Power Bridge

[don_resqcapt19]

Listing or no listing, there is no question in my mind that I would hang a red tag on the installation of this product. It is very clearly using flexible cord in place of permanent wiring. There is nothing that a listing can do to change this fact.

 

[al hildenbrand]

They appear to have a separate ETL certification.

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

Their ETL number is slightly higher

Some of the model numbers displayed on the Midlite.com page you link to appear at this ETL Listed Mark Directory Product Description viewable by clicking here . They have a completely different description.

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

Listing or no listing, there is no question in my mind that I would hang a red tag on the installation of this product. It is very clearly using flexible cord in place of permanent wiring. There is nothing that a listing can do to change this fact.

Don, respectfully what specific Article or section would you red-tag this?

Listing is relevant, when it calls out specfics of use and can be applied to Code Articles in reference.

Also, what is your interpetation of 406.6 (D) [NEC 2008]
Flanged Inlets are recognized in Code, how would you energize it? It can only be energized with a cord-set.

Respectfully,
Justin
PowerBridge

 

[mivey]

Some of the model numbers displayed on the Midlite.com page you link to appear at this ETL Listed Mark Directory Product Description viewable by clicking here . They have a completely different description.

Thanks Al. But aren't they really about the same? One is for covers and the other is for covers & boxes. They are both sold as kits.

Is there a significant different in that one might include more or less stuff in the kit? They're both being used for the same thing.

Also why doesn't the title "NON-METALLIC OUTLET BOXES, FLUSH-DEVICE BOXES AND COVERS" carry as much important as the information "In Wall Electrical Appliance Assembly"? What makes one the "listing" and not the other? According to ETL, "A representative sample of the listed devices" is indicating that a group of devices were tested, not one conglomerated device/assembly.

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

Listing or no listing, there is no question in my mind that I would hang a red tag on the installation of this product. It is very clearly using flexible cord in place of permanent wiring. There is nothing that a listing can do to change this fact.

Is your main problem with this product that it is permanently mounted?
You know I believe your view point (and others) of what is actually substituting fixed wiring is too broad. Being this broad you could include ANY use of ANY cord.
Out of curiousity how would you use "fixed" wiring to do what the cord is doing? NM with connectors on it? I guess you couldn't....

 

[mivey]

...so how did this race to the market occur? Just curious.

Also, what is the patent status? Who reached the finish line first? According to Midlite "Patented and Multiple Patents Pending".

How is this going to work? Will one of you win the patent rights and the other start having to pay royalties or will the contractors be left to use the product from the last man standing?

Sorry Larry, no royalties for you even though you probably thought of it before any of these others: you snooze, you loose. :grin:

 

[mivey]

Listing or no listing, there is no question in my mind that I would hang a red tag on the installation of this product. It is very clearly using flexible cord in place of permanent wiring. There is nothing that a listing can do to change this fact.

I can't seem to get past that either. Seems like so many ways this can go wrong with only one way it can go right, not that that has anything to do with anything.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Thanks Al. But aren't they really about the same?

They are kinda the same, yeah. . . with one glaring exception. "Appliance" really throws a monkey wrench into the smooth running gears of fixed wiring substitution, IMO.

According to ETL, "A representative sample of the listed devices" is indicating that a group of devices were tested, not one conglomerated device/assembly.

Somehow, I just don't think they are using "devices" by the narrow meaning of the Article 100 Definition.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Justin,
To me it is very clear that you have a permanently installed outlet that is fed by a cord.
This use of the cord is a violation of 400.8(1). Nothing in the listing can change that.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

...
Out of curiousity how would you use "fixed" wiring to do what the cord is doing? NM with connectors on it? I guess you couldn't....

You could use a surface raceway or you could do it right and fish the NM into the wall.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

...

Also, what is your interpetation of 406.6 (D) [NEC 2008]
Flanged Inlets are recognized in Code, how would you energize it? It can only be energized with a cord-set.

Respectfully,
Justin
PowerBridge

I would red tag the use of a cord to energize the flanged inlet, unless it was for something clearly temporary like a generator connection. I do not see any way to call your product a temporary use. There are attachment plugs that can be used with flexible conduit, so a cord is not the only way to energize the flanged inlet.

About the only thing that would change my mind on this issue would be a Formal Interpretation from the NFPA or a specific permission in the code itself.

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

Also, what is the patent status? Who reached the finish line first? According to Midlite "Patented and Multiple Patents Pending".

How is this going to work? Will one of you win the patent rights and the other start having to pay royalties or will the contractors be left to use the product from the last man standing?

Sorry Larry, no royalties for you even though you probably thought of it before any of these others: you snooze, you loose. :grin:

PowerBridge was not the first to use a outlet or an inlet. No one gets to Utility Patent this, it can't be since there was no actual new utility applied. The only thing that happened was PowerBridge put all the COMPONENTS together First to market with a straight-blade 5-15 Inlet.

The copy-cat who owns midlite saw this concept at a tradeshow, found it was not a Patent-able by utility idea and decided he was going copy the kit with a slight variation to enter the marketplace one full year behind PowerBridge. The midlite guy is really an egotist who makes claim this is somehow his idea and states Patent Pending. He can't receive a utility patent, except for a "possible" design patent, which is worthless in this industry anyway.

There are actually 7 different copy-cat companies producing a version of PowerBridge, but we were the first to the line. All somehow reference themselves to PowerBridge,,, imitation is flatery they say.
We have "branded" / "Kleenex-ed" the catagory. We are the leader and consumers know this solution as a PowerBridge, not the "xxxbrand". (We monitor many websites and forums in the industry)

PowerBridge OEM and Private Labels this for several other companies because this is not something which can be fully produced in China, it has final assembly in the US and thus the ETL factory control inspections take place in the US.


Sorry Larry, no royalties, you could have marketed your idea too with everyone else. I will tell you it's not as easy as you may think though, very expensive to bring a product to market, I wouldn't give up your day job. Good thing I was semi-retired as a P.E. in CAL, before I joined PowerBridge 2 years ago and they had a good head start. I'm pretty confident of this company, good people, good ideas.

Regards,
Justin
PowerBridge

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

You could use a surface raceway or you could do it right and fish the NM into the wall.

What about other flanged inlets? Is powering all flanged inlets with a cord a violation?

It seems to me that "fixed" wiring can't be used for the purpose of powering this appliance. The cord is not substituting the fixed wiring.

Also what about the senario I gave early about powering the the TV for the UPS/TVSS located below it which powers the receivers? this product would be great for it... How would you do it?

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

You could use a surface raceway or you could do it right and fish the NM into the wall.

Respectfully, you understand NM/MC building wire is INSIDE the WALL connecting the NEC recognized OUTLET and INLET together, right? These are connected to meet Section 3 wiring methods.
The supply power cord is only OUTSIDE the wall.
Would you suggest the supply cord be installed within raceway attached to the wall between the power source and the inlet? That seems more permanent to me.

So, you are suggesting any and all power supply flexible cords used to supply power shall be red-tagged and not Code compliant? Do you have any flexible cords connected to any appliances in your home plugged into the premise outlet circuit? Of course, we all do, not to sound condesending, I just have difficulty finding your citation unreasonable to what we all use power cords in real life. They EXTEND the premise wired circuit to a device. Usually plugged in 24/7/365, but can be unplugged easily as well.
That would include the flexible cord-set attached or detachable from an appliance such as a computer or TV?

How would the use of a flexible cord be different than using an extesion cord plugged into the nearest premise wired outlet, inside wiretrack-molding attached to the outside of the wall up the wall to the TV, which is Code compliant 400.7 use of a cord?

You do recognize Code 400.7 right? It applies to 400.8 to be cited as a reason to accept or disallow.

The fact that the KIT has a Listing is relevent and does not require it's own code article, as the LISTED COMPONENTS compromising the LISTED ASSYEMBLY APPLIANCE meets several Code references. This is not a substitute for premise wiring, it is an EXTENSION of it. Premise wiring MUST exist PRIOR to utilization of the PowerBridge and the power supply cord. The power is not coming from any outside of premise power source to be considered a subsitute within the building itself.

Help me with your claim other than than the cord is a substitute for power, when it is a recognized EXTENSION to supply power to an appliance and to 406.6(D) an INLET. 406.6 does not cite duration of use of the required cord to energize it.

Respectfully,
Justin

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

I would red tag the use of a cord to energize the flanged inlet, unless it was for something clearly temporary like a generator connection.

Respectfully, where in Code does it cite the duration of energizing an Inlet device?

You claim "clearly temporary like a generator"

Where in Code is the reference to Inlets only allowable power source to be energized by a generator?

Is there Code reference to Inlets not being energized from an existing premise wired power source, such as an exisiting circuit wired outlet?

Respectfully,
Justin
PowerBridge

 

[mivey]

The PowerBridge kit is ETL listed as an "In Wall Electrical Appliance Assembly". Apparently this invokes the Permission of 400.7 which supersedes the use of 400.8 (pay attention to the opening sentence of 400.8). Without 400.8, the cord objection disappears.

Show me that the PowerBridge is not connecting an appliance. Based on the words of the name of the listing, the PowerBridge itself may even be an appliance.

...and the fact that the project is listed as an appliance go a long way towards elimination of my initial concerns.

...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.

Is there any validity in claiming this kit is an appliance? First, it does not meet the NEC definition of an appliance. But it does meet the criteria for an assembly of some sort. In other words, the "In Wall Electrical Appliance Assembly" kit is an assembly of stuff that is in the wall and intended to be used with an electrical appliance.

So maybe the phrase does not necessarily state that the kit is an appliance unto itself. Maybe "In Wall Electrical Appliance Assembly" means "In Wall Electrical Appliance Wiring Assembly".

 

[mivey]

PowerBridge was not the first to use a outlet or an inlet. No one gets to Utility Patent this, it can't be since there was no actual new utility applied.

So it is more like trying to patent packaging?

...We are the leader and consumers know this solution as a PowerBridge, not the "xxxbrand".

Thanks for the info. What is odd to me is that you would think by entering the market after seeing your product that they would take the opportunity to make a better looking product than what they wound up with.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Maybe "In Wall Electrical Appliance Assembly" means "In Wall Electrical Appliance Wiring Assembly".

Regrettably, we only have the words as they are. Without further documentation from ETL, it is hard to get past 400.7(A) by going straight to 400.8(1), and, if something from 400.7(A) sticks, then one can't get to 400.8(1) because of the first sentence of 400.8.

IMO.

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

So it is more like trying to patent packaging?

Thanks for the info. What is odd to me is that you would think by entering the market after seeing your product that they would take the opportunity to make a better looking product than what they wound up with.

Like applying to Patent a pencil, it's been done and the "newness" / use or Utility of use or application is not "new". But you can change the design just enough to apply and maybe receive a Design Patent for around $6-8k. It's all just money right!

I'll tell the designer you like the look better, that will make his day!
The unique design of the PowerBridge was intentional.
Why make something look like a regular square wall plate when for one it has a specific use to mount behind the TV along with the rectangular shape of the wall mount and TV. This is not typically installed next to switch plates so matchy-matchy didn't need to apply.
The "european" design was adopted to give it an elegant appearance and add additional preceived value over a $9.00 wall-plate outlet at the hardware store. This approach as proven to be quite succesful especially to the DIY, consider the WAF!

 

[mivey]

Regrettably, we only have the words as they are. Without further documentation from ETL, it is hard to get past 400.7(A) by going straight to 400.8(1), and, if something from 400.7(A) sticks, then one can't get to 400.8(1) because of the first sentence of 400.8.

IMO.

I know but:

Appliance. Utilization equipment, generally other than industrial, that is normally built in standardized sizes or types and is installed or connected as a unit to perform one or more functions such as clothes washing, air conditioning, food mixing, deep frying, and so forth.
...
Utilization Equipment. Equipment that utilizes electric energy for electronic, electromechanical, chemical, heating, lighting, or similar purposes.

Same logic used where an Appliance Receptacle Outlet is not an appliance but it is an outlet.

Wording like that is not unusual for other stuff, like an Appliance Branch Circuit is not an appliance:

Branch Circuit, Appliance. A branch circuit that supplies energy to one or more outlets to which appliances are to be connected and that has no permanently connected luminaires that are not a part of an appliance.

Same goes for Laundry Branch Circuits, Bathroom Branch Circuits, etc.

I think the key may be in the very definition of an appliance and utilization equipment, which this kit is not by any stretch of the imagination.