Power Bridge

Status
Not open for further replies.
acrwc10 said:
So the home owner installs this unit on the wall and the nearest outlet is through a door in the next room, Code compliant???????????? If the home owner promises not to shut the door and crosses their heart and hopes to die then that will make it safe too.
:grin:
Click to expand...
If the nearest receptacle was in the next room you are going to have an extension cord run through the door anyways, or they will have a small generator sitting in the room under the TV. ;)

Roger
 
ActionDave said:
acrwc10 said:
So the home owner installs this unit on the wall and the nearest outlet is through a door in the next room, Code compliant???????????? If the home owner promises not to shut the door and crosses their heart and hopes to die then that will make it safe too.
:grin:
Click to expand...
That is what this unit prevents.
Click to expand...
I agree, Dave.

Mount the PowerBridge receptacle and use the Chapter 3 wiring method to run to the PowerBridge inlet mounted on the other side of the wall in the next room. Viola. No through-the-door cord.
 
I can't see an electrician with any ability using one of these, they scream "HACK". its like buying a car and using a horse to pull it because you cant figure out how to open the gas cap.
 
Had to jump in

Had to jump in

acrwc10 said:
So the home owner installs this unit on the wall and the nearest outlet is through a door in the next room, Code compliant???????????? If the home owner promises not to shut the door and crosses their heart and hopes to die then that will make it safe too.
Click to expand...

I respect your thoughts of the possibility that someone would be this naive to do this, but let's be honest.
If a DIY were to go through the process of mounting the TV and to spend the money on a PowerBridge, why would they not just run the extension cord through the wall to the other room around the corner?

The direction you are going with the mis-use of the PowerBridge is not far from you driving your Challanger over the rated speed capability and the added risk you take in doing so. Or driving it off-road, it is not intended to take off-road, and Dodge states this in the user manual, (most people don't read). Let's just say you do these things, then you take the responsibility for using it outside the intended use.

PowerBridge instructions are specific to the intended use. It basically says, DO NOT TAKE OFF ROAD! ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
acrwc10 said:
I can't see an electrician with any ability using one of these, they scream "HACK". its like buying a car and using a horse to pull it because you cant figure out how to open the gas cap.
Click to expand...

Again, respectfully of what you think of this product.

It is popular, we sell thousands of kits every month.

I understand you don't see the value of it, and that's okay. Don't use it, don't recommend it, no one here is telling you this is the only solution for your customers paying you to install a outlet behind the TV on the wall.
Curious, what do you charge for a simple branch extension with no protection to the display device?

The missing benefit you don't value is the customer wants to have their 1k-3k TV on the wall like a picture, no wires, and oh yeah, PROTECTED from surge.

Okay, you could install a Levition 5280 with 360joule protection. That may protect the TV. That piece retails almost as much as the PowerBridge kit does!

I truley respect your opinion and not calling your opinion as unjustified, some one just might do what you say, just not really a reality of the use of this product.


Justin
 
Last edited:
PowerBridgeTech said:
Dennis, ? Proposal ?

What would you see PowerBridge recruiting for? You have my curiousity.
Click to expand...
;)

He's having fun suggesting that I might become a sales, or marketing, rep.

He's serious about crafting a Proposal for the 2014 National Electrical Code.
 
acrwc10 said:
I don't normally like to say "What If" but in this case I think it applies. What if the end user looses the supplied cord and replaces it with a much thinner (cheap) cord then someone uses the permanently installed outlet for something other then a TV. Now you have a weak link installed that could be a fire hazard because it could be seriously smaller then required for the OCP on the circuit.
Click to expand...

You make a valid point. Let's take this "What If" senario.
ALL cord sets sold in the US/Canada must meet the UL/CSA specifications, these are specific. Let's agree this is always the case and this would be the type of cord they would replace with.

Let's take the low-end of the list, the "cheap" thinner, zip-cord, polarized AWG 16/2 SPT-2 cord, which is now a minimum rated allowable cord-set rated extension cord. That cord must have a minimum 1625W rating according to UL.
Now, it obviously won't carry circuit ground from the outlet to the INLET to the TV outlet, it's 2 prong polarized.
Almost any of these "cheap" cords on the market today have multiple receptacle heads, much like a tap.
Let's agree this is generally fact.

The PowerBridge INLET is recessed and only a single FEMALE receptacle cord end can plug into. NO possible way to plug in the multi-head tap in.

The upper PowerOUT behind the TV only has 1 receptacle. Let's go further with What-If, you could plug in a cord tap for more receptacles, not sure why, but let's take it to the next level and plug in a tap anyway. Now let's say you could have 3-4 TV's plugged in.

If PowerBridge is installed as INTENDED to be installed up on the wall above a standard outlet would be, (why else would you use this product) then the only usable appliance would be a TV. (Okay, maybe a plug-in type light sconce, although not practical without a switch)
Let's take a high wattage use appliance (Huge 60" Plasma uses 400-485W) I do not know of any TV with a higher wattage, but doubtful it would be much higher.

Even looking at a worse case situation of what could be actually plugged into it, is the wattage going to exceed 1625 watts? You could have 3 60" Plasma TV's plugged into it if you COULD and still be under the rated use for the thinner cord.
Of course we would NEVER recommend using this cord with our product, but if someone did, what's the worse that would happen?

The cord MIGHT fail. Remember, it is not inside a wall. It would likey trip that circuit it is plugged into before anything catastropic might happen.

Respectfully,
Justin
 
Last edited:
Dennis Alwon said:
Justin why haven't you tried to write a proposal?
Click to expand...
I know you are suggesting that Justin consider submitting a proposed revision to the next edition of the NEC. The notion is that he could suggest a change that would make it clear that the concept of his product is in compliance with the code. My guess is that Justin will not feel the need, since he believes it is already in compliance.

As I think more about this whole concept, my objections are getting less and less convincing, even to myself. At this point, if someone were to add a poll to this thread, one that asked the voter to name the code article(s) that this project violates, then listed three possible articles and gave "None of the above" as the fourth choice, I would likely vote for choice "D." Considered together, the fact that the NEC addresses "inlets" and the fact that the project is listed as an appliance go a long way towards elimination of my initial concerns.
 
mivey said:
Substitution is one of the things I can say this kit does.

Saying that fixed wiring can't do the exact same thing as this kit does is not a winning argument IMO.

To me, this kit is about a good example of a fixed wiring substitute as you can get. It might look different than fixed wiring in one particular application but that does not change what it is: a means to provide an in-wall receptacle fed by a cord instead of fixed wiring.
Click to expand...
I disagree. If there is no 100%-fixed-wiring way to do this, then it isn't a substitute for anything.
 
acrwc10 said:
What if the end user looses the supplied cord and replaces it with a much thinner (cheap) cord then someone uses the permanently installed outlet for something other then a TV.
Click to expand...
That same thing as would happen if they used a too-thin cord at any receptacle.
 
charlie b said:
At this point, if someone were to add a poll to this thread, one that asked the voter to name the code article(s) that this project violates, then listed three possible articles and gave "None of the above" as the fourth choice, . . .
Click to expand...
On the off chance the poll actually happens, in fairness, the poll should include the Code articles that support this project as well. That is, a Yea, Nay, None of the Above.
 
acrwc10 said:
I can't see an electrician with any ability using one of these, they scream "HACK". its like buying a car and using a horse to pull it because you cant figure out how to open the gas cap.
Click to expand...
I'd resent that, if I took things personally. I like to think that my work exceeds "hackdom" levels.
While I've never bought one of these kits, I've installed quite a few behind-the-TV receptacles.

Some were supplied from existing receptacles, some were spliced into existing circuits in the crawlspace below (sometimes with J-boxes, sometimes using T-taps), some used my home-made inlet plates, and some used a cord as I described here:
LarryFine said:
I've gone as far as passing a power cord through a wall plate with a 1/2" hole in it, knotting it for pull-out proofing, and wire-nutting it to the NM that feeds the recessed receptacle. It isn't part of the premises wiring system.
Click to expand...

In any case I supplied a cord, whether a cord and plug only or a complete extension, it was at least a 14ga cord. Most of the inlet plates I've made were either installed as part of a wiring job for an AV company, or sold outright to be installed by others.
 
PowerBridgeTech said:
Dennis, ? Proposal ?

What would you see PowerBridge recruiting for? You have my curiousity.
Click to expand...

Al seems to be an advocate for your product so I was joking about you guys recruiting him to sell your product.

The proposal was a different subject. I was talking about proposing an addition to the NEC to specifically allow this product so there were no questions about it.
 
charlie b said:
I know you are suggesting that Justin consider submitting a proposed revision to the next edition of the NEC. The notion is that he could suggest a change that would make it clear that the concept of his product is in compliance with the code. My guess is that Justin will not feel the need, since he believes it is already in compliance.

As I think more about this whole concept, my objections are getting less and less convincing, even to myself. At this point, if someone were to add a poll to this thread, one that asked the voter to name the code article(s) that this project violates, then listed three possible articles and gave "None of the above" as the fourth choice, I would likely vote for choice "D." Considered together, the fact that the NEC addresses "inlets" and the fact that the project is listed as an appliance go a long way towards elimination of my initial concerns.
Click to expand...

I agree with you Charlie but it seems WA. is giving them trouble so I would expect other areas may begin to also. A section in the NEC would help sort that out and benefit his product. Heck that is what manufacturer do right. :grin:
 
LarryFine said:
I disagree. If there is no 100%-fixed-wiring way to do this, then it isn't a substitute for anything.
Click to expand...
For one particular application where the cord comes from a UPS or such, the fixed wiring is not an exact duplicate of that setup (which I have said). For the other uses, and what it does in general, it is a substitute. FWIW, the single receptacle at the tail end is also offered in a duplex receptacle.

When this "appliance" is plugged into an existing outlet instead of a UPS or similar device, it is clearly a substitute for fixed wiring and I can't see how you can say otherwise.

Also, the plate combination with the LV port on one particular brand is of no consequence.

LarryFine said:
What if you could use approved-for-in-the-wall-use materials for the in-the-wall portion?
Click to expand...
If I plug it into an existing outlet it is a substitute for fixed wiring.
 
LarryFine said:
I'd resent that, if I took things personally. I like to think that my work exceeds "hackdom" levels.
While I've never bought one of these kits, I've installed quite a few behind-the-TV receptacles.

Some were supplied from existing receptacles, some were spliced into existing circuits in the crawlspace below (sometimes with J-boxes, sometimes using T-taps), some used my home-made inlet plates, and some used a cord as I described here:

In any case I supplied a cord, whether a cord and plug only or a complete extension, it was at least a 14ga cord. Most of the inlet plates I've made were either installed as part of a wiring job for an AV company, or sold outright to be installed by others.
Click to expand...

It's not hack. But tradesmen get pissed and start yelling hack anytime innovation could possibly replace paying for their labor... Anything electrical in nature that Joe HO can install himself safely is hack...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top