at trial their battery is correctly designed. Is that correct?
You can read the response above: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/battleborn-hazard-by-design/msg6282342/#msg6282342 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/battleborn-hazard-by-design/msg6282342/#msg6282342)
Here is an example UL2054 report: http://www.aoc-cert.com/upload/20250526162024.pdf (http://www.aoc-cert.com/upload/20250526162024.pdf)
Passing 2054 doesn't guarantee it was properly designed. Also doesn't stop them from submitting a golden sample and later swap out cheaper/inferior parts into their builds. I also don't see a repeated cycling test, just single cycle tests. Wills testing was failure after a number of cycles.
-
Battleborn will bring a third party to the trial to vouch for them and say the terminal with a plastic insulator is ok and not an issue. How will they find a third party to say the battery is a good design. That's where I'm genuinely confused.
-
For a household battery they may not do temperature cycling tests, at least not much. For a RV and similar battery they should do a cycling test and the test is also in the list. The issue that I see is that they do the load / charge tests with a new battery and not with a battery that was first subject to thermal cycling / vibration. It also looks like the cycleing test esentially only looks for major defect that happen from cycling. So the UL2054 test procedures don't look very good. At least it looks the charge / discharge tests should ideally test with more than the manufacturer suggested limits (the text is a bit confusing though). It is expected that testing is done with more than nominal currents, to have some safety margins.
An issue is that a poor battery design can have contact resistance go up from thermal cycling and than when used or charged with full current it can than overheat. So Ideally I would like a load test after cycling.
-
Something of note too, they have retroactively changed the spec on the battery and are now trying to sue Will.
Original spec stated 50A max constant charge current, which has been changed to 37.5A now.
... on the day they filed the lawsuit. And there's a marketing video telling that the specific 100Ah battery can be charged at 100% the capacity
of the battery. Also, that battery and BMS can handle a 100% charge rate.
-
They claim that arcing does not happen at only 12 V, but they suggste series connection up to 48 V is possible with their batteries. With 48 V DC sustained arcing is very much a thing.
Series connection would still show only 12V across a specific battery though, wouldn't it?
-
They claim that arcing does not happen at only 12 V, but they suggste series connection up to 48 V is possible with their batteries. With 48 V DC sustained arcing is very much a thing.
Series connection would still show only 12V across a specific battery though, wouldn't it?
When the contact opens and the other batteries are still intact and the load not taking a lot of voltage (e.g. a motor or short), the opening contact or BMS switching off sees up to the full system voltage. For a short time there can be an additional spike from induction. Break the circuit at any point in the loop and it sees the same voltage.
There is a limit on how many of the batteries can be connected in series as the BMS has to take that into account. From there web tutorial it looks like the batteries are made for up to 48 V systems - may still be different for some models and they should have a clear lable on this.
-
the opening contact or BMS switching off sees up to the full system voltage
But there would be a 12V drop for each battery. So if there were, say, three batteries and the middle one went open circuit, there would be 0v..12v - open - 24V...36V. To see the full 36V the other two batteries would have to go short circuit /and/ the load would need to hold up the voltage. Or am I seeing this incorrectly?
The BMS would only be operating on the local cells, wouldn't it?
Edit: I am thinking discharge only here - connecting batteries in series to get a higher output. Charging would be different and no doubt need a BMS connecting all the batteries. But surely one wouldn't be required for discharge.
-
One would still need the full voltage rating for discharge. With the current droping the voltage at the load (especially if this is a kind of short) would drop.
It is one loop with the batteries and load. It makes no difference where in the loop you put a switch. The switch would have to stop the full voltage.
-
I just tried it for real, albeit not with expensive 12V jobbies, and you are correct. I see where I went wrong, now.
-
Battleborn will bring a third party to the trial to vouch for them and say the terminal with a plastic insulator is ok and not an issue. How will they find a third party to say the battery is a good design. That's where I'm genuinely confused.
They might pay off some hack engineer or design firm to say its a good design. I don't see why UL would vouch for them.
If they actually had good intentions, they could have internally reported it to UL and maybe worked with them on an investigation https://www.ul.com/resources/market-surveillance-departments (https://www.ul.com/resources/market-surveillance-departments)
-
Battleborn will bring a third party to the trial to vouch for them and say the terminal with a plastic insulator is ok and not an issue. How will they find a third party to say the battery is a good design. That's where I'm genuinely confused.
They might pay off some hack engineer or design firm to say its a good design. I don't see why UL would vouch for them.
If these batteries have undergone third party testing by accredited test labs, it will be hard to prove the batteries are no good. So what is left is a manufacturing defect. But that could be attributed to aging as well. The case is legally not as clear cut as Louis is presenting it IF the batteries have been certified.
-
If these batteries have undergone third party testing by accredited test labs, it will be hard to prove the batteries are no good.
A third party report being presented is the opposite of immunity, it's an invitation to ask that third party some very important questions. Their accreditation is on the line if things look amiss.
Even just showing the lab some internal photos might yield some interesting responses. Also you can ask them if they think their report is sufficient to prove the product as completely safe and reliable (they will probably answer "no" for most product test reports, it is good to have this on the record for layman audiences).
In Australia at least many products must pass "all relevant standards" to be considered a safe for sale. Would a product like this meet insulation, fastening and fusing standards?
-
If these batteries have undergone third party testing by accredited test labs, it will be hard to prove the batteries are no good.
A third party report being presented isn't a brick wall, it's an invitation to ask that third party some very important questions. Their accreditation is on the line if things look amiss.
Even just showing the lab some internal photos might yield some interesting responses. Also you can ask them if they think their report is sufficient to prove the product as completely safe and reliable (they will probably answer "no" for most product test reports, it is good to have this on the record for layman audiences).
Then find relevant standards that you think the product might violate, eg for insulation & fastening. Passing one report/standard and failing another isn't good enough, for example in Australia you must pass "all relevant standards".
Doesn't matter. If a product passes all tests set by relevant standards, then that product is to be considered safe and suitable to use according to those standards. And no, an accredited lab is not going to comment or change their conclusions on tests they have done. They are an accredited lab for a reason (including being audited regulary). They apply the tests the government deems necessary by legally requiring certain standards and that is the end of the story.
-
If a product passes all tests set by relevant standards, then that product is to be considered safe and suitable to use according to those standards.
A single report that covers all relevant standards? That would be quite the report.
And no, an accredited lab is not going to comment or change their conclusions on tests they have done.
I never said they would. EDIT: To be clear I expect they could clarify what a report covers and does not, this is very useful when talking to layman audiences.
-
Just because a product passed the UL test it does not mean that the product is good. The standards they test against are not perfect and may miss issues, like effects of aging, as they naturally have to test a new product. There can also be variations between units / minute unintended changes in the production. A product with 90% good units and 10% dagerous ones is still a very bad one and still has a good chance to pass the certification tests.
It is not a new thing that flaws come up and products are recalled even after they initially passed the tests.
A question for the batteries would be if they were tested as a closed box or if the testing lab also looked at the internals and did an extra evaluation of the claimed "safte feature by melting the plastics". In the general tests with a good (low contact resistance) sample they may well miss the issue.
-
As was the case with DCS, I don't think the issue here is winning the lawsuit for testing/reviewing within advertised specs. The issue is going to be collecting layers fees after the fact.
Doesn't matter. If a product passes all tests set by relevant standards, then that product is to be considered safe and suitable to use according to those standards. And no, an accredited lab is not going to comment or change their conclusions on tests they have done. They are an accredited lab for a reason (including being audited regulary). They apply the tests the government deems necessary by legally requiring certain standards and that is the end of the story.
They advertise 80C ambient use, UL doesn't test active use outside of -5 to 60C.
Unless they specifically paid for higher temp testing (as Donut did), the testing isn't relevant to their product claims.
Products do get recalled that have passed standards testing (CSA, UL, etc.), for issues that weren't caught.
-
Doesn't matter. If a product passes all tests set by relevant standards, then that product is to be considered safe and suitable to use according to those standards.
IMO a consumer is entitled to assume this is true. Though as engineers, we should know better...
And no, an accredited lab is not going to comment or change their conclusions on tests they have done. They are an accredited lab for a reason (including being audited regulary). They apply the tests the government deems necessary by legally requiring certain standards and that is the end of the story.
I don't think anyone has suggested that any of the test labs/notified bodies make any mistakes here?
-
Doesn't matter. If a product passes all tests set by relevant standards, then that product is to be considered safe and suitable to use according to those standards.
IMO a consumer is entitled to assume this is true. Though as engineers, we should know better...
This is not an engineering problem. It is a legal problem so apply a legal framing, not an engineering framing.
-
This is not an engineering problem. It is a legal problem so apply a legal framing, not an engineering framing.
Feel free to cite a legal reference showing that companies only have to get their products certified and not do anything outside of that.
"Unfortunately, the law is clear that strict liability does not apply to UL and establishing negligent inspections or procedures where these inspections take place halfway around the world is a formidable task."
https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/suing-underwriters-laboratories-in-a-products-liability-case.html (https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/suing-underwriters-laboratories-in-a-products-liability-case.html)
https://www.reddit.com/r/ebikes/comments/1j8zz6m/ul_certification_once_again/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/ebikes/comments/1j8zz6m/ul_certification_once_again/)
https://incompliancemag.com/product-liability-law-and-its-effect-on-product-safety/ (https://incompliancemag.com/product-liability-law-and-its-effect-on-product-safety/)
-
This is not an engineering problem. It is a legal problem so apply a legal framing, not an engineering framing.
Feel free to cite a legal reference showing that companies only have to get their products certified and not do anything outside of that.
"Unfortunately, the law is clear that strict liability does not apply to UL and establishing negligent inspections or procedures where these inspections take place halfway around the world is a formidable task."
https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/suing-underwriters-laboratories-in-a-products-liability-case.html (https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/suing-underwriters-laboratories-in-a-products-liability-case.html)
https://www.reddit.com/r/ebikes/comments/1j8zz6m/ul_certification_once_again/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/ebikes/comments/1j8zz6m/ul_certification_once_again/)
https://incompliancemag.com/product-liability-law-and-its-effect-on-product-safety/ (https://incompliancemag.com/product-liability-law-and-its-effect-on-product-safety/)
The only thing that an NRTL can "guarantee" is that particular example tested passed whatever the standard calls for regarding construction and test requirements. Not all standard have many construction requirements to go with the tests either, you have to read the whole thing and understand it.
Moreover, not all NRTLs are made the same: people talk about UL here but Intertek was the one used by the battery company, not UL. They're widely known to have creative interpretations of the standard and their testing is nothing like going to UL proper, generally it's the most clown-car type of NRTL you can choose for your product.
People that see the "UL" standard logo on a device think somehow that it's safe, while in reality it simply means that a lab tested one sample, using their interpretations of tests and construction requirements, and has then washed their hands of liability of any production units that come after it. The OEM is in the end wholly liable like they should be, even though a 3rd party listing provides some protective evidence for due diligence.
-
Doesn't matter. If a product passes all tests set by relevant standards, then that product is to be considered safe and suitable to use according to those standards. And no, an accredited lab is not going to comment or change their conclusions on tests they have done. They are an accredited lab for a reason (including being audited regulary).
Have you certified products at UL proper? Or are you just making stuff up as it goes.
-
This is not an engineering problem. It is a legal problem so apply a legal framing, not an engineering framing.
Feel free to cite a legal reference showing that companies only have to get their products certified and not do anything outside of that.
"Unfortunately, the law is clear that strict liability does not apply to UL and establishing negligent inspections or procedures where these inspections take place halfway around the world is a formidable task."
https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/suing-underwriters-laboratories-in-a-products-liability-case.html (https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/suing-underwriters-laboratories-in-a-products-liability-case.html)
https://www.reddit.com/r/ebikes/comments/1j8zz6m/ul_certification_once_again/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/ebikes/comments/1j8zz6m/ul_certification_once_again/)
https://incompliancemag.com/product-liability-law-and-its-effect-on-product-safety/ (https://incompliancemag.com/product-liability-law-and-its-effect-on-product-safety/)
All these links actually make my point. Quote from the last one: Having the opportunity to say that the company was very aware of the law and believes it complied could be extremely helpful in defending itself in a lawsuit. In other words: when a product complies with applicable, industry standard / regulatory tests, it will be very hard to prove a product is bad. In such a case you will have to prove legally that the tests used by the standards are incomplete / faulty. That is not an easy thing to do as the law doesn't know about physics and engineering!
For example: I'm currently preparing a lawsuit regarding a manufacturing defect in a car a family member bought. Anyone with a little understanding of engineering can see the fault. However, from a legal perspective the easiest way forward is to argue the car is not safe to use in traffic.
-
For example: I'm currently preparing a lawsuit regarding a manufacturing defect in a car a family member bought. Anyone with a little understanding of engineering can see the fault. However, from a legal perspective the easiest way forward is to argue the car is not safe to use in traffic.
Well yeah, you sue based off of the damages that resulted, not the flaw itself. And you sue the manufacturer of the vehicle.
What you were seemingly implying above is the car company can just throw up their hands and say "too bad, RDW/NCAP tested it and they said it was ok". Which is not possible without further evidence:
Here, the appellate court stated that the trial court erred in permitting the jury to consider the evidence of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards related to the strict products liability claim. The rule is that evidence of a product’s compliance with government standards is irrelevant, so it is not admissible in an strict products liability action.
"a manufacturer cannot defend a product liability action with evidence it met its industry’s customs or standards on safety,” by stating that this language only precluded a complete defense based on such evidence and did not preclude considering such evidence in risk-benefit balancing.
https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2016/b247672.html
Anyway the case here is not quite the same, its the manufacturer suing Will for "false and misleading claims" about their product.
He tested the battery within spec. If he had pumped 10kV into it and then said "dont buy this junk" as it catches on fire, it would be a different story.
-
https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2016/b247672.html
Anyway the case here is not quite the same, its the manufacturer suing Will for "false and misleading claims" about their product.
He tested the battery within spec. If he had pumped 10kV into it and then said "dont buy this junk" as it catches on fire, it would be a different story.
Will has a copy of the datasheet that says the spec, and he tested within that spec, and it's obvious to any casual observer that he was genuine in his testing and wanted the best for customers. I can't see any way he can lose here.
But of course, the process is the punishment even if he "wins".
If the spec was wrong and they have since fixed it, as BB are claiming, then that's not Will's problem, that's BB's problem.
What a dumb arse move to try and sue him.
A simple "sorry, we goofed up the spec in the datasheet and it's now corrected" likely would have caused most of this bad publicity to go away.
-
A simple "sorry, we goofed up the spec in the datasheet and it's now corrected" likely would have caused most of this bad publicity to go away.
It would also have given them a bit more credibility as a supplier and, with the appropriate action, could have potentially turned into a positive event.
But, no. They just push for a classic example of the Streisand Effect.
Good job :-+
-
I have been following Will's videos regarding these batteries, as well as from others that post videos on the matter. Mostly just for the entertainment value, so I haven't dug much into any technical details, nor am I a battery expert.
But what is so sad to see about these batteries is that the issues they have, seem so avoidable, and these batteries could have been great batteries. In most crappy batteries, the batteries are crap because the cells are crap and don't deliver on their promises. The raw materials used, simply are not there. But in these batteries, the cells actually seem to be of good quality, delivering their claimed capacity, which can be seen on the initial discharge tests that Will did up until the point where batteries started melting. So it's not the fault of the cells. I am sure they did not cheap out on the cells.
Also looking at the sheer amount of metal used in the wiring, busbars and various cell bonding inside, it seems like they didn't cheap out on raw materials either. With the abundance of raw metal, good cells and a seemingly okay BMS, all the raw materials should be there in sheer weight to construct a good battery.
It all just comes down to poor design, where nothing is properly torqued, nothing is properly secured from loosening over time, cell packs are just resting on top of busbars relying on gravity or the plastic case to make a good connection, rather than boding it properly... All of which could have been avoided.
For example the double nuts used to secure the terminals to the busbar. It is basic mechanics 101 that two nuts torqued against each other, does not secure the bolt connection any more than a single nut does. The outer nut will only release the tension on the threads of the inner nut that should be holding the connection, sandwiching it loosely between the busbar and the outer nut, and make the connection less secure overall. And that's before we address the elephant in the room of having plastic in between the different metallic components.
-
In the case with the plastics in between the doubled nuts make some sense. The fist nut can not be torqued down fully and the part locking the nuts is the torque between the nuts. It is however rather tricky to torque correctly - want 3 hands for this.
-
Will tested the thermal failsafe system:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcBZ23kmUKc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcBZ23kmUKc)
-
In the case with the plastics in between the doubled nuts make some sense. The fist nut can not be torqued down fully and the part locking the nuts is the torque between the nuts. It is however rather tricky to torque correctly - want 3 hands for this.
I agree, but only because the plastic doesn't make for a reliable connection in the first place. So adding a nut doesn't change it very much.
With a design like this, the Australian DCS batteries actually look great in comparison. At least those batteries seem to deliver on their current delivery capabilities.
-
Commentary on the mechanical design by a mechanical engineer.
The use of plastic between the copper bus bars is a problem even if the battery is used well below it's ratings. Environmental temperature changes will deform the plastic and loosen the electrical connections.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1AIQhK8K5I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1AIQhK8K5I)
-
Will went and executed a single-fault short-circuit test on one of the batteries (a test which BB explicitly claims was done as part of UL2054 certification) and they burst into flames, failing the test spectacularly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MOol0_DuU4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MOol0_DuU4)
Looking forward to Battleborn responding to this, but if they had any common sense they would keep their mouths shut and focus on their own engineers.
-
Streisand effect plus a likely class action lawsuit. Will Battleborn survive?
-
Will went and executed a single-fault short-circuit test on one of the batteries (a test which BB explicitly claims was done as part of UL2054 certification) and they burst into flames, failing the test spectacularly:
Looking forward to Battleborn responding to this, but if they had any common sense they would keep their mouths shut and focus on their own engineers.
They will be able to easily claim that he damaged the unit by cutting it open and bypassing the BMS
It's bullshit of course, we can all see how dodgy this thing is, but I suspect that argument would hold some weight in court.
It would be need another independent person to repeat the test.
It would be interesting to see the actual test report, it should have photos in it to show exactly what they tested.
How would another battery without all this plastic thermal fuse wankery have prevented this? Do they have a regular internal fail-safe fuse?
-
I have been trying to find out (assuming the whole "thermal failsafe" thing is made up) if there is any reason at all they would use plastic in between the terminals and busbars inside the batteries.
As mentioned before, I am not expert in battery design. But I do occasionally run into some mechanical work where different types of metals need to be bolted together. And depending on different materials, you may need to use specific types of metals or alloys for the bolts, or use insulating pads and plastic washers between the metals so they are not in direct contact with each other to avoid corrosion.
I have attached a screenshot of a galvanic series table that I refer to when performing such work, where I added English translations for relevant metals. The further apart the metals are in the table, the worse the corrosion. This table is generally for metals installed outdoors in marine environment which may get in contact with (salt) water, and is also for non-electric connections, so I do not know if this table is appropriate for electric, dry connections. So "take what I say with a grain of salt" (hehe)
Either way, I thought maybe the plastic had something to do with preventing corrosion. But if you look at the terminal assembly (which I also added a screenshot of), you will see that they are using an aluminium bolt, in contact with the brass terminal and copper busbar inside. As far as I can tell from the galvanic series table, brass and copper are 2 metals that should in theory interconnect with each other just fine as they are not very far apart in the galvanic series. Aluminium on the other hand, is worse in contact with any of the 2, than just having the brass and copper touch directly.
Edit: I made a translation mistake here. Brass and Bronze are not the same thing, and is mistranslated. But looking at brass in another table, my point still stays true
It is also a well known topic among electricians that if you have an aluminium cable and want to splice it with a copper cable, or connect it to a terminal that's primarily intended for copper cables, you need to use Al/Cu bimetallic adapters to ensure that the connection doesn't corrode, oxidise or loosens over time, which could cause arcing and overheating. In my country there have been house fires because of improperly installed aluminium mains cables without such adapters. In these batteries, they seem to have introduced a new problem that wasn't there to begin with, by mixing plastic and aluminium in where they could just have used brass bolts to bolt the brass and copper together.
These are just my findings, but as mentioned my findings may be flawed or based on wrong assumptions about bimetallic connections. It would be interesting if others with a deeper knowledge about different metals could add their thoughts to the matter
Here is another good video on the topic, from somebody who claims to engineer various products, who talks about thermal expansion between the materials. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1AIQhK8K5I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1AIQhK8K5I)
-
How would another battery without all this plastic thermal fuse wankery have prevented this?
That just came out :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZtDDgdEh6c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZtDDgdEh6c)
And yes, the right thing, an actual fuse
They will be able to easily claim that he damaged the unit by cutting it open and bypassing the BMS
Yeah, "Lid was opened, so of course the heat that was supposed to trip the "fuse" could escape, test invalid" :scared:
-
They will be able to easily claim that he damaged the unit by cutting it open and bypassing the BMS
It's bullshit of course, we can all see how dodgy this thing is, but I suspect that argument would hold some weight in court.
It would be need another independent person to repeat the test.
I doubt the court is going to be interested in the technical details of the testing. The more important matter is likely whether Will's statements were made in good faith or not (at least that's how libel cases usually turn out in the US, not sure what jurisdiction this trial will happen in). That's why it's so bizarre for Battleborn to be posting technical responses to Will's videos. It does nothing for their legal case, just make them look more incompetent to actual engineers, and gives others like Will more ammunition to fire back at them.
How would another battery without all this plastic thermal fuse wankery have prevented this? Do they have a regular internal fail-safe fuse?
I believe most large batteries will have a basic fuse in addition to the BMS protection. The fuse would not be bypassed during the test, and should interrupt current almost instantly.
Will already put out a followup video where he looks at a couple other exmple batteries with fuses (and one which does not have a fuse, which he states would fail the test):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZtDDgdEh6c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZtDDgdEh6c)
-
Will already put out a followup video where he looks at a couple other exmple batteries with fuses (and one which does not have a fuse, which he states would fail the test):
It's crazy they don't have a known rated fuse inside, why expose yourself to that kind of liability?
To save a few dollars on some crazy convoluted plastic DIY solution? :palm:
One thing Will's fire video didn't have was measuring the short circuit current, that would have been handy to know.
-
They will be able to easily claim that he damaged the unit by cutting it open and bypassing the BMS
Yeah, "Lid was opened, so of course the heat that was supposed to trip the "fuse" could escape, test invalid" :scared:
I'm sure they will use that excuse. It was also windy, providing a cooling function. And the external oxygen fueled the fire etc ::)
-
This is not an engineering problem. It is a legal problem so apply a legal framing, not an engineering framing.
Feel free to cite a legal reference showing that companies only have to get their products certified and not do anything outside of that.
"Unfortunately, the law is clear that strict liability does not apply to UL and establishing negligent inspections or procedures where these inspections take place halfway around the world is a formidable task."
https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/suing-underwriters-laboratories-in-a-products-liability-case.html (https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/suing-underwriters-laboratories-in-a-products-liability-case.html)
https://www.reddit.com/r/ebikes/comments/1j8zz6m/ul_certification_once_again/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/ebikes/comments/1j8zz6m/ul_certification_once_again/)
https://incompliancemag.com/product-liability-law-and-its-effect-on-product-safety/ (https://incompliancemag.com/product-liability-law-and-its-effect-on-product-safety/)
The only thing that an NRTL can "guarantee" is that particular example tested passed whatever the standard calls for regarding construction and test requirements. Not all standard have many construction requirements to go with the tests either, you have to read the whole thing and understand it.
Moreover, not all NRTLs are made the same: people talk about UL here but Intertek was the one used by the battery company, not UL. They're widely known to have creative interpretations of the standard and their testing is nothing like going to UL proper, generally it's the most clown-car type of NRTL you can choose for your product.
People that see the "UL" standard logo on a device think somehow that it's safe, while in reality it simply means that a lab tested one sample, using their interpretations of tests and construction requirements, and has then washed their hands of liability of any production units that come after it. The OEM is in the end wholly liable like they should be, even though a 3rd party listing provides some protective evidence for due diligence.
Not necessarily. We get visits from NRTLs 4 times a year where they inspect the safety related parts of our production.
I'm not 100% familiar with the US law, but under the EU law you are still liable to make sure the product that you ship is safe.
Also, just passing a standard, doesn't mean that a product is safe. Or passing a test.
In the case with the plastics in between the doubled nuts make some sense. The fist nut can not be torqued down fully and the part locking the nuts is the torque between the nuts. It is however rather tricky to torque correctly - want 3 hands for this.
I would be more concerned that the plastic would flow and creep over time. Making a loose connection, arcing or the contact resistance heating.
-
Could it be Battle Born said one day in an internal meeting regular car batteries don’t have internal fuses so our batteries don’t need them. Could they be thinking fuses are done on the customer side and in hindsight they now realize that’s incorrect.
-
Could it be Battle Born said one day in an internal meeting regular car batteries don’t have internal fuses so our batteries don’t need them. Could they be thinking fuses are done on the customer side and in hindsight they now realize that’s incorrect.
I have no idea, but when I look at those batteries, I get the feeling that whoever are behind, don't really know how batteries are "typically made", and that they have just grabbed a bunch of off the shelf materials the same way a DIYer would do, rather than getting material-efficient, purpose made components. Because there's no lack in raw materials, it's just that those materials are not used in a proper way to create a reliable product.
Which makes me think that maybe no conscious thought went into the safety of the thing. But even if they did look at car batteries, lead acids and lithium batteries are not really comparable. Lead acid batteries are not as flammable if they are shorted and therefore may not need the same kind of protection. Not saying that a shorted lead acid battery isn't dangerous, because there certainly are high currents, heat and the possibility of hydrogen gasses. But it is more likely to just heat up to a point where the electrolyte begins to boil, and the steam is vented out of the battery, until the battery's ESR increases, and the current drops as a result. There's not much flammable in the cells themselves, since the anode and cathode are mostly lead, and the electrolyte is sulfuric acid in a water solution. And while those fumes are probably not good to breathe, or could generate hydrogen gasses, it's still not as likely to cause a violent fire as a lithium battery where the material in the cells fuels the fire. So there is a good reason that lithium need BMSes and protection circuits, where lead acids are more forgiving to abuse
-
A rather non reliable protection is not good, especially as the sold the batteries as robust and safe. With those marketing claims they should really have a proper fuse.
I don't know how proper batteries hand this, but ideally I would want temperature sensors at the terminals and the internal BMS to check those temperatures. This would not be that much extra effort and provide some protection for loose terminals. Some batteries already have multiple temperature sensors for the cells.
The other problem with the construction is that it does not look reliable for normal use. This would especially be if the batteries get hot from time to time (e.g. in a RV or with high charging currents) so that plastic creep becomes an issue. The aluminum screws can also have more oxide layer to start with and this way may have enough contact resistance to cause overheating issues with high current, even when new.
-
I have no idea, but when I look at those batteries, I get the feeling that whoever are behind, don't really know how batteries are "typically made", and that they have just grabbed a bunch of off the shelf materials the same way a DIYer would do, rather than getting material-efficient, purpose made components. Because there's no lack in raw materials, it's just that those materials are not used in a proper way to create a reliable product.
I agree. That's a the most likely explanation for the current mess.
-
New video!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KCkl01uN5Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KCkl01uN5Q)
-
After knowing that the batteries don't work well with high current, it is a bit stupid to test the capacitor with a current close to the rated current. It is normal that the batteries would be hot in the test.
A lesson learned from the tests so far is that the batteries don't like high temperature / high current. They may still work fine with lower current.
It would have been smarter to first test them at a lower current, to see the actual capacity.
With the the high current tests one more gets the time when the battery got so hot that extra voltage drop or the BMS temperature terminated the discharge.
-
I agree. If he wants to do a capacity test, the test should be set up to isolate for that. By running high currents beyond what the batteries are proven to handle, he's not just testing capacity at that point, but a whole chain of potential issues. And when you consider that some of the individual cells seem to be dead, it means the remaining good cells are pushed beyond what they were intended to do and aren't subjected to a fair capacity test. A 0.1C test would have been more appropriate. I think at this point, Will's just trying to expose BB as much as he can with frequent content about the issues.
The one thing that surprised me was that there were so many bad cells when he took the cell packs apart, even in the batteries that supposedly haven't been exposed to very high currents.
They don't have battleborn batteries in Europe afaik, but considering these had a great reputation in the US among campers, they must initially have done something right? Or did everyone just buy into a hype without proven results?
-
Or did everyone just buy into a hype without proven results?
If you think the battery is OK then how and why would you test it? When my car battery needs replacing I search for good reviews and then buy a likely good one and fit it. It starts the car, keeps doing that, but I suspect it's not at all stressed. Why would I suspect it? If something did go wrong and I thought I had a good battery, because of the hype, it might take me a while to get around to thinking it could be dodgy after I've checked other potential issues.
So, yes, I think many users buy into the hype, don't have a problem because they're not stressing it, and then reconfirm the hype of how brilliant it is. The odd ones saying the thing is shit are clearly abusing it.
-
After knowing that the batteries don't work well with high current, it is a bit stupid to test the capacitor with a current close to the rated current. It is normal that the batteries would be hot in the test.
A lesson learned from the tests so far is that the batteries don't like high temperature / high current. They may still work fine with lower current.
It would have been smarter to first test them at a lower current, to see the actual capacity.
With the the high current tests one more gets the time when the battery got so hot that extra voltage drop or the BMS temperature terminated the discharge.
Yes, agreed.
The capacity and the high current overheating issues are two different things.
If you are serious about capacity then you get a bunch of characteristic curves at different test currents. At least two, say 10% and 50% of rated current, then another one at say 90% or 100% rated current to stress it.
-
The capacity and the high current overheating issues are two different things.
Probably, but there's also the possibility that it has seen history of continuous overheating, and the cells closest to the hot terminals have lost capacity due to that damage.
For capacity loss, there are two variants, either actual capacity loss, or increased resistance which makes it appear to have less capacity. But the results on the video show that capacity loss seems dramatic even at fairly low currents, which suggests it's not (only) resistance increase, but actual capacity loss. Either just poor quality cells aging on their own (cycling / calendar), or from heat damage, or both.
-
The capacity loss can indeed have 2 forms:
One is triggering the cell internal protection, so that some cells no longer contribute at all. The other is the cells overall getting old and tired and a more gradual loss of capacitor over time, e.g. from oxigen diffusing to the cells.
The video showed that quite some cells are dead / high impedance and thus the first mode of capacity loss.
The test with high current can trigger the cell internal protection. Though most of the time used with low current, the one cycle with high current may well have damaged the battery and cause much of the capacity loss. The batteries may well have had Ok capacity before the high current test.
I would expect high current the main reason to make cells fail.
The conclusion is still right: check the capacity to test if the battery is still OK. If the capacity is low it would be no longer safe to use with high current, as the current would be concentrated to fewer cells and the temperature sensor may be on a dead cell.
The other more general conclusion is not to use those batteries with high current over a longer time. The 100 A rating is more short time - maybe better stay below 20 A most of the time.
-
I did some digging to see if Battleborn batteries are available in Europe. I figured that "Battleborn" isn't really a brand name that would necessarily stick well with Europeans. We don't really buy into badass names or military-themed products, and there isn't as much of a market for "doomsday prepper"-marketed stuff. We prefer cleaner, more neutral names. "Battleborn" wouldn't give European buyers any confidence in the products.
Turns out the same batteries are sold under a different name "Transporter Energy", mainly in the UK. Which is also a more appropriate brand name for the European market I would say.
They have a black case and green lid, but otherwise the lid and terminals seem to have the same shape. (Unless LiFePo4's have standardised form factors)
https://nohma.com/product/battle-born-batteries-uk-transporter-energy-100ah-lithium-leisure-battery/ (https://nohma.com/product/battle-born-batteries-uk-transporter-energy-100ah-lithium-leisure-battery/)
quote from the linked web page:
Battle Born Batteries UK – AKA Transporter Energy – 100Ah 12V Lithium Leisure Battery
Transporter Energy are Battle Born Batteries UK – they supply the leading Battle Born Batteries from the USA produced in the USA to the UK market. The only change is the name and casing – the technology and high quality remain the same.
There is at least one ebay listing from a German seller.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/125895708285 (https://www.ebay.com/itm/125895708285)
Would be interesting to see if there are any reports of issues with these. Or if they are tested with other third parties for approval in the European market, which could have picked up on the issues seen in the American battleborns.
-
The capacity and the high current overheating issues are two different things.
Probably, but there's also the possibility that it has seen history of continuous overheating, and the cells closest to the hot terminals have lost capacity due to that damage.
Most definitely.
I meant that they should be treated as different test and characteriaation issues, but can certainly be causal related.
-
I did some digging to see if Battleborn batteries are available in Europe. I figured that "Battleborn" isn't really a brand name that would necessarily stick well with Europeans. We don't really buy into badass names or military-themed products, and there isn't as much of a market for "doomsday prepper"-marketed stuff. We prefer cleaner, more neutral names. "Battleborn" wouldn't give European buyers any confidence in the products.
FYI, the company name comes from the fact they’re located in the state of Nevada, whose nickname is the “Battle Born State” due to it becoming a state during the Civil War. The Nevada state flag says “Battle Born” on it.
Lots of brands in USA use state-related branding, as state patriotism (as opposed to national patriotism) has increased over the last few decades. Often, the nicknames aren’t really well recognized outside of the state, so they end up being “local brand” signals to state residents and just random names to outsiders.
Also, I think the popularity of “Swiss Army”-branded stuff is a strong counterargument for your claims that Europeans dislike military-themed products and prefer neutral names. Less popular than in USA? Yeah, I’d agree.
-
Yeah while Will's videos are entertaining, his approaches to testing and analysis often annoy me.
For example he did another video tearing down one of those bad batteries:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL1HEVfdNQU&t=218s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL1HEVfdNQU&t=218s)
At 1:50, he shows the measured capacity and ESR of a set of cells and says that 73% of the cells are at 0V (internally fuse popped, I suppose) and the remainder only have half their capacity remaining. Well, that means the battery these cells came from should only be capable of delivering 13.5% of its rated capacity. But in his previous video he stated that the worst of all those batteries delivered 26.8Ahr our of its 100Ahr rating. Obviously he made a mistake somewhere, or just didn't explain things correctly.
edit: oh and I have to bring up this other video where he compares crimped vs soldered lugs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CgJ4Y1FGzs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CgJ4Y1FGzs)
He compares resistance of cable segments with crimped and soldered lugs, stating that lower resistance is better.
He expresses shock that the soldered cables have much lower resistance than he expected, with one of them having lower resistance than the crimped cable.
Then he tests each cable by intentionally giving it a poor connection at both ends, causing the terminals to heat excessively, and he yanks one the cables in that state. To nobody's surprise, the soldered cable comes apart, the crimped one holds together.
He concludes that crimps are obviously better, ignoring his own resistance test results. No suggestion of adding strain relief to address the possibility of disconnects with soldered cables.
I actually agree with his overall conclusion here, but his reasoning is just really lazy and he has clear biases.
-
He expresses shock that the soldered cables have much lower resistance than he expected, with one of them having lower resistance than the crimped cable.
Then he tests each cable by intentionally giving it a poor connection at both ends, causing the terminals to heat excessively, and he yanks one the cables in that state. To nobody's surprise, the soldered cable comes apart, the crimped one holds together.
He concludes that crimps are obviously better, ignoring his own resistance test results. No suggestion of adding strain relief to address the possibility of disconnects with soldered cables.
I actually agree with his overall conclusion here, but his reasoning is just really lazy and he has clear biases.
If you have a soldered connection that overheats, strain relief is not going to solve the issue. The solder will continue to heat and oxidize or flow out of the joint, resulting in a poor connection. Even if it is being held in place with a strain relief. Saw one a few days ago on an overheating xenon bulb.
It is a rare situation but for safety critical applications its clear why you'd want to crimp the wire. Soldered was what 5% better? Its not worth risking for such a small benefit.
-
The soldered terminal in the test was not fully soldered. The only way a 10mm diameter cable is tinned is by dipping it in a solder pot to get full penetration into the cable interior. Same with tinning a bare copper lug. The cable and terminal can be soldered together after they are tinned.
https://youtu.be/4CgJ4Y1FGzs?si=Mit_BhHZUYbwp431&t=129
-
There do exist large terminals designed for soldering, even in vibration environments like automotive.
You need to make sure the intermetallics aren't brittle, and there is strain relief *past* the point where any solder wicking is possible (sometimes you can use a heatsink designed for the wire to control the wicking).
All in all it's less reliable than an equivalent crimp connection when compared directly, but when done right it's not bad.
-
The soldered terminal in the test was not fully soldered. The only way a 10cm diameter cable is tinned is by dipping it in a solder pot to get full penetration into the cable interior. Same with tinning a bare copper lug. The cable and terminal can be soldered together after they are tinned.
That’s all true, but doesn’t change anything in the end, since the heat wasn’t generated in the solder joint, but in the loose lug bolt connection. Had it been soldered better, it would just have taken a few seconds longer for the additional solder to melt.
-
I don't disagree with any of the above comments. Again, not saying that Will's conclusion regarding crimps vs solder is wrong, just that his reasoning and explanation is poor (for the soldered cable, did he use a terminal designed for soldering? What sort of solder was used? What soldering process?). So he's not convincing.
-
I don't disagree with any of the above comments. Again, not saying that Will's conclusion regarding crimps vs solder is wrong, just that his reasoning and explanation is poor (for the soldered cable, did he use a terminal designed for soldering? What sort of solder was used? What soldering process?). So he's not convincing.
He has no formal EE education so it does make sense that he's lacking on many of the fine details.
I don't know if they make solderable versions of this style of high current connector. I believe the point is more so that people would buy the crimp version, try to save money by not getting a crimper, and soldering them.
The type of solder used shouldn't be relevant.
-
I don't disagree with any of the above comments. Again, not saying that Will's conclusion regarding crimps vs solder is wrong, just that his reasoning and explanation is poor (for the soldered cable, did he use a terminal designed for soldering? What sort of solder was used? What soldering process?). So he's not convincing.
Again, what is the relevance of any of those questions? The heat wasn’t generated in the solder joint, so the overheating would happen no matter what, in those circumstances.
-
I am a bit surprised, that this video hasnt made its way into this forum:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP2yPY57Wjc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP2yPY57Wjc)
Here is an answer from the manufacturer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fD3yaRvp3o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fD3yaRvp3o)
I wonder how many fires this battery has started, since this design is 6 years old. Also I wonder how nothing happend in all those years in regards to the design. There was one user in the comments, saying, that he has reached out to the manufacturer, and nothing happend. I am truly blown away, by the answer from the company. Companies these days... :palm:
While you appear to be correct, you're asking for a defamation lawsuit.
They won't win (most likely), but you'll have to spends tons of money on lawyers.
Do you have that kind of money readily available?
-
Defamation lawsuits must meet certain criteria, and the damage must be proven. One can't slap defamation lawsuits left and right.
-
Late to the party here, but always interested in RV battery issues.
The "Battleborn" brand has always given me iffy vibes. I didn't know about the Nevada connection.
But this is a "full-size" battery and it's only 100 AH?
You can buy 4 "bricks" of 300 AH and put in a BMS for a better solution.
-
Defamation lawsuits must meet certain criteria, and the damage must be proven. One can't slap defamation lawsuits left and right.
What you mean is a defamation lawsuit must meet certain criteria to succeed. Anyone can bring any lawsuit they want with the risk that it will be costly if it fails. That's why normal people aren't bringing them. But rich people know that normal people can't afford the monetary risk of losing, however ridiculous the lawsuit is, and use such suits to bully their target. It is well known enough to have its own term: SLAPP - Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.
A certain well-tanned country leader is known for this, currently suing the BBC for $10b for allegedly dissing him badly enough that he lost the last election. He thought he would get them to settle for a few million, just like the US media companies did in similar cases that had no merit, but the BBC has a backbone :)
So, likely Battelborn figured if they looked serious enough a know-nothing influencer would shit their pants and make an apology rather than risk being made bankrupt should they lose. Bad luck they picked the BBC version of influencer.
-
Defamation lawsuits must meet certain criteria, and the damage must be proven. One can't slap defamation lawsuits left and right.
What you mean is a defamation lawsuit must meet certain criteria to succeed. Anyone can bring any lawsuit they want with the risk that it will be costly if it fails. That's why normal people aren't bringing them. But rich people know that normal people can't afford the monetary risk of losing, however ridiculous the lawsuit is, and use such suits to bully their target. It is well known enough to have its own term: SLAPP - Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.
A certain well-tanned country leader is known for this, currently suing the BBC for $10b for allegedly dissing him badly enough that he lost the last election. He thought he would get them to settle for a few million, just like the US media companies did in similar cases that had no merit, but the BBC has a backbone :)
So, likely Battelborn figured if they looked serious enough a know-nothing influencer would shit their pants and make an apology rather than risk being made bankrupt should they lose. Bad luck they picked the BBC version of influencer.
YES!!!!
This is what I wanted to say, but my dumb brain can't write.
:(
-
You're welcome :)
-
Yeah while Will's videos are entertaining, his approaches to testing and analysis often annoy me.
For example he did another video tearing down one of those bad batteries:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL1HEVfdNQU&t=218s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL1HEVfdNQU&t=218s)
At 1:50, he shows the measured capacity and ESR of a set of cells and says that 73% of the cells are at 0V (internally fuse popped, I suppose) and the remainder only have half their capacity remaining. Well, that means the battery these cells came from should only be capable of delivering 13.5% of its rated capacity. But in his previous video he stated that the worst of all those batteries delivered 26.8Ahr our of its 100Ahr rating. Obviously he made a mistake somewhere, or just didn't explain things correctly.
edit: oh and I have to bring up this other video where he compares crimped vs soldered lugs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CgJ4Y1FGzs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CgJ4Y1FGzs)
He compares resistance of cable segments with crimped and soldered lugs, stating that lower resistance is better.
He expresses shock that the soldered cables have much lower resistance than he expected, with one of them having lower resistance than the crimped cable.
Then he tests each cable by intentionally giving it a poor connection at both ends, causing the terminals to heat excessively, and he yanks one the cables in that state. To nobody's surprise, the soldered cable comes apart, the crimped one holds together.
He concludes that crimps are obviously better, ignoring his own resistance test results. No suggestion of adding strain relief to address the possibility of disconnects with soldered cables.
I actually agree with his overall conclusion here, but his reasoning is just really lazy and he has clear biases.
Great point and I was super confused by this as well until I looked at the data and then reproduced this exact same event in another battery. So what we are seeing here is a cascade effect. The more cells that are lost, the more current going through the remaining cells. One by one they disconnect with the CID in the top of the cell.
Here is my graph of before and after in a second battery to reproduce this: https://diysolarforum.com/threads/12x-battleborn-batteries-w-9-years-of-service.127226/post-1870621 (https://diysolarforum.com/threads/12x-battleborn-batteries-w-9-years-of-service.127226/post-1870621)
I post whatever I find and then we argue about it on the forum. I have the graphs for both tests, for both batteries.
One thing I screwed up is saying IR was 0. I should have said OL or something else. I did mess that up.
And what was wrong with the solder test? That has been mentioned a lot. And of course it is low resistance. Did you see my other crimping videos where I measured voltage drop across something like 40 different cables I made? what was wrong with the tests? I am here to learn
-
I did some digging to see if Battleborn batteries are available in Europe. I figured that "Battleborn" isn't really a brand name that would necessarily stick well with Europeans. We don't really buy into badass names or military-themed products, and there isn't as much of a market for "doomsday prepper"-marketed stuff. We prefer cleaner, more neutral names. "Battleborn" wouldn't give European buyers any confidence in the products.
Turns out the same batteries are sold under a different name "Transporter Energy", mainly in the UK. Which is also a more appropriate brand name for the European market I would say.
They have a black case and green lid, but otherwise the lid and terminals seem to have the same shape. (Unless LiFePo4's have standardised form factors)
https://nohma.com/product/battle-born-batteries-uk-transporter-energy-100ah-lithium-leisure-battery/ (https://nohma.com/product/battle-born-batteries-uk-transporter-energy-100ah-lithium-leisure-battery/)
quote from the linked web page:
Battle Born Batteries UK – AKA Transporter Energy – 100Ah 12V Lithium Leisure Battery
Transporter Energy are Battle Born Batteries UK – they supply the leading Battle Born Batteries from the USA produced in the USA to the UK market. The only change is the name and casing – the technology and high quality remain the same.
There is at least one ebay listing from a German seller.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/125895708285 (https://www.ebay.com/itm/125895708285)
Would be interesting to see if there are any reports of issues with these. Or if they are tested with other third parties for approval in the European market, which could have picked up on the issues seen in the American battleborns.
Oh yeah, same design and same issues reported (image attached)
I don't disagree with any of the above comments. Again, not saying that Will's conclusion regarding crimps vs solder is wrong, just that his reasoning and explanation is poor (for the soldered cable, did he use a terminal designed for soldering? What sort of solder was used? What soldering process?). So he's not convincing.
He has no formal EE education so it does make sense that he's lacking on many of the fine details.
I don't know if they make solderable versions of this style of high current connector. I believe the point is more so that people would buy the crimp version, try to save money by not getting a crimper, and soldering them.
The type of solder used shouldn't be relevant.
I do not, but I did start building circuits when I was 9 and coding at 12 and I have built various types of robots including animatronic systems and robotic arms. I went to school for medicine but then was disabled from a nerve disorder and had to drop out. I had the best grades recorded in my school before that, and won the robotics competition and science fair.
I actually learned a lot from this forum years ago and I cannot log into my old account. I have a lot to learn and am always learning more everyday. I have calibrated and certified test equipment now and you can download my data yourself. If I say something stupid, let me know. I want to learn. I love electronics even though I was never formally trained.
The capacity loss can indeed have 2 forms:
One is triggering the cell internal protection, so that some cells no longer contribute at all. The other is the cells overall getting old and tired and a more gradual loss of capacitor over time, e.g. from oxigen diffusing to the cells.
The video showed that quite some cells are dead / high impedance and thus the first mode of capacity loss.
The test with high current can trigger the cell internal protection. Though most of the time used with low current, the one cycle with high current may well have damaged the battery and cause much of the capacity loss. The batteries may well have had Ok capacity before the high current test.
I would expect high current the main reason to make cells fail.
The conclusion is still right: check the capacity to test if the battery is still OK. If the capacity is low it would be no longer safe to use with high current, as the current would be concentrated to fewer cells and the temperature sensor may be on a dead cell.
The other more general conclusion is not to use those batteries with high current over a longer time. The 100 A rating is more short time - maybe better stay below 20 A most of the time.
Yes!!! That is exactly what happened and I reproduced it in a second battery. Exactly.
And once you get to that low of a capacity, even a 26% of rated capacity pack will be at nearly a 1C rate with 20A, so that would not be wise either.
If a temp sensor is not on a connected cell, then the bms safety features go out the window.
Right now everyone on my forum is trying to figure out whats causing these cells to disconnect in all cell packs and all batteries after around 6 years. It is consistent in 100% of packs.
Some people have been saying the nickel sheets cause current sharing issues because they are simply pressed together with plastic. This could cause the CID to trip, but if anyone here has any idea, please share it because I am trying to figure this out still.
-
Lawsuit update
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7hqPAV0U_8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7hqPAV0U_8)
-
Dakota that they bought also doesn't look great either: https://diysolarforum.com/threads/can-someone-please-sell-me-on-dakota-lithium-what-am-i-missing.67570/
I do not, but I did start building circuits when I was 9 and coding at 12 and I have built various types of robots including animatronic systems and robotic arms. I went to school for medicine but then was disabled from a nerve disorder and had to drop out. I had the best grades recorded in my school before that, and won the robotics competition and science fair.
I actually learned a lot from this forum years ago and I cannot log into my old account. I have a lot to learn and am always learning more everyday. I have calibrated and certified test equipment now and you can download my data yourself. If I say something stupid, let me know. I want to learn. I love electronics even though I was never formally trained.
Yeah I don't mean it as a criticism at all, just a possible explanation. I have no issue with what I've seen on your channel.
Given your wider audience it makes sense to not go into deep details in most cases, and focus on the real world effect.
-
Some people have been saying the nickel sheets cause current sharing issues because they are simply pressed together with plastic. This could cause the CID to trip
That's a very strong hypothesis. Paralleling cells is good practice and safe, but it requires top-notch, similar-resistance connectivity between the cells if currents are going to be high. The "press together" design is horrific; intermittent connections that come and go are worst even at low currents because cells can drift to different state-of-charge and when they reconnect, nearly unlimited current flows, and what's worse, that's charging current from the perspective of lower-voltage cell. Instant self-destruction.
In a paralleled design where N is just ~dozen max, design must rely on any CIDs or PTCs never triggering because that causes a cascade failure. Now arguably if you put, say, 60 cells in parallel like Tesla did in their first generation pack designs (before their cell customizations), then one or two cells getting disabled by CID is not going to cascade because current seen by other cells rise only marginally.
-
The "press together" design is horrific;
The plastic. Yeah, it's batshit crazy.
Like torquing down your engine head bolts onto a gasket made of gallium and expecting them to stay tight.
-
Like torquing down your engine head bolts onto a gasket made of gallium and expecting them to stay tight.
Engine head bolts are expensive. Can't you just use tie wraps?
-
Great point and I was super confused by this as well until I looked at the data and then reproduced this exact same event in another battery. So what we are seeing here is a cascade effect. The more cells that are lost, the more current going through the remaining cells. One by one they disconnect with the CID in the top of the cell.
Here is my graph of before and after in a second battery to reproduce this: https://diysolarforum.com/threads/12x-battleborn-batteries-w-9-years-of-service.127226/post-1870621 (https://diysolarforum.com/threads/12x-battleborn-batteries-w-9-years-of-service.127226/post-1870621)
I post whatever I find and then we argue about it on the forum. I have the graphs for both tests, for both batteries.
Ah okay, I guess that could explain why you reported capacities >26% in one video, then saw <15% in the next. Some more cells probably went open circuit in between due to your testing.
One thing I screwed up is saying IR was 0. I should have said OL or something else. I did mess that up.
btw what instrument do you use to measure ESR of large cells/batteries? Looks like some Finisri box, but with only two leads. I would assume a decent ESR reading would require a four-lead measurement.
And what was wrong with the solder test? That has been mentioned a lot. And of course it is low resistance. Did you see my other crimping videos where I measured voltage drop across something like 40 different cables I made? what was wrong with the tests? I am here to learn
I don't think anything was wrong with the resistance test itself. But why did you do it if you were just going to handwave it away at the end of the video? :-//
Lawsuit update
Here's my 2c advice: There's obviously a ton of issues you could go after Dragonfly for, but I recommend just focusing on the ones directly relevant to Dragonfly's complaint (not sure what those are, since you say the amended it). Dumping too much info on a judge/jury might just confuse or frustrate them, which isn't good for you.
-
There's obviously a ton of issues you could go after Dragonfly for, but I recommend just focusing on the ones directly relevant to Dragonfly's complaint
Wouldn't showing that the complainant ignores best practice as a matter of course in other areas also harden the basis of the defence against their claim since they couldn't shrug it off and as a one-off issue?
Looks like some Finisri box, but with only two leads.
Actually a 4-wire lead - they just make the leads with two wires in one sheath to improve handling (and looks).
-
Some people have been saying the nickel sheets cause current sharing issues because they are simply pressed together with plastic. This could cause the CID to trip
That's a very strong hypothesis. Paralleling cells is good practice and safe, but it requires top-notch, similar-resistance connectivity between the cells if currents are going to be high. The "press together" design is horrific; intermittent connections that come and go are worst even at low currents because cells can drift to different state-of-charge and when they reconnect, nearly unlimited current flows, and what's worse, that's charging current from the perspective of lower-voltage cell. Instant self-destruction.
In a paralleled design where N is just ~dozen max, design must rely on any CIDs or PTCs never triggering because that causes a cascade failure. Now arguably if you put, say, 60 cells in parallel like Tesla did in their first generation pack designs (before their cell customizations), then one or two cells getting disabled by CID is not going to cascade because current seen by other cells rise only marginally.
Absolutely. And I wonder how well these cells are matched before they are put into these parallel packs. Yeah, the press together is horrid. Their other pack does not even have mechanical connection between their cells packs and there are many failures with that design. I had one vent in my backyard, and I know an individual in hawaii with two failed packs in a single day.
I have noticed that the internal resistance is all over the place after you stop charging or discharging. I think this is because the current is still moving between the cells because there is a current sharing issue. With prismatic packs with only 4 cells instead of 120 cells, the ir is very consistent when you stop charging or discharging. Yes exactly! And there is neoprene pushing the packs together. As with all plastics, it will lose its rebound effect over time. Add in some high ambient temps and that pressure on the electrical connection is reduced. Game changer battery is the worst in this regard. They use the actual case to hold the electrical connections together. This is probably why I found arcing in a pack after only 1.5 years of use.
Oh good point about drift at soc extremes.
Yes very true about the tesla packs. And those were matched with high quality cells. The cells they use are UL listed but that does not mean much these days. I cannot find any high performance cells in the size cell they sell. And going by the labels in packs I open, they have multiple suppliers.
Great point and I was super confused by this as well until I looked at the data and then reproduced this exact same event in another battery. So what we are seeing here is a cascade effect. The more cells that are lost, the more current going through the remaining cells. One by one they disconnect with the CID in the top of the cell.
Here is my graph of before and after in a second battery to reproduce this: https://diysolarforum.com/threads/12x-battleborn-batteries-w-9-years-of-service.127226/post-1870621 (https://diysolarforum.com/threads/12x-battleborn-batteries-w-9-years-of-service.127226/post-1870621)
I post whatever I find and then we argue about it on the forum. I have the graphs for both tests, for both batteries.
Ah okay, I guess that could explain why you reported capacities >26% in one video, then saw <15% in the next. Some more cells probably went open circuit in between due to your testing.
One thing I screwed up is saying IR was 0. I should have said OL or something else. I did mess that up.
btw what instrument do you use to measure ESR of large cells/batteries? Looks like some Finisri box, but with only two leads. I would assume a decent ESR reading would require a four-lead measurement.
And what was wrong with the solder test? That has been mentioned a lot. And of course it is low resistance. Did you see my other crimping videos where I measured voltage drop across something like 40 different cables I made? what was wrong with the tests? I am here to learn
I don't think anything was wrong with the resistance test itself. But why did you do it if you were just going to handwave it away at the end of the video? :-//
Lawsuit update
Here's my 2c advice: There's obviously a ton of issues you could go after Dragonfly for, but I recommend just focusing on the ones directly relevant to Dragonfly's complaint (not sure what those are, since you say the amended it). Dumping too much info on a judge/jury might just confuse or frustrate them, which isn't good for you.
Yes Finisri but it is a four lead probe, even the clamp one. I have tested both of their probes and they are consistent results and I have two meters. I do not know of a battery ir meter that has two wire probe. They are all four wire probes.
What do you mean by handwave it away at the end of the video? I do not know what to expect when I make my videos. Oh! You mean the low resistance. Yeah it was impressive! That was a cool result. But solder cannot be relied on for large cables. Just because it is a low resistance connection does not mean it is strong or can handle heat. Crimp is going to win and why it is industry standard for 40 cable.
Ok understood. I am just trying to figure out the disconnecting cell part. The other stuff in the lawsuit, dragonfly energy is being sued for currently. The president of the PVICC who helped created multiple UL standards is suing them. The thermal failsafe thing is so easy to disprove. I just want to find out why these things have meltdowns and cascade failure/loss of capacity. It is quite literally in 100% of batteries I have tested, and every single cell pack I have found. The cell venting is terrifying. Actually the cell venting video is in the lawsuit. I still do not know what to do with that battery. Really nasty stuff.
If anyone has any idea why these cells disconnect I am all ears. I love this forum and have learned a lot from in years back. Lots of smart people here. I just do tests in my shop and share what I find.
-
Lawsuit update
Talking about an ongoing lawsuit on Youtube is quite dumb though. Not only are you giving away your position, your defense, but you also open up additional issues where they can attack you. Instead of just a defense based purely on technical issues, now you have to defend that you didn't want to damage the company based on this video.
It's like trying to outsmart a cop, who arrested a hundred people during his career, first time you are getting arrested.
-
Talking about an ongoing lawsuit on Youtube is quite dumb though. Not only are you giving away your position, your defense, but you also open up additional issues where they can attack you. Instead of just a defense based purely on technical issues, now you have to defend that you didn't want to damage the company based on this video.
It's like trying to outsmart a cop, who arrested a hundred people during his career, first time you are getting arrested.
Yes, this is good advice. Never be over-confident no matter how sure you are about your case. There is an Australian youtuber called Karl Jobst who mostly covers gaming related topics and scandals, who was sued for defamation. He was extremely confident that he would win the lawsuit, almost mocking the person he was sued by at times. But in the end he ended up losing.
Another piece of wisdom I was told early on in my career is that judges don't always judge on what makes sense on the surface. On the surface a case may seem obvious and there's a side that seemingly deserves to win, and another that deserves to lose. And you would think that a judge always brings justice and sides with the one with good intentions just like some robin hood story. But once everything comes down to evidence and legal technicalities, the result may not be what is expected. The judge doesn't think in terms of a robin hood story
-
TO OP:
Lay low, stick to facts.
Do NOT present opinions.
And shut up before you lose millions of dollars.
Don't be cocky; be cautious (but brave).
-
Talking about an ongoing lawsuit on Youtube is quite dumb though.
This is definitely good advice too! Get a good lawyer and listen to them.
Another piece of wisdom I was told early on in my career is that judges don't always judge on what makes sense on the surface. On the surface a case may seem obvious and there's a side that seemingly deserves to win, and another that deserves to lose. And you would think that a judge always brings justice and sides with the one with good intentions just like some robin hood story. But once everything comes down to evidence and legal technicalities, the result may not be what is expected. The judge doesn't think in terms of a robin hood story
Yes, most cases are determined not by "bad guy or good guy" logic, but by esoteric legal matters that only lawyers and jurists will understand. At the end of the day the judge will tell the jury specifically what matters are up for consideration, and what evidence/testimony they are allowed to consider. Even if your videos/testimony convince a jury that the batteries are unsafe, it might not matter in the end. Your lawyer(s) are there to keep you on track.