Power Bridge

[LarryFine]

I might just close and then delete this thread, just to keep the old record intact.

Noooooooooooooooooooo! grin

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

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

Thanks Larry.

I too am having difficulty with this.

Article 100 Definitions: Premise wiring (NEC 2008) [added from 2005]

This includes (a) wiring from the the service point or power source to the outlets or (b) wiring from and including the source to the outlets where there is no service point.

[not inclusive of internal wiring to appliances (not "of") luminaries, motors, controllers, motor control centers and similar equipment.]

Which is it? Not (a). Perhaps (b)?
What do we do with "to" appliances? Meaning that belonging to? or extending to?
The appliance is not the end of the premise wiring circuit, right?

Is the method used in a PowerBridge installation with regard of the "artful" in-wall wiring using NM/MC to between an outlet and an INLET, as a device is permitted to provide energy from a cord-set, also permitted to source its energy from a premise wired outlet, thus energizing the PowerBridge outlet behind the TV.
Is this the end-point of the premise wiring?

If yes, then is the POWER SUPPLY CORD-SET a SUBSTITUTION, or a purposeful "part-of" the extension to the end of the premise wiring circuit.
Do we apply the cord as allowable within 400.7(3) (10) (B) and citing 406.6(D) as the only permitted use of a cord-set to provide energization to the Inlet which is allowable as cited as intended purpose?

Perhaps the in-wall extension is just that, a defined "branch extension" of the premise wiring?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

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

Almost everything is premises wiring...see Article 100.

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

Almost everything is premises wiring...see Article 100.

Don, respectfully, as I described in post 602, with Article 100 to guide basis of description, is the cord-set still a substitution of the PowerBridge, if it is possibly allowable/permitted in regards to 400.7 as I cite bias to permitted use.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Originally Posted by PowerBridgeTech
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.

I agree 100% with Charlie on this one.

 

[LarryFine]

I agree 100% with Charlie on this one.

Same here. I still consider the entire package a glorified extension cord that uses approved-for-in-wall-use components for the in-the-wall portion.

If it was premises wiring using extension-cord components, it would not be NEC compliant. That alone proves it can't be premises wiring.

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

Same here. I still consider the entire package a glorified extension cord that uses approved-for-in-wall-use components for the in-the-wall portion.

If it was premises wiring using extension-cord components, it would not be NEC compliant. That alone proves it can't be premises wiring.

Thanks gentlemen.

This is a process of elimination. What is and is not.

New twist we have not entertained.
Since NM cable is permitted use outside the wall, is there a justification to manufacture the "flexible cord"-cord-set, in substitution to constructing with NM or TC cable with plug-connectors?
Does this change the scope of "substitution" by definition of a flexible cord 400.8(1) if NM or TC building wire is use?

So far, no one is having issue with the "artful" in-wall portion and energizing the INLET and using the existing premise wired outlet, it seem to center on the actual flexible cord-set.

Any NEC "not permitted" sections with reference the use of NM or TC cable with 5-15R and 5-15P end connectors?
I've looked, can't find any.


Just thinking aloud.

 

[LarryFine]

Any NEC "not permitted" sections with reference the use of NM or TC cable with 5-15R and 5-15P end connectors?

Mainly that they're not designed for use with solid conductors in general, and, I believe, NM in particular.

 

[LarryFine]

Just thinking aloud.

Doing the same, I'm thinking of constructing a portable mock-up of an inlet and a receptacle in a pair of OWB boxes on a piece of drywall, and demonstrating the installation to my two favorite chief inspectors.

I could use a third receptacle as a premises source, plug a power filter into it, and plug the jumper cord alternately into both the premises receptacle and the filter to see if that has any bearing on their opinions.

It would be funny if their only objection was my inlet plate; specifically the home-made nature of the combination of the inlet and my hole-sawed blank wall plate. :grin: Anyone have a miniature panel TV to lend me?

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

Anyone have a miniature panel TV to lend me?

Larry,

PM me with regard to at least a PowerBridge kit to apply to a panel.
Do you also need a short piece of ROMEX?

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Justin are these units designed for one flanged outlet to feed one receptacle. What stops someone from looping 5 tv's to one flanged inlet? I guess I am asking is your product approved or listed for more than one or just one receptacle?

 

[mivey]

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?

"in use" is when the cord is plugged in and energized. It is at that point fufilling its function: to extend the point of connection to a power source.

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?

UPS devices, remote power taps, etc are not the same as cord sets.

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 NEC makes a distinction between the flexible cord attached to the appliance and other flexible cord uses.

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?

Flexible cord is not a permitted method for general wiring. There are specific applications where flexible cord is permitted to extend branch circuits. One case is with luminaires. There is also an exception that allows electric discharge lighting with inlets to be supplied by cord pendants with cord connectors. Just because there is an exception for this particular case does not mean we can use inlets and connectors as wiring methods everywhere because it is not a permitted wiring method for general wiring.

Other than the places specifically spelled out in certain sections of the code, flexible cord is not a permitted wiring method. The only code section where is is permitted for general branch circuit use is in the temporary wiring section of the code.

If flexible cord is not generally permitted for as a permanent wiring method, but is generally permitted as a temporary wiring method, it should be clear that it is generally a temporary wiring method.

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?

Perhaps you can elaborate on the vampire device. The primary use for the PowerBridge is to plug an extension cord into an existing receptacle in order to power an added receptacle permanently installed at a different location.

When we use the wiring methods in chapter 3 to add a new receptacle to a premise, the fact that there were existing receptacles in the premise does not change what we have done.

We determined that there was a need for an additional receptacle. That new receptacle extension becomes an extension of the branch circuit like the other receptacles before it. That new receptacle does not become an extension cord just because it wasn't there from day one.

 

[mivey]

The PowerBridge is also not a Motor.

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

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.

The point was that an inlet as a separate device is intended to be used on utilization equipment. Could using the inlet as a feed to a section of NM cable (what PowerBridge does) be seen as using the inlet for something other than what was intended? Just a question.

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

Justin are these units designed for one flanged outlet to feed one receptacle. What stops someone from looping 5 tv's to one flanged inlet? I guess I am asking is your product approved or listed for more than one or just one receptacle?

The kit consists of a single outlet with only single-pole connection. The Listing calls out a specific use to an appliance.

The INLET is also single-pole.

Could the NM be "split" inside the j-box? I imagine it could by use of wirenuts, however nothing is implied or instructed in the instructions or Listing to permit this.

 

[mivey]

So we can pretty much ignore 210.50(C)?

You can. I'm not.

Just seems odd to summarily dismiss paragraph (B) by saying the specifics are ONLY covered elsewhere when it is obvious that paragraph (C) also has some important instructions for us.

You really can't say that the first paragraph points to the ONLY sections of code that tell us the specifications for installing receptacles because obviously paragraph (C) has additional specifications. As does paragraph (B). And paragraph (A). The first paragraph has an implied "and" after it because additional information about the required outlets follows the first paragraph.

Can you say, "Flailing about, grasping at straws?"

That would require someone with a need to flail in the first place. We are discussing the possibilities of the device conflicting with code. I have no dog in the hunt. The end result won't make or break my day. It is not about some act of desperation but about being thorough.

We could just accept that the device is listed and move along. The problem is that we already have at least one jurisdiction opposed to the use of the device. I think our effort here is to discuss every possible angle, not from the aspect of "grasping at straws", but to see if we can leave no stone unturned.

A defense is really worthless if there was no effort on the part of the prosecution. I have no problem with either role, but let's at least make a concerted effort to explore every avenue.

As I have said before, this device is no more a danger than many things we use that are deemed acceptable now. How is this device any different than feeding discharge lighting inlet through a flexible cord? Flexible cord has been allowed to extend branch circuits under certain conditions. Why not this condition? Would the NEC make an exception in this case? The fact is that this specific use of flexible cord for extending branch circuits has not been allowed yet, IMO.

Without some clarification, this device can continually be called into question. Hopefully we can explore the possible code conflicts so a proposal can be put forth with a ruling that is clear enough to settle any questions that might arise in the future.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

What size conductor is in the rubber cord? This is what I was getting at. If someone added a bunch of appliance from one inlet it could be an issue.

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

The point was that an inlet as a separate device is intended to be used on utilization equipment. Could using the inlet as a feed to a section of NM cable (what PowerBridge does) be seen as using the inlet for something other than what was intended? Just a question.

Our Listing applies specific intent and purpose of use the INLET to a single-pole outlet conductors, no to energize a structure premise wiring.
Why is our listing being thrown out for all reason of implied specific purpose?

I understand an AHJ can decide not to apply Listing, its subjective.
Are we to always assume the AHJ will not accept Listing as a basis to apply safety as a tested product?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Don, respectfully, as I described in post 602, with Article 100 to guide basis of description, is the cord-set still a substitution of the PowerBridge, if it is possibly allowable/permitted in regards to 400.7 as I cite bias to permitted use.

I have no idea what the sentence means.

As I have said before there is absolutely nothing other panel action that will convince me that the cord used with the power bridge is not a cord being used as a substitute for the fixed wiring of the building.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Our Listing applies specific intent and purpose of use the INLET to a single-pole outlet conductors, no to energize a structure premise wiring.
Why is our listing being thrown out for all reason of implied specific purpose?

I understand an AHJ can decide not to apply Listing, its subjective.
Are we to always assume the AHJ will not accept Listing as a basis to apply safety as a tested product?

Because a listing cannot change a code rule and that is what is happening with this listing.

There were inspectors that prohibited the use of listed occupancy sensor lighting controls because these listed products required the installer to use the EGC as the grounded conductor for the occupancy sensor electronics. This issue resulted in a new code rule that requires the grounded conductor to be run to light switch locations and will result in UL changing the listing standard to prohibit the use of the EGC as the grounded conductor for these types of devices.

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

We could just accept that the device is listed and move along. The problem is that we already have at least one jurisdiction opposed to the use of the device. I think our effort here is to discuss every possible angle, not from the aspect of "grasping at straws", but to see if we can leave no stone unturned.

A defense is really worthless if there was no effort on the part of the prosecution. I have no problem with either role, but let's at least make a concerted effort to explore every avenue.

As I have said before, this device is no more a danger than many things we use that are deemed acceptable now. How is this device any different than feeding discharge lighting inlet through a flexible cord? Flexible cord has been allowed to extend branch circuits under certain conditions. Why not this condition? Would the NEC make an exception in this case? The fact is that this specific use of flexible bale for extending branch circuits has not been allowed yet, IMO.

Without some clarification, this device can continually be called into question. Hopefully we can explore the possible code conflicts so a proposal can be put forth with a ruling that is clear enough to settle any questions that might arise in the future.

Well said, and I appreciate all the turning of stones, especially the ones pointing at how this needs to be considered throughout the Code.