Blunder on description for "Super Thrower" flashlight?

[Fallingwater]

This light is meant to work with two 18500 or two 18650 cells using the extension.
The description blurb, however, also says it can be used with one 16340 (aka RCR123) and one 18650.
Isn't this dangerous? I was under the impression that cells with different capacities shouldn't be put in series, or the smaller one runs the risk of being reversed and blowing up.

 

[DM51]

You are quite right. What Dealextreme is suggesting is highly irresponsible and very dangerous indeed.

They should withdraw this description at once.

 

[Fallingwater]

I opened a thread about this in that page. Let's hope they notice it and change the description.

 

[DM51]

2 days later. I've just checked this again on the Dealextreme site. It is still there, unchanged. They have ignored the thread posted by Fallingwater on that page of their site.

Dealextreme's status as a CPF "Authorised Dealer" should be reviewed, IMO.

 

[Fallingwater]

I just opened a support ticket:

SKU 3356 - Super Thrower flashlight - battery information wrong and dangerous

The description of the Super Thrower flashlight says:

"- Powered by 2x18500 or 1x16340 plus 1x18650 Cells"

I quote from the thread I opened on the product page:

-----

*IMPORTANT* Do NOT use 1x16340 + 1x18650!!

Cells of different capacities must NOT be put in series. The smaller cell (16340) will discharge first and be reversed by the 18650. This could cause explosions and fires!

Cell reversal can be a problem even when using cells of the same capacity but with different charge, let alone with cells with different capacities.

The suggestion to use different cells is highly irresponsible and should be removed from the description.

-----

The description was not changed following my thread. I'm opening this ticket in the hope you'll notice the mistake this way.

More info on this candlepowerforums thread:

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=173802

Please change the description. Every day that passes with that description up makes it more likely that someone might be injured by a cell fire or explosion.

 

[matrixshaman]

DX is an online business and I've dealt with some 'respected' dealers here that knew even less than a technical detail like this about batteries. I don't think if this isn't just an 'Chinglish' error that they need to have their status reviewed because they are not experts on batteries. They may have even gotten this info from the manufacturer. It's beginning to seem like a couple members here are taking every chance they can to jump all over DX. I've seen Kyle go out of his way to be honest - in fact honest to a fault in describing his merchandise. Cut them a little slack - to say they are intentionally ignoring it is nonsense. I'm sure once it comes to their attention and they get the time that it will get fixed.

 

[Fallingwater]

I'll just point out that I don't have anything against DX. On the contrary, I visit them practically daily to see if they have something new I might want. They've also behaved fantastically with me, and immediately sent replacements for defective items for free. I have nothing to complain about.

This is a mistake, certainly not something for which I'd want them to close or be ignored by CPF.

 

[Olaf]

Is there any real proof that this is dangerous? Or is it an old wives tale? If DX recomends it I tend to believe that it IS safe to do.

 

[mchlwise]

Is there any real proof that this is dangerous? Or is it an old wives tale? If DX recomends it I tend to believe that it IS safe to do.

:duh2:

Let us know how that works out for you.


:shakehead

 

[smokelaw1]

Is there any real proof that this is dangerous? Or is it an old wives tale? If DX recomends it I tend to believe that it IS safe to do.

So, you believe DX over the vast number of CPF members? Good luck with that.

 

[Monocrom]

So, you believe DX over the vast number of CPF members? Good luck with that.

I'm really hoping the new guy is just being sarcastic.

 

[Fallingwater]

Is there any real proof that this is dangerous? Or is it an old wives tale? If DX recomends it I tend to believe that it IS safe to do.

Search for CR123 reversal in the forums. And that's with cells of the same type but different charge.
A 18650 can have four times the energy of a 16340. Do your maths...

They answered my ticket:

-----

Thanks a lot for your care and info.

I've noted it down and will tell my collegue who deals with this aspect.

Thanks again.
Demi

-----

This was yesterday. Let's hope they change the description soon.

 

[DM51]

They answered my ticket:

-----
Thanks a lot for your care and info.

I've noted it down and will tell my collegue who deals with this aspect.

Thanks again.
Demi
-----

This was yesterday. Let's hope they change the description soon.

Another 10 days have gone by since they said that, and...

THEY STILL HAVEN'T CHANGED IT

 

[DM51]

A further 2 weeks have gone by, and it is
STILL UNCHANGED

 

[LuxLuthor]

It's no problem. If DX says it is ok, well by golly they certainly must right.

 

[Fallingwater]

Let's hope the attention-attracting title of my thread on the light's page will keep people from doing that.

 

[tino_ale]

I beg those who still think that because DX says this configuration works NOT TO TRY IT. This is horribly dangerous, what you are asking for is a li-ion battery venting with flames or explosion, inside a flahslight and right next to another 18650 li-ion.

Not to use batts with different capacity (li-ion or others is only a matter of danger, li-ion can be more harmfull) is kind of the *very* basics rules you're supposed to know. People who question this (hope it's sarcasm or irony) should not use li-ion, ever. :duh2:

 

[waynejitsu]

Guy's,

Be careful when saying something negative about DX.
You could be banned for it.

I am NOT saying anything negative or positive, just a friendly warning to you

Feel free to run a search...

 

[Bones]

Let's hope the attention-attracting title of my thread on the light's page will keep people from doing that.

Looks like someone from DX finally got to it, the hyperlink doesn't go anyhere now.

For those who never saw the page, here's Google's cache:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:3XGzWIZ9exoJ

It too will be deleted eventually.

 

[DM51]

Well, at last they seem to have done something about it. When I bumped this thread yesterday (post #14) it was still there. Why should it take 3+ weeks, a warning on their website and >14 posts here to get them to react?