Power Bridge

[LarryFine]

FWIW, the single receptacle at the tail end is also offered in a duplex receptacle.

Yep. I've used it, and like it better than the single, which had the metal clock-hanging hook. Non sequitur.

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.

If I plug it into an existing outlet it is a substitute for fixed wiring.

I agree with you completely, especially for the sake of not derailing this discussion, which has actually gone very smoothly. Let's all continue to keep it that way.

 

[mivey]

Yep. I've used it, and like it better than the single, which had the metal clock-hanging hook. Non sequitur.

I threw that in there because I read several times the point being made about the end receptacle being a single and then I believe Justin made a post about putting in a multi-tap unit. That part of my post was a little off the beaten path.

I agree with you completely, especially for the sake of not derailing this discussion, which has actually gone very smoothly. Let's all continue to keep it that way.

I don't see it as a derailing because the very listed devices show them being used by plugging the cord into an existing outlet. Have you visited some of these sites?

To me, the case of feeding from a UPS is just one specific application possibility and does not speak to the nature or use of the device in general.

 

[dbuckley]

Ok, alternative approach.

Bonding. The "plumbing system" needs to be bonded. Most ECs seem able to work out what is a "system", and that needs to be bonded, and what is just a bit of pipe that doesn't need bonding.

Thus is should be simple to differentiate between the "wiring system", and a couple of inlets and outlets joined by a bit of NM.

 

[mivey]

So what about the water hose I use to supply water to the code-compliant plumbing in my new detached shop?

It is the same type water hose I use when I connect my RV to water when I'm stationary so it is all good right?

 

[renosteinke]

It's not 'listed' unless the UL mark is on the product itself.

The ad copy tries to baffle you with BS - the reference to UL514C is meaninless. It's meaningless because the product is not listed, and it's meaningless because 514C only discusses the boxes and covers. That's like saying your house is 'approved' because the light bulb has a UL mark on it.

This is a product specifically designed to use flexible cord in place of permanent wiring; I cannot think of a more direct violation of the NEC. You can argue whether hanging a power strip on the wall would violate the code - but this thing is built into the wall.

So ... how could such a product be used legitimately?
Well, if the wall moved around - imagine a display trailer used at trade shows. Or, if the received power from a portable source - think of a generator or battery / UPS bank.
Just running the cord to the nearest receptacle is out, though.

 

[roger]

It's not 'listed' unless the UL mark is on the product itself.

Do you think UL is the only testing lab?

The ad copy tries to baffle you with BS - the reference to UL514C is meaninless. It's meaningless because the product is not listed,

Have you read the entire thread?

and it's meaningless because 514C only discusses the boxes and covers. That's like saying your house is 'approved' because the light bulb has a UL mark on it.

Exactly, do you have a testing lab list all the wiring components you install and list all the wiring in a building as an assembly?

This is a product specifically designed to use flexible cord in place of permanent wiring;

Most appliances use a flexible cord in place of permanent wiring.

I cannot think of a more direct violation of the NEC.

I can

You can argue whether hanging a power strip on the wall would violate the code - but this thing is built into the wall.

So?

So ... how could such a product be used legitimately?

The same way hooking a generator to an inlet is used legitimately.

Well, if the wall moved around - imagine a display trailer used at trade shows. Or, if the received power from a portable source - think of a generator or battery / UPS bank.
Just running the cord to the nearest receptacle is out, though.

No it's not, if that were the case extension cords would be illegal across the board.

Have you ever seen a cord connected film illuminator in a hospital proceedure room? They are permanently attached to the building and cord and plug connected, isn't that a substitute for a permanent wiring method.

Roger

 

[renosteinke]

Holy Smokes! When I posted, I failed to appreciate both the length of this thread, and the presence of a manufacturee spokesman in it. Well, it IS Monday, and well before noon ...

I see a lot of discussion over what are, IMO, side issues. For me the issues are clear: Does the use of the extension cord to power this thing mean you are using that cord in place of a permanent wiring method? Also: what makes a use 'temporary?'

Do I need to post the specific code sections? It's my guess that the reason this thing does not have a UL listing is that UL will simply not list something that is not allowed by the NEC. (Anyone remember when illuminated clothes rods came out?)

As I see it, the entire reason for this product is to allow someone to avoid having to patch drywall and drill studs to access power in an adjacent stud bay. There's already a method for that- as represented by the brand name "Wiremold."

Even with the recent decreases in price .... IMO anyone who can afford a $3000 TV can afford a $300 electrician to have it done right. No sympathy here. Then again, I don't own ANY TV sets.

 

[al hildenbrand]

It's my guess that the reason this thing does not have a UL listing is that UL will simply not list something that is not allowed by the NEC.

I'm confused.

UL is a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).

ETL is a NRTL.

ETL reports the PowerBridge as listed as a "In Wall Electrical Appliance Assembly".

What has UL got to do with this listing?

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

I'm confused.

UL is a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).

ETL is a NRTL.

ETL reports the PowerBridge as listed as a "In Wall Electrical Appliance Assembly".

What has UL got to do with this listing?

Good day Al,

Okay, I'll do my best to explain this.

UL set STANDARDS to which the NEC recognizes for many listed catagories.
ie, Cord Sets have a UL # Catagory, so do receptacles, boxes and cover plates.

Intertek/ETL TUV and others test to UL Standard as well as to CSA Standards.

The PowerBridge Listing from ETL is based on what WE manufacture.
PowerBridge manufactures the actual COVER PLATE and the PVC J-Box.

OUR "TEST" is to CONFORM to the Standards for those items in our KIT we manufacture, thus the "CONFORMS TO UL STD 514C CERTIFIED TO CSA STD C22.2 NO. 42.1

This is specific to the CERTIFING MARK. IT MUST show what the STANDARDS to which the manufactured item is TESTED to.

The CONTROL REPORT to which PowerBridge through Intertek was tested to conform, cites the applications of LISTED COMPONENTS. All LISTED COMPONENTS we use we use to meet their Standard to conform to their use. Thus we have a KIT Listing.

ie, the receptacle, the inlet, the power supply cord set, each have a UL/CSA Component Listing.

The report allows for specifics and variations to include, optional or replace within the STANDARD USES.

Someone inquired, "Why not just go to UL"
If you have not inquired to have a product tested for Listing, then here's the basic run down for just the 1 PowerBridge product SSPBIW/TSPBIW.
SUBMIT for QUOTE:
UL $38,000 Time: 6-9 months
Intertek/ETL $21,000 Time: 3-5 months
It was kind of a "no-brainer" and acheives the EXACT same result to have a LISTED product. The TESTS are the same regardless which NRTL is testing to the Standard.

We are currently in process with UL to specifically TEST to a Standard for a new series of product to which only UL offers LISTING to.
Not all NRTL's offer testing to all Standards, so somethings have to be tested to the Standard by UL.

Al, you have the Report, is this what you were looking for?

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

Do I need to post the specific code sections?

Thank you to point out your view on this.

Please cite specific Code sections the PowerBridge product does meet, and it would help us to explain your basis.
I imagine there could be something we've missed as to specific cited violation, and will be greatful for your citing specific and reasons we need to address.

Regards,
Justin
PowerBridge

 

[glene77is]

...
So ... how could such a product be used legitimately?
Well, if the wall moved around - imagine a display trailer used at trade shows. Or, if the received power from a portable source - think of a generator or battery / UPS bank.
...

Reno,
That is a good thought.
The idea about where it could be used legitimately is a good thought.
Beats belaboring why we can't use it.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Al, you have the Report, is this what you were looking for?

Thank you for the question, Justin.

In reading your ETL Listing Report I did not find information about the listed category "In Wall Electrical Appliance Assembly". The information in your report seems to be about your specific product.

In the UL Guide Information for Electrical Equipment , so-called, White Book, there are statements about the use and installation of the category, not about any specific product, but about the category of products.

Earlier in this thread, I posted a cut and paste from the UL Guide Information for Electrical Equipment that pertained to the category "Relocatable Power Taps". The requirement that one power tap ("power strip") may not be daisy chained off another power tap is not a NEC requirement, but it is a requirement that the NEC leads us, as electrical professionals, to seek out and accept as a rule to be enforced for power taps.

To be clear, I'm not equating a relocatable power tap with PowerBridge at all.

I spent some time navigating Intertek's web site in search of such guide information, but I found nothing. In earlier post's in this thread I have asked the general membership, some who are much more familiar with ETL than I, if there was such information, but I haven't noticed a response yet.

Do you have knowledge of an ETL document, or documents, that contain such general information for the listing "In Wall Electrical Appliance Assembly"?

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

In reading your ETL Listing Report I did not find information about the listed category "In Wall Electrical Appliance Assembly". The information in your report seems to be about your specific product.

Do you have knowledge of an ETL document, or documents, that contain such general information for the listing "In Wall Electrical Appliance Assembly"?

Al,

I'm sorry I though I replied to your question.
The title of "In Wall Electrical Appliance Assembly" is not known as to where, how or what catagory ETL has applied it.

First, this "kit" is a first of it's kind. There has not been a specific catagory for any NRTL to catagorize to.
ETL and PowerBridge were advised to proceed with citing the use of LISTED COMPONENTS within the kit, which was done.
Title name was more than likely decided within Intertek by the Director of Certification. There is no specifc additional reference known.

Al, not certain there needs to be, as the Listing Report does not require to cite additional catagory to be a titled "In Wall Electrical Appliance Assembly". Since a NRTL (Intertek/ETL) has so recognized it as such, it can be accepted as called out in the report as it stands. NEC doesn't cite it has to have UL Catagory Listing, just RECOGNIZED to accept or use as Listed by an NRTL.

Granted, any product just because it has a LISTING, does not mean it is NEC Compliant. However, the manor to which the product is cited within it's Listing should be considered a basis for acceptance of AHJ as long as the Listing allows compliance of itself and or the LISTED COMPONENTS it contains if a kit.

On a additional note, a "copy-cat" manufacture of the PowerBridge, who just last fall, created a TV-Bridge product (yup even tried to emulate the name somewhat). Claims ETL listing, only for 514C for wall plate covers and boxes.
Within this "kit", this company actually supplies a 4' AWG 14 flexible power cord with the MALE plug on one end, bare wires on the other, to pass thru the wall plate apparatus the make. They supply SPEED-NUTS to permanantly attach the cord to the NM wire inside the J-Box!
We saw this "kit" and have concern of it causing issues with AHJ, and it should as it is a direct violation of 408.8. WA would be correct to disallow this version of a "Circuit Extension"
Take look at the supply cord specifically. http://www.aifittings.com/whnew160.htm

Reagrds,
Justin
PowerBridge

 

[renosteinke]

Roger, you're better than that ....

UL has a specific meaning attached to their use of the term 'listed.' Though often confused with other terms - "approved" is one of the more common- only UL 'lists' things. If ETL wants to 'certify' or 'approve,' that's their business.

Sure, there are other testing labs. To equate all "NRTL's" with each other is like asserting that all DOT-approved cars are the same. Anyone care to trade their Porsche for my Yugo?

The UL reference in the ad copy is misleading, as the standard cited covers only the plastic boxes and cover plates. It has no relevance to the complete assembly.

FWIW, there is NO correllation between the use of UL-listed components and the UL listing of the complete product. There are myriad UL-listed products out there that have NO UL-listed parts in them. There are also many non-listed products - even products that would fail a UL evaluation - that are made completely of UL-listed parts. A bad baker can make a bad cake with the finest ingredients.

Now, for the meat of the response ...
Let's look at what the NEC says about extension cords: Article 400, sections 7 and 8, address the use of extension cords.

400.8 lists, as the first banned use, "as a substitute for the fixed wiring of a structure." The receptacle that provides power is fixed to the structure - at least as pictured in the ad copy. Ditto for the power inlet. If the extension cord isn't filling in a gap in the fixed wiring of the structure, I cannot think of a better example. This was, BTW, one of the reasons the UL standard for power strips require the things to not be easily mounted in any permanent way.

It's only tempory? Sure it is. Again, the NEC allows some guidance. Section 590.3 places time constraints. With both the receptacles and the inlet mounted in the wall, I don't see anything changing in 90 days (590.3B). You'll end up opening the wall to qualify for 'during construction,' and I can't see the case here for 'emergencies and tests.'

Returning to 400.7, we see that flexible cord is allowed to be used (400.7-A-3) for portable appliances, for (400.7-A-6) for the connection of utilization equipment to facilitate frequent interchange, to prevent (400.7-A-7) the transmission of noise or vibration, and for appliances that are (400.7-A-8) designed to permit ready removal for maintenance and repair.

I just can't see any of the permitted uses applying to the extension cord portion of this kit.

You know, it was just a few years back that someone designed an illuminated closet rod. His product led to the NEC being changed to allow for the use of his product. (BTW, the author of the proposal never got even a thank-you note from the manufacturer). The makes of this kit need to get the code changed before it can be UL listed - or allowed by the code. That's my opinion.

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

IMO anyone who can afford a $3000 TV can afford a $300 electrician to have it done right. No sympathy here.

Which way is right? In the situation that has been brought up... I have a flat screen on the wall... below is a UPS TVSS that powers the recievers etc and I would also like to power the TV from it....

I think some people who have such a problem with this item may not trully think it violates 400.8(1) anymore than putting a cord/connector on a dishwasher but do have a serious problem with any product that alllows a HO to do something that would have required an electrician...

 

[al hildenbrand]

The title of "In Wall Electrical Appliance Assembly" is not known as to where, how or what category ETL has applied it.

First, this "kit" is a first of it's kind. There has not been a specific category for any NRTL to categorize to.

ETL and PowerBridge were advised to proceed with citing the use of LISTED COMPONENTS within the kit, which was done.

Title name was more than likely decided within Intertek by the Director of Certification. There is no specific additional reference known.

Thank you, Justin.

In lieu of more information, the ETL Listed Mark Directory description, then, is what we have to work from. One can look at the ETL Listed Mark Directory Product Description for the PowerBridge by clicking here.

The Intertek web site page that leads to the ETL Listed Mark Directory search is available by clicking here.

only UL 'lists' things.

Prove that statement.

FWIW, there is NO correlation between the use of UL-listed components and the UL listing of the complete product.

OK. The PowerBridge is a listed kit. Start there.

Now, for the meat of the response ...
Let's look at what the NEC says about extension cords: Article 400, sections 7 and 8, address the use of extension cords.

You can't get to 400.8(1) without reading the very first sentence of 400.8. Given the PowerBridge listing as an "In Wall Electrical Appliance Assembly" can you prove that permissions of 400.7 don't apply to the PowerBridge?

If the permission(s) of 400.7 applies, then you can't use 400.8.

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

The UL reference in the ad copy is misleading, as the standard cited covers only the plastic boxes and cover plates. It has no relevance to the complete assembly.

Okay, now you've poked me in the chest.
I have a difficult time with your preception of reference to UL. It is not misleading in any way or form. The PowerBridge has NOT made claim, nor is the KIT UL Listed and does not carry the UL Mark anywhere on the kit or in it's marketing ad copy.

PowerBridge has a ETL Listing and carries the ETL Mark, as a kit assembly, which is to include and we are required to label as such with the SPECIFIC wording:
ETL LISTED
CONFORMS TO
UL STD 514C
CERTIFIED TO CSA STD C22.2 NO. 42.1

PowerBridge maintains an "Authorization to Mark" from Intertek/ETL.
ETL produces for us, the actual labels with this wording and the ETL CM, on LISTED UL969 label material and UL969 Ink!

FWIW, there is NO correllation between the use of UL-listed components and the UL listing of the complete product. There are myriad UL-listed products out there that have NO UL-listed parts in them. There are also many non-listed products - even products that would fail a UL evaluation - that are made completely of UL-listed parts. A bad baker can make a bad cake with the finest ingredients.

Perhaps I'm not understanding your claim. UL Listed Components are different than UL Recognized Components, I assume this is what you mean?
​

Have you read our Listing Control Report? I will send you a PDF of it.
​

ALL COMPONENTS used within the PowerBridge KIT are called out specifically in our Listing Report and all are, UL and CSA LISTED COMPONENTS, not simply RECOGNIZED, as you may be claiming. Even the plastic polimer used in our manufacturing to mold the cover plates and parts, is UL Listed with Samsung. We are required to use specific LISTED COMPONENTS, such as our plastic, we can't even subsitute the type of polimer we use, it must have a specific specification. Some of our LISTED COMPONENTS can be substituted for differnt manufactures or model variations as long as they are LISTED and the Listing conforms to our usage.

I agree with your a BAD baker can make a bad cake...
However, all of the COMPONENTS (ingredients) of a PowerBridge are all designed and LISTED to be part of each other in the specific receipe (Control Report).
Each LISTED COMPONENT has UL and CSA Markings, which each become PART OF the ASSEMBLY, as a ETL LISTED APPLIANCE ASSEMBLY, even though they carry the UL/CSA LISTED Marks from their manufactures we source.

No "bad baker" is part of the equation of manufacturing a PowerBridge kit, unless of course you mis-use the COMPONENTS as LISTED seperately or as a KIT.
If you install this outdoors, next to a hot-tub, and a failure is caused, then it was a bad baker (installer) not following the receipe, not the manufacture, or the NRTL.

Respectfully,
Justin,
PowerBridge

 

[mivey]

...First, this "kit" is a first of it's kind....
On a additional note, a "copy-cat" manufacture of the PowerBridge, who just last fall, created a TV-Bridge product (yup even tried to emulate the name somewhat). Claims ETL listing, only for 514C for wall plate covers and boxes.

Justin, this product appears to be similar to PowerBridge (but does not look as nice IMO). They appear to have a separate ETL certification.

http://www.midlite.com/products.aspx?catId=772

Their ETL number is slightly higher so how did this race to the market occur? Just curious.

 

[roger]

Roger, you're better than that ....

UL has a specific meaning attached to their use of the term 'listed.' Though often confused with other terms - "approved" is one of the more common- only UL 'lists' things. If ETL wants to 'certify' or 'approve,' that's their business.

Obviously you are not familiar with other testing labs, they certainly list things and like UL, they do not approve anything

Sure, there are other testing labs. To equate all "NRTL's" with each other is like asserting that all DOT-approved cars are the same. Anyone care to trade their Porsche for my Yugo?

I don't know what you're trying to say here, ETL will test for UL compliance per the UL test criteria and then list the equipment.

The UL reference in the ad copy is misleading, as the standard cited covers only the plastic boxes and cover plates. It has no relevance to the complete assembly.

And IMO there is no need to include the cord in the listing.

FWIW, there is NO correllation between the use of UL-listed components and the UL listing of the complete product.

So what's your point above?

There are myriad UL-listed products out there that have NO UL-listed parts in them. There are also many non-listed products - even products that would fail a UL evaluation - that are made completely of UL-listed parts. A bad baker can make a bad cake with the finest ingredients.

Maybe I'm just not getting it but I don't know what you are trying to say here either.

Now, for the meat of the response ...
Let's look at what the NEC says about extension cords: Article 400, sections 7 and 8, address the use of extension cords.

400.8 lists, as the first banned use, "as a substitute for the fixed wiring of a structure." The receptacle that provides power is fixed to the structure - at least as pictured in the ad copy. Ditto for the power inlet. If the extension cord isn't filling in a gap in the fixed wiring of the structure, I cannot think of a better example. This was, BTW, one of the reasons the UL standard for power strips require the things to not be easily mounted in any permanent way.

I don't see the cord as being a permanent connection, as I have said earlier in this thread, I would be using the cord for my vacuum or any other item I may need it for at times

It's only tempory?

Sure it is, see above.

Sure it is.

I agree

Again, the NEC allows some guidance. Section 590.3 places time constraints. With both the receptacles and the inlet mounted in the wall, I don't see anything changing in 90 days (590.3B). You'll end up opening the wall to qualify for 'during construction,' and I can't see the case here for 'emergencies and tests.'

No reason to open the wall, just unplug the cord every 90 days

Returning to 400.7, we see that flexible cord is allowed to be used (400.7-A-3) for portable appliances,

Which is what we are talking about.

(400.7-A-6) for the connection of utilization equipment to facilitate frequent interchange,

Some people go through TV's quite frequently.

to prevent (400.7-A-7) the transmission of noise or vibration, and for appliances that are (400.7-A-8) designed to permit ready removal for maintenance and repair.

Many TV's need to be repaired frequently, see your comparison to the Porsche and the Yugo

I just can't see any of the permitted uses applying to the extension cord portion of this kit.

I can

You know, it was just a few years back that someone designed an illuminated closet rod. His product led to the NEC being changed to allow for the use of his product. (BTW, the author of the proposal never got even a thank-you note from the manufacturer). The makes of this kit need to get the code changed before it can be UL listed - or allowed by the code. That's my opinion.

With the exception of reading about it here on the forums I am not familiar with the product so I can't really give an opinion.

Roger

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

It's only tempory? Sure it is. Again, the NEC allows some guidance. Section 590.3 places time constraints. With both the receptacles and the inlet mounted in the wall, I don't see anything changing in 90 days (590.3B).

Correct me if I'm not clear on Article 590.

I understand that to be specfic to TEMPORARY INSTALLATIONS, as by its heading and Scope.

I don't believe PowerBridge or anyone else here has claimed PowerBridge as a kit to be "temporary".

What has been questioned is the supply cord use is permanent or a substitution thereof, not temporary. We have made claim to portability, of the cord, which is somewhat "temporary" I suppose, because it can be removed, replaced or serviced by a non-qualified person at anytime without disassembly of the installation.

Where in Code is the citing for duration of permanance or substitution defined as to a PowerBridge not meeting compliancy.
I cannot find any definition in NEC 2008 of those words.

Quoting 400.8 is not valid because of it's heading sentence. It does not define substitution and should not be considered due to the usage of the power supply cord-set within the recognized Listing of the PowerBridge as an In Wall Appliance Assembly. Also allowing for energizing an INLET in 406.6 (D) We claim more Code to allow this than what is construed as against.

Respectfully,
Justin
PowerBridge