Non Genuine LP-E6

[Aglet]

Never put them in checked luggage, put them in the passenger cabin where there is a chance to put out any fire that starts.  They do not need oxygen to burn, so fire extinguishers in the cargo compartment are of no help.
 
The biggest issue is a damaged battery or mis manufactured one that will short out when bumped at just the right point.  QA is a huge part of this, and its often non existent in the cheapies.
 
USPS now makes it illegail to send one in international mail, or to send equipment containing a li-on battery.

That's good advice but also be aware that putting out a secondary fire, started by a Li battery, is often easy enough with a conventional A-B class extinguisher. Putting out a primary Li-fire itself requires a very special and expensive type of extinguisher that uses another reactive ingredient to quench the reactive Li. (I think it may be a copper content material)
However, a Li-ion fire vs a Li-metal fire is a different monster, the latter being much more difficult to put out, AFAIK.  Most of our toys run on some formula of rechargeable Li-ion chemistry.  Primary Li cells may be the more problematic to extinguish in case of failure.
Primary Li batteries are the kind that are non-rechargeable, like CR-123 and other CRxxxx cells often used in photographic devices. These do have a pretty good safety history though.

you can find lots of relevant info on wikipedia too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_battery

[rpt]

OK, so I picked up a BOWER make XPDCE6 battery (it says "FOR CANON LP-E6 7.4V 2800mAh [and other cautions...]") from Frys near the LA airport at the end of March (2012). It does not charge up beyond about 50% - and I have tried several times to get it to charge completely. Unfortunately, I discoverd this on my return to India so it would be very expensive to return it to them... 25 US$ down the drain is not a problem. Disposal of defective stuff is... Never mind...

Does anyone have any experience with this battery make? I should have listened to my instincts when I saw the battery rating as 2800 mAh. Well, what can I say, I am probably too optimistic - or was jet-lagged; or both!
 

[peederj]

I imagine if we survey hard enough we will find people with defective genuine Canon-branded batteries too. People have even...perish the thought...made reports of defective CAMERA bodies from Canon! 

If you have $15 batteries vs. $50 batteries and you buy 4 instead of 1 and 1 is defective and the other 3 die in 2 years instead of 4 years, should you buy only $50 batteries from then on? I suppose if battery reliability is paramount to all other concerns OK...provided you know that the name-brand is actually more reliable than the cheapie (I await scientific studies vs. net.anecdata).

And as for warranty, who is so slavishly honest as to tell a wealthy multinational conglomerate what battery they were using when the camera broke? If that's an economically fair negotiation, you will be so rich as to view the camera as disposable anyway. Tell them you were using their battery by their instructions...it was most likely their fault the camera broke, not the battery's, unless the battery melted down inside there (more likely with a flash than a camera, and they don't restrict what AA's you put in a flash).

Canon should be rewarded for the hard stuff like lenses with our disposable income, when they've earned it. Making profits on ordinary accessories doesn't motivate them to do the things that will make a bigger difference to us.


Oh and btw I did see the USPS is banning international shipment of LI-ion batteries after blaming two fatal cargo plane crashes on it since 2005. But I am skeptical both of that analysis and the motivations. I'm not sure they have real evidence what started fires on those planes. And why wouldn't we then ban it domestically too, planes are OK if they fall on our houses?

I can imagine this shipping ban as being essentially an import tariff on Chinese electronics. Taking the postal service out of the delivery equation may be protectionist for US-based retailers (who will buy from distributors using bulk shipping containers) over those guys on ebay from Shenzen who mail you stuff cheaply. That's what that ban may be about, it was just something the gov't could come up with that the Chinese couldn't nail them for. (Then getting taken seriously and scaring people into carrying on their batteries rather than checking them in the hold? Good grief.  )

[Aglet]

Oh and btw I did see the USPS is banning international shipment of LI-ion batteries after blaming two fatal cargo plane crashes on it since 2005. But I am skeptical both of that analysis and the motivations. I'm not sure they have real evidence what started fires on those planes. And why wouldn't we then ban it domestically too, planes are OK if they fall on our houses?

Transportation safety investigations are pretty darn thorough when it comes to investigating causes of an aircraft crash.
Also, if you've never seen the ferocity of a lithium battery fire, you may want to check it out.  Likely a few posted on youtube.
Larger Li batteries contain enough energy to easily burn/melt their way thru the thinner metals of an aircraft. Altho it's unlikely they'd cause a structural failure, it's entirely possibly they could cause a control problem either by directly damaging control systems or generating enough smoke to incapacitate a crew by igniting other materials in the cargo section, often lots of paper and wood crates/pallets in there.


here's a quick one:

the little CR123 Li battery, often used in photo accessories makes like a tiny incendiary when damaged

www.youtube.com/watch?v=fG_UuPmLO1c	Small | Large

just search for "lithium fire" for more

I can imagine this shipping ban as being essentially an import tariff on Chinese electronics. Taking the postal service out of the delivery equation may be protectionist for US-based retailers (who will buy from distributors using bulk shipping containers) over those guys on ebay from Shenzen who mail you stuff cheaply. That's what that ban may be about, it was just something the gov't could come up with that the Chinese couldn't nail them for. (Then getting taken seriously and scaring people into carrying on their batteries rather than checking them in the hold? Good grief.  )

agreed, it does effect an indirect import tariff of sorts on those products.