Mike Newsletter - Self Grounding Outlet Patent

[mikeames]

I thought this was a joke. Its so ridiculous. The person who created this had the insight to patent it but it never occurred to them that if their "invention" was safe and just as good why wouldn't all buildings simply do away with the 3rd conductor and only use two? I thought there were patent attorneys and "smart" people who would catch this. No self reflection here?

https://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/Dangerous_Self_Grounding_Outlet_Patent.pdf

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION. The self grounding electrical outlet of the present invention provides electrical ground to any outlet wiring whereby the existing wiring of the building only has two wires, a hot, and a neutral but does not have a green ground wire. Since all neutral wires are grounded to either a water pipe or a rod in the ground and/or both, the existing neutral pole is grounded already. Connecting the neutral and ground terminals permanently as one lead provides ground function for the ground prong on the three prong outlet should the existing wiring only have two wires and not a third ground wire. The present invention merely jumps the neutral to ground because the neutral is grounded already. Furthermore, the electrical supplier whether it be Edison, the city or even a private industry must ground the neutral supply before it gets to the consumer. Therefore it is reliable to say that the neutral line is already grounded twice before the use and manufacture of the present invention.

 

[Coppersmith]

So this dude invented the bootleg ground?

 

[retirede]

So this dude invented the bootleg ground?

Don’t know if he invented it, but he filed for a patent as soon as he saw it

 

[LarryFine]

I read the entire thing. OMG!

A guaranteed killer should anyone connect one wrong, or in a K&T installation without checking against a known reference.

 

[480sparky]

Good thing I use copper-plated ground rods instead of the nickel-cadmium ones he's listed in the patent. That will prevent me from getting sued for patent infringment when I take a short length of wire between the silver and green screws.

Seriously... nickel-cadmium ground rods? Isn't NiCad the chemistry for older rechargeable batteries?

 

[rnatalie]

The guy seems to like to file all sorts of stupid patents. The fact that they get issued is only moderated by the fact that they are by and large either stupid (like the above) or non-defensible (there are several that are so obvious as to not stand up any attempt to defend them).

 

[Fred B]

So to post as devil's advocate, (and an opportunity to educate so many DIY'ers that read these posts and may be dangerous enough to try and use such a device) why not use these, it seems like a way to get a ground to ungrounded receptacles, my home inspectors says I need a 3 prong plug?.
And if you read the invention notes quoted from above:
("SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION. The self grounding electrical outlet of the present invention provides electrical ground to any outlet wiring whereby the existing wiring of the building only has two wires, a hot, and a neutral but does not have a green ground wire. Since all neutral wires are grounded to either a water pipe or a rod in the ground and/or both, the existing neutral pole is grounded already. Connecting the neutral and ground terminals permanently as one lead provides ground function for the ground prong on the three prong outlet should the existing wiring only have two wires and not a third ground wire. The present invention merely jumps the neutral to ground because the neutral is grounded already. Furthermore, the electrical supplier whether it be Edison, the city or even a private industry must ground the neutral supply before it gets to the consumer. Therefore it is reliable to say that the neutral line is already grounded twice before the use and manufacture of the present invention.") It would seem logical to a DIYer.
Please be brutally clear as to the dangers.

 

[mikeames]

Lay person speak.

Current going through the device that is plugged in flows equally back on the neutral conductor as designed. If a heaters draws 10 amps then 10 amps flows back on neutral back to the source. It is true that the neutral and equipment ground conductor do go to the same place and electrically speaking are the same. The equipment ground cannot be used as the path back to the source because it is purposely connected to the building and other metal items around you to reduce the risk of those items becoming accidently energized in the case of equipment failure. If you tie the neutral and equipment ground together anywhere but in the main panel, then you purposefully energizing all metal items around you and then relying 100 percent on the continuity of the neutral conductor. If the neutral conductor is ever compromised for any reason you will have exposed electrified parts all over a building. Door handles, water fountains, appliances, etc.... The equipment ground is like a seat belt of a back up. Its never intended for normal use so neutral is intended to carry current back under normal use and EGC is a back up. Tie them together and the safety of people is 100% dependent on the continuity of the neutral conductor.

If you parachute out of a plane why would you carry a reserve chute? It does the same thing, right? If your main chute works seems redundant. Why not just give people a reserve cute once they make it back to earth? You don't put your full faith in that main, because when it fails or even gets tangled you die. Same here. This patent is basically saying. "A reserve chute is just extra baggage, and does the same thing you don't need it take this sticker and label your main chute your "RESERVE + BACKUP" then we can say you have both and the safety people at insurance will be happy.

 

[charlie b]

I thought there were patent attorneys and "smart" people who would catch this.

As I understand things, a patent is no more than an agreement between the "inventor" and the government. The inventor agrees to tell the whole world everything about the invention - no secrets allowed - and the government grants the inventor sole authority (for a specific, limited time) to produce and sell the invention. The process essentially involves proving that this item is different enough from anything else that has already received a patent to warrant a patent of its own. There is nothing in that process to evaluate whether the invention is safe, or useful, or practical, or capable of being manufactured in a cost-effective manner.

 

[winnie]

However the invention needs to be novel (never been done before) and non-obvious to one skilled in the art.

Certainly the term 'bootleg ground' predates this patent.

-Jon

 

[mikeames]

As I understand things, a patent is no more than an agreement between the "inventor" and the government. The inventor agrees to tell the whole world everything about the invention - no secrets allowed - and the government grants the inventor sole authority (for a specific, limited time) to produce and sell the invention. The process essentially involves proving that this item is different enough from anything else that has already received a patent to warrant a patent of its own. There is nothing in that process to evaluate whether the invention is safe, or useful, or practical, or capable of being manufactured in a cost-effective manner.

Yea after I thought about it, the smart people only document and explain the "valuable" patents. Why try to protect something that's illegal and unsafe? Still the patent office has minimum limits like it has to be "non-obvious, and "useful". It could be argued that this is NOT useful since its unsafe, and illegal, and even if it was safe and legal wouldn't it be "obvious"?

 

[mikeames]

However the invention needs to be novel (never been done before) and non-obvious to one skilled in the art.

Certainly the term 'bootleg ground' predates this patent.

-Jon

Beat me to it.

 

[hillbilly1]

The ambulance chasing lawyers would love him! (That is if he has any money to take) LOL!

 

[synchro]

The patent only has one claim and it's very narrow, requiring spot welding of the neutral and ground terminals to a "relay bar" that connects them. So it doesn't cover any other way of making a bootleg ground such as an external wire, or having the ground and neutral terminals fabricated from a single piece of metal.
You can have as many as 20 claims before having to pay a higher fee, and so I suspect that there were other claims with broader scope but they got rejected.

By the way the patent has expired because of the failure to pay maintenance fees:

US9124052B2 - Self grounding electrical outlet - Google Patents

This disclosure is directed to an electrical outlet whereby the neutral terminal and the ground terminal are mechanically and electrically connected. This device utilizes a common 3 prong outlet retrofitted to the present invention specifications.

patents.google.com