Power Bridge

[mivey]

Oh it's made by SouthWire! They cite NEC code Art. 322 Flat Cable Assemblies.

That should be Art 382

 

[mivey]

Respectfully, you claim its not an appliance, however, a NRTL, not Joe-Bob's Lab, has asserted the claim in an official control report.

Okay, Listing in itself may not have to be recognized, however the right should not extend to claim something offically cited as something else.

Can I call a cord an outlet receptacle just because it has a 5-15P on the end of it? I could if the rule applys to an AHJ to call any listed product whatever they deem suitable to fit a citation.

I suppose I could call an outlet an EXTENSION CONNECTOR of the fixed wiring and apply a different set of rules to it.

So, we'll agree an AHJ can call a product, Listed or not, anything they want.

Is this correct?

We can rename the cord a Transfer-Device, does this make it more or less acceptable.

The NEC does not recognize it as an appliance so it ain't as far as the NEC is concerned and that is what matters. It is, however, an assembly of parts that is intended to be used by an appliance.

 

[al hildenbrand]

The NEC does not recognize it as an appliance so it ain't as far as the NEC is concerned and that is what matters.

And you can demonstrate this with what citation(s)?

 

[mivey]

And you can demonstrate this with what citation(s)?

Because it does meet the definition as spelled out in the NEC. It does not perform functions like those given by example and it is not utilization equipment with a purpose similar to those given by example.

 

[mivey]

This is a "new" product coming on the market.
FLATWIREREADY

It personally scares me far more than using a power supply cord that can be unplugged at anytime and replaced with same very easily.
I could envision a HO cutting into this or nail into it and damage it, causing a difficult replacement.

And it includes overcurrent, GFCI, and arc fault protection in case something does happen.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Because it does meet the definition as spelled out in the NEC. It does not perform functions like those given by example and it is not utilization equipment with a purpose similar to those given by example.

In your opinion.

What citation do you use to deal with "appliance assembly", if, in fact it is an appliance assembly. What citation demonstrates that it is not an appliance assembly, if, in fact it is not an appliance assembly.

 

[renosteinke]

Who needs a code reference? The kit is not a complete appliance.

Take a common situation: a UL-listed wire, a UL-listed receptacle, and a UL-listed box. Heck, we'll even put a UL-listed cord grip in the package. Put them together, and you have a very nice, but unlisted extension cord assembly. (Search this forum and you'll find a few discussions as to whether it's even legal too )

As for the various forms of 'flat wire,' in each case the manufacturers went to the code committees and had the code ammended before they marketed the products. FWIW, UL refused to list them until there was a provision in the NEC for the new 'methods.' If you want to discuss 'flat' wire, I suggest a new thread for another topic.

Edit: I've reconsidered. The wrong question is being asked.

110.8 says only recognized methods will be permitted. "Recognized methods" are those described in Chapter 3 (Articles 300-399). Flexible cords and extension cords are not mentioned as an approved method.

So the question is not 'where is this forbidden,' but rather 'where is it allowed.' One cannot prove a negative - and there most certainly will not be a citation for something that does not exist.

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

That should be Art 382

Yes, correct, they cite 382 and in application to 322 as well. We have some original marketing info from last year posting 322.
Either way, this is an EXTENSION supplied from the existing premise wiring circuit, not from the back, from the front.

Does this substitute the structures wiring as defined in 400.8. I know, this is not classified as a flexible cable/cord, but it is still a premise being argued here that jumping from the front of the circuit is a substitution. How is this really different than using a cord to EXTEND from the outlet. It seems to allow the "action" in 382.10(A).

For discussion omit the highlight, only to allow this as an observation and possible proposal to the use of a proper cord to acheive the same result of extension from an existing outlet as cited in Code. I don't need to be reminded this article is specific to NM Extensions only, I get it.

 

[iwire]

The NEC does not recognize it as an appliance so it ain't as far as the NEC is concerned and that is what matters. It is, however, an assembly of parts that is intended to be used by an appliance.

In your opinion.

Al, how is that an opinion when Article 100 clearly tells us appliances utilize power?

 

[iwire]

Respectfully, you claim its not an appliance, however, a NRTL, not Joe-Bob's Lab, has asserted the claim in an official control report.

You are right my lab has very little credibility.

However you know as well as I do an NTL cannot change the rules in the NEC and right now the rules in the NEC say this is not an appliance.

Okay, Listing in itself may not have to be recognized, however the right should not extend to claim something offically cited as something else.

Can I call a cord an outlet receptacle just because it has a 5-15P on the end of it? I could if the rule applys to an AHJ to call any listed product whatever they deem suitable to fit a citation.



I suppose I could call an outlet an EXTENSION CONNECTOR of the fixed wiring and apply a different set of rules to it.

I have to say you really ......... really ....... seem to be grasping at straws.

So, we'll agree an AHJ can call a product, Listed or not, anything they want.

Is this correct?

No, and I have never said any such thing, I have been saying the NEC does not consider this product an appliance.

I have also said it is the AHJ who get to approve products or not.

We can rename the cord a Transfer-Device, does this make it more or less acceptable.

No

 

[al hildenbrand]

Al, how is that an opinion when Article 100 clearly tells us appliances utilize power?

Article 100 "appliance" is a one word term.

Can you show me a reference that says "appliance assembly" is not a two word term, or for that matter a reference that says an appliance assembly is not part of an appliance.

The wording is ambiguous and requires further enforceable language to remove the ambiguity.

 

[iwire]

Well, this is where the scale tips, in my opinion.

In the rush to, or adherence to, 400.8(1), the very language of the listing is dismissed out of hand as irrelevant or below Code minimum.

Because it is a fact that the NEC rules are not changed by any NTL.

Until the ambiguity of the listing can be removed, IMO, 110.3(b) guides me to believe 400.7 is in play.

There is no ambiguity of the listing, the listing says what it says and the NEC says what it says.

The difference is that areas adopt the NEC as a law, I do not think anywhere does the same for NTLs.

 

[mivey]

In your opinion.

What citation do you use to deal with "appliance assembly", if, in fact it is an appliance assembly. What citation demonstrates that it is not an appliance assembly, if, in fact it is not an appliance assembly.

I agree it is an assembly. It is just not an appliance. It is an assembly that is intended to be used by an appliance. Thus it is an appliance assembly.

You can play with the word order but one of the results does not fit the NEC definition.

You can play around but common sense should prevail:

An Appliance Receptacle Outlet is not an appliance
A Laundry Branch Circuit is not a laundry
A Bathroom Branch Circuit is not a bathroom

 

[iwire]

Article 100 "appliance" is a one word term.

Can you show me a reference that says "appliance assembly" is not a two word term, or for that matter a reference that says an appliance assembly is not part of an appliance.

The wording is ambiguous and requires further enforceable language to remove the ambiguity.

You are kidding me right?

This thread is becoming more pathetic than your attempt to call a switch 'an outlet' (I am paraphrasing, no need to go into details) :roll:

 

[mivey]

Either way, this is an EXTENSION supplied from the existing premise wiring circuit, not from the back, from the front.

Agreed

Does this substitute the structures wiring as defined in 400.8. I know, this is not classified as a flexible cable/cord, but it is still a premise being argued here that jumping from the front of the circuit is a substitution. How is this really different than using a cord to EXTEND from the outlet. It seems to allow the "action" in 382.10(A).

Because this method is not forbidden to substitute. I am also curious if these 382 devices have regular receptacles to accept appliance cords?

For discussion omit the highlight, only to allow this as an observation and possible proposal to the use of a proper cord to acheive the same result of extension from an existing outlet as cited in Code. I don't need to be reminded this article is specific to NM Extensions only, I get it.

Get a code section for the PowerBridge type device without a section that excludes it from substituting and you are good to go.


Add:
How about BEs: Bridge Extensions, Section 3XX

 

[al hildenbrand]

Who needs a code reference?

Oh, come on, you can do better than that. This is the NEC Forum after all.

The kit is not a complete appliance.

Didn't say it was an appliance. I'm saying it is something else that is recognized as an appliance assembly. That much I get from 110.3(B). Tell me what it is or isn't by the Code. Demonstrate that this is not part of an appliance. Demonstrate, by Code, that it IS something.

I'll save you the time. According to the advanced search feature of the electronic NECH, the language of the 2008 NEC and 2008 NEC Handbook does not contain one single use of "appliance assembly".

 

[al hildenbrand]

You are kidding me right?

Why should I kid. The language is not mine. I'm trying to make sense of it.

In Wall Electrical Appliance Assembly

Appliance is not the end of the phrase. Appliance appears as a modifier to Assembly.

 

[al hildenbrand]

I agree it is an assembly. It is just not an appliance. It is an assembly that is intended to be used by an appliance. Thus it is an appliance assembly.

It might be.

You can play with the word order but one of the results does not fit the NEC definition.

I haven't changed the word order. It is only as it is written by a NRTL.

You can play around but common sense should prevail . . .

You'd think so, but there are too many versions of "common sense" here participating in this thread.

Until it is clear what the term one can't make a conclusion.

Consider Outlet vs. Lighting Outlet. They are different terms. One is a one word and the other is a two word term. Their meanings are different.

 

[iwire]

The language is not mine. I'm trying to make sense of it.

Color me doubtful. :grin::grin:

 

[al hildenbrand]

There is no ambiguity of the listing, the listing says what it says and the NEC says what it says.

There sure is ambiguity, otherwise we wouldn't be here.

And I agree that the NEC says what it says. The NEC is silent about "appliance assembly", which produces no understanding one way or the other.