The UL report is complete trash and doesn't meet even the most basic of criteria for carrying out such a test; they should be embarrassed to have put their name to it.
Following the standard disclaimer, the actual "test" section reads like it was written by a 10 year old.
UL did precisely the test they were asked to do by Batteroo, using Batteroo-supplied testing aparatus and method.
Predictably, the results and the report were just as (in)valid as the test criteria provided by Batteroo.
Aside from actually agreeing to do such a bogus test in the first place, it isn't UL's fault. ![Smiley :)](https://www.eevblog.com/forum/Smileys/default/xsmiley.gif.pagespeed.ic.R8GFI-pF6f.png)
They may have just been carrying out the test dictated by Batteroo but, they failed to adequately describe the test set-up, the method or the equipment used, they did not record any serial numbers and they did not repeat the test. As a reputable organisation they should know better than to produce this kind of drivel.
Well, from my perspective, I believe they produced report of equal "bogosity" to the test itself.
![Smiley :)](https://www.eevblog.com/forum/Smileys/default/xsmiley.gif.pagespeed.ic.R8GFI-pF6f.png)
They seem to be by the way the disclaimer is written.
I agree... I believe they
were embarrassed by the irrelevant (to the point of essentially being fraudulent) nature of the test that they intentionally wrote that half-assed report with disclamers galore. Not at all what you would expect from a reputable test organization.
![Smiley :)](https://www.eevblog.com/forum/Smileys/default/xsmiley.gif.pagespeed.ic.R8GFI-pF6f.png)
I also believe, however, that they should not have agreed to do such a silly test in the first place but I'm sure they had their reasons for doing it anyway, despite the fact that it was obvious nonsense.