Power Bridge

[mivey]

I have more than one extension cord in use in my house that hasn't been unplugged in over 12 years. One is attached to the house by cable clips that hold it off the floor along the baseboard.

Permanent?

We all probably do that, me included.

I pictured 120v pucks, but there are other cases of rubber cords that directly wire-nut with building wire, such as commercial exterior building lighting.

But flexible cord is allowed for fixtures so...

Ah! There's the question, then!

Is the isolated section of NM between the two old-work boxes building wiring or part of the building wiring system?

Is it any of the NEC's business at all? Or the AHJ's?

If not, what's the voltage limit we could use on it before it falls back under the auspices of the NEC?

I agree. At what point does the NEC go too far? I don't think they have any business telling us what to do with appliances but they do anyway.

Along that line of thought, it makes me wonder where else 210.50(B) would apply if it does not apply to appliance attachment plug? I think there are a few places. At what point does it apply/not apply to appliances? We might all agree it applies to a disposal or a dishwasher since they are pretty much set in the structure. But as we move out of the structure like a refrigerator, washing machine, etc we get closer to the TV bolted to the wall.

 

[mivey]

Mmmm! Barbecue babyback ribs and sweet-potato fries!

Wow. Didn't miss anything.

You forgot to bring me a plate.

All right. Let's take one of those pre-packaged under-cabinet lighting sets that comes with a switched multi-receptacle controller and several lights, each with a plug. A simple plug'n'play setup. (Where the light controller plugs in is a separate discussion.)

Now, let's say I want to place one or more of the lights on top of the cabinet for ambiance lighting, and run it off the same switch/control as the ones underneath. That means a wire in the wall with a plug on one end and a receptacle on the other end.

If the wire in the wall is governed by the NEC, it should be NM (or equiv.) and each end be terminated in a box, and a device as an interface between the controller's socket underneath, and one atop for the light(s). The latter is easy: a receptacle.

I'm sure we can think of many scenarios where only a non-compliant solution would work but that does not mean we can set the code aside. You can't always get what you want. Sometimes you just get what you need.

Now, how do we get the power from the controller's socket to the bottom of the NM? A short cord with a plug on one end and a socket on the other, and an inlet in the lower box to accept the socket seems to fit the bill. Does the NEC govern this install?

Opinions vary. :grin:

Is that section of NM part of the premises wiring system? Is the mere fact that it's in the wall, and it, the boxes, and the devices are also approved for NEC-governed use determine that this is also premises wiring? That we're feeding it power at all?

Maybe the fact that it is permanently installed?

When one places a LV lighting transformer somewhere in a house and uses NM as the in-wall portion, is that also premises wiring and NEC governed?

The NEC would say they govern LV also.

May one use plugs and sockets for the NM-to-flexible-wiring interface, or must every connection be hard-wired?

There are code sections where plug and sockets are allowed.

Is it the voltage level? Does every instance of 120vac in the structure automatically fall under NEC rules? What if it's separately derived, say through a 1:1 isolation transformer, or my power filter provides equal isolation? Is the output still premises wiring?

At some point, we cross the line. I'm not sure where that line is at other than to say I think it should stop at the end of the premise wiring.

Just to close with an argument to the extreme, would an isolated section of #4 bare copper just run in the wall but unconnected be part of the premises GEC system?

I would say no.

What if I used it for another purpose? Does intent matter, as was mentioned earlier?

I think intent does matter. I do not have a solid set of rules for that though.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I have more than one extension cord in use in my house that hasn't been unplugged in over 12 years. One is attached to the house by cable clips that hold it off the floor along the baseboard.

Permanent?

That is very clearly a 400.8(1) violation...even a "clearer" violation than is the subject of this thread.

 

[mivey]

I have more than one extension cord in use in my house that hasn't been unplugged in over 12 years. One is attached to the house by cable clips that hold it off the floor along the baseboard.

Permanent?

We all probably do that, me included.

That is very clearly a 400.8(1) violation...even a "clearer" violation than is the subject of this thread.

Ooops. I meant the 12 years, not the cable clips.

 

[al hildenbrand]

. . . it makes me wonder where else 210.50(B) would apply if it does not apply to appliance attachment plug? . . .

Really? It isn't hard to find what 210.50(B) applies to. It's in the NEC. It applies to branch circuits in the Premises Wiring (System) of an Occupancy. It doesn't cover appliances or their cords.

Chapter 2 Wiring and Protection
ARTICLE 210 Branch Circuits
I. General Provisions
210.1 Scope. This article covers branch circuits except for branch circuits that supply only motor loads, which are covered in Article 430. Provisions of this article and Article 430 apply to branch circuits with combination loads.

210.2 Other Articles for Specific-Purpose Branch Circuits.
Branch circuits shall comply with this article and also with the applicable provisions of other articles of this Code. The provisions for branch circuits supplying equipment listed in Table 210.2 amend or supplement the provisions in this article and shall apply to branch circuits referred to therein.

III. Required Outlets
210.50 General.
Receptacle outlets shall be installed as specified in 210.52 through 210.63.

(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.

The scope of "wherever" is not defined beyond the branch circuit.

In a 30' x 30' single family dwelling unfinished basement, I am required to place a receptacle outlet. Flexible cords with attachment plugs are used in the dwelling. Flexible cords with attachment plugs are used in the basement. I cannot determine from 210.50(B) where the branch circuit required receptacle outlets are to be placed because it contains no such information. The opening sentence of 210.50 tells us where the required locations of receptacle outlets are. 210.50(B) merely states that if I have an occupancy where flexible cords with attachment plugs ARE NOT USED that I don't need receptacle outlets or permanently attached cords with cord connectors.

 

[mivey]

Really? It isn't hard to find what 210.50(B) applies to. It's in the NEC. It applies to branch circuits in the Premises Wiring (System) of an Occupancy. It doesn't cover appliances or their cords.The scope of "wherever" is not defined beyond the branch circuit.

So we can pretty much ignore 210.50(C)?

In a 30' x 30' single family dwelling unfinished basement, I am required to place a receptacle outlet. Flexible cords with attachment plugs are used in the dwelling. Flexible cords with attachment plugs are used in the basement. I cannot determine from 210.50(B) where the branch circuit required receptacle outlets are to be placed because it contains no such information. The opening sentence of 210.50 tells us where the required locations of receptacle outlets are.

And if you have an appliance that is not in a temporary location, it should have a receptacle installed for it. I don't think it is the intent of the NEC to have extension cords webbed all over the place for more than a temporary condition.

210.50(B) merely states that if I have an occupancy where flexible cords with attachment plugs ARE NOT USED that I don't need receptacle outlets or permanently attached cords with cord connectors.

So the 6 foot rule, 2 foot rule, etc are thrown out if we do not plan to have any cord connected appliances?

Anyone ever ran across what happens in an Amish house? Do we have a completely different set of requirments? How would that work if we know there won't be appliances all over the place?

 

[mivey]

PowerBridge is not utilization equipment. This is from UL:

Attachment plugs (AXGV)
...
Male Inlet (Equipment Inlet, Motor Attachment Plug) ? A male contact device to be mounted on utilization equipment to provide a detachable electrical connection to an appliance coupler or cord connector.

Now what?

 

[mivey]

PowerBridge is not utilization equipment. This is from UL:

Attachment plugs (AXGV)
...
Male Inlet (Equipment Inlet, Motor Attachment Plug) ? A male contact device to be mounted on utilization equipment to provide a detachable electrical connection to an appliance coupler or cord connector.

Now what?

and this:

RECEPTACLES (RTDV)

Cord Connector ? A female contact device intended to be wired on flexible cord for use as an extension from an outlet to make a detachable electrical connection to an attachment plug or, as an appliance coupler, to a male inlet.

Male Inlet (Equipment Inlet, Motor Attachment Plug) ? A male contact device intended to be mounted on utilization equipment to provide a detachable electrical connection to an appliance coupler or cord connector.

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

... (in part) ...I don't think it is the intent of the NEC to have extension cords webbed all over the place for more than a temporary condition.

So the next BIG question:
If your not certain claim is to bias the purposeful use of the cord specifically to the "words" "temporary use" is a permitted use of a cord-set, then when, at what time is the cord actually in use? When the appliance is on? plugged in? What if the connection to the appliance involves a "vampire" circuit cutoff device?

Is there a rule which states if a surge protector/UPS connected to a premise wired outlet can only be plugged in temporary?
These devices have specific purpose do they not? They have flexible cord-sets. Where is the permitted use for these, the rules to apply, the duration of time to use. Is there a rule the SP/UPS is not permitted to supply power to a cord-set?
I'm not clear if one exists, is there?

ie, if the cord is connected to the premise wiring outlet and is connected to an appliance as allowable in 400.7, the remise of 400.8(1) says it's not allowed, expect that 400.8 heading states unless specifically permitted in 400.7, so which is it?
Are there two sides of the NEC fence in these conditions? Which are we to apply as it obviously is not well defined as we find in this HUGE thread.


The term "temporary", does not appear anywhere in 400.7 or 400.8, nor as a Definition in Article 100, nor in UL as to cord-sets.
Are we to apply the ambiguous term as to ONLY WHEN it is actually energizing an appliance?
Is it a violation if the cord-set is only plugged into the outlet and nothing else?
It's not substituting, it's NOT in use, is there violation if we follow 400.7 or 400.8?

In the case of the PowerBridge, it has "specific purpose" to energize the in-wall EXTENSION, using compliant materials as called out in code, to an utilization device, (appliance) (TV). ONLY, not to replace something which is not already in place within the structure. If something is already "part-of", the outlet used to energize the cord-set, then how is it subtitution using a cord going to define itself? It's not replacing it's purpose if it exists to supply energy to an appliance.

If the TV is being energized through say a "vampire device power supply" cutting power to the appliance when not in use, at what point is the appliance being enerigized? Always? temporary?

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

PowerBridge is not utilization equipment.

Respectfully, why not?


Definition 100: Utilization Equipment. [in part]
Equipment that utilizes electric energy for electronic... lighting, or similar purposes.

Please argue how the INLET connected with NM to a receptacle doesn't utilize electric energy to a similar, specific purpose to supply energy to an appliance (TV)?

 

[tom baker]

Look what I started. This may be a record for the most number of posts.

 

[al hildenbrand]

PowerBridge is not utilization equipment. This is from UL:

Attachment plugs (AXGV)
...
Male Inlet (Equipment Inlet, Motor Attachment Plug) ? A male contact device to be mounted on utilization equipment to provide a detachable electrical connection to an appliance coupler or cord connector.

Now what?

The PowerBridge is also not a Motor.

Other than using the word inlet, this reference has absolutely no application to the PowerBridge.

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

huh, thanks (?) I think...

huh, thanks (?) I think...

Look what I started. This may be a record for the most number of posts.

See, you also have another specified purpose, starting record-breaking threads.
Who knew!

 

[LarryFine]

At some point, we cross the line. I'm not sure where that line is at other than to say I think it should stop at the end of the premise wiring.

Agreed. Now we need to define that line by deciding which receptacle is "the end of the premise wiring."

 

[LarryFine]

Ooops. I meant the 12 years, not the cable clips.

So, the NEC effectively tells us how often we must unplug our extension cords?

 

[al hildenbrand]

Originally Posted by mivey
. . . it makes me wonder where else 210.50(B) would apply if it does not apply to appliance attachment plug? . . .

Really? It isn't hard to find what 210.50(B) applies to. It's in the NEC. It applies to branch circuits in the Premises Wiring (System) of an Occupancy. It doesn't cover appliances or their cords.The scope of "wherever" is not defined beyond the branch circuit.

Chapter 2 Wiring and Protection
ARTICLE 210 Branch Circuits
I. General Provisions
210.1 Scope. This article covers branch circuits except for branch circuits that supply only motor loads, which are covered in Article 430. Provisions of this article and Article 430 apply to branch circuits with combination loads.

210.2 Other Articles for Specific-Purpose Branch Circuits.
Branch circuits shall comply with this article and also with the applicable provisions of other articles of this Code. The provisions for branch circuits supplying equipment listed in Table 210.2 amend or supplement the provisions in this article and shall apply to branch circuits referred to therein.

III. Required Outlets
210.50 General.
Receptacle outlets shall be installed as specified in 210.52 through 210.63.

(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.

So we can pretty much ignore 210.50(C)?

You can. I'm not. Can you say, "Flailing about, grasping at straws?"

 

[al hildenbrand]

Gotta crack 782!

Gotta crack 782!

Look what I started. This may be a record for the most number of posts.

We still have a ways to go to break the "Big Oops. . . Need Suggestions" thread post count of 782.

 

[charlie b]

What about a fastened-in-place lighting fixture, such as under-cabinet lighting, that comes with a permanently-attached length of lamp cord? We can't plug them into counter-top receptacles.

We most certainly can! But if you wish to reopen this debate (it was run to death, I seem to recall, more than a couple years ago), then let?s open a separate thread for that discussion. I don?t want to side track this one.

 

[charlie b]

Please argue how the INLET connected with NM to a receptacle doesn't utilize electric energy to a similar, specific purpose to supply energy to an appliance (TV)?

It does not use energy. It merely passes it further on down the line. Your device no more fits the definition of utilization equipment than does an extension cord. But don?t be concerned. This point is not going to make or break anyone?s argument on the subject of whether your device is NEC compliant.

 

[charlie b]

Look what I started. This may be a record for the most number of posts.

That record stands at 781 posts, with the final comment posted on November 7, 2005. Since my post brings the total for this thread up to 600, we still have a ways to go. I might just close and then delete this thread, just to keep the old record intact.