Power Bridge

[PowerBridgeTech]

So the premise becomes, once the original fixed wiring is complete, extensions can either be fixed wiring extensions or cord extensions? OK. I'll think about that. I guess we will have to dig back to find out where the "substitute" clause was derived.

Whew, thought there in the very begining you were ready to flip out against me. Thanks for looking at this through a different window.

It just took awhile and a lot of posts to get to the main premise of basis of use.
It's not a use as a substitute if the structure has existing power circuits to plug into as an extension in the first place.

Thanks for the previous comment, I enjoy debating, and as proof of this thread its highly debatable!

Justin

 

[mivey]

I believe I recall a previous post where someone said "not a substitute" meant temporary and that this is obviously not temporary. Also see Q17:
http://www.mikeholt.com/mojonewsarchive/NECQ-HTML/HTML/NEC-Questions-016~20041007.php

Another example in ECM (I lost the link) showed a cord-fed wall-mounted receptacle that was in violation and one of the reasons was because it could have been fed by fixed wiring methods (the substitute clause again).

 

[mivey]

Whew, thought there in the very begining you were ready to flip out against me. Thanks for looking at this through a different window.

I'll admit I'm leaning heavily to the "violates NEC" side but I still have some unanswered questions. The percentages keep moving around as I read.:grin: I'll make up my mind eventually.

 

[mivey]

How about this as strange:
http://www.akf-engineers.com/resources/bulletins/strp.html

 

[al hildenbrand]

The point was a cord connected appliance being fed by an extension cord which is one way to look at the OP.

So?

Again, what's behind the average desktop computer or home entertainment center? I have twelve pieces of equipment, each with a power cord, at my home entertainment center. Two outlet strips plugged into a duplex receptacle outlet works just fine for me.

Every cord connected entertainment appliance is fed by the extension cord )power strip).

 

[mivey]

So?

Again, what's behind the average desktop computer or home entertainment center? I have twelve pieces of equipment, each with a power cord, at my home entertainment center. Two outlet strips plugged into a duplex receptacle outlet works just fine for me.

Every cord connected entertainment appliance is fed by the extension cord )power strip).

Pretty much the same or more here. I really don't remember the points that led up to acr's posts except that there was something about fixed vs portable appliances and cord connected appliances vs hard-wired. Or something.

FWIW, the dishwashers around here are hardwired. Stoves vary depending on type. The only plug-in dishwasher I've seen in one that you roll over to the sink to hook up when washing.

 

[al hildenbrand]

I have sent inquiry to ETL to assist with the title applied. It may take awhile!

Cool. I look forward to any ETL documentation.

What information would ETL be able to provide as to the name/title? Is this a Category you want to reference?

Any ETL documentation that we can see the language of will help in this discussion.

So then would that not be the recognized category heading if it exists for other like products and from ETL? Isn't that enough for an AHJ and yourself?

Right now, there is ambiguity in the use of the word appliance. Sure would be nice to see ETL language that dispells the ambiguity.

According to Code, devices must have recognized NRTL Listing to conform. Right?

That's in Chapter 110. However, not everything has to be listed. There is also a little matter of "Approval" which is done by the AHJ. I think the PowerBridge being listed as an assembly (kit) is very helpful. I don't mean to imply that the PowerBridge could make it without being listed.

 

[ActionDave]

So?

Again, what's behind the average desktop computer or home entertainment center? I have twelve pieces of equipment, each with a power cord, at my home entertainment center. Two outlet strips plugged into a duplex receptacle outlet works just fine for me.

Every cord connected entertainment appliance is fed by the extension cord )power strip).

I agree. The hang up seems to be that the cord that the PowerBridge uses has a female end to an inlet. Big deal. It's the same principle as using a power strip.

I see it as preventing the dreaded extension cord under the rug, not causing it.

 

[al hildenbrand]

How about this as strange:
http://www.akf-engineers.com/resources/bulletins/strp.html

Strikes me as a glorified power strip.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Respectfully, you understand NM/MC building wire is INSIDE the WALL connecting the NEC recognized OUTLET and INLET together, right? These are connected to meet Section 3 wiring methods.
The supply power cord is only OUTSIDE the wall.

And the fact that the cord supplies the wiring inside the wall is what makes it a violation.

Would you suggest the supply cord be installed within raceway attached to the wall between the power source and the inlet? That seems more permanent to me.

That would still be using a cord as a substitute for permanent wiring.

So, you are suggesting any and all power supply flexible cords used to supply power shall be red-tagged and not Code compliant? Do you have any flexible cords connected to any appliances in your home plugged into the premise outlet circuit? Of course, we all do, not to sound condesending, I just have difficulty finding your citation unreasonable to what we all use power cords in real life. They EXTEND the premise wired circuit to a device. Usually plugged in 24/7/365, but can be unplugged easily as well.
That would include the flexible cord-set attached or detachable from an appliance such as a computer or TV?

Extending power to an appliance or other equipment is not the same as extending power to wiring installed in the wall. I have difficultly understanding why you don't see this code as a substitute for permanent wiring.

How would the use of a flexible cord be different than using an extesion cord plugged into the nearest premise wired outlet, inside wiretrack-molding attached to the outside of the wall up the wall to the TV, which is Code compliant 400.7 use of a cord?

That is not supplying power to wiring installed in the wall. Even that use, if installed in a raceway, would be stretching the code ruies for use of flexible cord.

You do recognize Code 400.7 right? It applies to 400.8 to be cited as a reason to accept or disallow.

I can't see any stretch of the rules in 400.7 and 400.8 that can be used to make this product legal

The fact that the KIT has a Listing is relevent and does not require it's own code article, as the LISTED COMPONENTS compromising the LISTED ASSYEMBLY APPLIANCE meets several Code references. This is not a substitute for premise wiring, it is an EXTENSION of it. Premise wiring MUST exist PRIOR to utilization of the PowerBridge and the power supply cord. The power is not coming from any outside of premise power source to be considered a subsitute within the building itself.

It is very very clearly a substitute for premise wiring and nothing in the listing can change that.

Help me with your claim other than than the cord is a substitute for power, when it is a recognized EXTENSION to supply power to an appliance and to 406.6(D) an INLET. 406.6 does not cite duration of use of the required cord to energize it.

The fact that it supplies wiring inside the wall is what makes the use of this product a code violation.

 

[iwire]

And the fact that the cord supplies the wiring inside the wall is what makes it a violation.
That would still be using a cord as a substitute for permanent wiring.


Extending power to an appliance or other equipment is not the same as extending power to wiring installed in the wall. I have difficultly understanding why you don't see this code as a substitute for permanent wiring.

That is not supplying power to wiring installed in the wall. Even that use, if installed in a raceway, would be stretching the code ruies for use of flexible cord.

I can't see any stretch of the rules in 400.7 and 400.8 that can be used to make this product legal

It is very very clearly a substitute for premise wiring and nothing in the listing can change that.

The fact that it supplies wiring inside the wall is what makes the use of this product a code violation.

I agree with Don and he is saying exactly what I have been saying all along.

I also have no idea how anyone can say this is not cord being used to extend permanent wiring.

I will also point out that in my area installing the two old work boxes, the NM and those two devices would require a licensed electrician, an electrical permit and an inspection.

 

[al hildenbrand]

How about this as strange

http://www.akf-engineers.com/resources/bulletins/strp.html

Strikes me as a glorified power strip.

Thinking about it further, this "power controller" is beyond the White Book and is a piece of utilization equipment in its own right. Like a battery backup power supply or UPS, cord and plug connected with multiple load side NEMA 5-15 receptacles, it is beyond the reach of the "extension cord" chauvinism, although I can imagine there are those who are still trying to figure out how to get every receptacle on that utilization equipment (power controller) counted as a receptacle for the purposes of Article 220.

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

And the fact that the cord supplies the wiring inside the wall is what makes it a violation.
That would still be using a cord as a substitute for permanent wiring.

Which specfic reference is this to support? How is this a substitute as defined to the structure wiring, if it has existing premise wiring, it cannot be a substitute if permanent wiring exists within the structure.
​

Extending power to an appliance or other equipment is not the same as extending power to wiring installed in the wall. I have difficultly understanding why you don't see this code as a substitute for permanent wiring.

Same, which specfic reference is this to support? How is this a substitute as defined to the structure wiring, if it has existing premise wiring, it cannot be a substitute if permanent wiring exists within the structure. Sorry, without specific wording as your bias claims I cannot accept your bias against using cords as permitted in 400.7 and to meet the product used Listing as an assembly. Listing is relevant as long as it can be applied to Code as reference.
​

That is not supplying power to wiring installed in the wall. Even that use, if installed in a raceway, would be stretching the code ruies for use of flexible cord.

Which specfic reference is this to support any stretching of the interpetation of the rules? Which rules are being stretched? Please cite reference to support the uses not permitted for Raceway and a flexible cord together.
​

I can't see any stretch of the rules in 400.7 and 400.8 that can be used to make this product legal

To apply 400.8, 400.7 needs to be accepted for uses permitted as 400.8 has a preclusive clause regarding 400.7.
You claim no cords should be use to extend circuit power, so your bias is 400.7 should not exist at all? Then 400.8 is not applicable either.
​

It is very very clearly a substitute for premise wiring and nothing in the listing can change that.

Same, which specfic reference is this to very very CLEARLY support? How is this a substitute as defined to the structure premise wiring. What definition exists to support, if the structure has existing premise wiring, it cannot be a substitute if permanent wiring exists within the structure.
​

The fact that it supplies wiring inside the wall is what makes the use of this product a code violation.

Which specfic reference is this to factually support this claim? Where in Code is the support to supply wiring inside the wall to compliant method 3 wiring is not permitted with an inlet from a cord within the structure.
​

Don,

Respectfully you have your strong bias about the cord and how it used.
It's apparent you would ban all flexible cords period, for any use to extend existing power from the circuit to an appliance at the end of the extension.
Although 400.7 exists for the use of cords without prejudice to duration or to specifc reference to energize an inlet or energize method 3 wiring as your claim against, then 400.8 which is preclusive of 400.7 then your bias is clear that cords should not exist period and 400.7 should not exist as an article.
You claim raceway used is also a clear violation, however no where in Code is this clearly cited to support your bias.

PowerBridge claims to the same articles you claim against, obviously this is a interpetation of definitions and you are applying your words into the reference.

Where in definitions reference does any of your specfic bias apply against to cite the claims you state, specifc to your wording, as to supply of power to the in-wall wiring?
400.8 is not specifically CLEAR as you state, to support your bias, as it can be argued against very easily due to specfic definintion to support.

Resepectfully,
Justin

 

[al hildenbrand]

I will also point out that in my area installing the two old work boxes, the NM and those two devices would require a licensed electrician, an electrical permit and an inspection.

I've forgotten, in your area, is there no legal allowance for a Owner / Occupant of a detached single family dwelling to also pull the permit and have an inspection on work that the Owner / Occupant does on his/er dwelling?

Such work is legal in the State of Minnesota.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Don,

Respectfully you have your strong bias about the cord and how it used.
It's apparent you would ban all flexible cords period, for any use to extend existing power from the circuit to an appliance at the end of the extension.

You need to read what I wrote. I have no issue with cords directly feeding equipment, but that is not the case with your product. You are using a cord to feed fixed wiring of the building and that is what makes the use of your product a violation of the rules as found in the NEC.

Although 400.7 exists for the use of cords without prejudice to duration or to specifc reference to energize an inlet or energize method 3 wiring as your claim against, then 400.8 which is preclusive of 400.7 then your bias is clear that cords should not exist period and 400.7 should not exist as an article.

Again you need to read what I wrote.

You claim raceway used is also a clear violation, however no where in Code is this clearly cited to support your bias.

400.8(1)

PowerBridge claims to the same articles you claim against, obviously this is a interpetation of definitions and you are applying your words into the reference.

Where in definitions reference does any of your specfic bias apply against to cite the claims you state, specifc to your wording, as to supply of power to the in-wall wiring?
400.8 is not specifically CLEAR as you state, to support your bias, as it can be argued against very easily due to specfic definintion to support.

You are reading it the way you want to to support your product. I am reading the rules as they are written.

You can say anything you want, but the only things that would change my opinion on this code violation is either a Formal Interpretation or panel action or a panel statement in response to a proposal.

 

[roger]

400.8(1)

Don, 400.8(1) does not say fixed wiring can not be supplied by a cord set, it says the cord can not be a substitute for permanent wiring and UL basically says that means the flexible cord can not be fastened in place.

Let me ask, is there a time frame that constitutes permanent?

What about a window A/C unit with an listed appliance cord set for an extension, it seems to me that these are taking the place of in wall wiring methods, is there any way to govern these cords?

Roger

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

And the fact that the cord supplies the wiring inside the wall is what makes it a violation.
That would still be using a cord as a substitute for permanent wiring.


Extending power to an appliance or other equipment is not the same as extending power to wiring installed in the wall. I have difficultly understanding why you don't see this code as a substitute for permanent wiring.

That is not supplying power to wiring installed in the wall. Even that use, if installed in a raceway, would be stretching the code ruies for use of flexible cord.

I can't see any stretch of the rules in 400.7 and 400.8 that can be used to make this product legal

It is very very clearly a substitute for premise wiring and nothing in the listing can change that.

The fact that it supplies wiring inside the wall is what makes the use of this product a code violation.

Don,

I am respectful of your interpetation of 400.8(1)
We claim the same as respect to how NOT to use an extension cord, that is the clear intent of 400.8 (1-5).

I support our product, specifically the use of a cord set as specifically defined in 400.7 to extend circuit power to an appliance.
PowerBridge is not intended to supply or substitute power to a STRUCTURE, as defined in 400.8.
PowerBridge can't acheive this concept on any level, the limitations of the cord set itself eliminates from doing so.

Key wording within 400.8 is SUBSTITUTION of STRUCTURE wiring, not EXTENSION of circuit power to energize an appliance from the EXISTING premise wiring as permitted in 400.7 USES PERMITTED.

Your argument is clearly biased with using your specfic wording inserted to Code 400.8 If you insert wording as you claim, then you could claim 400.8 as a use not permitted, but you would have to change the wording in the Article.

400.8 does not specifically cite the use of the cord inside a raceway or to energize an inlet to method 3 wiring, however if you insert your wording it would.

We claim 400.7 "uses permited" without adding wording to permit the use of the power supply cord of the part of assembly as Listed.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Don, 400.8(1) does not say fixed wiring can not be supplied by a cord set, it says the cord can not be a substitute for permanent wiring and UL basically says that means the flexible cord can not be fastened in place.

I really don't care if the cord is permanent or not. If you are feeding the fixed wiring of the building with a cord you are using the cord as a substitute for the fixed wiring of the building and you have a violation of 400.8(1).
As I said before this is my opinion of what the code says and it will remain my "permanent" opinion in the absence of a FI or CMP statement to the contrary

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Justin,
You can read the code any way you want and I will read it my way. To me the use of your product is a very clear code violation.

If you want to change my opinion get an FI or a CMP statemet that says I am wrong. Nothing that can be posted here, other than one of those two things, will change my mind.

You don't really have a problem unless a lot of AHJs agree with me. So far it appears that the AHJ in one state does, and it is very possible that this thread will lead others to agree with me.

 

[al hildenbrand]

I really don't care if the cord is permanent or not. If you are feeding the fixed wiring of the building with a cord you are using the cord as a substitute for the fixed wiring of the building and you have a violation of 400.8(1).

That stance flies in the face of the common practice across the country of connecting portable standby generators to a dwelling Premises Wiring (System) with an flanged surface inlet.

Just maybe you are missing something.