- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
There are listed receptacles that can be connected to flexible conduit and be connected to the inlet.
Power Bridge
- Thread starter tom baker
- Start date
- Status
PowerBridgeTech
Member
QUOTE:mivey
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.
Flexible cords and extension cords are not the same thing. Extension cords can be made from flexible cords.
Certainly aware of the difference. Which are you implying the supplied cord used in a PowerBridge? I'm certain the supplied cord does not in any manor wirenut to the NM inside the j-box. This is your bias to cite 210.50?
[So you are saying flexible cords are an acceptable wiring method?]
I did not imply that in any way. I implied if 210.50 exists to disallow flexible cords as you are citing, I was claiming the uses not permited of a cord and no where is the reference to 210 to remedy or apply as priority. The WA AHJ did not reference 210 in his note as the remedy to the "claim of substitution of fixed wiring of a structure" of 400.8(1).
That's it, no not implying a cord should be used as a substitute for premise wiring of a structure. Just you are permitted to use it to EXTEND power from a premise wired receptacle to an INLET. Man, I've repeated that enough right?
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.
Flexible cords and extension cords are not the same thing. Extension cords can be made from flexible cords.
Certainly aware of the difference. Which are you implying the supplied cord used in a PowerBridge? I'm certain the supplied cord does not in any manor wirenut to the NM inside the j-box. This is your bias to cite 210.50?
[So you are saying flexible cords are an acceptable wiring method?]
I did not imply that in any way. I implied if 210.50 exists to disallow flexible cords as you are citing, I was claiming the uses not permited of a cord and no where is the reference to 210 to remedy or apply as priority. The WA AHJ did not reference 210 in his note as the remedy to the "claim of substitution of fixed wiring of a structure" of 400.8(1).
That's it, no not implying a cord should be used as a substitute for premise wiring of a structure. Just you are permitted to use it to EXTEND power from a premise wired receptacle to an INLET. Man, I've repeated that enough right?
PowerBridgeTech
Member
I'm not aware. Can you provide an example and what Code reference will allow this differently than what is being discussed?
Thanks Don!
al hildenbrand
Senior Member
- Location
- Minnesota
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
Then I'm back to my certainty of the ambiguity of the present enforceable language you have offered for your opinion. I summarized it back in Post # 358
mivey
Senior Member
I'm saying it is a flexible cord at minimum. Whether or not it is also an extension cord I don't know as I'm not sure if we are calling the assembly an extension cord or not (it has been alluded to).
But that is the long-standing code reference cited for appliance applications like this. Perhaps they did not feel the need to state it again.
Yes. But it does not end there. The inlet also feeds the rest of the stuff that is being used as an extension of the wiring system. The permitted extension wiring methods are listed in Chapter 3. PowerBridge is not one of them.
BTW, if you click on the "A/A" symbol in the editor, you can see the codes to allow typing the stuff for beginning and ending quotes, colors, etc.
mivey
Senior Member
If it were not ambiguous, we would not be here. But there should be weight given to a panel of authorities on the subject. I listed a few, including handbooks, but you can search and find untold numbers of the same positions from many other code enforcement authorities, government agencies, books dealing with NEC compliance, etc.
I agree that a formal interpretation would be weightier than most.
al hildenbrand
Senior Member
- Location
- Minnesota
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
The allusion is really beside the point because of the NRTL product description of "In Wall Electrical Appliance Assembly".
mivey
Senior Member
But I can't find that in the code.
al hildenbrand
Senior Member
- Location
- Minnesota
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
As would new Code, or additional or new NRTL documentation.
al hildenbrand
Senior Member
- Location
- Minnesota
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
110.3 (b)
Last edited:
PowerBridgeTech
Member
good gwad, this multiquote thing is more confusing the NEC itself! I don't get it, I'll ask the 10 yr grandson this weekend. Oh he helped with installation of the PowerBridge at his house last year, pretty smart kid said it was as simple as plugging in an extension cord.
Did you get that? The PowerBridge is supplied with a listed rated code compliant good ol' fashioned AWG14 extension cord.
Huh, where in C3 does it reference specifically the application of the "parts-of" assembled as an OUTLET installed behind the TV wired inside a j-box to another j-box wired to the backside of the INLET isn't met?
I'm challanged with your assumption, the outlet behind the TV is infact being energized from the premise wiring methods used to wire the outlet through the cord allowed to be (connected) plugged in, to energize the INLET. All this without modification to the premise wiring system! All "parts-of" are connected to C3 wiring methods in the matter of connectivity and energizing per C3.
Not claiming the cord is C3 itself, but is energized from C3 wired receptacle outlet
Where is the bias? Which part(s) of C3 does the connectivity of the parts not uphold?
CarlAshcraft
Member
- Location
- Orlando, FL
Justin,
Thanks for dancing around the subject and avoiding the question. The topic of discussion is whether or not this product is NEC compliant. 90.1(c) states the NEC is not for untrained individuals. You have stated, in many posts, that this product should be installed with compliance to the NEC. That being said is it safe to assume this product should not be installed by "untrained persons" ie unlicensed individuals?
dbuckley
Senior Member
- Location
- Canterbury, New Zealand
Riddle me this.
Powerbridge installed. Small generator outside on path has cord from it that is plugged into PowerBridge's inlet. (and assume under 2008 NEC before the generator malarky started)
So generator, used in a listed manner, connected by listed cord to an inlet.
Would that be acceptable?
Powerbridge installed. Small generator outside on path has cord from it that is plugged into PowerBridge's inlet. (and assume under 2008 NEC before the generator malarky started)
So generator, used in a listed manner, connected by listed cord to an inlet.
Would that be acceptable?
- Location
- Wisconsin
- Occupation
- PE (Retired) - Power Systems
I am trained in the NEC. I am an unlicensed individual. These two facts have nothing in common.
Lets keep the discussion on the NEC issues of this product.
- Location
- Massachusetts
That has been asked and answered about 5 times already. :grin:
We all have different views on that as well.
IMO what you describe is directly allowed by Article 590.
- Location
- Massachusetts
mivey
Senior Member
There ya go.
ok
So is it a part of the branch circuit or not? Seems to change roles depending on which code section needs to be embraced or shunned.
I'm sure there are other considerations but two come to mind at the moment:
The branch circuit goes from the last overprotection device to the outlet. If we are saying the PowerBridge receptacle is providing the required outlet then what about the branch circuit conductor size on a 20 amp circuit?
If the cord is somehow excluded but we say the in-wall portion is providing the required receptacle, then the wires in the wall are branch circuit conductors. Overcurrent protection is required at point where conductors receive their supply (the cord connector/inlet point).
PowerBridgeTech
Member
Carl,
I was not intending to dance around your question. I answered it as you asked.
Manufactures and the NEC have NO jurisdiction over licensing or permits.
It's a clear assessment and I cited examples.
Licensing requirment is not a position to cite by the NEC or manufacturer, period.
Note to Professional Trade:
PowerBridge is viewed as a non-electrical - non-premise wiring type installation, since it does not connect to the circuit directly as a standard electrcial installation would. The possibility of professional licensing requirements for non-DIY installation, may exist in your area. HD Products, advises checking with your local licensing authority as to providing any installation services for a fee to consumers.
This has been cited on the website for at least the past 3 years.
Sorry to have danced around your question, no intention implied.
If you need to further this discussion how this applies directly to you, please feel free to contact me directly through the website or PM me here, I'll directly answer any question, no dancing.
mivey
Senior Member
Just struck me as funny
Just struck me as funny
Just struck me as funny
Then why are we even worried about it? It is in-wall art. Do you have any accent lighting recommendations?
PowerBridgeTech
Member
Well now hairs are splitting. By definition, this is not a branch circuit extension as it is not wired to it directly. By connecting to the "front" all protections are served through it.
I see no cause to the dead-extension portion to apply to a 20-amp wiring method. Protection from the premise circuit is carried through as intended.
The cord is "a-part" of the extension, it does not remove the override protection of the premise circuit if it is EXTENDING from it through the front.
The outlet at the TV has the protection of the PREMISE WIRING carried through the extension.
Last edited:
- Status