Power Bridge

[mivey]

I don't think this would be code compliant but wouldn't it make sense for the manufactorer to go to the NFPA for an opinion?

That would be good. How about it Justin?

 

[hurk27]

I kind of stayed out of this debate as I myself didn't see much wrong with this idea, as I have done very similar installs to achieve the same results, manly for prevention of entertainment systems sound systems from winding up on different circuits, and so they could all be supplied from the same source whether that be a surge system, line conditioner, or a UPS system, many times the sub woofer will wind up on another side of the room plugged into an outlet from another circuit which can present problems with near field lightning strikes as I have posted about many times on here.

But what I'm seeing is this is a UL listed system and listed to be installed as a system, how is this any different then the requirements of many LV lighting systems we install as a complete system? I know here in Indiana if this system has a UL listing then its good to go, and I have read that in most states this is also true.
To me if a system (not just the components) is UL listed then it should be above the authority of the AHJ, to deny this would bring the respective manufacture at odds with this AHJ and possible litigation for breach of freedom of commence.

Would this be any different from a car manufacture building a car and having it pass all the federal requirements to only have a local authority to deny the sale of that car in there area because it has a 150 mph speedometer?

As for the legal part I know there is allot more to this, but in my opinion this is what I feel is right.

 

[mivey]

That doesn't mean anything, it's not a "tripple dog dare".

I did not want to bring out the big guns right off the bat.:grin:

Anyways, let me ask a few questions to the naysayers.

At what time and point does this installation become a code violation?

Is it a violation when the two boxes, devices, and NM is installed in the walls with no power applied?

If the answer is yes, then where can I find in the NEC that it is a violation to have wiring installed in a building with out power to it?

no

Is it a violation to use an inlet to feed in wall wiring?

I really don't know. But when you power up an in-wall wired receptacle with an extension cord it sure feels like it. Too much inbreeding between premise wiring and utilization wiring. The other issue is that we don't know who it belongs too (who is the governing authority) so it looks too much like a loophole.

I know that's weak, but I am being wishy-washy until I can reach a conclusion.

 

[iwire]

Anyways, let me ask a few questions to the naysayers.

At what time and point does this installation become a code violation?

Is it a violation when the two boxes, devices, and NM is installed in the walls with no power applied?

If the answer is yes, then where can I find in the NEC that it is a violation to have wiring installed in a building with out power to it?

Where can I find the section of the NEC that says it only applies to live equipment?

 

[mivey]

I kind of stayed out of this debate as I myself didn't see much wrong with this idea, as I have done very similar installs to achieve the same results,

And I did not remember having any heartache when Larry posted the devices he made a while back. The difference is I have confidence in Larry's work but these kits are essentially allowing open range for anyone of any skill set to install what is essentially house wiring without meeting any kind of qualifications or having any kind of oversight. I thought we were trying to migrate away from that as a society.

But what I'm seeing is this is a UL listed system and listed to be installed as a system, how is this any different then the requirements of many LV lighting systems we install as a complete system? I know here in Indiana if this system has a UL listing then its good to go, and I have read that in most states this is also true.
To me if a system (not just the components) is UL listed then it should be above the authority of the AHJ, to deny this would bring the respective manufacture at odds with this AHJ and possible litigation for breach of freedom of commence.

The breakers, wire, panels, etc. we install are also UL listed but there is at least oversight on our industry as to the craftsmanship, responsibilities, etc.

Would this be any different from a car manufacture building a car and having it pass all the federal requirements to only have a local authority to deny the sale of that car in there area because it has a 150 mph speedometer?

The difference is that the built car passed inspection post assembly or that the assemblers and assembly line were certified and sample tested. What this kit does is allows us to go to the auto supply store, buy the certified/listed parts so we can assemble a car under a shade tree.

I work on my own vehicles so I'm not knocking that in general, but does that mean I'm qualified to build cars to run down the highway? What if I had never built a car but just had the desire (like a handy-man), can I just go build a car for somebody to drive down the highway just because they paid me?

 

[mivey]

Where can I find the section of the NEC that says it only applies to live equipment?

Up until it's energized, it is just a piece of artwork. That must be there somewhere.

Maybe 90.1?

(A) Practical Safeguarding. The purpose of this Code is the practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electricity.

Without electricity use, the code is of non-effect?

 

[iwire]

Up until it's energized, it is just a piece of artwork. That must be there somewhere.

I think you are assuming.


Take a peek at 90.2

90.2 Scope.
(A) Covered. This Code covers the installation of electrical
conductors, equipment, and raceways; signaling and
communications conductors, equipment, and raceways; and
optical fiber cables and raceways for the following:

(1) Public and private premises, including buildings, structures,
mobile homes, recreational vehicles, and floating
buildings

(2) Yards, lots, parking lots, carnivals, and industrial
substations

(3) Installations of conductors and equipment that connect
to the supply of electricity

(4) Installations used by the electric utility, such as office
buildings, warehouses, garages, machine shops, and
recreational buildings, that are not an integral part of a
generating plant, substation, or control center.

I see nothing in there about things being energized or dead.

I do see a clear statement that is covers equipment that connects to the supply of electricity, not 'connected' but 'connects'.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Up until it's energized, it is just a piece of artwork. That must be there somewhere.

What about switched legs? Do they dissappear from the Premises Wiring (System) when the switch is off?

 

[al hildenbrand]

I do see a clear statement that is covers equipment that connects to the supply of electricity, not 'connected' but 'connects'.

The switched leg, when the switch is off, no longer "connects" to the supply of energy.

 

[mivey]

I see nothing in there about things being energized or dead.

I'll buy that. I'll assume Roger would say you can't prove it.

I do see a clear statement that is covers equipment that connects to the supply of electricity, not 'connected' but 'connects'.

That's what bugs me. Where is it covered? Is this set-up falling between the cracks? It keeps sounding like to me the proponents are arguing both sides of the fence: it meets code but doesn't have to.

 

[mivey]

What about switched legs? Do they dissappear from the Premises Wiring (System) when the switch is off?

Nah, they were energized and will be again or are intended to be. I think Roger was saying we could pretend it was not going to be hooked up.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

So here we are at post 131 or so and Roger in post #5 said-- How is this different than any stand by generator systems. Most portable generators have a box that has a male end type receptacle that feeds the panel thru a rubber cord from the generator. I don't see this install being much different.

 

[mivey]

So here we are at post 131 or so and Roger in post #5 said-- How is this different than any stand by generator systems. Most portable generators have a box that has a male end type receptacle that feeds the panel thru a rubber cord from the generator. I don't see this install being much different.

So those installs are not governed by the NEC either?

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

That would be good. How about it Justin?

We have several years ago. I was not involved with those discussions so I can't tell you word for word. The conclusion I've been told was the NEC did not see where to place this kit as a section of code.
The basis was the parts within the kit all have their section of relevance to installation.

The outlet/receptacle has its basis. The Inlet has its basis as do the junction boxes and cord-set. They all exist in the domain of the NEC

The basis was compared to taking a cover plate from manufacture "A" and installing it with a switch from "B" installing into a j-box from "C" and building wire from "D".

As long as the listed components are installed to what exists in the NEC, which was all that was necessary to install the components of a PowerBridge kit.

PowerBridge did not invent some new product, requiring a new method of installation protocol it only took and re-engineered certain components together to connect together as a kit. The NEC said we could apply for a finding for article application. The cost is extreme for a small company to bear and without a utility patent available that cost was not a value considering other similar products exist, who would benefit without investment.
PowerBridge felt is better to have an agency listing for the kit together than expend to a possible specific code article to apply.
When an AHJ such as WA State has called out the use of the flexible cord as a fixed substitute wiring of a structure, that is an issue to address with the AHJ, not the NEC. The basis in WA is incorrect we believe and is being argued here as not applicable as well. Some here are concerned with the naming of the outlet and inlet and receptacle and attachment plugs. These are not the issue with WA State AHJ
No one has brought up the USES PERMITTED of the flexible cord; it supersedes uses not permitted if use is met.

Section 400.8 USES NOT PERMITTED starts with the wording: Unless specifically permitted in 400.7

We find this interesting as 400.7 USES PERMITTED (A) USES
(3) Connection of portable luminaries, portable and mobile signs, or appliances.
KEY WORD> Appliances (TV)
(8) Appliances where the fastening means and mechanical connections are specifically designed to permit ready removal for maintenance and repair, and the appliance is intended or identified for flexible cord connection.
The PowerBridge ETL listing specifically indentifies our IN WALL ELECTRICAL APPLIANCE to be used with a cord-set to energize.

The INLET is specifically called out in 406.6 (D) Flanged Surface Inlet. A flanged surface inlet shall be installed such that the prongs, blades, or pins are not energized unless an energized cord and connector is inserted into it.

The start of the thread is the question of what WA State has determined. We believe their interpretation of the Code is incorrect, and some here also believe the same. We are filing an Appeal to review the decision they have written in a letter, not actually changed in the WA code that we are aware of thus far.

As a note, no other AHJ has contacted us or made any claim of violation in the past 4 years of the product kit being available.

Regards,
Justin

 

[Dennis Alwon]

So those installs are not governed by the NEC either?

They are as they are tied into the panels. Even if this is an NEC issue all parts are listed and approved. I can't lose sleep over it. :grin:

 

[mivey]

As a note, no other AHJ has contacted us or made any claim of violation in the past 4 years of the product kit being available.

Regards,
Justin

Thanks. I suspect there may be some AHJ that don't know what to do with it. What do you do with an odd-looking beast: ignore it, shoot it, poke it, or pet it? I'm still poking it with a stick. :grin:

 

[mivey]

I can't lose sleep over it. :grin:

Until you get home and find out the wife had Handy Hank come by and put one in since you hadn't gotten around to it yet. :grin:

 

[roger]

Where can I find the section of the NEC that says it only applies to live equipment?

That's the point, it doesn't, so forgetting the cord assembly, you tell me, what is the violation of installing the other components of this system?

It seems to me that there is a lot of straw grasping trying to find a problem with installing two cut in boxes, a piece of NM, and two devices.

Roger

 

[iwire]

The switched leg, when the switch is off, no longer "connects" to the supply of energy.

It is wiring that will connect to the supply of electricity.

That was exactly my point, the code applies to things that will connect not 'are connected'.

 

[iwire]

So here we are at post 131 or so and Roger in post #5 said-- How is this different than any stand by generator systems. Most portable generators have a box that has a male end type receptacle that feeds the panel thru a rubber cord from the generator. I don't see this install being much different.

I gave my answer of the difference way back when Roger asked that.


BTW, at no point have I said I think the installation is a danger.