Power Bridge

[mivey]

Sure ya can. Just put an extension on the driver.

You da man!:grin:

 

[al hildenbrand]

[b]Passed 500 and we BROKE the Forum ! ! [/b]

Passed 500 and we BROKE the Forum ! !

Heh!

I just posted 501 or 502 and I can't get on to the 51st page. ! ?

I think this thread broke the Forum !

:grin::roll:

 

[al hildenbrand]

Oh, wait, it's back now.

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

How about:
Flexible cord is not listed as an approved wiring method but there are specific exceptions where is is allowed under certain conditions.

The place where it does allow them to serve as branch circuit conductors in general is in the temporary wiring section of the code. Thus the designation of extension cords as temporary.

Respectfully, I have not made claim the cord, which is EXTERNAL in use, not "a- part" of the structure, is in any manor an approved wiring method.

590.3 Time Constraints: does not cite the use of an EXTENSION cord itself as "temporary use" in this or any SPECIFIC USE application. Infact the word extension or flexible cord is not referenced in that section at all. Where do you assert your logic to bias your claim, first as to temporary, second as to impling the cord is considered any type of a specified wiring method?

Why ignore the fact, PowerBridge is a Listed Assembly with a SPECIFIED PURPOSE and cites the SPECIFIED use of the cord and applicable uses permitted in 400.7 can be applied. Please stop referring the cord as a wiring method, its an EXTENSION of the premise wiring methods in use of the structures wiring system.

It's called out as an EXTENSION cord and listed as such.
Why are you changing the use and definition?
Can I cite your "Ford Cargo Van" as a "Chevrolet Corvette" just because they both derive energy from the same gas station source? They are nothing alike, other than they both drive down the road and use gas. An extension cord passes AC power as does in-wall ROMEX, but do not have the same applicable specified use.

Code doesn't play AHJ and does not ignore Listed as to application to cite Code. I understand the AHJ can accept if they want or not, let's stay within the NEC and claim acceptance of our listing to reference Specified Purpose.

Thanks

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

If energized using accepted wiring methods, this is part of a branch circuit as it is in the path between the utilization outlet and the branch overcurrent protection.

add: Assume no lights on the source circuit so we can call it part of an Appliance Branch Circuit.

Fair enough, you went further in your answer than I asked.
So far, it's not energized in the example installation. What is this?, assuming it is not energized.

 

[mivey]

Respectfully, I have not made claim the cord, which is EXTERNAL in use, not "a- part" of the structure, is in any manor an approved wiring method.

590.3 Time Constraints: does not cite the use of an EXTENSION cord itself as "temporary use" in this or any SPECIFIC USE application. Infact the word extension or flexible cord is not referenced in that section at all. Where do you assert your logic to bias your claim, first as to temporary, second as to impling the cord is considered any type of a specified wiring method?

The other uses for flexible cable are specified in the other parts of the code. The only place I can find where the use in this application might fall is here:

590.4(C) Branch Circuits. All branch circuits shall originate in an approved power outlet or panelboard. Conductors shall be permitted within cable assemblies or within multiconductor cord or cable of a type identified in Table 400.4 for hard usage or extra-hard usage.

Why ignore the fact, PowerBridge is a Listed Assembly with a SPECIFIED PURPOSE and cites the SPECIFIED use of the cord and applicable uses permitted in 400.7 can be applied. Please stop referring the cord as a wiring method, its an EXTENSION of the premise wiring methods in use of the structures wiring system.

Permitted extension methods are cited in chapter 3. The method you propose as an extension is not.

It's called out as an EXTENSION cord and listed as such.
Why are you changing the use and definition?

Because you want to use it to provide a required fixed receptacle. If you want to call it an extension cord, show me where in the code that extension cords are approved methods to power receptacles other than in Article 590.

Can I cite your "Ford Cargo Van" as a "Chevrolet Corvette" just because they both derive energy from the same gas station source? They are nothing alike, other than they both drive down the road and use gas. An extension cord passes AC power as does in-wall ROMEX, but do not have the same applicable specified use.

Code doesn't play AHJ and does not ignore Listed as to application to cite Code. I understand the AHJ can accept if they want or not, let's stay within the NEC and claim acceptance of our listing to reference Specified Purpose.

Thanks

With all due respect, listing does not guarantee acceptance within the NEC. The AHJ that rejected your device said as much. They saw cause to not claim acceptance of the listing. That is why we are having this discussion.

In the course of this discussion, this device has been called several things, from an appliance to a simple extension cord. Find me authorities that allow permanent installations of extension cords.

There are specific places where extension cord type installations are permitted in the code but that is it. A couple that come to mind are cubicles and display cases.

Some here think they have a valid beef. Some do not. We are discussing any issues people may have with the device.

 

[mivey]

Fair enough, you went further in your answer than I asked.

You kind of have to. You can't just wave a device in the air and ask what section of the code it is eventually going to fall under.

So far, it's not energized in the example installation. What is this?, assuming it is not energized.

If it is not energized, and has no intention of being energized, it is a piece of art work. The classification will depend on how a device is used or is intended to be used.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Because you want to use it to provide a required fixed receptacle.

That's just plain wrong.

 

[al hildenbrand]

If you want to call it an extension cord, show me where in the code that extension cords are approved methods to power receptacles other than in Article 590.

Again, 110.3(B). The listing description on the Intertek ETL Listed Mark Authorization to Mark document for the PowerBridge is:

The Model TSPBIW is an in-wall electrical appliance assembly consisting of receptacle or plug along with wall housing and electrical box to provide ease of connection from existing existing a.c. power source to appliances. An access opening is provided to route interface cables between electrical appliances.
The Model SSPBIW is similar to TSPBIW except SSPBIW is used for AC power routing only.

Doesn't matter what this thread calls it. 110.3(B) refers us to the NRTL documentation.

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

You kind of have to. You can't just wave a device in the air and ask what section of the code it is eventually going to fall under..

Why not? You would if you had say just an outlet by itself, you would refer to Code to determine how to install it. Right?
This example installation is an assembly of Listed devices, each cited in Code currently, why not refer to their perspective sections to determine how.
Is there anything in Code to reference these devices should not be connected/installed together?

If it is not energized, and has no intention of being energized, it is a piece of art work. The classification will depend on how a device is used or is intended to be used.

To know the intended use, would you not refer to instruction manuals or a Listing Report? Code calls that to be the case, install devices to their prespective instructions or labeling or Listing. Right?

 

[mivey]

That's just plain wrong.

Not according to many AHJs, OSHA, code authorities, reference books ...

 

[mivey]

Why not? You would if you had say just an outlet by itself, you would refer to Code to determine how to install it. Right?
This example installation is an assembly of Listed devices, each cited in Code currently, why not refer to their perspective sections to determine how.
Is there anything in Code to reference these devices should not be connected/installed together?

To know the intended use, would you not refer to instruction manuals or a Listing Report? Code calls that to be the case, install devices to their prespective instructions or labeling or Listing. Right?

It is simply not that simple. There is more than one way to install many things in the code, depending on their application. They can also be called different things, depending on their application. Different sections of the code can come into play, depending on their application.

 

[al hildenbrand]

If energized using accepted wiring methods, this is part of a branch circuit as it is in the path between the utilization outlet and the branch overcurrent protection.

Show that one to me in Code language. Show me "utilization outlet" and a definition of what it is, please.

Assume no lights on the source circuit so we can call it part of an Appliance Branch Circuit.

Carful Justin. Branch Circuit, Appliance is a highly loaded three word term in the NEC.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Not according to many AHJs, OSHA, code authorities, reference books ...

All opinion. Do it with language from the Code.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Not according to many AHJs, OSHA, code authorities, reference books ...

You mean like the 1993 and 1996 references you brought in earlier, where Mark Ode is giving his opinion on old Code not in existence today?

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

It is simply not that simple. There is more than one way to install many things in the code, depending on their application. They can also be called different things, depending on their application. Different sections of the code can come into play, depending on their application.

Fair enough again. I wasn't asking about other devices. What would you call this assembly of these devices and is this installation as itself compliant based on the Code to apply to each device as the example is.

I know you understand the direction I'm heading here, trying a different flashlight to help see possible different views.

 

[hurk27]

You know if this thead keeps going, it's going to pass up Bob (I-Wire)'s post count

 

[LarryFine]

In a transient condition, having all of the associated electronic boxes, interconnected with various signal and power cables, experiencing the same "scrubbing" of the transient laced power helps to minimize pass thru from component to component.

I wish I had said that. :grin:




(No, I'm not saying I did; I really wish I had.)

 

[LarryFine]

Sure ya can. Just put an extension on the driver.

Is it okay if part of that extension goes through the wall, as long as that part is made with parts approved for in-wall use? :grin:

 

[LarryFine]

You know if this thead keeps going, it's going to pass up Bob (I-Wire)'s post count

It's gotta get past me first!



"Goodnight, Gracy."