Power Bridge

Status
Not open for further replies.
PowerBridgeTech said:
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!
Click to expand...
I did not realize it was supposed to be elegant.:grin: I thought it was to give it a low vertical profile.

My comment was directed to the look of the plates. The others look more "Wal-Mart-ish" in that they look like they lack quality. I'm not a big fan of the piece-together plates.
 
mivey said:
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.
Click to expand...
But you see, "appliance", as used in the ETL listing is not clearly a noun. The use of the word in the phrase has at least three meanings.
  1. The noun
  2. An adjective for "assembly"
  3. One word of the two word term "appliance assembly".
Without further documentation . . . how can we exclude any of these. Any of them are arguably still invoking 400.7(A).
 
Justin, first off I commend you for standing up here and stating your belief in this product. I disagree with several points you make. One of the things you stated is your product doesn't "replace" fixed wiring it "extends it". That is just silly, you have effectively made an extension cord replace what should be a fixed portion of a branch circuit. Because there is two boxes in the wall connected by NM, after the extension cord, is why I say it this, But we all agree this is the "point of issue". Then you say "we use cords for other items 24/7/365 for other items. Yes but the big difference is the cords are at the appliance and there is just ONE cord not two. If I plug my dishwasher cord into an extension cord then into an outlet it is a direct violation of code. Well your product is doing the same thing, it is using two cords (the one on the TV then the one in your kit.
If I set a microwave on the counter it is a portable appliance. If I screw the same microwave in to mounting bracket and install it, it is now a "fixed appliance". I would offer up that mounting a flat panel to a wall with a mounting bracket effectively makes it a "fixed appliance" because it is not able to be removed without tools. This also effects your argument that it is a "temporary" application of the cord.
 
al hildenbrand said:
But you see, "appliance", as used in the ETL listing is not clearly a noun. The use of the word in the phrase has at least three meanings.
  1. The noun
  2. An adjective for "assembly"
  3. One word of the two word term "appliance assembly".
Without further documentation . . . how can we exclude any of these. Any of them are arguably still invoking 400.7(A).
Click to expand...
What part of 400.7(A) are invoked by #2 or #3 as they make the kit a non-appliance? I'm not buying the 400.7(A)(6) argument as that is accomplished by the cord on the TV. I'm not sure where 400.7(A)(10) would point to anything for the kit or what we could call the "wiring assembly".

How can we exclude any of them? We can exclude #1 because the kit is plainly not utilization equipment.

Add: I'm see #2 & #3 as reading the same. Really there is just a #1 & #2.
 
acrwc10 said:
but the big difference is the cords are at the appliance and there is just ONE cord not two.
Click to expand...
So Relocatable Power Taps are illegal to use . . . ?

You know, the outlet strip behind the desktop computer, or on the workbench?

That's an extension cord.
 
acrwc10 said:
...If I plug my dishwasher cord into an extension cord then into an outlet it is a direct violation of code. Well your product is doing the same thing, it is using two cords (the one on the TV then the one in your kit.
Click to expand...
I agree that it functions just like that.
 
acrwc10 said:
Justin, first off I commend you for standing up here and stating your belief in this product. I disagree with several points you make. One of the things you stated is your product doesn't "replace" fixed wiring it "extends it". That is just silly, you have effectively made an extension cord replace what should be a fixed portion of a branch circuit. Because there is two boxes in the wall connected by NM, after the extension cord, is why I say it this, But we all agree this is the "point of issue". Then you say "we use cords for other items 24/7/365 for other items. Yes but the big difference is the cords are at the appliance and there is just ONE cord not two. If I plug my dishwasher cord into an extension cord then into an outlet it is a direct violation of code. Well your product is doing the same thing, it is using two cords (the one on the TV then the one in your kit.
If I set a microwave on the counter it is a portable appliance. If I screw the same microwave in to mounting bracket and install it, it is now a "fixed appliance". I would offer up that mounting a flat panel to a wall with a mounting bracket effectively makes it a "fixed appliance" because it is not able to be removed without tools. This also effects your argument that it is a "temporary" application of the cord.
Click to expand...

I truly can't believe this discussion is still going. Both sides are really stretching to make make their point. Both sides are making weak arguments. Listen to yourself...code aside for a second, your claims are silly. One cord vs. two for an appliance...really?? Have you seen large audio video installs? Or even the average home stereo or computer setup? There are tens to hundreds of cords powering amps, projectors, switchers, etc in large installations...safely I might add. It is a stretch to say that an additional cord, to serve a purpose, is a violation. Is it a violation for me to use a surge protector strip on my TV? That is an additional cord between the outlet and the TV...watch out, the house it going to go up in flames! Better start running rigid conduit and XHHW to hardwire every lamp, phone charger, and toaster in my house. Jk...This product is simply to power the display from the same surge protector/ups the rest of the system is powered from. We can go on all day about what ifs with electrical installations, and i hardly think this product is dangerous, especially compared to how other products are misused everyday. I can see where people think it meets the intent of the code.

And also, i don't see a wall mount TV as fixed appliance. I can easily remove one from the bracket without tools in seconds. A wall mount TV will likely get removed, serviced, replaced many more times than any cord connected dishwasher, microwave, or garage door opener.

At the end of the day, would I use this product? No, I typically recommend junction box style SurgeX protectors that protect the outlet for the display, sub, equipment, etc. Simple, elegant, and 100% code compliant! :grin:

http://www.surgex.com/products/sx20ne.html
 
mivey said:
How can we exclude any of them? We can exclude #1 because the kit is plainly not utilization equipment.

Add: I'm see #2 & #3 as reading the same. Really there is just a #1 & #2.
Click to expand...
And you know this is ETL's "intent" how . . . ?
 
Jacob S said:
I truly can't believe this discussion is still going. Both sides are really stretching to make make their point. Both sides are making weak arguments. Listen to yourself...code aside for a second, your claims are silly. One cord vs. two for an appliance...really?? Have you seen large audio video installs? Or even the average home stereo or computer setup? There are tens to hundreds of cords powering amps, projectors, switchers, etc in large installations...safely I might add. It is a stretch to say that an additional cord, to serve a purpose, is a violation. Is it a violation for me to use a surge protector strip on my TV? That is an additional cord between the outlet and the TV...watch out, the house it going to go up in flames! Better start running rigid conduit and XHHW to hardwire every lamp, phone charger, and toaster in my house. Jk...This product is simply to power the display from the same surge protector/ups the rest of the system is powered from. We can go on all day about what ifs with electrical installations, and i hardly think this product is dangerous, especially compared to how other products are misused everyday. I can see where people think it meets the intent of the code.

And also, i don't see a wall mount TV as fixed appliance. I can easily remove one from the bracket without tools in seconds. A wall mount TV will likely get removed, serviced, replaced many more times than any cord connected dishwasher, microwave, or garage door opener.

At the end of the day, would I use this product? No, I typically recommend junction box style SurgeX protectors that protect the outlet for the display, sub, equipment, etc. Simple, elegant, and 100% code compliant! :grin:

http://www.surgex.com/products/sx20ne.html
Click to expand...

Stick around awhile if you think this is silly. The point is to argue "Code". Code is there for safety and fire protection, and a lot of good points come out of getting into the "silly" or extreme point of view.
 
al hildenbrand said:
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.
Click to expand...

Al,

You are convicted on the "title" as being the deciding factor to apply the use of the cord. I appreciate the level to help with views for better understanding.
I have sent inquiry to ETL to assist with the title applied. It may take awhile! However not sure that the title is as important as the use to apply to the Listed parts together as a part of, already cited in Code and how they are used.
What information would ETL be able to provide as to the name/title?
Is this a Category you want to reference? I can tell you there is not a specific Category reference from any other NRTL of this product type.
All similar versions all have used ETL.
So then would that not be the recognized category heading if it exists for other like products and from ETL? Isn't that enough for an AHJ and yourself?
According to Code, devices must have recognized NRTL Listing to conform. Right?
Sorry I don't have the Codebook to look up that section.
 
al hildenbrand said:
And you know this is ETL's "intent" how . . . ?
Click to expand...
Well if it is, then they have not used a definition that is in conflict with the NEC. But they have equipment in conflict with the NEC.

If it was not their intent, they have used a definition that is in conflict with the NEC while at the same time saying they are NEC compliant.

A bit of a conundrum either way.
 
What are extension power supply cords?

What are extension power supply cords?

By title and definition these Code recognized devices serve as an EXTENSION of the PREMISE WIRED CIRCUIT.

If the structure does not have an existing premise circuit to plug into, then a cord energized from an external power source other than the premise circuit could be cited as a substitute of wiring of the structure. In other words you can't run a long flexible cord from your neighbors circuit wiring into your home to energize as a substitute for premise wiring in your home. Right?

The cord used with PowerBridge to energize the Inlet and the appliance (TV) on the end, are intended to be plugged into the EXISTING structure wiring circuit. NOT an outside external power source therefore extending a substituted power source which could be cited as a substitution with the use of the cord in that manor.


How is it construed by others here as a substitute for a structures wiring, when the structure has premise wiring in already in place? The power supply cord is not substituting for the structure wiring by extension from the existing power circuit source within the structure by definition of the words used in 400.8 and key words as a substitute for fixed wiring of the structure.


A power supply cord does EXTEND the structures existing premise wiring circuit as intended.
If you call this out then you must call out any and all flexible extension type power supply cords from use. They all connect to the existing structure wiring right? They are not defined as a substitute device and are not substituting power from another source other than the structures wiring.
Are they? Great more to discuss, maybe this is the real question.


New question then needs to be answered. Is there Code reference to disallow for extending from any structure wiring circuit front using a power supply cord?

Justin
PowerBridge
 
PowerBridgeTech said:
How is it construed by others here as a substitute for a structures wiring, when the structure has premise wiring in already in place?
Click to expand...
So the premise becomes, once the original fixed wiring is complete, extensions can either be fixed wiring extensions or cord extensions? OK. I'll think about that. I guess we will have to dig back to find out where the "substitute" clause was derived.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top