Power Bridge

[mivey]

Show that one to me in Code language. Show me "utilization outlet" and a definition of what it is, please.

You know this and I should not have to but just for kicks:

Starting here: "Branch Circuit. The circuit conductors between the final overcurrent device protecting the circuit and the outlet(s)." we have identified the wiring as part of the branch circuit that goes up to here: "Outlet. A point on the wiring system at which current is taken to supply utilization equipment."

Utilization outlet: I should have said receptacle outlet, but I'm sure you knew what I was talking about. You did not play in the Big Oops for nothing.

Carful Justin. Branch Circuit, Appliance is a highly loaded three word term in the NEC.

Then pick one of the others. It is not a trick answer. I was trying to narrow the list down from just "Branch Circuit". I did not think it would be part of an Individual Branch Circuit because of the nature of what we are discussing. Does General Branch Circuit make you happy? I really don't care which Branch Circuit you pick but if it is wired using approved methods, it becomes part of a Branch Circuit (pick one).

 

[mivey]

All opinion. Do it with language from the Code.

The bottom line is that extension cords are temporary wiring, not fixed wiring. We are required to energize the appliance cord with a receptacle. A fixed wiring receptacle and a temporary extension cord are mutually exclusive.

You are looking for particular wording that will make you happy. Not sure that I can do anything for you.

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

Next question for review

Next question for review

If the INLET device instead was a 3-prong IEC type C14 male panel mounted to a wall-plate.

The IEC C14 male connector inlet is typically used as the disconnect INLET point to many electronic appliances, power surge protectors UPS devices and most TV's. These all mate to an IEC C13 type cable mounted connector supply power cord.

The UTILIZATION OUTLET RECEPTACLE could be an IEC C13 panel mounted female.

Would these devices provide a possible different application for using a power supply cord to extend circuit power from an existing receptacle outlet?
Basis is applied as these connectors have SPECIFIC use as to power connectors for utilization equipment. These could be viewed to not be considered a substitution as they would carry specific use and be a differential of standard 5-15R type receptacles.

Additionally, is NM or MC permitted to be connected to IEC conductors? Could not find specific reference to permitted use or non-permitted use of the cable type to what devices are "attachable"
Thoughts?

 

[mivey]

Thought y'all might enjoy a step back in time:

http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php/90830-Save-me-0.40-(Code-question)

Looks like they quit before it got fun! :grin:

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

Where is "temporary" defined?

Where is "temporary" defined?

The bottom line is that extension cords are temporary wiring, not fixed wiring.

Yes, extension cords are not fixed premise wiring, that is implied as an extension cord can be removed, is portable, replaceable and is not attached to the structure unless permitted in some sections of Code.

You continue to cite the word "temporary" without actual basis. It's your inserted word.

The bottom line is extension cords do in fact exist. They are recognized in NEC and have an entire Article and specfic section to cite to both USES PERMITTED and NOT PERMITTED. However, NO WHERE is your definition "extension cords are temporary" as a restriction to use, can I specfically locate anywhere. Not even in Article 100 Definitions or the entire Article 400 Flexible Cords and Cables.

400.3 Suitability
Flexible cords and cables and their associated fittings shall be suitable for the conditions of the use and location.

If "temporary use" is a restricted condition, logic would claim it should be cited in 400.3 at the very least to claim your bias as a complete basis. Right?
I can't find the applied word "temporary" or "shall be used" with a set duration of time anywhere. (With exception to use in construction sites or emergency situations, you win there.)

 

[Speedskater]

Why does it have to be on the same power cleaner? I understand the desire to have it on the same circuit.

Bill Whitlock (an expert in Audio/Video systems to AC power interfacing) writes:

In reality, many of the benefits often ascribed to ?power treatment? schemes are simply due to plugging all system equipment into the same outlet strip. For obvious reasons, this is always a good idea!

 

[charlie b]

You missed the most important part of my question: "with respect to the Article 100 definition of Controller". Under that definition, what is the difference between inserting and removing a pullout from a pullout disconnect and inserting and removing a cord connector from an inlet?

Once the disconnect is installed, wired up, and doing its job of providing power to the ?apparatus to which it is connected,? you can operate the disconnect in the manner described in its listing, thereby removing power to the apparatus, without having to undo any wiring. Once the cord connector is inserted into the inlet and is doing its job of providing power to the ?apparatus to which it is connected,? you cannot operate it in any manner described in its listing. You can remove it, just as you could disconnect wires from the disconnect and pull it off the wall, but in so doing you have removed it completely from service, and it is no longer doing its job. A properly installed disconnect continues to be in service, doing its job, even when the pullout is pulled out and tagged out. Enabling the tag out process is part of its job.

 

[iwire]

I can't see any reason why a plug and receptacle could not be a controller.

 

[wwhitney]

Once the disconnect is installed, wired up, and doing its job of providing power to the “apparatus to which it is connected,” you can operate the disconnect in the manner described in its listing, thereby removing power to the apparatus, without having to undo any wiring. Once the cord connector is inserted into the inlet and is doing its job of providing power to the “apparatus to which it is connected,” you cannot operate it in any manner described in its listing.

So the distinction you are relying on is the listing: the pull-out disconnect presumably has the action of removing the pullout described in its listing, while the cord connector and inlet, as more general purpose items, are not listed in a way that specifically describes this use.

Then I ask you and al hildebrand, where in the NEC is a Controller required to be listed?

Thanks,
Wayne

 

[wwhitney]

I can't see any reason why a plug and receptacle could not be a controller.

Wow.

So what do you think of the argument that the PowerBridge kit is a controller, that the definition of Premises Wiring System therefore excludes the PowerBridge kit, and so the cable portion of the kit is not substituting for fixed wiring?

Thanks,
Wayne

 

[charlie b]

I can't see any reason why a plug and receptacle could not be a controller.

Would you call the power cord that connects your table lamp to a receptacle a "controller"?

 

[al hildenbrand]

. . . "with respect to the Article 100 definition of Controller". Under that definition, what is the difference between inserting and removing a pullout from a pullout disconnect and inserting and removing a cord connector from an inlet?

110.3(B)

Show that the cord connector / inlet has an interrupting rating. Being from different manufacturers (most likely) they will never be tested for how they operate together, unlike the single unit pull out disconnect.

Then I ask you and al hildebrand, where in the NEC is a Controller required to be listed?

I asked first here in post #495 .

But, that aside, I assert you will not find the generic 15 or 20 Amp 125 Volt cord connector / inlet to have any documented interrupting capability. Therefore, something else will have to be operated to shut off the energized utilization equipment. Only after a controller with a suitable interrupting rating de-energizes the utilization equipment, can the cord connector / inlet be separated thus removing the conductors leading to the utilization equipment from their source of supply.

Since the utilization equipment is already off, the cord connector / inlet is not "controlling" it.

 

[charlie b]

So the distinction you are relying on is the listing. . . .

No. That was a convenient way to explain, or to try to explain, that there is a difference between something that remains in place and in service, while performing its function of "governing" the power to an apparatus, and something that must be physically removed and taken out of service, in order to achieve a similar result.

A wire is not a controller, as it does not govern power in the manner described in the NEC definition of controller. You might as well, as I said in my reply to Bob, say that a lamp cord is a controller. For that matter, you can hard wire a dishwasher or a disposal to an outlet box in the wall, and you can disable the appliance by snipping the wire with a pair of wire cutters, and I don't think that will cause the wire from the outlet box to the appliance to suddenly meet the definition of controller.

 

[charlie b]

So what do you think of the argument that the PowerBridge kit is a controller, that the definition of Premises Wiring System therefore excludes the PowerBridge kit, and so the cable portion of the kit is not substituting for fixed wiring?

The question was addressed to Bob, but I?ll give my answer anyway. I never saw any portion of this product as constituting a portion of the premises wiring system. The two boxes and the wires in the wall that connect them are not powered by a wire run in the walls back to the breaker. They are, as someone mentioned recently, ?art work.?

To my way of thinking, the ?substitution? issue has to do with using a flexible cord outside the wall, as a substitute for using NM (or some other permanently installed wire) inside the wall. You could power the TV by extending the branch circuit from the nearest receptacle and installing a permanent receptacle (i.e., one that is part of the premises wiring system) behind the TV. Instead, you use a flexible cord to provide power to the ?art work.? That is the substitution that I thought was under discussion.

 

[wwhitney]

That was a convenient way to explain, or to try to explain, that there is a difference between something that remains in place and in service, while performing its function of "governing" the power to an apparatus, and something that must be physically removed and taken out of service, in order to achieve a similar result.

I fail to see the operational difference between removing the pull-out from a pull-out disconnect (and then reinserting it) and unplugging a cord cap from a receptacle or inlet (and then reinserting it). Obviously there is a listing/testing difference, but I don't see any other difference. The pull-out piece of a pull-out disconnect is no more or less "taken out of service" than the plug end of a cord-and-plug.

A wire is not a controller, as it does not govern power in the manner described in the NEC definition of controller. You might as well, as I said in my reply to Bob, say that a lamp cord is a controller. For that matter, you can hard wire a dishwasher or a disposal to an outlet box in the wall, and you can disable the appliance by snipping the wire with a pair of wire cutters, and I don't think that will cause the wire from the outlet box to the appliance to suddenly meet the definition of controller.

I agree the wire by itself is not a controller, but in conjunction with a plug/receptacle or cord-cap/inlet, it can be part of a controller.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[wwhitney]

I asked first here in post #495 .

RIght, that is why I addressed you in my question. I was just taking a short-cut by only quoting Charlie B. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

But, that aside, I assert you will not find the generic 15 or 20 Amp 125 Volt cord connector / inlet to have any documented interrupting capability. Therefore, something else will have to be operated to shut off the energized utilization equipment.

I assure you that even though it is not documented, if I unplug a table lamp that is on, it will shut off; if I plug it back in, it will turn back on. That meets the definition of a controller. It's not a listed controller, or a "documented" controller, but I don't know of any requirement that a controller be listed or documented.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[wwhitney]

I never saw any portion of this product as constituting a portion of the premises wiring system. The two boxes and the wires in the wall that connect them are not powered by a wire run in the walls back to the breaker. They are, as someone mentioned recently, “art work.”

To my way of thinking, the “substitution” issue has to do with using a flexible cord outside the wall, as a substitute for using NM (or some other permanently installed wire) inside the wall. You could power the TV by extending the branch circuit from the nearest receptacle and installing a permanent receptacle (i.e., one that is part of the premises wiring system) behind the TV. Instead, you use a flexible cord to provide power to the “art work.” That is the substitution that I thought was under discussion.

OK, we agree the PowerBridge is not part of the premises wiring system. Then I can't see how it is substituting for a hard-wired receptacle directly behind the TV. It is instead an alternative, and you end up with a different thing.

Under the definition of substitute you seem to be using, any utilization equipment that can be either hardwired or cord-and-plug-connected must be hard-wired. Otherwise the cord is substituting for fixed wiring.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[charlie b]

The pull-out piece of a pull-out disconnect is no more or less "taken out of service" than the plug end of a cord-and-plug.

But the disconnect remains in place. It is an entity unto itself, it is still there, and it is doing an important safety job.

I agree the wire by itself is not a controller, but in conjunction with a plug/receptacle or cord-cap/inlet, it can be part of a controller.

I thought you were trying to call the cord and its two end pieces a controller, not calling them part of a controller. Isn?t that the case you are trying to make? In any event, a component that has no moving parts and that has no influence on (i.e., does not govern) the power going to an apparatus cannot be said to be controlling anything.

 

[al hildenbrand]

I don't know of any requirement that a controller be listed or documented.

110.1
110.2
110.3
110.3(A)(1)
110.3(A)(6)
110.3(A)(7)
110.3(A)(8)

And last, but far from least:

110.9 Second sentence.

 

[charlie b]

OK, we agree the PowerBridge is not part of the premises wiring system. Then I can't see how it is substituting for a hard-wired receptacle directly behind the TV.

As I see it, the substitution issue does not involve the Power Bridge as an entire ?kit.? This kit is not substitution for a hard wired receptacle. Rather, the flexible cord outside the wall is substituting for a chapter 300 wiring method inside the wall.

Under the definition of substitute you seem to be using, any appliance that can be either hardwired or cord-and-plug-connected must be hard-wired. Otherwise the cord is substituting for fixed wiring.

Appliances can be hard wired or plug and cord connected, as the manufacturer desires. The NEC does not cover the design, construction, or instruction manuals for appliances. The premises wiring system ends at the receptacle. The wiring to the receptacle can be done inside the walls, per chapter 300 methods. If instead you run a flexible cord outside the walls, as a way of avoiding running wires inside the walls, you are doing a substitution.