Power Bridge

[don_resqcapt19]

Justin,
Is there any provision as part of your product that would prevent the use of a two wire cord between the receptacle outlet that supplies the power and the inlet device?

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

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

Don, respectfully, I understand and agree.
I'm not suggesting any Listing change or override Code.
It's our intension to offer our listing with "specific purpose" apply to what Code allows. We believe there is merit if our Listing of implied use and purpose, when the listing is applied as such. We do not know if WA read our listing, PowerBridge has never been contacted to any such action from WA State.

We didn't create any new technology, these devices have been on the market for many years. All we have is produced as a kit together and manufacture new wall plate designswith specific purpose.

If an exception or revision is necessary, we are open to such, as it may merit. Perhaps the intended use is not fully recognized in code to allow an installer to proceed with compliance.

 

[mivey]

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

"wiring internal to" and "wiring of" are talking about the same wiring. This "internal to" wiring is not the same as the wiring "going to" something.

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 the inlet were wired/powered with permitted wiring methods, there would be no question about it being allowed.

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.

I think the PowerBridge could be seen as an extension of premise circuit wiring. It could also be seen as an extension cord. It depends on how the cord set that connects to the inlet is classified.

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?

Please show me where it is allowable to power a permanently mounted receptacle with flexible cord. The cord is NOT:
1) pendant wiring
2) luminaire wiring
3) a connection for portable luminaires, portable and mobile signs, or appliances
4) an elevator cable
5) wiring for cranes or hoists
6) a connection to utilization equipment to facilitate frequent interchange
7) used for prevention of the transmission of noise or vibration
8) a flexible cord appliances specifically designed to permit ready removal...
9) used for connection of moving parts
10) not specifically permitted for this use anywhere else in the code

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

If we can find where the cord set is permitted as a wiring method, then the whole thing becomes an extension of the branch circuit and could not be classified as a substitute

 

[mivey]

Why is our listing being thrown out for all reason of implied specific purpose?

Because regardless of listing, the use appears to conflict with parts of the NEC.

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

Justin,
Is there any provision as part of your product that would prevent the use of a two wire cord between the receptacle outlet that supplies the power and the inlet device?

Don, our specific listing calls out the specifications of the cord.

Power cord - US and Canadian Listed Component. VW-1, rated 125V, 15A, approximate length: 105 mm. Power cord is used to connect from outlet to electrical appliances.
SPT-1, type SJT, three conductor, 16 AWG, 60 C ? Same as above. Any manufacturer, any model name, SJT/SPT-1, three conductor, 14 or 16 AWG,

Alternate 60 C, VW-1, 14 or 16 AWG, 60 C, VW-1, rated 125V, 15A, approximate length: 105 mm.

 

[mivey]

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.

If you mean to replace the cord set with NM, you could not do that becuase it is exposed wiring. Replacing the cord set with other wiring methods that are permitted to be exposed would be different.

Does anyone (other than Larry :grin have any thoughts on the use of an inlet with something other than utilization equipment (see the info from the UL White Book I posted before)?

 

[mivey]

The kit consists of a single outlet with only single-pole connection.

But there are other versions from other manufacturers that use duplex receptacles.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

If this product supplies only one outlet then what is it's advantage. I can just as easily run a cable from a jb to each TV and keep it on the same circuit. The only advantage I see is that only one surge suppressor is needed.

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

"I think the PowerBridge could be seen as an extension of premise circuit wiring. It could also be seen as an extension cord. It depends on how the cord set that connects to the inlet is classified.

Please show me where it is allowable to power a permanently mounted receptacle with flexible cord. The cord is NOT:
1) pendant wiring
2) luminaire wiring
3) a connection for portable luminaires, portable and mobile signs, or appliances
4) an elevator cable
5) wiring for cranes or hoists
6) a connection to utilization equipment to facilitate frequent interchange
7) used for prevention of the transmission of noise or vibration
8) a flexible cord appliances specifically designed to permit ready removal...
9) used for connection of moving parts
10) not specifically permitted for this use anywhere else in the code

If we can find where the cord set is permitted as a wiring method, then the whole thing becomes an extension of the branch circuit and could not be classified as a substitute

(3) To apply the word appliance, our Listing would need to apply it's "purpose" to accept this.

I'm not impling the cord is a Method 3 wiring of a premise. It's not clearly. Why does it need to be? It's not "attached" as 400.8 cites. It can be considered "portable" as in temporary as it an be removed at anytime by a non-QP. It makes no claim to substituition as I see it. It has not replaced premise wiring methods applicable to it's "specified purpose"

The cord has an intended purposeful use to connection of an appliance by means of the in-wall compliant extension.

If the cord was not suppling power to an appliance, ie a light or additional outlets used for other applications, then I see the intended purpose is not being applied to (3)

The PowerBridge has established by its Listing the Definition of Listing with "Specified Purpose"

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

But there are other versions from other manufacturers that use duplex receptacles.

Yes. Some have no listing to reference as to intended purpose, so I can't speak to those. Some are to be hardwired to premise wiring without an INLET method applied.

 

[PowerBridgeTech]

If you mean to replace the cord set with NM, you could not do that becuase it is exposed wiring. Replacing the cord set with other wiring methods that are permitted to be exposed would be different.

TC? Can it be used with plugs attachments? I know TC can be exposed. Is there an application to use as an extension from an outlet?

DISREGARD:

TC would not work.

 

[mivey]

(3) To apply the word appliance, our Listing would need to apply it's "purpose" to accept this.

I'm not impling the cord is a Method 3 wiring of a premise. It's not clearly. Why does it need to be? It's not "attached" as 400.8 cites. It can be considered "portable" as in temporary as it an be removed at anytime by a non-QP. It makes no claim to substituition as I see it. It has not replaced premise wiring methods applicable to it's "specified purpose"

The cord has an intended purposeful use to connection of an appliance by means of the in-wall compliant extension.

If the cord was not suppling power to an appliance, ie a light or additional outlets used for other applications, then I see the intended purpose is not being applied to (3)

The PowerBridge has established by its Listing the Definition of Listing with "Specified Purpose"

But the flexible cord does not attach to an appliance.

Even so, a TV bolted to the wall could hardly be seen as a portable appliance. I'm thinking portable meaning more like a boom box you carry around on your shoulder. The ability to move something does not make it portable. We can always move a stove, dishwasher, etc but I doubt that qualifies them to be portable.

 

[mivey]

I found this interesting in that it speaks to extension cords being substitution:

From the 2001 ROP
2-151-(210-50): Reject
SUBMITTER: Edward J. Fox, Jr., Orange County Bldg Div., FL

RECOMMENDATION: 210-50: There shall be a minimum of two (2) duplex receptacles in each office, and classroom. They shall be separated by a reasonable distance to provide access from different areas of the room.

SUBSTANTIATION: By providing receptacles that would normally not be installed for offices, and classrooms, the citizens would not have to use extension cords, nor would they have to hire an electrician to come in and add receptacles after they have taken occupancy.

All offices have many electrical appliances and it would be safer if these had receptacles to plug into instead of extension cords. By providing a better electrical system up front, the citizens are not impacted by additional cost later due to adding more receptacles and circuits to handle an ever-increasing demand.

PANEL ACTION: Reject.

PANEL STATEMENT: The submitter's proposed revision does not resolve the situation presented in the substantiation. The present code rule in 210-50(b) requires a receptacle where cord and plug connections are used. Adding a rule to provide two receptacles would not keep (or in some cases even minimize) the user from violating the Code and using an extension cord, since the final usage of the particular space is not known. For non-dwelling unit applications, proper planning and design must be used to provide adequate access to receptacle outlets. If the receptacles are not provided, then it would be necessary to have receptacles installed by a qualified person.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I ask again. What are the advantages to this product? I am just curious as I have not seen why it wouldn't be the same to just connect all tv's on the same circuit.

 

[mivey]

I ask again. What are the advantages to this product? I am just curious as I have not seen why it wouldn't be the same to just connect all tv's on the same circuit.

For most applications, that is true. For one particular configuration (the one where you can feed the bridged receptacle with a plug-in UPS), the solution is unique.

That does not mean it is the only way to provide back-up power to the TV, just that the plug-in UPS device can be remotely located from the TV without having the supply wire exposed in all its ugliness.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I must say I have never seen a UPS for a TV but I can see it beneficial for surge protector but at the cost of the PowerBridge it seems a surge suppressor outlet at each TV would be just as cheap if not cheaper.

 

[mivey]

I must say I have never seen a UPS for a TV but I can see it beneficial for surge protector but at the cost of the PowerBridge it seems a surge suppressor outlet at each TV would be just as cheap if not cheaper.

But for a wall-mount TV where would you put it to hide it? I have suggested a wall-niche be cut in but that is just one option. Who would want a large surge suppressor or UPS hanging on their wall next to their TV?

 

[Dennis Alwon]

But for a wall-mount TV where would you put it to hide it? I have suggested a wall-niche be cut in but that is just one option. Who would want a large surge suppressor or UPS hanging on their wall next to their TV?

My supplier has a surge suppressor receptacle that is recessed like a display receptacle. I will have to get the brand. Here is one but it not the one I was familiar with

 

[mivey]

My supplier has a surge suppressor receptacle that is recessed like a display receptacle. I will have to get the brand.

Please do. I have not run across that.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Here is one similar to the one City Electric sells. It is neat the way the receptacle is turned at an angle. The receptacle is a surge suppressor type also.(not pictured)