Power Bridge

[tom baker]

This product
http://www.powerbridgesolution.com/powerbridgeproducts/singlesolutionkits.html
Its an inlet wired to a receptacle via romex.

It is used for HDTVs and the mfg states is it an approved product, but our AHJs won't allow as it uses a cord from the UPS to the wall inlet.

Any one used this or any similar product? Any issues?

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

PowerBridge Response

PowerBridge Response

Hello to all. As you can see, I am (Justin) with the manufacturer of PowerBridge. I was alerted of this post and thought I could review our perspective to this question.
I promise I am not here to promote or sell anything, this is a highly respected community of professionals and will act professionally in my replies.
I am here to listen, and clairify claims regarding to PowerBridge. As any manufacture, we respect opinions and AHJ assessments as they have final jurisdiction.

Tom, Thank you for bringing this to discussion.

For those not familiar with PowerBridge, it was created in 2006 as a relocation extension kit to meet code compliancy when installed with jurisdiction approved in-wall building wire and j-boxes to connect a recessed outlet installed behind a wall mounted TV directly wired to a recessed inlet wall plate.
These are not installed to the circuit premise wiring to be energized.
The benefit of this two-part wall plate combination is to allow a cord-set to plug into an external power surge/conditioner device to protect the expensive plasma/LCD TV on the wall where it is not possible to have a full protection component connected.

We were just recently, made aware of this in WA state. Based on article written by Ron Fuller "Electrcial Currents -Dec 2009".

We have never been contacted by Mr. Fuller or any AHJ from the state of Washington with regard to this subjective assessment of the use of a UL listed cord-set supplied in our extension kits. The claim is, the cord-set supplied is somehow used as a substitution for fixed wiring.

NEC 408.4 (1) says that flexible cords and cables must not be used as a substitute for the fixed wiring of a structure.
This is the only basis Mr. Fuller has claimed for all extension kits to not meet WA acceptance.

Our confusion with Mr. Fullers claim, PowerBridge is not installed and not made part of the structure premise wiring in any permanent fixed manor. It does not modify, become part of, or change the existing premise power circuit load rated to plug into the front of the circuit.
The PowerBridge design is specific to allow disconnection of power at both source and appliance INPUT (INLET)
It can be unplugged at any time by user from either end, no different than any cord-set used for an appliance device and called out to conform allowable use within the UL standard for cord-sets.
The supplied cord-set is not attached as a substitute for wiring.
The supplied UL/CSA listed cord-set conforms to energize the appliance to the wall mounted display, not any circuit or structures electrical premise wiring circuit. The PowerBridge does not branch to other outlets or circuits, only the one supplied with the extension kit.

Inside the wall, proper code compliant building wire (ROMEX) NM-type or MC-type and correct j-boxes are to be used for the fixed-direct-wired extension portion of a PowerBridge installation. This is not considered a branch extension as it does not actually branch from the premise wired circuit. It is plugged in, to energize, not hard-wired.

With respect to Mr. Fullers assesment in the state of WA we will soon be in contact with his office to further understand and open communication to the basis of claim.

I invite your comments and understand some of you may not accept what the PowerBridge benefit offers beyond having a receptacle installed direct to the circuit.

Regards, Justin, PowerBridge.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I agree with Justin on this as we are installing one of these or a similar product on a job I am working on. All we do is wire from one box to another to create an extension cord of romex thru the wall so the TV and a remote DVD can be on the same circuit to avoid -- I am told- a ground loop situation.

I can see how someone would see this as an issue however to me is is no different then a TV being plugged in and saying the TV is part of the fixed wiring system. It is not part of the system in my eyes.

 

[iwire]

I do not agree with Justin, his argument would justify powering an entire room with cords.

In my opinion there is no doubt that the device is designed and intended to be used as a substitute for the fixed wiring of a structure.

That is evidenced by the fact it is 'installed' into the structure.

I also point out 90.4

90.4 Enforcement. This Code is intended to be suitable
for mandatory application by governmental bodies that exercise
legal jurisdiction over electrical installations, including
signaling and communications systems, and for use by
insurance inspectors. The authority having jurisdiction for
enforcement of the Code has the responsibility for making
interpretations of the rules, for deciding on the approval of
equipment and materials, and for granting the special permission
contemplated in a number of the rules.


By special permission, the authority having jurisdiction
may waive specific requirements in this Code or permit
alternative methods where it is assured that equivalent objectives
can be achieved by establishing and maintaining
effective safety.

This Code may require new products, constructions, or
materials that may not yet be available at the time the Code
is adopted. In such event, the authority having jurisdiction
may permit the use of the products, constructions, or materials
that comply with the most recent previous edition of
this Code adopted by the jurisdiction.

 

[roger]

I also agree with Justin. This would be no different than many stand by generator installations as far as plug connecting in wall wiring is concerned.

IMO, unless Mr Fuller can point out where an in wall permanent wiring method (NM cable) can not be plug fed, I don't see where he has an argument.

Roger

 

[jumper]

While I personally have no problem with the product, it is what it is:an extension cord. Just because you use a NM cable in the wall: it is still an extension "cord" never the less IMO.

Is this set up code compliant: maybe, possibly, probably? IDK

The whole gizmo is not really different than if I used an extension cord and ran it draped up the wall, this just looks better.

 

[iwire]

Often when I say that I think the NEC applies 'past the outlet' I am told 'No, because such and such is not installed'.

Well clearly this product is installed in the building and it is taking the place of a 'hardwired' receptacle.

Again to me it is clearly a violation.

 

[mivey]

...so the TV and a remote DVD can be on the same circuit to avoid -- I am told- a ground loop situation.

Which can also be accomplished by installing a receptacle in the normal fashion.

I can see how someone would see this as an issue however to me is is no different then a TV being plugged in and saying the TV is part of the fixed wiring system. It is not part of the system in my eyes.

But it is about as plain a case of substituting for fixed wiring as you can get.

 

[mivey]

I do not agree with Justin, his argument would justify powering an entire room with cords.

I agree. A good example could be made in Photoshop but I'm sure we can picture the scenarios in our heads. If there is no restriction, we could just start making branch circuit extensions all over the place using extension cords.

 

[roger]

Well clearly this product is installed in the building and it is taking the place of a 'hardwired' receptacle.

The receptacle is hard wired with NM cable, there is nothing requiring it to have power assuming the required receptacles are in place.

IOW's, the in wall portion is legal and what supplies it's power it is not part of the premise wiring system.

Once again, if back feeding a generator panel this way is legal why is this different.

I do agree with mivey though, if I am going to fish wire into a wall I would probably feed it from another device or back to the load center.


Roger

 

[mivey]

..the in wall portion is legal...

Can you cite the code section that covers this installation?

 

[iwire]

Once again, if back feeding a generator panel this way is legal why is this different.

I am not following you there, as the only part of the generator connection that is cord is temporary and is allowed.

In this case the cord is permanent to supply an installed hardwired outlet.

Consider this, the CMPs felt the need to have a section in the code to allow office cubicles to be supplied from a cord and plug. Essentially the same thing, a rubber cord supplying room receptacles.

 

[roger]

Can you cite the code section that covers this installation?

Article 334.30(B)

Roger

 

[al hildenbrand]

Can you cite the code section that covers this installation?

2008 NEC
Article 400 Flexible Cords and Cables
I. General
400.1 Scope. This article covers general requirements, applications, and construction specifications for flexible cords and flexible cables.

And this passage, immediately following 400.1, from the NEC Handbook: Flexible cords and cables, because of the nature of their use, are not considered to be wiring methods. Wiring methods are covered in Chapter 3 of the Code. Careful study of 400.7, Uses Permitted, and 400.8, Uses Not Permitted, is required before choosing flexible cords or cables for a specific application.

2008 NEC
Article 400 Flexible Cords and Cables
I. General
400.4 Types. Flexible cords and flexible cables shall conform to the description in Table 400.4. Types of flexible cords and flexible cables other than those listed in the table shall be the subject of special investigation.

In a nutshell, NM-B or MC, used between the Inlet and Outlet, are Chapter 3 wiring methods.

I believe the fundamental error in trying to apply 400.8 is that the use of the word "cable" is not understood correctly to be "flexible cable" as described in 400.4 and Table 400.4.

Quite simply, the "Power Bridge" as shown in the link Tom provides in the OP, is outside of the Scope (400.1) of Article 400.

 

[iwire]

Quite simply, the "Power Bridge" as shown in the link Tom provides in the OP, is outside of the Scope (400.1) of Article 400.

Quite simply that is your opinion, not necessarily a fact.

 

[roger]

I am not following you there, as the only part of the generator connection that is cord is temporary and is allowed.

In this case the cord is permanent to supply an installed hardwired outlet.

If this cord is unplugged for any reason say for cleaning, it is now a temporary connection.

Consider this, the CMPs felt the need to have a section in the code to allow office cubicles to be supplied from a cord and plug. Essentially the same thing, a rubber cord supplying room receptacles.

And since this is a realitively new product it simply has not been addressed but, in as much as the in wall part is legal per 334 there is not a problem IMO.

I would simply leave it unpowered until all inspections are done, kind of like blanking off a switch and a Lighting Outlet.

Roger

 

[al hildenbrand]

Quite simply that is your opinion, not necessarily a fact.

The in-wall components in the Power Bridge kit are not in Table 400.4. This is provable by observing the components and the Table.

If there is no "flexible cable" or "flexible cord" in the in-wall components of the Power Bridge kit, nothing included in the in-wall portion of the kit is within the described 400.1 Scope. Again, this is self evident.

If nothing in the in-wall portion of the Power Bridge kit is within the Scope of Article 400, then one can't invoke 400.8, which includes the (used) "as a substitute for the fixed wiring of a structure" clause.

Without 400.8(1), one can't fault the Power Bridge . . .

. . .

IMO.

 

[charlie b]

I am not ready to offer an opinion, because I am not sure I understand the concept. Tell me if I have this right:
1. You permanently mount a standard (single or duplex) receptacle outlet high on the wall, at the location of the TV mounting chassis.
2. At the more usual receptacle height, and directly below item #1, you permanently mount a ?thingy that looks like a receptacle, but has male connections visible sticking out from the wall.?
3. Within the wall, you use an allowable wiring method to permanently connect items 1 and 2.
4. You now use something that resembles a conventional extension cord, plugging the male end into a standard receptacle outlet, and plugging the female end into item #2.
5. What this gains for you is the ability to have a new receptacle for the TV, without using an allowable wiring method within the walls to permanently connect the new receptacle as an extension of the circuit serving the existing one.

If that is how this system works, then how does it get past the second sentence of 406.6(B)? By my reading of the article 100 definition of ?receptacle,? that definition does cover ?Item 2? above.

 

[roger]

2. At the more usual receptacle height, and directly below item #1, you permanently mount a ?thingy that looks like a receptacle, but has male connections visible sticking out from the wall.?

If that is how this system works, then how does it get past the second sentence of 406.6(B)? By my reading of the article 100 definition of ?receptacle,? that definition does cover ?Item 2? above.

Charlie, 406.6(A) covers the attachment plug which must be plugged into a female cord cap. The attachment plug is not a "receptacle"

Roger

 

[al hildenbrand]

If that is how this system works, then how does it get past the second sentence of 406.6(B)?

406.6(B) is the rule prohibiting a cord with a male end on each end. Plugging in one male end to an energized receptacle results in the other male end's exposed male blades being energized.

The Power Bridge does not have a "double male" configuration.