Power Bridge

[mivey]

So I really could permanently feed my shop receptacles by using an extension cord? It just seems like we are using a cord as a section of the branch circuit conductors. Maybe not, but that is just how it feels.

Granted this is new so I haven't got my mind wrapped around it, but it hasn't passed the icky test. :grin:

 

[al hildenbrand]

So I really could permanently feed my shop receptacles by using an extension cord?

. . . but it hasn't passed the icky test. :grin:

Heh!

To help with the "icky test", consider Roger's example of the standby generator.

In my own dwelling, I have a power inlet that is cord and plug connected to my generator.

If the grid were down, I could "permanently" feed my whole dwelling and shop with an extension cord, for any amount of time necessary.

Thinking of the Power Bridge, what if I don't plug it into a receptacle outlet supplied by the Premises Wiring (System) but rather plug it into a separately derived system. . . is that any different? I think not.

 

[charlie b]

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

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.

Read it again, guys. The second sentence of 406.6(B) is talking about receptacles. You cannot cause a receptacle to become energized by plugging in an energized attachment cord. One (obviously dangerous and totally illegal) way to do that is the way Al described. But this concept also achieves the same thing: you connect an energized attachment plug to a receptacle, and that causes the receptacle to become energized. Please note that the wording of the definition of ?receptacle? does not exclude the item under discussion: a permanently mounted device that has male connectors visible.

 

[roger]

Read it again, guys. The second sentence of 406.6(B) is talking about receptacles. You cannot cause a receptacle to become energized by plugging in an energized attachment cord.

Correct, the product is not doing this, the attachment plug is not energized, the extension cord is.

(B) Connection of Attachment Plugs. Attachment plugs shall be installed so that their prongs, blades, or pins are not energized unless inserted into an energized receptacle or cord connectors.

This is what is being done.

If we were to use the attachment plug as the live end of the extension cord we would be violating the next sentence.

No receptacle shall be installed so as to require the insertion of an energized attachment plug as its source of supply.

Roger

 

[mivey]

...a permanently mounted device that has male connectors visible.

:grin: Also known as an inlet receptacle. I seem to recall Larry or 480 had made up some kind of device using the flanged version but the thread escapes me.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Read it again, guys. The second sentence of 406.6(B) is talking about receptacles. You cannot cause a receptacle to become energized by plugging in an energized attachment cord.

You are almost getting it. But your typing "cord" is the error. 406.6(B) is not about whether the cord is energized, rather whether a cord cap with exposed conductive parts become energized without being inside a receptacle first.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

When we wire from one device to the next it is basically an extension cord thru the wall. I will go so far as to say that the nec should have no say in this at all. If I run a piece of NM cable from one box to the next with a male receptacle on one end and a female on the other with none of the wiring system attached then the only time it is energized is when the cord, external to the wall is plugged in.

 

[LarryFine]

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

It's no more permanent than every other cord we leave plugged in 24/7/365. I have cords that have not been unplugged since we moved here over 10 years ago. Are they permanent? What if I plug in something attached to the wall?

How would you wire an in-drywall-mounted receptacle for, say, a wall-mounted TV or ceiling-mounted projector to be protected by the same power strip as the rest of the system for minimal noise and maximum surge protection?

 

[iwire]

How would you wire an in-drywall-mounted receptacle for, say, a wall-mounted TV or ceiling-mounted projector to be protected by the same power strip as the rest of the system for minimal noise and maximum surge protection?

I would do it within the rules of the NEC and as I am not sure what you are describing that is the best I can answer.

 

[LarryFine]

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

Ditto.

It is my opinion that the in-wall portion is made of an approved wiring method, and the flexible cord section, with plug and socket, are not being used as a permanent wiring method.

 

[LarryFine]

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.

In my opinion, what this allows is for you to have the TV powered by the same circuit and surge/noise protection equipment as the rest of the system.

 

[iwire]

To help with the "icky test", consider Roger's example of the standby generator.

In my own dwelling, I have a power inlet that is cord and plug connected to my generator.

If the grid were down, I could "permanently" feed my whole dwelling and shop with an extension cord, for any amount of time necessary.

I disagree with that being put as a fact.

I believe that an AHJ could tell you that after arbitrary amount of time it is no longer an 'emergency' and would have to be removed and replaced with Chapter 3 methods.

 

[iwire]

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.

Al, I have no idea at all, not even a hint of a clue why you do not think the flexible cord is covered by 400.


The thing I find funny is it seems the AHJ has already made their position clear and IMO 90.4 gives them the right to turn down a product so nothing we say can change things one way or another.

 

[LarryFine]

You cannot cause a receptacle to become energized by plugging in an energized attachment cord.

That's not what happens here. That section means the receptacle being energized by the plug being inserted into it, not by being energized by electricity being applied to its terminals.

Thew way you worded it, you're illegal every time you plug in an extension cord and the receptacle end becomes energized.

 

[iwire]

In my opinion, what this allows is for you to have the TV powered by the same circuit and surge/noise protection equipment as the rest of the system.

The NEC does not care in the least about surge and noise protection of the circuit.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I don't know what the real problem is as these things are etl listed. I assume that they are listed for how they are being used but I realize third party testing does not mean NEC compliant. Wiring in the wall is listed and legal and the outlets on both ends are compliant.

 

[charlie b]

Al and Roger, now please look at the article 100 definition of "Attachment Plug." I don't see anything that restricts that defintion to meaning the male end of an extension cord or a component's power cord. So if I can call the female end of a standard extension cord an "attachment plug," and if I can call a permanently installed box with visible, external male prongs a "receptacle," by virtue of the wording of the article 100 definitions of those two terms, I still see a violation of 406.6(B):

No receptacle shall be installed so as to require the insertion of an energized attachment plug as its source of supply.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Al and Roger, now please look at the article 100 definition of "Attachment Plug." I don't see anything that restricts that defintion to meaning the male end of an extension cord or a component's power cord. So if I can call the female end of a standard extension cord an "attachment plug," and if I can call a permanently installed box with visible, external male prongs a "receptacle," by virtue of the wording of the article 100 definitions of those two terms, I still see a violation of 406.6(B):

Charlie my understanding is one end is male and the other female. You plud a cord similar to one from a monitor into the wall outlet and plug the other end into the male receptacle in the wall. The other end is reversed.

 

[LarryFine]

:grin: Also known as an inlet receptacle. I seem to recall Larry or 480 had made up some kind of device using the flanged version but the thread escapes me.

I've also made 1- and 2-inlet versions on steel plates, and with twistlocks. This is unbreakable nylon:

 

[charlie b]

. . . and the outlets on both ends are compliant.

I wanted to discuss this tidbit as well. Al and I and a number of other members had an interesting discussion some time ago on the subject of what is, and what is not, an outlet.

Are these two things "outlets"? To be specific, are they part of the "premises wiring system"? For that matter, is the set of conductors that connects the two a part of the "premises wiring system"? I get the impression from the vendor's web site that they do not consider this to be the case. The two "boxes" (for the moment, I choose not to call them "outlets") are connected to each other by permanent wires and proper terminations. But they are not connected to the circuit breaker or to any other conductors in the house by any permanent means. So does that exclude them from being within the "premises wiring system," or not?