Power Bridge

[PowerBridgeTech]

I'd say you have a permanenetly installed outlet that is fed from a permanently installed inlet.

True that! But it will be argued it is not within Code regardless, because of the cord used to energize them. The cord is the problem, even though Code has a Permitted section for its use to energize the INLET. Apparently other applicable sections do not have bias, 400.8 over-rules all other sections in Code as to this installation.

ADD: just noticed you are NZ, no idea of Code 400.8, oops, sorry to reference.

 

[glene77is]

I'd say you have a permanenetly installed outlet
that is fed from a permanently installed inlet.

DBuckley,
Agreed.

IMO,
(1) It is a neat product. Better than dangling extension cords.

(2) I'd say you have a permanently installed extension cord.
(a) the Power-Bridge system has a permanently installed extension cord.
(b) the UPS system has a permanently installed extension cord.

(3) Have a problem with any permanently installed extension cord devices.

(4)
we are not going to resolve the issue of the function & application of extension cords.

(5) I have to move on, go fishing, get a job, or something.
So, Good luck on this long-winded discussion.

 

[iwire]

So, here we are, one week later, over 320 posts, nearly 6000 views, we even earned 5 GOLD Stars!
I have no idea if that is good or it means we've officially launched into Space.

It means we won American Idol.

It appears no matter what the Code references exist to allow, there is just as many to claim to not. I imagine the reason PowerBridge didn't propose to the Board several years ago was just this, no one can agree, but to disagree.

I think I've stated my "peace" with our bias to cite reference to installation in several sections for the individual listed components.
I've found myself repeating the same thing and each time is disallowed to the same reason and even with the same Code article.

Nothing to be puzzled about, we all have our own interpretations of NEC sections. If that was not the case this forum would not exist.

Let me try once more to point this out, our own opinions mean little, it is the AHJs opinion that matters.

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.

So no matter how strongly each of us feels about it, ultimately it is up to the AHJ to decide if this product is acceptable in their jurisdiction.

 

[mivey]

"Hackability"? Sorry you feel the product is "hack". That stings, ouch!

Not the product but the way it is used. I think the product is innovative, but it was pushed as a way to get in-wall receptacles by skirting around some of the requirements for fixed wiring.

As for making it a tool for hacks, I place a lot of the blame for that on your own advertising. I'm not sure if you understand this, but most electricians realize that the viewpoint expressed in the following is an open door for any hack to start installing receptacles without regard for whether or not they should be installed as fixed wiring:

From the PowerBridge Brochure

Save Money: No electrician needed. DIY, easy to install. Everything included, instructions and wall-cutout template, all you need is basic tools.

Can't argue against your bias with anything else, I'm outta bullets. Or I need a bigger gun.

I believe the code panel would be the best resource to get to the bottom line. Without a formal interpretation, we can sit here all day and make the different parts of the code conflict with each other because there is evidently enough ambiguity in the code to leave room for informal interpretations.

True that! But it will be argued it is not within Code regardless, because of the cord used to energize them. The cord is the problem, even though Code has a Permitted section for its use to energize the INLET. Apparently other applicable sections do not have bias, 400.8 over-rules all other sections in Code as to this installation.

But did it allow it as a replacement for fixed wiring? No regards to 210.50(B) as I mentioned earlier? You supposed earlier that maybe PowerBridge might be a way to provide the required receptacle but that changes the view from the PowerBridge brochure:

From the PowerBridge brouchure:

PowerBridge, does not make direct wired connection to the primary electrical premise-wire circuits. PowerBridge is not the same as installing a standard outlet receptacle, as it does not add to, create a new circuit, change or modify the premise wiring. PowerBridge is energized safely by plugging into the existing circuit from the front of any grounded outlet receptacle already rated for use to plug in an appliance such as your HDTV.

 

[mivey]

So no matter how strongly each of us feels about it, ultimately it is up to the AHJ to decide if this product is acceptable in their jurisdiction.

But what makes this a problem is that we have the ETL apparently saying one thing while the NEC says another. We call the NEC the final answer, but a listing agency has provided guns that we can load with different parts of the code so the code can shoot itself.

 

[iwire]

But what makes this a problem is that we have the ETL apparently saying one thing while the NEC says another. We call the NEC the final answer, but a listing agency has provided guns that we can load with different parts of the code so the code can shoot itself.

The NEC does not require an AHJ accept a product just because it has a listing.

Where I live they have amended 90.4 and part of the change to it requires the acceptance of listed products when used as intended. That being the case perhaps where I am they would have to accept it.

 

[renosteinke]

At some point, parties can adopt inrecconcialable difference of opinion. That's why our Constution specifically allows our courts to decide things "at common law." That is - the inspector red-tags it, and you get to ask a jury to decide. Good luck.

Article 90 makes clear that the NEC expects you to already know the trade - and for that, you need to know the 'ground rules.' To do otherwise is like trying to learn a language by reading a dictionary. Again, good luck with that.

"You can just unplug it every 90 days." Sure you can. Yet, We're limited to Article 300 wiring methods for permanent installations - and an extension cord isn't one of them. So what's permanent? 90 days, citation given.

Wait a moment ... the manufacturer has alread spoken- asserting innocence, he asks "where did I ever claim this was temporary?" Well, he can't have it both ways.

"But the TV requires replacement.? This 'kit' does not include the TV, so the TV is out of the picture. Even if we did include the TV .... that has nothing to do with the cord used between the inlet and the (supplying) outlet.

With the inlet and (supplying) outlet both being part of the wall, this is most certainly a permanent installation. Or does someone wish to assert that the boxes will be removed and the holes patched every 90 days?

I care not the NM is used within the wall. That cable has never been part of the discussion. Any mention of it is but an attempt to confuse the issue. Sure, "cable" can be misunderstood - but if I started to babble about a telegram from my Aunt Martha, I coubt anyone would think that was the 'cable' under discussion.

The only way this arrangement can be legal is if there is something 'temporary' about the use. That limitation is inferred by the use of the extension cord to supply power to that inlet. Since the inlet doesn't move, that implies that either the wall has to move, or the source of the power. That's how I found my examples of a trailer / display and the use of a UPS. Connecting to house power? Not allowed.

Listing, schmisting. Again, we look to the example of the 'illuminated clothes rod.' THAT clever guy actually had a UL listing. Since UL will not list something that the NEC does not allow, how did he accomplish that? There's a lesson in the story.
That manufacturer presented it to UL as a fixture for store displays. As such, there was no NEC prohibition. There was, however, specific NEC rules for lights in closets. The item was never evaluated or listed for use in closets. That folks chose to instal them in closets, in violation of the code, was not the manufacturers' problem. Why, look at the directions! We told you not to put them in closets!
Even so, this situation was so absurd that the NEC panel saw the wisdom of changing the code to allow the use of a fixture that was provably safe.
Prior to that change, the presence of the UL sticker did nothing to allow the use of the item where the NEC said it could not be used.

The same situation applies here. The NEC clearly forbids the use of this product as depicted.

Some have brought up those little outlet strips (again). And, again, I point out that this issue - whether they are 'temporary' or 'part of the building' was addressed when the UL standard was written to preclude their being permanently mounted.

The use of the product, as pictured, simply isn't legal. Either use it for a legal use, or change the code, or stop helping folks violate the NEC by not selling the things.

Otherwise, you're no different from the guys who sell all that indoor gardening stuff for your "tomato plants."

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

I'd say you have a permanenetly installed outlet that is fed from a permanently installed inlet.

DBuckley,
Agreed.

IMO,
(1) It is a neat product. Better than dangling extension cords.

(2) I'd say you have a permanently installed extension cord.
(a) the Power-Bridge system has a permanently installed extension cord.
(b) the UPS system has a permanently installed extension cord.

(3) Have a problem with any permanently installed extension cord devices.

(4)
we are not going to resolve the issue of the function & application of extension cords.

(5) I have to move on, go fishing, get a job, or something.
So, Good luck on this long-winded discussion.

Good luck with the fishy's!


My questions to all:
(A)How can the CORD be considered permanent?
(B)Where in Code is the reference AND definition being applied to permanance and specfic use of substitution of this cord?

(1)PowerBridge cord is not a locking end type.

(2)It's not attached to dwelling.
(a)It's not attached to the premise building wire circuit as a pendant.
(b)It is free from any source of permanance of attachement.

(3)It's "portable" can be unplugged and reconnected by a non-qualified person.

(4)It's a cord, like every cord used throughout the US/Canada, but in most cases is far more heavy duty.

(5)It's UL/CSA Listed for specific use.

(6)It's an EXTENSION cord, intended use is to EXTEND power.

(7)Inlets can only be energized from a CORD, without prejudice to duration.
(Inlets are recognized in Code. Do we ignore this?)

(8)Cords are recognized in NEC, cords are allowable.

(9)The cord is not replacement if used as an extension of existing circuit power to energize an INLET to an OUTLET of a dead-front to only energize an appliance, not a structures wiring.

(10)400.8 offers preclusive bias to reference 400.7 when the cord is used to meet any part of 400.7

We've been down the 400.8 path already.
The question I ask, where the definition that applies to the specific wording of 400.8 used to claim your substitution and permanance reasoning.
Inserting "claim" without definition is what is making this challanging.
Be the AHJ for me:
WHY specifically is 400.8(1) the bias to not allow.
Where is the REFERENCE as it cites in 400.8, it is vauge in it's meaning.
Could it incite, not to use a cord to bring power to a structure that doesn't have wiring? Just as a out-building or the loss of power in the building.

 

[iwire]

(A)How can the CORD be considered permanent?

I don't think it is, I think it is supplying 'permanent' wiring.

(B)Where in Code is the reference AND definition being applied to permanance and specfic use of substitution of this cord?

Not one piece of wire in a structure is actually 'permanent' all could be removed at any time.

Let me ask you this.

How can you possibly say that this cord is not taking the place of 'Chapter 3 wiring methods'? (ie; cable, pipe etc.)

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

I don't think it is, I think it is supplying 'permanent' wiring.




Not one piece of wire in a structure is actually 'permanent' all could be removed at any time.

Let me ask you this.

How can you possibly say that this cord is not taking the place of 'Chapter 3 wiring methods'? (ie; cable, pipe etc.)

How is the dead-front wiring between the INLET and OUTLET considered "a part of" the structures wiring or permanent wiring circuit. It is not "permanately" attached to the structured wiring, thus is not replacing by substitution or "a-part" of it either. It is attached to the dwelling as a seperate assembly of itself, and yes, could be removed as "itself" without modification of the premise wiring and would not require a qualified person, since it is not "part of" the live circuit.

How is the cord, a rated, listed, approved for use as an EXTENSION of circuit power, which is not "a-part-of" by attachemnt to the structure wiring by any method of 3.
I cite the cord is in no way C3 wiring, I've not made that claim in reference that it replaces it either. It is clearly doing what it is INTENDED to perform as Listed, EXTENDING the existing premise wiring, not replacing it. Circuit power wiring, has to exist prior to using the cord right?

You can use a hose to extend the water line, does that make it "a-part-of" the pipe? You can also attache the hose to an "appliance to distribute the supply. Isn't a hose also an extension if used as intended?

The cord is the same, it's a hose, or method of transfer of an existing supply to another device, not a substitution thereof.

 

[LarryFine]

How can you possibly say that this cord is not taking the place of 'Chapter 3 wiring methods'? (ie; cable, pipe etc.)

Even though you're asking Justin, my response is "Because there is no Ch. 3 method of accomplishing the same goal." (Hard-wired surge devices aside.)

I do not agree with simply plugging the male end of the cord into a premises receptacle. In that case, there's no excuse for not hard-wiring the receptacle.

The sole reason for the flexible cord link is to permit plugging into the same power-cleaning device the rest of the system uses, for minimal electrical noise.

That someone may plug the cord into a receptacle is no different than many other code rules that the end user might break that we installers cannot.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Let me ask you this.

How can you possibly say that this cord is not taking the place of 'Chapter 3 wiring methods'? (ie; cable, pipe etc.)

Asked and answered.

400.7 gives the permission to use the cord. As a result of the permission, the opening sentence of 400.8 prevents invoking the itemized sections of 400.8.

And here we are, rehashing it.

Some have dismished listing as meaningless. Well, have you ever tried to install a bath exhaust fan over a shower and avoid installing GFCI protection for it? That's not in the Code. You can't find it. Where is it, you ask, for those who don't know? It's in the listing. 110.3(B) is one of the most sacred of passages in the Holy Writ.

 

[CarlAshcraft]

Who should install this product?

Who should install this product?

Justin,

The question I have asked and several others have brought up that still hasn't been answered.

Who is the focus point of the product marketing? Is this product intended to be installed by a licensed master electrician or is this product intended to be installed by the average Joe Homeowner(DIY) or a Handyman?

 

[iwire]

Asked and answered.

400.7 gives the permission to use the cord. As a result of the permission, the opening sentence of 400.8 prevents invoking the itemized sections of 400.8.

And here we are, rehashing it.

Al, this unit is not an appliance, there is nothing in 400.7 that gives permission to use cord for this.

Some have dismished listing as meaningless. Well, have you ever tried to install a bath exhaust fan over a shower and avoid installing GFCI protection for it? That's not in the Code. You can't find it.

A listing can require more than the NEC it cannot allow less than the NEC.

 

[iwire]

Even though you're asking Justin, my response is "Because there is no Ch. 3 method of accomplishing the same goal." (Hard-wired surge devices aside.)

Larry that is simple not true.

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

Justin,

The question I have asked and several others have brought up that still hasn't been answered.

Who is the focus point of the product marketing? Is this product intended to be installed by a licensed master electrician or is this product intended to be installed by the average Joe Homeowner(DIY) or a Handyman?

Carl,

Respectfully, the manufacture nor the NEC have any jursidiction of licensing of who or what is required to be installed by a qualified person.

In every state to my knowledge, a HO in his(er) established residence can perform this installation without the need of a QP.

As to permits, again NEC is not an AHJ who has dictation of this. However, it could be argued the installation of a PowerBridge in NO WAY can be asserted to modify, change, alter or in-method of direct wiring to the premise wiring.
Does an installation where no change or modification or addition to the premise structure wiring system require an inspection? Is a permit pulled everytime a branch extension is made? Is it even required?
Depends on the state AHJ definition of requirement for permits.

ie, in CA a C10 license is required for any charge for service of $500. Aside from that specific citation, you as a QP would need to determine with the AHJ.

I'm sure this topic will be further addressed, but this thread isn't calling out to who can install it, it a question of the power supply cord used and how an AHJ cites its use or non-use. That's our primary objective.

 

[renosteinke]

PowerBridge uses a temporary wiring method - the extension cord - to connect two permanent parts of the house wiring. This method is not allowed, whether the parts are on the same wall, or were you to use a similat arrangement to bring power to a detached garage. The code is quite clear on this point - and all the blather about 'not extending the permanent wiring' is just so much eyewash. That's exactly what it does.

Regarding the 'water hose' analogy ... I'm no plumber, but I bet the plumbing code would not allow a comparable use in your house, either.

 

[al hildenbrand]

A listing can require more than the NEC it cannot allow less than the NEC.

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.

"In Wall Electrical Appliance Assembly" is very possibly part of an appliance. The ambiguity can not be dismissed without further developments. A single published AHJ stance on the product, or group of products, is one such development, but hardly definitive.

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

This thread does a great job of summarizing the views on the various sides of the issue. IMO, further development in language that is enforceable is needed.

Personally, and parenthetically, I have delighted in the discussion involving INLET. Its meaning is as interesting and complex as that of OUTLET.

Charlie, early in this thread, referenced an old discussion about OUTLET. For those interested clicking here will take you to my summary at the end of that old discussion. The meat of the discussion is in the posts around mine. That old thread still holds the record as the longest thread this Forum has engaged in. Cosmetically, there are artifacts created from a Forum software upgrade that are scattered throughout the archives, but they don't affect the accuracy of the content.

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

Al, this unit is not an appliance, there is nothing in 400.7 that gives permission to use cord for this.



A listing can require more than the NEC it cannot allow less than the NEC.

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.

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

Is this considered a substitution of a structures wiring?

Is this considered a substitution of a structures wiring?

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.

This "extension" is attached to the surface of the wall and mudded and painted over as concealed. It is an EXTENSION, fastened to the sturcture as "permanent", (although permanance has nothing to do with 400.8(1))

It plugs into the existing power wired outlet, has a receptacle on the other end to plug the TV into. It's an extension or substitute for fixed wired receptacle?

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

I understand it has an ARTICLE to attach to, but the concept of transferance is the same, extending existing power from A-B without being "a-part-of" the structures wiring has hardwired. Isn't an EXTENSION an EXTENSION transfering the same circuit to another location?

Let's explore the variable similar components and what is different, I'm looking forward to your citations.