Power Bridge

[al hildenbrand]

Color me doubtful. :grin::grin:

Awww. Shucks. My ruse is seen through . . .

 

[mivey]

Tell me what it is or isn't by the Code. Demonstrate that this is not part of an appliance. Demonstrate, by Code, that it IS something.

It is evidently not an approved branch extension method. It is not an approved method to substitute for fixed wiring.

It is a collection of individually approved parts that are covered individually in other code sections. Maybe it is like Frankenstein's monster: a lot of parts put together as a packaged substitute for something else.

 

[iwire]

The NEC is silent about "appliance assembly", which produces no understanding one way or the other.

Can you help me out and let me know where appliance assembly came from? Too many posts to look through.




I recall the OP saying this

The OUTLET and INLET are not listed from PowerBridge as separate components but as a KIT. They have specific labeling and instructions to the listed use as an IN WALL ELECTRCIAL APPLIANCE. Appliances are allowable to be energized by cord-sets.

I suppose you would tell me there is no NEC definition for "in wall electrical appliance" making the NEC definition of "appliance" out of bounds.

 

[al hildenbrand]

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

There is no ambiguity of the listing, the listing says what it says and the NEC says what it says.

And, by in play, I mean it is one of the possible ways that the Code comes into play, not the only way.

You might be right, that one gets to go straight to 400.8(1). Might not.

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

Who needs a code reference? The kit is not a complete appliance.

Take a common situation: a UL-listed wire, a UL-listed receptacle, and a UL-listed box. Heck, we'll even put a UL-listed cord grip in the package. Put them together, and you have a very nice, but unlisted extension cord assembly. (Search this forum and you'll find a few discussions as to whether it's even legal too )

As for the various forms of 'flat wire,' in each case the manufacturers went to the code committees and had the code ammended before they marketed the products. FWIW, UL refused to list them until there was a provision in the NEC for the new 'methods.' If you want to discuss 'flat' wire, I suggest a new thread for another topic.

Edit: I've reconsidered. The wrong question is being asked.

110.8 says only recognized methods will be permitted. "Recognized methods" are those described in Chapter 3 (Articles 300-399). Flexible cords and extension cords are not mentioned as an approved method.

So the question is not 'where is this forbidden,' but rather 'where is it allowed.' One cannot prove a negative - and there most certainly will not be a citation for something that does not exist.

Ahh.. Ok, I will accept all you have said in this post. This opens the question then of applying the "parts-of the assembly" to meet compliancy.
Up to now it is all about the cord acting as the substitution of 110 Methods. Although 400.8 in its complete citation, does not cite reference to resolve or substitue having to use methods in 110 to be priority over the use of a cord to extend circuit power.
In other words, cords are allowed, as in 400.7 (6) (8) most important (10)Where specifically permitted elsewhere in this Code as specifically cited as permissable in 406.6(D)

How then does 406.6(D) apply when it cites an INLET cannot be energized UNLESS an energized cord connector is inserted into it.

Doesn't this apply as a Recognized Method as cited in the reference to the INLET. Inaffect it allows 110.8 Wiring Method by citing shall be permitted, except as otherwise provided in this Code. (Required is not the word used)
Referenece: INLET 406.6(D) [in part] it "shall be installed such that the prongs are not energized... The only method to energize an INLET without a CORD would be to apply a 110 wiring method, incorrectly.

So how does one install and energize an INLET without a cord?

 

[al hildenbrand]

Can you help me out and let me know where appliance assembly came from?

Glad to. It comes from the Intertek "ETL Listed Mark Directory" search results for the PowerBridge product. HD Products Inc. DBA PowerBridge. click here

I suppose you would tell me there is no NEC definition for "in wall electrical appliance" making the NEC definition of "appliance" out of bounds.

I like your thinking, Bob. Maybe I've gone about this all wrong. :roll:

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

The argument is becoming more and more about the substitution of the cord and not the understanding of the one component that is permitted to connect to it as the ONLY method to energize.
If you want to argue the appliance factor, fine, it is subjective anyway.
Call a kettle black or dark gray in a Listing report, is it not a kettle if you only define kettles as black?

The definition in the control report calls out as an appliance assembly. You don't have to recognize it if you wish not to apply the NRTL report.
I'd bet if PowerBridge didn't have any agency report, I'd be catching hell as to why.

NEC does not recognize the words together for this product; ok does it really need to? Why? It's not an appliance as defined, so take that word alone out. Is it an assembly?
I think that is more apparent to describe for NEC purpose.

The bottom line.
The components each have been individually installed/used for years, right?
NEC has had years to define them and the use/installation of each. Right?
As to the application to install these together to allow what is already permitted within current Code, it can be argued, as it is, the "parts there of" the assembly kit can be recognized individually installed. These parts all are recognized in current NEC.

PowerBridge did not invent some new device needing to be recognized in NEC as SouthWire with the Flatwire did. That is a NEW technology for 125v; it needed to have citation to proceed with its still ongoing UL certification, which has had application for over a year we understand.

Your killing me with the "new" use of an old and true product called an EXTENSION cord. I'd bet you all have at least one plugged in somewhere in your house and its been plugged in for longer than 3 months, why that has anything to do with this, I have no idea. No duration of time is cited in 400.7 or 400.8 to allow the use of a cord. The word "temporary" is also not cited in these. These should not be part of citing disallowance as there is no defined application to apply.

I stand strong, 400.7(10) is the primary bias to allow the cord to be utilized as SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED in citation of 406.6(D) to the installation of a PowerBridge.
400.7(B) [in part]... shall be energized from a receptacle outlet.
This alone and the fact, not inseration of words or claim, 400.8 USES NOT PERMITTED begins with Unless specifically permitted in 400.7

How is this as not applicable and a used as substitution? It?s PERMITTED.
Your definitions of substitution are vauge at best, when I cite specific allowance.
Cords are REQUIRED to be energized from a receptacle OUTLET, as the word shall be energized is very clear and unambiguous.

I can't see how this can be interpreted any differently. What else are we to plug cords into?
It?s a black kettle, not dark gray, it is specific and cited.

 

[al hildenbrand]

It is . . . a lot of parts put together as a packaged substitute for something else.

And just what citation from the Code unambiguously states this about the PowerBridge?

 

[wwhitney]

A couple attempts at a rebuttal to the idea that the PowerBridge cord violates 400.8(1):

(1) The PowerBridge kit as a whole is a controller: "A device or group of devices that serves to govern, in some predetermined manner, the electric power delivered to the apparatus to which it is connected." As such, according to the definition of "Premises Wiring System", the NM wiring in the PowerBridge kit is not part of the Premises Wiring System. Therefore the cord in the PowerBridge kit is not substituting for "the fixed wiring of a structure".

(2) I believe Don commented that male and female plug ends are available for flexible conduit. As such the inlet in the kit could be connected to a receptacle with flexible conduit. This flexible conduit would not be "fixed" wiring, so the cord is not substituting for "fixed wiring".

Cheers, Wayne

 

[mivey]

And just what citation from the Code unambiguously states this about the PowerBridge?

It is a substitute for the receptacle required by 210.50(B)

(B) Cord Connections. A receptacle outlet shall be installed
wherever flexible cords with attachment plugs are
used. Where flexible cords are permitted to be permanently
connected, receptacles shall be permitted to be omitted for
such cords.

A couple attempts at a rebuttal to the idea that the PowerBridge cord violates 400.8(1):

(1) The PowerBridge kit as a whole is a controller: "A device or group of devices that serves to govern, in some predetermined manner, the electric power delivered to the apparatus to which it is connected." As such, according to the definition of "Premises Wiring System", the NM wiring in the PowerBridge kit is not part of the Premises Wiring System. Therefore the cord in the PowerBridge kit is not substituting for "the fixed wiring of a structure".

(2) I believe Don commented that male and female plug ends are available for flexible conduit. As such the inlet in the kit could be connected to a receptacle with flexible conduit. This flexible conduit would not be "fixed" wiring, so the cord is not substituting for "fixed wiring".

Cheers, Wayne

Instead of installing the receptacle required by 210.50(B) you have installed the PowerBridge instead. That is a substitution.

 

[al hildenbrand]

It is a substitute for the receptacle required by 210.50(B)

B) Cord Connections. A receptacle outlet shall be installed herever flexible cords with attachment plugs are used. Where flexible cords are permitted to be permanently connected, receptacles shall be permitted to be omitted for such cords.

Instead of installing the receptacle required by 210.50(B) you have installed the PowerBridge instead. That is a substitution.

Look at the first sentence of 210.50. 210.50(B) has no information about where the receptacle outlet has to be. If the receptacle outlets required by the first sentence of 210.50 are present, no more are required. Adding the PowerBridge is not substituting for anything by this citation of yours, IMO.

2008 NEC
210.50 General.

Receptacle outlets shall be installed as specified in 210.52 through 210.63.

 

[mivey]

Look at the first sentence of 210.50. 210.50(B) has no information about where the receptacle outlet has to be. If the receptacle outlets required by the first sentence of 210.50 are present, no more are required. Adding the PowerBridge is not substituting for anything by this citation of yours, IMO.

The attachment plug must be able to reach the receptacle, otherwise it could be in China.

 

[roger]

Well, I still say it's legal and I'm not going to try to defend my position either. :grin:

Roger

 

[al hildenbrand]

The attachment plug must be able to reach the receptacle, otherwise it could be in China.

Well, maybe not in China. Just where required by 210.52 thru 210.63.

Show me the requirement that the cord attached to a given appliance (the wall mounted TV) must have a receptacle outlet installed within reach of that cord's attachment plug.

One certainly can install the receptacle outlet, however, it is not a required receptacle outlet unless it just happens to be in the place described by 210.52 thru 210.63 and the original installation of the Premises Wiring (System), under this NEC, happened to be incomplete and nobody caught it.

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

It is a substitute for the receptacle required by 210.50(B)



Instead of installing the receptacle required by 210.50(B) you have installed the PowerBridge instead. That is a substitution.

? what? What? WHAT?

210.50(B) cites [part of] Where permitted to be permanently connected, receptacles shall be permitted to be omitted for such cords.


Okay, you have opened this door before and I didn't walk through.

Please refer your understanding of permanently connected ? Is there other Code definition to these words together that can apply to this?

Are you implying a cord should be permanently connected per 400.8 reference to attachment to building surfaces to apply this citation?
PowerBridge cord is not installed to be a permenently connected to the structure or surfaces, it offers portability and is not permanent in any condition.

What does this mean? shall be permitted to be omitted for such cords
wording shall be permitted, is not shall be REQUIRED to be... You inserted REQUIRED, oops...

Not sure how this applies to the intended use of PowerBridge. No way is PowerBridge used as a substitution to a structures premise wiring system by your citations. IT CAN'T BE. The Premise Wiring System MUST previously EXIST within the structure for a PowerBridge to exist to it's intended use of EXTENSION of circuit power.

Is this article to apply where an Appliance cord is fastened to the structure in a manor to which a receptacle could be permitted? It's not well defined, except to the wording permitted to be permanently connected.

I think you're not addressing the Articles of Code I've been addressing throughout allowing specifically the INLET and the PERMITTED use of the cord to energize it from a receptacle.

With great respect, you are grabbing straws and applying wording and articles I can't see as applicable to PowerBridge type installations.

These components/parts are not NEW and have cited and referenced CODE to apply to them as to installation.

I suppose all flexible cords should apply to Article 210.50 if plugged in 24/7/365. Do they? Good luck with that passing acceptance, it's not plausable.

Cords have an allowable section, all to them alone, allowing their use. It's 400.7 specifically. 400.7 nor 400.8 do not make reference to 210.50 as a remedy to not use a cord in-place of or as "substitution".

Why are you attempting to applying a section of Code to show they are not allowable based on wording as permanently connected and shall permit to be omitted. Highly ambiguous if you were to poll this as a citation to not use a cord for any allowable use.


I still like you though, you seem like a stand-up kinda guy.

 

[mivey]

Well, maybe not in China. Just where required by 210.52 thru 210.63.

Show me the requirement that the cord attached to a given appliance (the wall mounted TV) must have a receptacle outlet installed within reach of that cord's attachment plug.

One certainly can install the receptacle outlet, however, it is not a required receptacle outlet unless it just happens to be in the place described by 210.52 thru 210.63 and the original installation of the Premises Wiring (System), under this NEC, happened to be incomplete and nobody caught it.

McGraw's NEC Handbook states it plainer than I must have been

Part (B) states that if flexible cord is used to connect portable lamps or appliances, stationary equipment to facilitate frequent interchange, or fixed or stationary appliances to facilitate removal or disconnection for maintenance or repair, the cord ?shall be equipped with an attachment plug and shall be energized from a receptacle outlet.?

It should be noted that the cords referred to under this section are the cords attached to the appliance and not extension cords supplementing or extending the regular supply cords. The use of an extension cord would represent a conflict with the requirements of the Code in that it would serve as a substitute for a receptacle to be located near the appliance, thereby violating 210.50(B).

Extension cords are intended for temporary use with portable appliances, tools, and similar equipment which are not normally used at one specific location.

 

[al hildenbrand]

McGraw's NEC Handbook states it plainer than I must have been

The Commentary in that handbook is not enforceable language. The commentary is opinion, no different than yours or mine.

Try substantiating your opinion with Code.

 

[mivey]

Please refer your understanding of permanently connected ?

Instead of having a plug on the end of the appliance cord, the cord is brought into the outlet box and connected with other methods, like wirenuts.

I suppose all flexible cords should apply to Article 210.50 if plugged in 24/7/365. Do they? Good luck with that passing acceptance, it's not plausable.

Flexible cords and extension cords are not the same thing. Extension cords can be made from flexible cords.

Cords have an allowable section, all to them alone, allowing their use. It's 400.7 specifically. 400.7 nor 400.8 do not make reference to 210.50 as a remedy to not use a cord in-place of or as "substitution".

So you are saying flexible cords are an acceptable wiring method?

For the rest, see my response to Al.

I still like you though, you seem like a stand-up kinda guy.

Right back at you. I appreciate your help in working through this discussion.

 

[mivey]

The Commentary in that handbook is not enforceable language. The commentary is opinion, no different than yours or mine.

Try substantiating your opinion with Code.

If the code requires a receptacle where there is a plug, it should be self-evident that the plug is meant to be inserted into the receptacle.

If I said put a drain where there is standing water, do I need to tell you to locate the drain such that the water can actually flow into it?

 

[al hildenbrand]

If the code requires a receptacle where there is a plug, it should be self-evident that the plug is meant to be inserted into the receptacle.

Well, that is the question. Does it say what you say it says.

When I read 210.50 I see required locations in 210.52 thru 210.63, and 210.50(C) for specific appliances.

I just don't see a wall hung TV as a specific appliance.