Power Bridge

Status
Not open for further replies.
This bridge is manufactured to extend a rec. to a convenient location for do it yourselfers. You can try and call it an extension cord. That?s not what it?s doing. It is extending the building wiring from one location to another. There is no limit on the length of the NM cable no warning to use 12 gage wire if plugged into a 20 amp circuit. No way to inspect the NM cable buried in the wall. No requirement the supply rec. be in site of the load rec. The supply rec. could be in the basement and the load on another floor. No limit on any particular branch circuit you want to extend. I could use it in my bathroom to get my sink rec. to the floor so I can plug in my portable heater. Heck I don?t even have to stable my romex as I run it across my basement I can simply through it over my close line. After all it doesn?t have to be inspected and I sure do not to be qualified to install this extension cord. Yep I can see it now these bridges are going to show up everywhere any time someone needs a rec. where there is not one currently after all anyone can install an extension cord.
 
david said:
You can try and call it an extension cord. That’s not what it’s doing. It is extending the building wiring from one location to another.
Click to expand...
And, what Code citations do you use to substantiate your opinion that this is a Premises Wiring (System) extension?
 
Last edited:
charlie b said:
This product has no influence on the power delivered to the TV set. It alters the power in no way whatsoever. It controls nothing, it changes nothing, it governs nothing. Nice try.
Click to expand...
Sure it does: you unplug the supplied cord at the inlet, and power is cut. You plug in the supplied cord at the inlet, and power is provided. Both the inlet and the cord are part of the PowerBridge, and so in this fashion the PowerBridge is acting as a controller.

Cheers, Wayne
 
Must an inlet be powered by something temporary?

I made my statement that it had to be used in a 'temporary' manner simply because it is an inlet specifically designed - and, in the ad copy as well as the kit contents - and intended to be powered by an extension cord - a temporary wiring method. Therefore, it would be legal only where the use is in some way temporary (or meets one of the other permitted uses).

I'm not going to say 'all inlets' or 'every use.' I will make that statement with regards to this product.

Why the waffling? Because there are a variety of products - from office partitions to modular homes- that assemble permanently with what can only be described as some manner of inlet / receptacle arrangement. For each of those instances, specific code provisions, and other standards, apply. Nor do they use extension cords as part of their wiring method.

Perhaps there are other situations, beyond those I mentioned, where the use of this product is legal. From one part of a fixed wall to another part of the same wall can't meet any of them in any circumstance I can imagine.
 
david said:
There is no limit on the length of the NM cable
Click to expand...
True with almost all NM uses.

no warning to use 12 gage wire if plugged into a 20 amp circuit.
Click to expand...
True with all cords, and the TV is a known load.

No way to inspect the NM cable buried in the wall.
Click to expand...
True with almost all NM old work.

No requirement the supply rec. be in site of the load rec. The supply rec. could be in the basement and the load on another floor.
Click to expand...
Is that ever required with a cord?

No limit on any particular branch circuit you want to extend. I could use it in my bathroom to get my sink rec. to the floor so I can plug in my portable heater.
Click to expand...
That would be a substitution use; the GFCI has load terminals.

Heck I don?t even have to stable my romex as I run it across my basement I can simply through it over my close line.
Click to expand...
For exposed work, NM already has attachment requirements.

After all it doesn?t have to be inspected and I sure do not to be qualified to install this extension cord.
Click to expand...
If your local rules allow HO installation, so be it.

Yep I can see it now these bridges are going to show up everywhere any time someone needs a rec. where there is not one currently after all anyone can install an extension cord.
Click to expand...
You really think the inlet will change who will and will not DIY?
 
wwhitney said:
Sure it does: you unplug the supplied cord at the inlet, and power is cut. You plug in the supplied cord at the inlet, and power is provided. Both the inlet and the cord are part of the PowerBridge, and so in this fashion the PowerBridge is acting as a controller.
Click to expand...
The product is not acting as a controller. You are. You unplug. You plug in.
 
iwire said:
You know I love you as much as I can love a big hairy man. :cool:
Click to expand...
Thanks . . . I think. :confused: :)grin:)

Instead of buying a plug in unit buy a hardwired unit.
Click to expand...
Example, please?

I see, only you get to determine when the code can be broken. :grin:
Click to expand...
Of course! Being a pro means we know how to break the rules properly. :roll:
 
iwire said:
FWIW few plug in UPS do anything at all to 'clean' the power. They are not online unless there is a power failure.
Click to expand...
I really meant a power cleaner, although a UPS is important for some projector types, too, as mentioned earlier.
 
david said:
You can try and call it an extension cord. That’s not what it’s doing. It is extending the building wiring from one location to another.
Click to expand...
To add, it's not extending the building wiring if it's not plugged directly into a wall receptacle; it's extending a receptacle on a surge strip or power cleaner. To plug it directly into a wall receptacle IS using it as a circuit extension, and I agree that's a violation.

What seems to differentiate these devices from 'normal' extension cords, according to the naysayers, is that part of it is in the wall, despite using proper in-wall components. That it uses such parts and resembles premises wiring doesn't make it so, IMHO.

If I made an extension cord with a plug, a length of NM, and an old-work box, receptacle, and plate, would that be an NEC violation? Not attached to a building, but transportable and relocatable. Is the inlet and wiring attachment to the wall the problem?
 
wwhitney said:
So a switch is not a controller? Controllers can't be manual? Disconnects aren't controllers?
Click to expand...
This has been a bone of contention in the past.

At least "404.14 Rating and Use of Snap Switches" uses "controlling" and "control" in the language describing the generic snap switch.

I'd love to see a Code citation indicating an attachment plug/receptacle outlet as a controller.
 
wwhitney said:
So a switch is not a controller? Controllers can't be manual? Disconnects aren't controllers?
Click to expand...
Yes it it. Yes they can. Yes they are. But an extension cord is not a controller. Nor is a run of NM wire. Nor is the Power Bridge. The difference is that a switch or disconnect is a device whose purpose is to allow power to be turned on or off by manual action, and thus its purpose is to control. The purpose of each of the three things I mentioned is to transport power, unaltered and ungoverned, from one physical location to another. So if you would be trying to sell the notion that the Power Bridge does not violate any NEC rules by virtue of its meeting the NEC definition of "controller," you will not succeed.
 
charlie b said:
Yes it it. Yes they can. Yes they are. But an extension cord is not a controller. Nor is a run of NM wire. Nor is the Power Bridge. The difference is that a switch or disconnect is a device whose purpose is to allow power to be turned on or off by manual action, and thus its purpose is to control. The purpose of each of the three things I mentioned is to transport power, unaltered and ungoverned, from one physical location to another. So if you would be trying to sell the notion that the Power Bridge does not violate any NEC rules by virtue of its meeting the NEC definition of "controller," you will not succeed.
Click to expand...

So a disconnect is a controller. But as I understand it, a cord-and-plug connection to a receptacle can be used as a disconnect. In which case it is a controller?

Yours, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
So a disconnect is a controller. But as I understand it, a cord-and-plug connection to a receptacle can be used as a disconnect. In which case it is a controller?
Click to expand...
While a specific attachment plug / receptacle may be designated by Code as a disconnecting means, the Code stops short of saying ALL attachment plugs / receptacles are controllers, in fact, I don't think there's a single instance in the Code that an attachment plug / receptacle is stated to control, or is used for controlling . . . unlike 404.14 where snap switches are used for controlling . . .
 
2008 NEC
Article 100 Definitions
Disconnecting Means. A device, or group of devices, or other means by which the conductors of a circuit can be disconnected from their source of supply.
Click to expand...
For that matter, I could argue that the absence of control or controlling or controller in the definition puts an attachment plug / receptacle outlet designated by Code as a disconnecting means outside of the definition of controller.

Now, a disconnect SWITCH. . . well, that's something else.
 
renosteinke said:
Must an inlet be powered by something temporary?
Click to expand...


I made my statement that it had to be used in a 'temporary' manner simply because it is an inlet specifically designed.
Click to expand...
Please cite where, anywhere in Code this is called out. I cannot find referrence to the use of an inlet, specfic to "temporary" manor. Same for the cord. Where does the word "temporary" become descriptive use ONLY for these devices?


- and intended to be powered by an extension cord - a temporary wiring method. Therefore, it would be legal only where the use is in some way temporary (or meets one of the other permitted uses).
Click to expand...
The cord has been cited at to allowance of intended use: 400.7 (10) is a prime allowance. 400.7(B)

I'm not going to say 'all inlets' or 'every use.' I will make that statement with regards to this product.
Click to expand...

DEFINITION: Chapter 1 Listed. [in part] ...whose listing states that EITHER the equipment, material,... meets appropriate designated standards or has been TESTED and found suitable for a SPECIFIED PURPOSE.
Why would you ignore the fact the PowerBridge is LISTED with a SPECIFIED PURPOSE?

The OP asked what we knew about this. The issue at play is the cord, and if it is a substitution of Premise wiring. Not the use of the INLET.

I have cited several applicable articles of Code we see CAN apply to the INTENDED PURPOSE of our LISTED product assembly. If we didn't have any listing to reference, then the use together may not have an identity to claim Specified Purpose.
Agreed?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
wwhitney said:
So a disconnect is a controller. But as I understand it, a cord-and-plug connection to a receptacle can be used as a disconnect. In which case it is a controller?
Click to expand...
Not to me. A controller would allow control without having to unplug.

A plug as a disconnect, yes.

A breaker can be a disco; a SWD breaker can be a controller.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top