Power Bridge

[LarryFine]

If a homeowner didn?t want to use a system like yours, and didn?t want ugly wires to be visible, then what choices remain? Well, have a receptacle outlet installed at the TV?s height, and power it from an existing or new branch circuit. So the power cord that is part of your system does, in fact, act as a substitution for permanent wiring.

That presumes that typical NEC-approved wiring methods are the only way to accomplish this. A flexible extension cord could be used, too. This method avoids the illegal use of cord behind building finishes.

NM can be used as in-wall extensions of lighting, even when it's being fed by flexible wire. Look at LV under-cabinet lighting where the transformer is remotely installed. How else could the power be delivered?

But yours does not supply an appliance. It supplies something that, in turn, supplies an appliance. Your cord is a middle man, not a final connector. So the reasoning that your cord is no different than an appliance cord does not work for me.

Let's say it is an appliance cord. So is the section that is in the wall, which is made of and terminated in NEC-approved materials and methods, respectively. There's no debate the parts are used correctly, right?

The inlet blades are meant to be energized by a female cord end. The inlet terminals are made to connect to building wire, such as NM. How else can a power inlet be used besides how this method uses it?

I can?t speak to this one myself. I have never seen an ?inlet,? and I don?t know how one would be used. I concede that it would have to be powered via a cord. But what is on the other side of the inlet? Is the inlet (i.e., as mentioned in the NEC) intended to describe a component that is physically attached to an item of utilization equipment? Or is the inlet merely an element in the power supply to some remote equipment? Someone would have to help me understand this issue.

The ones I usually use have three screws on the back, similarly to the recessed receptacles, and some have clamped terminals, like this:

Besides, if one cannot supply premises wiring with flexible cord, how are these allowed?:

Bob knows perfectly well that you do not intend your system to provide power to other areas of the house, nor to connect it to any other branch circuit. I think his issue is that your system involves a flexible cord that is located outside the wall, and that is used so that the homeowner does not have to install a permanent wire inside the wall.

On the contrary, this product/method is used so a safe, legal, in-wall wiring method can be installed in the wall. Technically speaking, it's no different than using NM as in-wall speaker wiring. Is the voltage the concern?

I've gone as far as passing a power cord through a wall plate with a 1/2" hole in it, knotting it for pull-out proofing, and wire-nutting it to the NM that feeds the recessed receptacle. It isn't part of the premises wiring system.

 

[LarryFine]

It's funny when we are asked why is this expensive for just an outlet. This is far more than just an outlet. A lot goes into the complete kit, it isn't just parts into a box.

Well, technically speaking, it is. The only "manufacturing" I do is hole-sawing the plate and pop-riveting the inlet to it. Everything else is available at your local orange or blue store.

 

[LarryFine]

Since there is not a "ONE" Article/Section to fulfill the "kit", then we need to apply the definitions which are applicable to each listed component and put them together, that's what the Code is for. Or am I completely off base here?

You've got my support.

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

What a great thread. I have really enjoyed reading through all 17 pages of it.

My two cents. The only relevant question is the cord. The other issues brought up don't seem valid. As far as the cord being used as a substitute for "the fixed wiring of a structure"... I don't think this product does that. From one view point you could say ANY time an extension cord is ever used it is a substitute for fixed wiring. But IMO this use does not.

I personally have had the benefit of wiring lots and lots of inlets when I was working designing/manufacturing mobile TV and comm trucks. So the idea of the inlet is not foreign to me.

Also there are lots of other places the code makes mention of the use of the inlet that should give us an idea about whether this use is okay...

 

[mivey]

As far as the cord being used as a substitute for "the fixed wiring of a structure"... I don't think this product does that. From one view point you could say ANY time an extension cord is ever used it is a substitute for fixed wiring. But IMO this use does not.

Substitution is one of the things I can say this kit does. We like how it looks when used with one specific entertainment setup but that does not change the general nature of the kit.

Saying that fixed wiring can't do the exact same thing as this kit does is not a winning argument IMO. Just because we want to do something does not mean we need to do something.

To me, this kit is about a good example of a fixed wiring substitute as you can get. It might look different than fixed wiring in one particular application but that does not change what it is: a means to provide an in-wall receptacle fed by a cord instead of fixed wiring.

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

Substitution is one of the things I can say this kit does. We like how it looks when used with one specific entertainment setup but that does not change the general nature of the kit.

Saying that fixed wiring can't do the exact same thing as this kit does is not a winning argument IMO. Just because we want to do something does not mean we need to do something.

To me, this kit is about a good example of a fixed wiring substitute as you can get. It might look different than fixed wiring in one particular application but that does not change what it is: a means to provide an in-wall receptacle fed by a cord instead of fixed wiring.

This is what I was saying about anytime a flexible cord is use it is a substitute for fixed wiring.

Think about the last time you used an extension cord. You could have ran a circuit and receptacle to that spot... I know that sounds silly but the way I'm looking at it if you are going to state the use of a flexible cord with this power bridge is a substitute then ANY use of a flex cord can be considered a substitute IMHO.

 

[mivey]

Think about the last time you used an extension cord. You could have ran a circuit and receptacle to that spot.

I could, but neither did I run my extension cord throught the wall and permanently mount it to my building.

 

[Tom C]

Might have missed this question (jumped from page 11) but would you need a permit to install???

 

[mivey]

Might have missed this question (jumped from page 11) but would you need a permit to install???

Opinions have varied. Some feel it is outside the scope of the NEC so does not require any qualified person and thus no permit. They see it as essentially an extension cord, which requires no permit.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Might have missed this question (jumped from page 11) but would you need a permit to install???

I'd say that it depends upon your jurisdiction and the ordinances in effect. In my area, I think the several jurisdictions I work in would all require a permit for this install.

I did see a reference in a PowerBridge document citing a passage from NEC Annex H as the basis for "No Permit Required", however, Annex H is not enforceable as a standalone citation. Annex H, or the applicable parts of Annex H would have to be adopted as ordinance by the jurisdiction.

 

[acrwc10]

This product ,IMO, is being used to substitute as a permanent wiring method and as such IS a violation. I don't normally like to say "What If" but in this case I think it applies. What if the end user looses the supplied cord and replaces it with a much thinner (cheap) cord then someone uses the permanently installed outlet for something other then a TV. Now you have a weak link installed that could be a fire hazard because it could be seriously smaller then required for the OCP on the circuit. This is a very likely scenario.
If this type of installation is acceptable why couldn't I use it to extend a circuit in a wall, just plug into an existing outlet then run the cord across the room and cut in this product, do I meet the 6'-12' requirements?

 

[al hildenbrand]

What if the end user looses the supplied cord and replaces it with a much thinner (cheap) cord then someone uses the permanently installed outlet for something other then a TV. Now you have a weak link installed that could be a fire hazard because it could be seriously smaller then required for the OCP on the circuit. This is a very likely scenario.

Note that the parts in the PowerBridge kit are listed by ETL as an assembly.

Using a cord that is not part of the kit makes the assembly incomplete, the kit is not as listed.

The question is not how the kit can be misused, rather whether the kit can be installed as a complete kit.

Parenthetically, I'd add that if a user takes the cord somewhere else, or looses the original cord, then there is obvious disconnection and reconnection that begs the use of the word "temporary", although "temporary" is no longer part of the conditions in 400.8 or 400.7.

 

[acrwc10]

Note that the parts in the PowerBridge kit are listed by ETL as an assembly.

Using a cord that is not part of the kit makes the assembly incomplete, the kit is not as listed.

The question is not how the kit can be misused, rather whether the kit can be installed as a complete kit.

Parenthetically, I'd add that if a user takes the cord somewhere else, or looses the original cord, then there is obvious disconnection and reconnection that begs the use of the word "temporary", although "temporary" is no longer part of the conditions in 400.8 or 400.7.

My point is, in this case (home owners being ignorant of code and there for less responsible then the manufacturer of the product) the outlet permanently installed will be part of the house forever, whereas the cord will not. The cord and the listing requirements will be long gone in a short time, the home owner or later home owners will have no idea what is "REQUIRED" and just go get what ever cord is cheap and at the big orange.
Cutting this unit into the wall makes it permanent. Since it is a UNIT all the are components are of the unit (cord included). If part of a listed unit is permanently installed, by default the entire unit is permanently installed. Thus the cord is a permanent wiring method.
I would also like to point out all those who compare this product to a portable generator connection box, the box is a listed unit independent of the cord and generator, unlike this product that is listed as a complete unit.

 

[roger]

I find it funny that we all get mad when an inspector brings the "what if in the future" in to the conversation, he/she needs to inspect what is in front of them at the time of the inspection, that's all.

IMO, since this a residence, an inspector can inspect the in wall installation, which is a legal installation, then leave, what the HO does after that is not the inspectors concern.

If the inspector is worried about this, does he/she also worry about 210.21(B)(2)? Is he/she going to get a search warrant and raid the house periodically to see what they may be doing? :roll:

If the kit was sold without a cord what could an inspector say?

Roger

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

I could, but neither did I run my extension cord throught the wall and permanently mount it to my building.

If this kit required flexible cord to be installed inside a wall I would certainly question it's compliance...

But it certainly will not say your opinion as to whether or not this substitutes fixed wiring is wrong. I just disagree with it. I certain think it is up to interpretation. If I was asked to interpret it I say no it does not.

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

I find it funny that we all get mad when an inspector brings the "what if in the future" in to the conversation, he/she needs to inspect what is in front of them at the time of the inspection, that's all.

IMO, since this a residence, an inspector can inspect the in wall installation, which is a legal installation, then leave, what the HO does after that is not the inspectors concern.

If the inspector is worried about this, does he/she also worry about 210.21(B)(2)? Is he/she going to get a search warrant and raid the house periodically to see what they may be doing? :roll:

If the kit was sold without a cord what could an inspector say?

Roger

Interesting point

I also thought it was funny someone posted 90.4 and highlighted
"The authority having jurisdiction for
enforcement of the Code has the responsibility for making
interpretations of the rules, for deciding on the approval of
equipment and materials, a

I have seen many times people indignantly stating inspectors should have no right to reject a LISTED product...

 

[al hildenbrand]

The PowerBridge kit is ETL listed as an "In Wall Electrical Appliance Assembly". Apparently this invokes the Permission of 400.7 which supersedes the use of 400.8 (pay attention to the opening sentence of 400.8). Without 400.8, the cord objection disappears.

Show me that the PowerBridge is not connecting an appliance. Based on the words of the name of the listing, the PowerBridge itself may even be an appliance.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Maybe I will write a proposal and see what happens. Al-- Power Bridge may be recruiting you soon.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Power Bridge may be recruiting you soon.

Heh!

As I asked some posts back, is there ETL documentation about the listing "In Wall Electrical Appliance Assembly"?

Anyone?

 

[acrwc10]

So the home owner installs this unit on the wall and the nearest outlet is through a door in the next room, Code compliant???????????? If the home owner promises not to shut the door and crosses their heart and hopes to die then that will make it safe too.
:grin:

I'd rather see wire mold used. it would look better and be less expensive. Oh ya it would be safe and code compliant also.