Power Bridge

[LarryFine]

Simple. Let the wires dangle from the TV?s location down to the location of the other components.

I grasp your humor, but I still say this method beats the pants off of threading the TV's own power cord through the wall.

WAIT! Ugly, you say. What does ya mean ?ugly?? I works with wyres for a liven and you is sayin my world is ?ugly?? How doest thou durst! I thinks my wyres is prety.

As they say, beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes clear down to the bone.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Al, I have no idea at all, not even a hint of a clue why you do not think the flexible cord is covered by 400.

The flexible cord is not "in-wall".

The thing I find funny is it seems the AHJ has already made their position clear and IMO 90.4 gives them the right to turn down a product so nothing we say can change things one way or another.

Well, with all due deference to the attempt on the part of the December 2009 Electric Currents opinion piece , it really hasn't made the position clear as there is no section 408.4(1) in either the 2008 or 2011 National
Electrical Code, and for that matter, the Power Bridge is neither a switchboard or panelboard.

 

[al hildenbrand]

What if I used NM as in-wall speaker wiring? Does it now become part of the premises wiring system?

Bingo!

Does the use of the NM exclude it from the installation requirements of Chapter 3?

 

[LarryFine]

You could, but if the wire in the wall is not NEC stuff, how do we say it is compliant with the NEC?

Who says it must be?

 

[LarryFine]

Well, with all due deference to the attempt on the part of the December 2009 Electric Currents opinion piece , ...

 Circuit Extensions Connected By Extension Cords Are Not Allowed
A variety of products are now on the market in response
to the demand for providing concealed power to wall
mounted flat screen televisions and similar devices.
Most of these products consist of a kit that contains a
cut-in outlet box for behind the television, a cut-in outlet
box for below the television, a length of Type NM used
to connect the two boxes and a standard duplex
receptacle for behind the TV. Also included in the kit is
a male receptacle for the lower cut in box and an
extension cord used to connect the male receptacle to a
nearby existing outlet. This picture is an example of one
manufacturer?s system.
NEC 408.4 (1) says that flexible cords and cables must
not be used as a substitute for the fixed wiring of a
structure. The requirements of the National Electrical Code take precedence over any overall product
listing information provided with this type of circuit extension kit.

Again, my opinion is that the cord is not being used as a substitute for fixed wiring.

What fixed wiring method would allow this same electrical setup, functionally speaking?

 

[LarryFine]

Bingo!

Does the use of the NM exclude it from the installation requirements of Chapter 3?

What allows us to use NM inside walls for low-voltage lighting, while supplying it with non-Ch.3 methods?

 

[charlie b]

To me, it's clear that a plug is male and a receptacle is female.

Your ?inserted in? argument has some merit, and I will discuss that next. But the definition of ?receptacle? in article 100 has nothing at all that would require it to be female.

The slots of a socket cannot be "inserted in" the blades of an inlet.

That is not needed, in order for the definition to fit. The ?reverse receptacle? has its blades recessed deeper into the wall space than the front surface of the receptacle. When you bring the female end of the cord close to the blades, the front face of the cord cap has to cross beyond the front face of the receptacle, before the two components come into actual contact. At the moment the border is crossed, the cord cap has been ?inserted in? the receptacle. So I say again that the definition of ?attachment plug? encompasses the female end of the cord.

There's obviously a difference between an outlet and an inlet:

Yes, obviously. The difference is that the word ?outlet? is defined and is used from time to time, and the word ?inlet? is neither defined nor used anywhere. And my interest in the discussion is not so much what is or is not obvious. My interest is in what is or is not actually said within the text of the code.

 

[roger]

Al and Roger, now please look at the article 100 definition of "Attachment Plug." I don't see anything that restricts that defintion to meaning the male end of an extension cord or a component's power cord. So if I can call the female end of a standard extension cord an "attachment plug," and if I can call a permanently installed box with visible, external male prongs a "receptacle," by virtue of the wording of the article 100 definitions of those two terms, I still see a violation of 406.6(B):

Charlie, the thread is moving so fast I missed this post. Attachment plug would/could be an inlet like shown here.

Roger








Roger

 

[mivey]

Who says it must be?

Then why not just fish an extension cord inside the wall?

 

[al hildenbrand]

Charlie, the thread is moving so fast I missed this post. Attachment plug would/could be an inlet like shown here.

I have to disagree.

This is a device, yes, which includes attachment plugs, but also includes flanged surface devices as another category.

While the device shown in Roger's image, the flanged inlet, has conductors attached to it, they are not the flexible cord conductors, rather the conductors attached to it are permanently attached to the receptacle (using Charlie B's spin on the idea of receptacle, i.e., the female cord cap is inserted into the recessed receptacle of the inlet) . . . therefore the flanged inlet doesn't meet the definition of attachment plug.

 

[hurk27]

I wanted to discuss this tidbit as well. Al and I and a number of other members had an interesting discussion some time ago on the subject of what is, and what is not, an outlet.

Are these two things "outlets"? To be specific, are they part of the "premises wiring system"? For that matter, is the set of conductors that connects the two a part of the "premises wiring system"? I get the impression from the vendor's web site that they do not consider this to be the case. The two "boxes" (for the moment, I choose not to call them "outlets") are connected to each other by permanent wires and proper terminations. But they are not connected to the circuit breaker or to any other conductors in the house by any permanent means. So does that exclude them from being within the "premises wiring system," or not?

This receptacle is not an outlet.

Outlet.

​

​

A point on the wiring system at which current is
taken to supply utilization equipment.​

Current is not taken from them but is being supplied to them.​

hence the name "Inlet"​

 

[mivey]

But it is a receptacle. Agreed?

 

[mivey]

This receptacle is not an outlet.

Current is not taken from them but is being supplied to them.​

hence the name "Inlet"​

Following your logic from the Big Oops, the female end of the cord is an outlet and the female receptacle near the TV is also an outlet?

 

[hurk27]

Wow talk about a thread moving fast, typed my post and walked into the kitchen and relized I didn't click post, and many post had already been made LOL

 

[al hildenbrand]

. . . the female end of the cord is an outlet and the female receptacle near the TV is also an outlet?

The receptacle outlet that the cord is plugged into is the outlet, and, yes, the "female receptacle near the TV" is also an outlet, IMO.

As I have stated, there is nothing in the Definitions, etc., to prohibit Outlets in series.

 

[mivey]

The receptacle outlet that the cord is plugged into is the outlet, and, yes, the "female receptacle near the TV" is also an outlet, IMO.

As I have stated, there is nothing in the Definitions, etc., to prohibit Outlets in series.

So the male end of the cord connects at an outlet. Does that make the female end of the cord that connects to the inlet an outlet? If not, what would you call it?

 

[al hildenbrand]

The two "boxes" (for the moment, I choose not to call them "outlets") are connected to each other by permanent wires and proper terminations. But they are not connected to the circuit breaker or to any other conductors in the house by any permanent means. So does that exclude them from being within the "premises wiring system," or not?

Does a disconnect switch or wall switch cause that which it controls to disappear from the Premises Wiring (System) when in the OFF position? I think not.

 

[roger]

therefore the flanged inlet doesn't meet the definition of attachment plug.

The authors of the NECH thinks it does and actually show it as the example of an "Attachment Plug"

Roger

 

[al hildenbrand]

The authors of the NECH thinks it does and actually show it as the example of an "Attachment Plug"

That's not the caption on the photo of the flanged inlet. The photo is Exhibit 406.2 and is captioned "Flanged inlet device. (Courtesy of Pass & Seymour/Legrand?)". Exhibit 406.2 follows the opening sentence of 406.6 before both (A) and (B). The opening sentence and the title of the section include "Cord Connectors, and Flanged Surface Devices" in addition to Attachment Plugs.

Regardless, whatever you call it, it does not have the conductors of a flexible cord connected to it, rather, in the case of the Power Bridge, a Chapter 3 wiring method is attached to the inlet.

 

[iwire]

You guys got this solved yet? :grin: