Pulse charger

Shopping
41

@ Jeaniousau, the connection looks quite flimsy to me.

The Lightning connector is basically a fibre / resin construct with low voltage, low current wires terminating as printed circuit on the part that inserts into the phone. When you picked up the bag and caught the pulse / phone, it applied a shear load at the point of least resistance, and the resin connector and the wires sheared off. There’s nothing else to support the mass at either end, and each end connected provides a great deal of leverage on the shear point - which is a single point of failure. On face value, it looks like it’s designed to fail unless you treat it with extreme care.

The Pulse specs claim the device weighs 87 grams. From what I can tell, the portion of Apple’s Lightning connector that extends from the standard Apple cable plug is 1.5mm thick, and 6.7mm * 6.7mm length and width.

The Pulse specs state its dimensions are 8.33x1.6x7.1 cm; i.e. 71mm appears to be the width of the Pulse with the cover in place, so the centre of gravity of the Pulse unit is ~30mm from the back, or 34mm from where the connector sheared off.

Mechanically, if you lift the iPhone with the charger attached, keeping the whole thing flat, you place a force of 0.85 Newton at a distance of ~32mm, giving it around 4.8:1 leverage, equivalent to or around 4N concentrated on a shear area of ~10 square mm - assuming the static load is spread evenly, which it isn’t. The fact is, it would also have a tension load at the top of the connector, and a compression load opposite. That means that the static load of weight is along an arc with its radius at the failure point.

The static load produces approx 400 KPa at the failure point before the tension and compression vectors are factored in. If you move it any more rapidly, you introduce a “jerk” force on top of that.

If you add uneven load to the equation, or shock such as catching them, that almost guarantees that the connector - which is the weakest point in the entire system by a very, very long way, will shear (i.e. snap), because the load will be concentrated at the shear point unevenly at one side or the other. It does not appear that the designers “did the math”. I would not recommend using my numbers in any letter you choose to write, but I’m pretty sure an engineer would confirm that the rationale I’ve used is correct.

A USB-C connector has a much stronger connection, being a 2.5mm thick flattened steel tube. Lightning is a Crapple design.

42

Further to my last post, I’d suggest that your daughter should only plug her phone into the Pulse via a lightning extension cable. There is far too much leverage applied in any direction for that connector to last any load in any direction.

These devices have either been designed to fail, or designed without any consideration of the loads that will be applied in normal use. It’s not fit for normal use if it can’t survive a knock or a bump. It isn’t fine crystal, yet it’s just as fragile by the look of the break.

Did they advise you of its fragility before you bought it? It might be obvious to anyone with basic mechanical knowledge, but it’s not something I’d expect my daughter to understand without prior explanation.

4 Likes
43

Thank you Jack for all your information.
I will let you know the outcome.
Feeling so defeated right now.
Just a consumer looking for an answer.
Jean(grandma of 10)

3 Likes
44

And it is possibly a flawed design ‘invented’ by Apple. There are a large number of reports online of the connectors breaking easily, including Apple propriety ones.

https://www.google.com/search?q=apple+lightning+adapter+breaks+easily

Maybe the EU forcing a standardised low voltage connector (USB C) on devices isn’t a bad thing as current Apple devices are likely to be the last with the fragile lightning connectors.

3 Likes
45

Apart from that, those battery packs should be docking stations to stop all that leverage loading up the connection. Any designer who is more aware than a comatose amoeba ought to be able to see this leverage would be a fatal problem. If not a docking station, they should have used a short cable to allow for some flex in the connection.

1 Like
46

Are you saying that the USB-C connector is certified to support the added physical load of an attached device?

Lenovo offer the following guidance re use of a cable connection. The advice to avoid sideways force says it all for me,

IMG_1342
IMG_13421536×1301 291 KB

n

1 Like
47

No, USB C is significantly stronger connection than a lightning connection.

I should also say, excessive force an any connector will break it.

2 Likes
48

“Stronger” is relative. However, given the leverage involved, it would need to be very strong indeed to withstand regular torsion or bending force with the leverage involved.

Allen keys are not made out of mild steel for good reason. They’re high carbon, high tensile steel. USB-C is rolled tube, which will work harden the mild steel involved, but when a torsional force with high leverage is applied, (e.g. 8.33 cm width of the Pulse, compared to 8mm w of USB-C, i.e. >10 to 1) something will have to give. A docking station would avoid that problem, while a cable would allow more flex - although eventually, cables fatigue - at least give a reasonable service life.

They’ve designed it to look “cool” rather than function reliably.

2 Likes
49

No? So what?
USB-C might be the stronger of the two. We don’t know that with certainty. Using any tip outside the intended design spec remains a risk.

If a product designer chooses to rely on an outside of specification use - is it for the designer and supplier to fully and properly advise the purchaser of what those conditions of use are?

The warranty exclusion advised for the Gravity Pulse Charger apply to both Lightning and USB-C tips. Both types must be vulnerable to damage.

.

50

As I said above, any tip can be damaged when excessive force is applied to it. A USB C should be able to take greater force than a lightning connector before a connector breaks.

As posted above, there are similar style of plug in power banks with lightning connectors which have good reviews.

If a supplier was to state everything about a products use or every conceivable misuse, user manuals would become phone books. A reasonable person knows that connectors on smart devices are relatively fragile and excessive force should not be applied otherwise they could break. Care should be taken when using the connectors.

This is to different to a phone screen, wine glasses and many other products which can easily be broken if care is not taken when used. If the manufacturer becomes responsible for misuse or product damage caused by excessive force, many products available today would disappear from sale and become unavailable to the consumer.

51

Excessive Force - are you saying sufficient force to break the connector?

I’ve never broken one, how would I know what is excessive? For a plugged on accessory device the situation will be different and less. If I’ve never broken one of these, how would one know what’s excessive?

Without some guidance from the Supplier are any of these direct attaching devices fit for purpose? ACCC and statutory guidance considered.

To not drag this out further, if the Supplier offers clear guidance one can make an informed decision. In the absence of clear advice what would be the best decision?

52

Yes.

You won’t, but, doing something it isn’t designed to do such as getting it caught on a bag strap when lifting a bag has shown the force was excessive.

Looks like phone book sized user guides might be on their way.

A reasonable person knows that small connector such as those used on a phone aren’t overly strong. If one doesn’t take care when using the connector, then one could expect damage. It should be able to take sustained normal use without breaking.

In the case of the damage in question, it wasn’t normal use that caused the damage. It was the device/phone being caught on a bag strap when the bag was moved.

As also outlined above, if the connector was damaged through normal use, a reasonable person would conclude the device/connector was faulty. But, damage didn’t occur through normal use such as making a call, texting or viewing the phone’s screen.

53

The problem with that is the leverage. It’s not reasonable to expect consumers to understand maths, or mechanical leverage on a point of weakness. I disagree that merely because other products receive good reviews, or “they all do it”, that the design is therefore fair and reasonable.

If, as you suggest, it is reasonably foreseeable to a consumer that inadvertent and unspecified force is applied to the phone or the battery attachment it will break, it ought to be abundantly obvious to any designer better than the clueless and inept that the connection is extremely vulnerable, and should be protected with either a flexible connection or a feature to prevent or greatly restrict the application of leverage.

Better that these products disappear from sale before some trusting consumer parts with their hard earned than have them buy them only to have an experience similar to Jeaniousau had. Now she has a useless device after paying $150 for as a pair, and her daughter has one that she knows she cannot rely on.

I don’t lose either way, but I’d suggest the manufacturer deserves to lose out in this situation, not the consumer.

2 Likes
54

They don’t need to understand maths.

A reasonable person knows a small connector is not very strong and care should be taken when using the connector. This doesn’t require maths and the connector in question didn’t break due to care being taken. If care was being taken, the connector would not have been broken by snagging on the bag’s strap.

I didn’t say or indicate that.

There was earlier discussion that a power bank shouldn’t be attached directly to a connector as they will break. There is evidence that this is incorrect as there are manufacturers which have direct connected power banks with good reviews and no indication they break during normal use.

I also indicated that at this point of time, there is isn’t any online reviews indicating the Pulse Charger has a weak connector which breaks easily through normal use. This could be due to being a relatively new product being sold, even with potentially large sales from ‘as seen on TV’ shoppers.

There is no evidence at this time to substantiate there is a inherent problem or fault with the product. All we have is one user that broke the connector when it snagged on a bag strap when the bag was lifted. It wasn’t broken through normal use.

Evidence could rise which could change this view over time, but without evidence one can’t draw a conclusion the product is faulty or isn’t fit for purpose under the ACL.

I sympathise with @Jeaniousau, as a new product has been damaged the first couple of times of use. I would also be unhappy and would be trying to blame something else but one’s own action.

55

“Normal use”
How many average consumers could attest they handle mobile devices with kid gloves, have never bumped the device in hand against another object or surface?

Should any purchaser of similar or same attached devices first remove them when returning the mobile to it’s usual place of keeping, a pocket, a handbag, a ….?

Normal use of a mobile is very open to personal opinion. So is what may be excessive force applied in normal use, in the absence of guidance. We only need to look to the claims of mobile phones water resistance, immersion protection. Without clear guidance backed up by testing, how are consumers to know what is acceptable as ‘normal use’ or defines fit for purpose?

Surely not?
Is it reasonable to advise purchasers the use of a USB-C or Lightning connection to support the attached device is a non compliant use ? IE not provided for by the authorised design standards.
How many average consumers might know there is a standard and whether the design provides for supporting direct attached devices?

Should the Supplier advise further?
One would expect the manufacturer would have a reliable design assessment of the security and mechanical strength of the connection with the device connected. It’s something that any reasonable person would expect the Supplier to be able to provide in support of the device being fit for purpose. Especially since the application is not provided for by the authorised design standards for the connectors.

Consumers should not need to rely on an assumed knowledge of vulnerability to damage, without warning. Use of devices attached directly to the charging port of a mobile phone may result in damage to the attached device and or mobile phone. Any damage physical or consequential loss will not be covered by warranty. Whether Australian Consumer Law would accept the exclusion, or consumers need to argue each instance in its merits? Unlikely any would persist for a low value item. However if it’s a $2000 smart phone that is also damaged, it may be more of a concern. Unlikely warranty whether normal use or not. The accessory needs to be approved/complies with the design requirements of the connector.

56

While going beyond the cause of the topic, a battery pack should be able to withstand

I expect ‘normal use’ should include holding the phone with the Pulse Charger connected while talking, texting, and viewing when walking, (abruptly) turning, and going from standing-to-sitting-to-standing, possibly quickly.

Any of those motions could put sufficient torque (stress) on an under-specified device connection to cause its failure. The Pulse Charger may or may not meet that criteria, the engineering analysis aside.

My sense is the company offered a goodwill gesture that in context was received as a token not to be taken up, and most likely the purchase and commentary here will contribute to it becoming an educational expense/experience - but not a tax deductible one.

2 Likes
57

Normal use, as outlined on the Pulse Charger website is:

The compact size and design of your Pulse Charge means you can easily text, take calls, or surf the web all whilst charging your device – that’s the convenience of Pulse Charge!

Normal use isn’t getting it snagged on the strap of a bag when lifting a bag.

I’ll give an example of why it is misuse.

Say your dress/shirt snagged on the strap and tore when the bag was lifted. One would not expect the dress’/shirt’s manufacturer/retailer to be responsible for the tear as they should have designed the clothing to take such forces.

Likewise, if one’s gold chain bracelet snagged on a bag strap, broke and was lost, a reasonable person would not expect the bracelet’s manufacturer/retailer to be responsible because one thinks they should have made the bracelet stronger as they would have known that there was possibility of the bracelet being snagged on something causing it to break.

The pulse charger is no different. It wasn’t damaged through normal use and it is unreasonable for a manufacturer/retailer to be responsible for the damage.

They do indirectly warn by describing normal use. If use is outside this, one needs to assume there is a risk of damage or misuse.

I also don’t know what the pulse chargers or the mobile phone user guide says about attachments to the connector. Lets assume there are no warnings as it doesn’t make much difference (and even if there were, most consumers wouldn’t have read them anyway).

Providing a statement like you propose means a retailer/manufacturer would try and get out of their obligations under the ACL if damage was caused by normal use. It also admits the product isn’t fit for purpose.

A specific warning such as:

do not place charger connected to device on a seat near a bag as there is a risk of snagging causing the connector to break.

is also unreasonable.

Imagine the precedent if such was required. It would be phone book user guides and one would assume a warning not covered would mean any damage would be covered by warranty/ACL.

I don’t think we want to go there.

There is no evidence indicating it doesn’t.

All we know is if it is attached to a device and it is snagged on a strap when a bag is lifted, it will break. I don’t know of many products which would be designed to meet such requirements. Such isn’t normal use.

58

Well, I guess I’m not going to get anywhere on this problem.
I’m just upset and angry that it all happened first time using it.
I appreciate all your comments and I realise it was my fault.
Just didn’t think it would break as easily and as quickly as it did.
For the amount it cost, I was hoping it would’ve been more sturdy
It didn’t take a lot of effort to break.

2 Likes
59

By the definition of the manufacturer, normal use would include any use and/or handling which you would normally expect the phone to cope with. If a phone is snagged in a strap, would you expect it to be damaged to the point it’s inoperable? Maybe if the snagging knocks the phone such that it falls, but even then…modern mobile phones are tested by the manufacturers to survive multiple device drops from a specified height. There’s no way that attachment could survive a single fall, given that the only point of connection is the plug and socket which is subjected to a magnified load in countless scenarios that an unattached phone would survive.

However, a shirt is a single item, being used (worn) as directed. The Pulse battery is sold to be used as a phone attachment, and for the phone to operate in the same manner when attached as when not. If the unattached phone doesn’t break when snagged by the bag strap, then having the Pulse attached would be “normal use”.

"Can I use my device while the Gravity is connected?

Yes! The compact size and design of your Pulse Charge means you can easily text, take calls, or surf the web all whilst charging your device – that’s the convenience of Pulse Charge!

Please note that Pulse Chargers are not compatible with Lifeproof or Otterbox cases as the cases are to thick for the Gravity port.

You can purchase but would need to remove case to use the Gravity"

The full text from that FAQ section notes that some phone cases are too thick to connect through, but nothing suggests that the phone can only be used in a different manner to how you would use an unattached phone, nor that any greater degree of care is required - when clearly, it is.

In the unlikely event that this made it to a court or tribunal hearing, I recognise that there is some risk that your argument could hold, but I’d expect the onus probandi to lie much more heavily with the manufacturer to prove that the device - including the connector - is sufficently strong enough to withstand any use not explicitly precluded by the usage instructions. Unless there is a clear caution as to the vulnerability of the connector, I’d expect an engineer to opine against the designer/manufacturer.

I’d suggest that the “indirect warning describing normal use” is drawing a very long bow on this point of fragility. There’s nothing on the web site to explain that greater care is required when using the phone while the battery is connected.

An independent engineering assessment could test the shear strength of the connector, the torsion strength, the degree of bend required to effect plastic deformation, and the load required to achieve it, and various other properties. Then they would need to calculate various normal use scenarios for operating such a portable device with the battery connected. Ultimately, if it does not come close to operating in the same manner with the battery connected as without, I’d expect the manufacturer to have a problem. Any other determination would be a travesty.

60

That is correct.

Snagging on a bag when being lifted isn’t normal use.

Snagging in a strap isn’t what would be associated with normal use. If it was, dropping a phone causing the screen to be broken would also be classed as normal use. Dropping a phone, like snagging on a strap is misuse under the ACL and is an exception for warranties/consumer guarantees.

Snagging can place significant force on something. As I indicated above, snagging could also tear clothing or break a gold chain. Such events also would not be covered by warranties/consumer guarantees.

In this case it makes no difference whether it is an attachment or a whole item - because the damage didn’t occur through normal use.

If things were not supposed to be plugged into a phone’s port, the phone would not have a port.

It would potentially make a difference if Apple stated that power banks are not to be directly connected by inflexible lightning connector to a phone. Apple doesn’t state this, and if they did and one attached a pulse charge, it still might he considered misuse by the consumer.

Because something broke when misused, doesn’t mean that the product is a fault. The connector may be fragile (which any lightning connector is from information available online) which means that a user should take care when using it. No differently to avoiding clothing being torn or a gold bracelet chain snapping.

There is no risk unless one can prove the connector was faulty and that it caused the failure.

From the information posted above, while the connector failed, it was due to misuse.

If care had been taken to avoid the connector being broken off when lifting the bag, the pulse charger may have lasted many years or a few days - we will never know.

At this stage there is no evidence the connector or product is faulty.

There are a large number products which are fragile in nature. Things made from glass, things which are finely built, things which cant take shocks etc.

For products which are fragile in nature, a reasonable person knows that care should be taken when using such products. Likewise with a phone connector, a reasonable person knows that phone connectors are relatively fragile and care is needed to be taken when using them. This including using them for cables, HDMI adapters, the Pulse Charger and other devices connected directly to the phone.

A manufacturer does not need to list every possible risk to a product from its use or misuse. If it did, user guides would become phone books and there would be tribunal/court action every time a use/misuse occurred which wasn’t covered by the user guide and resulted in damage. This is why there is a reasonable person test.