Anyone tried this Alternate Battery?

[ElGuano]

Well the battery arrived & I've tested it now, and it doesn't even work! Quadcopter will fire up, but I do get invalid red lights once I turn on the transmitter and it refuses to start the motors. Inside the app it says 'Battery Invalid, invalid EMC' or something like that.

The battery wasn't a snug fit either & requires far too much force to remove from compartment, very annoying & hard on my fingers.

I've tried to study the battery to see if it says anything about batch number, but there's nothing to identify it.

At least in my case, this was a complete waste of time, I'm going to return it now for full refund.

I'm glad that happened. Or rather, I'm glad it failed on the bench and didn't arm, as opposed to potentially failing in the air!! Best of luck getting the full refund, it really sucks when an anticipated purchase doesn't work out.

I'm usually a big fan of good third party mods/components, but in the case of the copy smart batteries, I really, really don't think it's worth the risk.

 

[Amra]

Well the battery arrived & I've tested it now, and it doesn't even work! Quadcopter will fire up, but I do get invalid red lights once I turn on the transmitter and it refuses to start the motors. Inside the app it says 'Battery Invalid, invalid EMC' or something like that.

The battery wasn't a snug fit either & requires far too much force to remove from compartment, very annoying & hard on my fingers.

I've tried to study the battery to see if it says anything about batch number, but there's nothing to identify it.

At least in my case, this was a complete waste of time, I'm going to return it now for full refund.

I'm glad that happened. Or rather, I'm glad it failed on the bench and didn't arm, as opposed to potentially failing in the air!! Best of luck getting the full refund, it really sucks when an anticipated purchase doesn't work out.

I'm usually a big fan of good third party mods/components, but in the case of the copy smart batteries, I really, really don't think it's worth the risk.

Yeah, I guess I might've dodged a bullet on that one!

 

[WessexWyvern]

The battery wasn't a snug fit either & requires far too much force to remove from compartment, very annoying & hard on my fingers.

For what it's worth, that's not particular to third party batteries. I purchased 2 genuine plus 1 as supplied batteries from a large reputable dealer in the UK and they are all incredibly difficult to remove without quite a lot of force. It seems they bind as the contacts locate so I'm not too bothered. As it's only a couple of weeks old I've assumed that DJI have tightened the tolerances since the reported problems with previous airframes.

Unless DJI can 100% guarantee that they can design their system so that no third party batteries can ever be used to start the props turning they have no right trying to block knock off batteries from being used. There will always be someone willing to buy third party batteries and if these things fail in flight the consequences can be catastrophic - and not just for the Phantom. While it is the owners responsibility to ensure that they use safe components on their aircraft, equally if the failure is down to DJI's inadequate propriety protection system then they are also to blame for any injuries that may occur. We aren't talking about ink cartridges or camera batteries we are talking about something that is essentially a missile once it looses power.
Could you imagine the reaction if the CEO of DJI turned round to someone who had been injured or the parents of someone who had been killed, to say 'sorry for your loss but please understand we had to design our software to detect and block third party batteries to protect our intellectual property and profit margins even if it meant that the engines stopped turning when it was hovering 1000' overhead of where your kids were playing"
If DJI want to reduce the use of third party batteries then they should sell their own batteries at a reasonable price and not the extortionate price that they currently retail for. I'm not advocating the use of unsafe copies in a model aircraft capable of flying at 1000' - I bought 3 genuine batteries in spite of their price but if there are cheaper alternatives available their will always be people who will buy them.

Is anyone really bothered that these things are modular, so called 'smart batteries' that light up to tell you how much charge they have in them and I'd be interested to know just how accurate these indications are and whether all the cells are being equally charged all the time.

 

[LuvMyTJ]

<snip>
Could you imagine the reaction if the CEO of DJI turned round to someone who had been injured or the parents of someone who had been killed, to say 'sorry for your loss but please understand we had to design our software to detect and block third party batteries to protect our intellectual property and profit margins even if it meant that the engines stopped turning when it was hovering 1000' overhead of where your kids were playing"
</snip>

So you are suggesting that DJI *blocks third party batteries only to protect profits, and that they would knowingly allow it to fail in the air? *(it only makes the lights red, but still flys)
Lets look at the other side of that coin. Maybe they put third party battery warnings in to protect you and your kids from a failure of a non-conforming battery. In fact a recent crop of copy-cat P2 batteries were recalled due to a defect... all to save $20. I look at the batteries in my P2 the same way as I look at my dive regulator... it is life support. My quality, properly operating regulator is my life support while I'm under the sea and my quality, properly working batteries are my P2's life support flying high in the sky.

 

[Amra]

The battery wasn't a snug fit either & requires far too much force to remove from compartment, very annoying & hard on my fingers.

For what it's worth, that's not particular to third party batteries. I purchased 2 genuine plus 1 as supplied batteries from a large reputable dealer in the UK and they are all incredibly difficult to remove without quite a lot of force. It seems they bind as the contacts locate so I'm not too bothered. As it's only a couple of weeks old I've assumed that DJI have tightened the tolerances since the reported problems with previous airframes.

Unless DJI can 100% guarantee that they can design their system so that no third party batteries can ever be used to start the props turning they have no right trying to block knock off batteries from being used. There will always be someone willing to buy third party batteries and if these things fail in flight the consequences can be catastrophic - and not just for the Phantom. While it is the owners responsibility to ensure that they use safe components on their aircraft, equally if the failure is down to DJI's inadequate propriety protection system then they are also to blame for any injuries that may occur. We aren't talking about ink cartridges or camera batteries we are talking about something that is essentially a missile once it looses power.
Could you imagine the reaction if the CEO of DJI turned round to someone who had been injured or the parents of someone who had been killed, to say 'sorry for your loss but please understand we had to design our software to detect and block third party batteries to protect our intellectual property and profit margins even if it meant that the engines stopped turning when it was hovering 1000' overhead of where your kids were playing"
If DJI want to reduce the use of third party batteries then they should sell their own batteries at a reasonable price and not the extortionate price that they currently retail for. I'm not advocating the use of unsafe copies in a model aircraft capable of flying at 1000' - I bought 3 genuine batteries in spite of their price but if there are cheaper alternatives available their will always be people who will buy them.

Is anyone really bothered that these things are modular, so called 'smart batteries' that light up to tell you how much charge they have in them and I'd be interested to know just how accurate these indications are and whether all the cells are being equally charged all the time.

I know what you mean about the standard batteries, they aren't super easy to remove either in my experience, but this third-party battery got very stuck, I had to wear a glove to remove it because my fingers were hurting so much from pressing down the clips & pulling. I'm sure that could be done better, even with the standard battery.

I also agree that they are way overpriced & long overdue for a price reduction.

 

[WessexWyvern]

<snip>
Could you imagine the reaction if the CEO of DJI turned round to someone who had been injured or the parents of someone who had been killed, to say 'sorry for your loss but please understand we had to design our software to detect and block third party batteries to protect our intellectual property and profit margins even if it meant that the engines stopped turning when it was hovering 1000' overhead of where your kids were playing"
</snip>

So you are suggesting that DJI *blocks third party batteries only to protect profits, and that they would knowingly allow it to fail in the air? *(it only makes the lights red, but still flys)
Lets look at the other side of that coin. Maybe they put third party battery warnings in to protect you and your kids from a failure of a non-conforming battery. In fact a recent crop of copy-cat P2 batteries were recalled due to a defect... all to save $20. I look at the batteries in my P2 the same way as I look at my dive regulator... it is life support. My quality, properly operating regulator is my life support while I'm under the sea and my quality, properly working batteries are my P2's life support flying high in the sky.

That all becomes irrelevant once you consider that there will always be some people that will buy aftermarket products and therefore including in the software a function that could disable that battery during flight only adds an extra layer of danger to one that may or may not exist.
If you were using a Chinese copy of your dive regulator I doubt anyone would find it acceptable if the manufacture of the genuine one came along and cut your hoses while you were 30 meters down just in case the copied regulator failed.

I subscribe to the philosophy that in cases where a product may or may not be up to the quality of original, the safest option is usually to buy the original when buying a copy may put you or others in danger. However I do not find that in this instance it is acceptable to have a system that may disable the battery during flight mode.

For what it's worth, in the UK the after market battery is not far of half the price of the original, however I have purchased original batteries because I happen to agree with you that they are the best way to protect your investment and those around you and I hope that they will be of a better quality and last longer too.

 

[ianwood]

For what it's worth, that's not particular to third party batteries. I purchased 2 genuine plus 1 as supplied batteries from a large reputable dealer in the UK and they are all incredibly difficult to remove without quite a lot of force. It seems they bind as the contacts locate so I'm not too bothered. As it's only a couple of weeks old I've assumed that DJI have tightened the tolerances since the reported problems with previous airframes.

Unless DJI can 100% guarantee that they can design their system so that no third party batteries can ever be used to start the props turning they have no right trying to block knock off batteries from being used. There will always be someone willing to buy third party batteries and if these things fail in flight the consequences can be catastrophic - and not just for the Phantom. While it is the owners responsibility to ensure that they use safe components on their aircraft, equally if the failure is down to DJI's inadequate propriety protection system then they are also to blame for any injuries that may occur. We aren't talking about ink cartridges or camera batteries we are talking about something that is essentially a missile once it looses power.
Could you imagine the reaction if the CEO of DJI turned round to someone who had been injured or the parents of someone who had been killed, to say 'sorry for your loss but please understand we had to design our software to detect and block third party batteries to protect our intellectual property and profit margins even if it meant that the engines stopped turning when it was hovering 1000' overhead of where your kids were playing"
If DJI want to reduce the use of third party batteries then they should sell their own batteries at a reasonable price and not the extortionate price that they currently retail for. I'm not advocating the use of unsafe copies in a model aircraft capable of flying at 1000' - I bought 3 genuine batteries in spite of their price but if there are cheaper alternatives available their will always be people who will buy them.

There are people who specialize in buying worn out aircraft parts, refurbishing them in a shoddy manner and then reselling them on the black market. Planes in some parts of the world are known to fall out of the sky as result. Does that become the fault of the plane manufacturer?

DJI designed a closed battery system. They have no obligation to make sure their products continue flying if people put inferior knock-off products in them. Furthermore, DJI changed the firmware so that the invalid battery will only result in a warning and the inability to start the motors. If the motors are already started, they won't be shut off by an invalid battery error.

 

[WessexWyvern]

Perhaps I have misunderstood then. I believe I have read either on this forum or another that one aircraft crashed and it was claimed that it was due to this closed system and earlier on in the thread I believe that an aircraft went into fail safe mode which although an excellent innovation can have problems when tall objects lie in the return path. If I am wrong then I withdraw my argument.
Your analogue of comparing the reconditioning of used aircraft (it's common to not even recondition them) is flawed as the manufacturer does not try to interfere with their usage beyond recommending the use of authorized dealers for their supply . Use and supply of these part is a willful act on behalf of the person selling the parts and often in on behalf of the person using them, it is entirely out of the manufacturers control.