210.70 Lighting Outlets Required Article 210 specifies provisions for all branch circuits except for branch circuits supplying only motor loads. Article 430 contains motor load requirements. Provisions stipulating the placement of receptacle outlets are covered in 210.52 through 210.63. These provisions were the topic of discussion over the last 12 months. This month’s In Focus begins a new series covering required lighting outlet provisions. Branch circuits supplying lighting outlets must be installed in accordance with the provisions in 210.70(A) through (C). Most of the requirements in this section pertain to dwelling units. While lighting outlet provisions for habitable rooms (and bathrooms) in dwelling units are covered in 210.70(A)(1), hallways, stairways, garages, storage spaces, utility rooms, attics and basements are covered in 210.70(A)(2) and (3). Guest rooms in hotels, motels and similar occupancies are covered in the second subsection (B), and occupancies other than dwelling units are covered in (C). It is important to have a good understanding of certain words and phrases used throughout the National Electrical Code. Some of these terms and other related requirements will be discussed before covering the lighting outlet provisions in Article 210. Article 100 contains selected definitions that are essential to the proper application of the Code. While it does not include commonly defined general terms or commonly defined technical terms from related codes and standards, it does include terms that are used in two or more articles. Other terms are defined in the article in which they appear but may be referenced in Article 100. The term luminaire is, to some extent, new to the 2002 edition of the Code. Although luminaire has been in the last two editions, it only appeared in a fine print note following 410-1. Luminaire is now the main term and fixture(s) or lighting fixture(s) follow in parentheses. Article 100 defines luminaire as a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps and ballast (where applicable), and to connect the lamps to the power supply (See Figure 1). An outlet is a point on the wiring system from which current is taken to supply utilization equipment. A lighting outlet is an outlet intended for the direct connection of a lampholder, a luminaire or a pendant cord terminating in a lampholder. Luminaires can be ceiling-, wall- or even floor-mounted (See Figure 2). While the wiring for lighting outlets can terminate in outlet boxes and in other boxes under certain conditions, it can also terminate in junction boxes of luminaires. As stipulated in 314.27(A), boxes used at luminaire or lampholder outlets must be designed for the purpose. Every box used solely for lighting must be designed or installed so that a luminaire may be attached. Outlet boxes are usually equipped with two No. 8 (8/32) screws to support luminaires or their supporting yokes. Outlet boxes can support luminaires weighing no more than 50 pounds (23 kg), unless the outlet box is listed for the weight to be supported (See Figure 3). Luminaires can also be supported independently of the outlet box [314.27(B)]. Inspection of the connections between the luminaire conductors and the circuit conductors must be possible without having to disconnect any part of the wiring unless the luminaires are connected by attachment plugs and receptacles [410.16(B)]. Inspection of the wiring connections is possible with most luminaires simply by removing it from the wall or ceiling. A wall-mounted luminaire weighing no more than 6 pounds (3 kg) can be supported by other boxes (or plaster rings secured to other boxes), provided the luminaire or its supporting yoke is secured to the box with at least two No. 6 or larger screws [314.27(A) Exception]. As long as the weight being supported does not exceed 6 pounds (3 kg), the wall-mounted luminaire can be supported by boxes (such as device boxes) not specifically designed to support luminaires. This exception does not specify whether the box must be mounted horizontally or vertically. In the previous edition of the Code, this exception contained one additional stipulation. If the luminaire had any dimension greater than 16 inches, the luminaire could not be supported by other boxes that were not specifically designed for the purpose. Now, regardless of the size, if the luminaire weighs 6 pounds or less, this exception can be applied. For example, a wall switch in one room of a dwelling controls a wall-mounted luminaire weighing less than 6 pounds. Since this installation does not require a box that is specifically designed for the purpose, many options are available. For this installation, a 3 x 2 x 21/2-inch (75 x 50 x 65 mm) device box has been installed (See Figure 4). Where a box is installed as the only support of a ceiling-suspended (paddle) fan, the box must be listed for the application and for the weight of the fan being supported [314.27(D)]. These types of boxes are usually labeled “ceiling fan box.” Ceiling-suspended (paddle) fans with a combined weight, including accessories, of not more than 35 pounds (16 kg) can be supported by outlet boxes identified for such use. Also, the outlet box must be supported in accordance with 314.23 and 314.27 [422.18(A)]. While boxes supporting luminaires can support 50 pounds (23 kg) or less, boxes identified for supporting ceiling-suspended (paddle) fans are limited to a maximum weight of only 35 pounds This includes accessories, such as light kits. (See Figure 5). Ceiling-suspended (paddle) fans weighing more than 35 pounds including accessories must be supported independently of the outlet box [422.18(B)]. Ceiling-suspended (paddle) fans with a combined weight, including accessories, of not more than 70 pounds (32 kg) can be supported by listed outlet boxes (or outlet box systems) that are identified for the purpose [422.18(B) Exception]. Next month’s In Focus, continuing with 210.70(A)(1), will continue discussion of required lighting outlets in dwelling units. EC MILLER, owner of Lighthouse Educational Services, teaches custom-tailored classes and conducts seminars covering various aspects of the electrical industry. He is the author of Illustrated Guide to the National Electrical Code. For more information, visit his Web site at www.charlesRmiller.com. He can be reached by telephone at 615.333.3336, or via e-mail at .
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions *According to Article 100, an outlet is defined as a point on the wiring system at which current is taken to supply equipment that utilizes electric energy for electronic, electromechanical, chemical, heating, lighting, or similar purposes [100]. This would include a receptacle outlet, a lighting outlet, but not a switch. Read carefully the very first sentence, - " a point on the wiring system at WHICH CURRENT IS TAKEN TO SUPPLY EQUIPMENT that UTILIZES electric energy..... In what way is current TAKEN from the SYSTEM, or UTILIZED, at a switch? The switch is PART of the system. The point that it is TAKEN from the SYSTEM, or UTILIZED is the receptacle, or lighting fixture.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions AL read the first sentance., "That interior and exterior wiring, including power , lighting, control, and signal circuit wiring together withall their associated hardware, fittings, and wiring devices, both permanently and temporarily installed , that extends from the service point or source of power, such as a battery, a solar photovoltalic system ,or a generator,transformer ,or converter windings, to the outlet(s)." the next sentance refers to "wiring internal to appliances, luminaires, motors, controllers, motor control centers, and similar equipment". There is no internal wiring employed by a general use snap switch. Thats all . Just so you know , I just cracked one open and found no wires. The key words are WIRING INTERNAL TO .....
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions electric_instructor, Perhaps you can show me the error in NEC language, that I am missing, that negates my point.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Marc, Then how does the current get through a busway? There's no "wiring" in that, in the sense that you seem to be saying round filaments of conductive material is all that "wiring" is. Wiring is a general term used an enormous number of times in the Code, 400, by the count of my Electronic version's search tool. I take it to mean "the conductive current path".
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
I do not.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Al You answered your own question, as quoted "The current does not "supply" the switch (the switch does not utilize energy so it cannot "take" current)." Remember the definition? A point on the wiring system at which current is TAKEN...... If it doesn't TAKE, or UTILIZE current, or electrical energy, then...........?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Mike (JW) is going to be so happy when he comes back from class.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Al, what you have described is a conductor not a wire. An electric buss does indeed conduct electricity it does not make it a wire.,or wiring.It is called busway and the conductors are factory installed and are usually bars , rods or tubes.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Where do you get the idea wiring has to be a wire?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions To all that have posted and followed this thread. "This is the apitamy of hair splitting at its finest"Who else but a room full of electricians could take a nickel and pass it off as a dime and debate the fact that it is a dime and not an nickel and make it sound believable
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Article 100 Definition of Premises Wiring (System) is clear to tell us that a controller (a switch) is not part of the Premises Wiring (System) even though the controller is connected to the Premises Wiring (System). Current in the controller is utilization equipment current which is passing from and to the Premises Wiring (System). A receptacle and a switch are both terminated to the ends of the Premises Wiring (System). Neither of them utilize energy. The current in them is that of utilization equipment, equipment that is not part of the Premises Wiring (System). Both the receptacle and switch look like, to me, that they are installed at outlets to the Premises Wiring (System) and the only current in them is utilization equipment current. Some outlets have separate switches, and some don't. If you had an existing pull-chain-operated light in a bedroom (pre-AFCI), and decided to convert it to being wall-switch controlled, would you require making this entire circuit now be AFCI protected? I wouldn't.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions If you had an existing pull-chain-operated light in a bedroom (pre-AFCI), and decided to convert it to being wall-switch controlled, would you require making this entire circuit now be AFCI protected? I wouldn't. Well if that was posted on page 1 then we wouldn`t be looking for that ominus 300
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Are you going to run a nuetral to the new switch location? Which, BTW is not an outlet. Or, are you just going to run a hot and a switch leg?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
The Outlet definition does not talk about voltage, only current, and only current that is "taken" from a point on the premises wiring. "Returning" is not part of the outlet definition. Current IN the premises wiring is not part of the definition. The box is not an outlet, it is the "point" on the premises wiring. I don't think we should concede this, at least I don't. The internal wiring of things listed in the last sentence of the definition of Premises Wiring (System) is what is not part of the premises wiring. With regards to a switch used as a controller connected to the premises wiring and controlling another outlet, then, yes, that device's internal wiring is not part of the premises wiring. Wow! Excellent example of yet another bit of work that raises the question that is at the heart of this discussion. Your answer to this question is no, I say yes.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
An electric oven with a flex whip that is part of the appliance will connect to the premises wiring inside a j-box. There, the "point" will be under the wire nuts or what ever terminates the appliance conductors to the wiring inside the j-box. This particular one is interesting because it shows materials making up the whip that could be used on the premises wiring as a wiring method, but because they are attached to the appliance and part of its listing, they are outside the NEC, not part of the Premises Wiring (System).
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Iwire, There. That's as close as I'm going to get to your theory that I am saying that wirenuts are outlets.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
JW better get home soon or he's gonna miss it!
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Let's say I am working in a ten year old home. The HO has asked me if I can switch a bedroom receptacle for his floor lamp. I open the single gang switch box containing the switch for the ceiling light. I discover the NM supplying the receptacle in question loops through the switch box. I install a duplex switch to control the receptacle and the ceiling light. Does this simple ten minute job require an AFCI breaker to be installed?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
If it doesn't TAKE, or UTILIZE current, or electrical energy, then...........? Does the definition of Outlet say where the utilization equipment is?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Unless local ordinance waives the application of 210.12 for existing dwellings, then I say yes. The second switch, even when on a common yoke, is a new outlet, therefore, 210.12 applies. Page 2
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
There. That's as close as I'm going to get to your theory that I am saying that wirenuts are outlets. In the case of the oven IMO the whip is part of the premise wiring system, the 'oven outlet' is indeed at the point of the wire nuts or terminals at the rear of the oven. I have never seen a factory installed whip on an oven, on a cook top yes.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Bob, Congrats on #300! Factory installed oven whips are actually common in my experience for the last two decades.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Unless local ordinance waives the application of 210.12 for existing dwellings, then I say yes. The second switch, even when on a common yoke, is a new outlet, therefore, 210.12 applies. Let's go for 400!
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Well Sparky, unless I'm convinced otherwise, the "wiring internal to the controller", the switch is not on the premises wiring. It is that connection between premises wiring and NOT premises wiring that is the "point" of the outlet. Two switches, side by side, will have two different internal wiring areas, hence, in your example, one existed, and one was added. The NEW one falls under 210.12, while the old one is grandfathered.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Hey! We broke 300!!!
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Here is a 300 plus thread that I have not been a big part of the debate. I do have an opinion and it is the same opinion that I had the last time that I made that opinion, or it goes something like that. I am so happy to see this thread reach 300. Thank each and every one of you that contributed to this deep desire of mine. I shall down load this thread and have it bronzed to hang on my wall as a keepsake. I will relish in the memories that it will bring to life each and every time I look at it. I only wish that there was some way that I could repay those that has helped me reach this long desired goal. My I always be worthy of such a great blessing. Again thank each and every one you for taking the time to contribute.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Iwire, the busway conductors are not part of the premises wiring system they are internal , they are part of the equipment. Look at Art.3001.(b) as well as the definition for premises wiring system. I'm not sure how this makes a switch in a bedroom controlling the light outside the bedroom an outlet. The outlet for current is at the light(equipment) . I looked through 368 they never refer to the conductors in busway as anything but conductors. you will not find the word wire or wiring to describe the integral conductors of busway.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Chapter 3 Wiring Methods and Materials And appliances, luminaires (fixtures), motors, controllers, or motor control centers are located in Chapter 4 of the NEC.Chapter 4 Equipment for General Use
[ October 22, 2005, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: iwire ]
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Does the definition of premises wiring system depend on the method employed or where that wiring is in relation to the equipment.eg internal or external . I think the conductors in the busway are integral, and factory installed and not part of the premises wiring system or provided for by art 300 . I could be wrong but, I still don't see how this makes a switch an outlet .
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
I never said it did. (Neither did Al) I just disagree with your statement that a bussway is not a wiring method.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions I guess what I'm saying is that busway can be part of an electrcal instalation that employs both premises wiring systems and those systems that are integral to the equipment. To put it another way I'm all of a sudden not sure that recognized method equals premises wiring system?? I'm just trying to learn.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
That's part of what makes the Premises Wiring (System) definition of a little hole in the continuity of the System , at a switch used as a controller (among other things), so strange and interesting to me.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Anyone care for an update on my original post? I went back to the house today and installed a two-pole AFCI breaker in a new subpanel, wired it all up, and turned it on. Tripped immediately. Not again... After double-checking that I had wired it correctly, I figured that I was either dealing with a newly discovered arc fault on one of the two circuits, or a ground-neutral short somewhere. Since nothing was pulling any current, I figured the arc-fault theory wasn't the one to pursue. So that left me with 14 receptacle outlets in the two bedrooms, seven switch boxes, three bathroom receptacles, eight light fixtures, and two ceiling fans. My lucky day. Six hours later, I managed to trace the problem to a ceiling fan that the previous homeowner installed with NM to a pancake box. I removed it from the circuit, and the AFCI stopped tripping. Lesson learned: I won't even think of putting an AFCI or GFCI on a circuit I didn't install myself unless the homeowner is willing to pay T&M for me to troubleshoot any problems with tripping that aren't connected to the work I did. I think my new policy is going to cut down on the number of people who want me to install something new in a bedroom.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Man, that's tough, Jeff. I like your business guideline for the future. As I said earlier in this thread, your sharing this experience has been most instructive for me.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Jeff my heart bleeds , I wouldn't wish that on anyone .
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Al, you have virtually everybody here arguing against you. You have a code guru from the UL publishing an article that is also against your view. At some point don't you at least start to think that maybe you are wrong?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
I like your business guideline for the future. As I said earlier in this thread, your sharing this experience has been most instructive for me. I think today's job was some kind of karmic retribution for the one or two easy jobs I've had. Page 3
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
So Jeff this entire thread was set back over 300 posts because you added to what MR.happy homeowner added and the afci did its job
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Since Al has survived more winters than I have, and since he knows where I live, I say he's a sage and a prince among men.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Hey Al, it says the system as in complete and the outlet must supply utilization equipment the general snap switch is not using current it allows the flow of current the light is what is utilizing the current I'm still saying your wrong. We will agree to disagree I guess.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
I did indeed find a two-pole AFCI breaker. I was at the supply house and asked if they had any, and they were happy to sell me a Siemens two-pole AFCI ($77.21) and a small subpanel ($30.80) to house it (homeowner has QO in the main panel, and SqD doesn't make two-pole AFCIs for some reason).
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
So Jeff after you spent $108.01 you found that the homeowner did a screwed up install on a ceiling fan.Not only the money was spent but we have kept a thread going for more than 300 posts. That cost us .3600333 cents per post
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
But once I realized that the switch in a bed contolling UE outside the bed was a matter of the definition of outlet, I had an epiphany. </font>
So far, he is not talking using the Code language, rather he is giving a summarizing opinion.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Scott, Don
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
[ October 23, 2005, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: LarryFine ]
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Al, since the last time I re-re-re-stated my view, you have had many chances to re-re-re-re-re-state yours. To be fair to the membership, and to remind you that I have won this debate, I'll go one more time. You are saying a controller can be constructed with a switch and with no other component. I have agreed with that concept. But then you are using that concept, coupled with the definition of premises wiring system, to conclude that a switch is not part of the premises wiring system. Next, you conclude that a switch "takes" current from the premises wiring system, and that it ultimately passes the current to the utilization equipment. Finally, you conclude that the switch. or some point on or within the switch, or some point in its immediate vicinity, or the box that holds the switch, or something else that is within perhaps 4 inches of the switch's plastic handle, some aspect of "switchliness," is an "outlet." Here, once again, is the error within your reasoning: </font>
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
At the outset, bear in mind that, for the purposes of the points below, I am specifically talking about a snap switch in a bedroom that is controlling utilization equipment that is not inside the bedroom. OK. If you agree with this, looking at the definition of Controller one knows that a Controller is a "device or group of devices", therefore a switch, being one thing, is a device. The two word term "wiring device" is undefined in the Code. "Device" is defined. A "Controller" = device(s) is defined in the Code. Well, a switch is a device used for wiring. The way a switch is used will determine whether it is part of the premises wiring or not. The definition of Premises Wiring (System) says that the internal wiring of SUCH WIRING used as a controller (a switch used as a controller which you just said you agree with). SUCH WIRING. SUCH WIRING is "That interior and exterior wiring, including . . . wiring devices." "Wiring devices" = wiring. -OR- If you prefer:SUCH WIRING is "That interior and exterior wiring, including . . . devices." "Devices" = wiring.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
The switch that is a device, is defined by the first sentence of Premises Wiring (System) as "wiring". The second sentence of the same definition, after incorporating the first sentence goes on to say that "such wiring" internal to a controller (a switch) is not part of the Premises Wiring (System).
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
{Edited to clarify the second sentence above.} The word "switch" is not in that sentence. You can't insert it without violating the rules of logical reasoning. I say that with authority because it was carefully covered in a course I took in symbolic logic, as part of my BSEE program. That was a while ago, but the rules of logic have not changed. The violation comes from an invalid attempt to go from the general to the specific. The invalidity of that argument is the same as going from "All cats are animals" to "Here is an animal, therefore it is a cat." There are controllers that have no switches. There are controllers that have wiring internal to their enclosures. The definition excludes the wiring internal to controllers. That does not mean that it is excluding the controllers, or that it is excluding one specific type of controller. The words "Such wiring" in the second sentence is referring back to the "interior and exterior wiring" in the first sentence. The definition is saying that the "interior and exterior wiring" that is part of the premises wiring system does not include the wiring that is internal to a controller. So show me a controller that has wires, and I will tell you that those wires are not part of the premises wiring system.So are the single words "voltage," "current," and "amps," just to name a few. The code does not have to define every term or phrase it uses. Look at the second sentence in the statement of Scope, under article 100. The industry includes switches in the category of "wiring devices," and your one opinion to the contrary is not going to overturn the industry's usage of that phrase. [ October 24, 2005, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: charlie b ]
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Maybe this all depends on what the defition of "is" is. :roll: Al, you mentioned that the switch demarks the end of the premises wiring. Does that also mean that the rest of the wiring in the wall (between the switch and what we all agree is the (next) outlet(s)) is also not part of the premises wiring? I'll tell you why I ask after your response.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Well stated Charlie , and I wish I had such use of language!! What I don't get in Al's claim is so what if the conductors inside a switch are part of the premises wiring system or not. For the sake of argument I will agree that they are not. A snap switch still does not meet the definition of an outlet . A snap switch is not utilization equipment. In the definition for outlet it says the system as in total,.. that which is and is not premises. Unless the non premises wiring is a piece utilization equipment than it is not an outlet. Does that make any sence?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions I am an electrician instructor, who is certified,(granted this doesn't make me an expert) I teach a 900 hour electricians certified course. The course has about 200 pounds of textbooks(all based on the 2005 NEC). In NONE of these books is a switch considered an outlet, because it does NOT utilize energy, in fact ALL handbooks, and textbooks that I have ever seen, make a point of stating otherwise. I suppose that a person could argue the point with all of the authors of the industry specific, and nationally accepted Books?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Agreed, although Al may say that a receptacle does not utilize electricity either, and thus should not be an outlet to us, to which I say it's not the device that defines an outlet, it's what occurs at that point on the circuit.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Yes Anybody that reads the definitions, SHOULD be able to understand them. Quoted AGAIN - "Outlet: - A point on a wiring system at which CURRENT IS TAKEN to SUPPLY utilization equipment." Sounds simple enough to me? Lighting outlet is defined, as is a receptacle outlet. There is NO definition for a switch outlet. HUMMMMM--- wonder why? LMAO "Switch, General-Use. - A swith intended for use in GENERAL DISTRIBUTION and BRANCH CIRCUITS. ......." "Switch, General-use Snap. - A form of general-use switch constructed so that it can be installed in device boxes, or on covers, or otherwise used in CONJUNCTION WITH WIRING SYSTEMS recognized by this code." ANYBODY - NOT understand these definitions?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Charlie, Your difficulty with my logic comes from ignoring the very first sentence of my last post. Premises Wiring = (but not limited to) wiring devices Premises Wiring = (but not limited to) devices Premises Wiring = That. . .wiring. . .together with all their associated. . .wiring devices. Premises Wiring (System). It's the 2 (3) word term. "Such wiring" was just defined as a set in the first sentence of the definition. Such wiring is listed </font>
So. The second sentence, looking at the set created by the first sentence, lists what looks like wiring, saying that it is NOT part of the premises wiring. "Such wiring" = Premises Wiring (System). And now, "Such wiring" has things removed from that set. "Such wiring" does not include wiring internal to. . .controllers. The text is NOT "Such wires". While wires are part of "wiring", "wiring" is a much larger set of materials and assemblies. The definition never once uses the words "wire" or "wires". Page 4
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Also see: "Device. - A unit of an electrical system that is intended to cary, or control but NOT utilize electric energy." "Receptacle. - a contact device installed at the outlet for the connection of an attachment plug. ...."
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
The definition only talks about one outlet on one point on the premises wiring. The is no statement of number of points, nor location of the points. That is important to understand. There can be two points in series with each other.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
The NFPA may rule that my take on Premises Wiring (System) is inapplicable, but they haven't yet. The NFPA may well rule that my take has merit.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
"Receptacle. - a contact device installed at the outlet for the connection of an attachment plug. ...." Then come back to Outlet.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Your difficulty with my logic comes from ignoring the very first sentence of my last post. I am talking about exactly the same situation. This is another invalid leap of logic. This one is the opposite version of the previous logic error. This one is of the "specific to general" variety. You are saying that "devices" can be used as being equivalent in meaning to "wiring devices." It is not. The definition talks about "wiring devices," which is a specific set of things. Your leap in logic equates this to "devices," a more general set of things (i.e., it includes more things). Here you are clearly misreading the definition. The last three items in your list are not being included as examples of "wiring." They are being included as examples of things that, in addition to wiring, are part of the system. OK. So show me a controller that has internal wiring, and I will tell you that that wiring is not part of the premises wiring system.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions AL it says " the wiring system" not the premiss wiring system in the definition for outlet . Surely the conductors in the switch are part of "the system" ? How can they not be ? I still don't see how a transition / connection to the conductors in a snap switch could be considered an outlet . A connection in and of itself is not an outlet by definition. The connection would have to be made so as to supply current to a piece of utilization equipment , the snap switch does not fit the definition.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Which way are you going to have it?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
I apologize for misdirecting. I am only trying to cover the two possible interpertations of the two words "wiring devices". It was not my intention to equate: (but not limited to) devices = Premises Wiring = (but not limited to) wiring devices which will yield: devices = wiring devices This was not a trick that I was trying to slip in.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
I absolutly agree. Iwire tried to tell me I was saying that wirenuts were outlets. Yes, but the question is about the "taking" of current from the wiring system, current that is to supply utilization equipment. As I read it, taking is the verb. "To supply utilization equipment" is a modifying phrase. Charlie has a better command of the language of sentence structure, and perhaps he will name the phrase. Taking of current.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
The definition only talks about one outlet on one point on the premises wiring. The is no statement of number of points, nor location of the points. That is important to understand. There can be two points in series with each other. Yes, that's true, and we'll even agree that a switch is in series with its load. But, a switch and its load are not two points of utilization; only the load is. Here, here!! Well said. Okay, it almost sounds like you're agreeing, but we know better than that. Therefore, we must reiterate that switching a load and being the interface between the wiring system and that load are not one and the same. Outlets are not switching points. (excluding being used as disconnects, etc)
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions I have read intently every post. I must say that both sides are making some very good points. I had decided to just go with the words of those sitting on the code panels at the IAEI meetings I have attended. For the record I have heard opposing views from these panel members. I have kept score and it is about three of five that I have heard field this question that it is not an outlet. The ?about? denotes a discussion between the panel members. I kept score of the original answer of the member fielding the question. One question that has come to mind is where or what would constitute an outlet for something hard wired such as a disposal or dishwasher in a dwelling unit? Would it be the _________? (A) The breaker (B) The switch (C) The junction box on the appliance (I believe this to be part of the appliance) (D) 0ther, give a short description Questions on this quiz carry the total weigh of the quiz. This quiz carries the total weigh of your final exam. Miss it and fail.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Again, the same point is made by the language of the Definition of Outlet: A point on the wiring system at which current is taken to supply utilization equipment. Point of utilization is not used in the definition. I agree with the words you wrote. "It IS what occurs at that point on the circuit", the point at which current is taken from the wiring system, the current that is supplying utilization equipment. Where we diverge is over that pesky "current is taken" that keeps getting reworded or dropped from the re-phrasing.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Great question Mike! Your informal survey has about 40% agreeing with me? Why. . .you mean I'm not the only one in the whole wide world that is coming to this perspective? (he says facetiously )
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
I'm sorry, i have read 404.14, YET I fail to see how voltage, and amperage ratings for switches, applies to the question?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Because "Controller" does not specifically include "switch" some said a switch can't be a controller. 404.14 puts that to rest.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Getting back to the AFCI, I agree that ANY or ALL DEVICES in residential bedroom require the branch circuit have AFCI protection. However, I'll quote Electrical Wiring Residential, 15th edition, based on the 2005 NEC, by Ray C Mullin. Unit 2, Page 25. ALSO in Article 100, 2005 NEC. A DEVICE is - A unit of an electrical system that is intended to carry or control current, BUT NOT utilize electric energy. A receptacle is - A contact DEVICE installed at the OUTLET for the connection of an attachment plug. An OUTLET is - A point on the wiring system at which current is taken to supply utilization equipment. A receptacle OUTLET is - An OUTLET where one or more receptacles are installed. A lighting OUTLET is - An OUTLET intended for the connection of a lampholder, a luminaire, or a pendant cord terminating in a lampholder. By definition, toggle switches and receptacles are DEVICES because they carry current, BUT do NOT consume power. NEC Article 300.14 states - The minimum length of conductors at an OUTLET, Junction, or SWITCH POINT for splices or the connection of luminairs or DEVICES............ END Quote It seems obvious that the term OUTLET implies, ANY point on a wiring system at which power is TAKEN from THAT system.(meaning NOT the DEVICE, but the box, and it's intended use, if current will be removed from THE SYSTEM {or LET OUT ! LOL)Which doesn't happen at a switch. The term OPENING covers all lighting OUTLETS, Receptacle OUTLETS, Junction boxes, switch points, etc. To further show this point, look at ANY set of blueprints - look at the lighting, and power outlet symbols, all of the OUTLETS (receptacles, and lighting) show a BOX, at which point Energy is taken from the system. NOW - look at the switch symbols, - Do you see any OUTLET boxes? I have never seen a general use, or general use snap switch which has an outlet box shown on the prints, only an S, S2, S3, S4, etc. Why is this?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
A "box" is incapable of carrying current. The box cannot be the Outlet without being the point on the wiring system at which current is taken. Further, what if the receptacle is boxless (they make them), or, Where is the outlet when a disposal is hardwired? NOTE: SEE JW's QUESTION ABOVE. Receptacle Outlet and Lighting Outlet are two word terms. They are different than the one word term Outlet. Page 5
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Al , If it said the premises wiring system in the definition of outlet I think I would be with you but it says "the system". The point at witch current is taken is at the the?connection to the light not the connection to the switch . The switch controls the flow of current to the point of outlet. Why do you insist that " the system " in the definition of outlet applies to only premises wiring systems ?? My understanding tells me that you can connect to a non premises wiring system and still be part of "the system" . This connection does not meet the definition of outlet. How about this , the word "taken" implies a force required for removal , this does not happen at the switch .To me the outlet point is the point of connection on the system to the utilization equipment that actually causes the current to flow.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
(D) 0ther, give a short description If (C) is not the 'outlet' in this case than the panel would have to be the outlet and I am not buying that.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
We'll come back to that.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
(D) 0ther, give a short description Just before the wires leave the space within the interior wall, they will pass through a standard 2x4 box. The wires may go all the way from the breaker into that box, and out the box by another several feet, without any breaks in the conductors. Or there may be wire nut connections within that box. It does not matter. The box itself and the wires within that box are part of the premises wiring system. The wires that are outside the box are not. So in "conversational English," in terms that are not intended to be absolutely precise, I would call the box the outlet. If you tried to pin me down to a precise point (e.g., no larger than one cubic millimeter) somewhere on planet Earth, I would tend to say the point at which the wires pass beyond the wall plate.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Charlie your assuming. Is there a third type of wiring that I can work on?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
I would not. I think that the premises wiring system must necessarily end before you leave the wall or ceiling. But since I have not installed a wide variety of electrical stuff, I may be missing something here.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Why do you insist that " the system " in the definition of outlet applies to only premises wiring systems ?? Each of the two definitions: </font>
Premises Wiring (System) uses the one word term "outlet". In the definition of Premises Wiring (System), when you come to the word "outlet(s)", insert the definition of Outlet.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Whip: Local trade slang for any flexible wiring method factory installed on utilization equipment that must be hardwired to the premise wiring system. IMO the premise wiring system extends to the point the factory installed and listed equipment starts. If the DW had a factory installed FMC whip IMO the outlet would be the box I connect that whip to. If there was no whip IMO the outlet would be the JB on the DW that I connect my cable to. If I happened to bring a factory installed 'whip' directly into a panel I would say the panel is the outlet for that utilization equipment.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions There is another possibility to this "whip" discussion: not every circuit has an outlet. That would mean one method of appliance connection does away with the need for an outlet. Picture an installation (no box, disconnect, etc.) of a water heater, HVAC air handler, etc. where we simply sleeve a length of the circuit cable outside the wall. Is there an outlet? We might have to choose among (a) the appliance junction box is the outlet, (b) where the cable emerges from the building finish is the outlet, or (c) there is no outlet (or spoon). Let's see what this train of thought "whips" up!
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
An outlet is not a specific item, IMO it is just a point where the premise system connects to the utilization equipment.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Larry in your case it would be A.Since the whip is only an extension of the wiring system and the actual contact point is the J box ,within the appliance from which power is waiting to be utilized. Jeff I bet you never thought that this would push 400 posts
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
A tip of the hat to Wachowskian Metaphysics. But, sticking to what all of us here CAN bend, i.e., the path of the current coming to the point that it is taken to supply utilization equipment, in my opinion, the wiring coming to the water heater or the disposal, both of which are hard wired by field assembled installer supplied materials, is part of the Premises Wiring (System) until it becomes internal to the appliance. Edit spelling - Al [ October 25, 2005, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: al hildenbrand ]
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
I would not. I think that the premises wiring system must necessarily end before you leave the wall or ceiling. But since I have not installed a wide variety of electrical stuff, I may be missing something here. Iwire's statement is real interesting. He is talking about a field assembled whip, assembled by the installer. The factory supplied whip accompanying an appliance cannot be modified without voiding the listing. "The listing" is a NRTL (nationally recognized testing laboratory) creation, is it not? The NEC doesn't DO listing. The NEC tells us to use listed materials, etc., the NEC doesn't tell us to do the listing.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
The POINT is where CURRENT is TAKEN from the wiring system. Page 6
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions The point is not the box, not the splice, not the wall surface, not the wiring device, not the device, not the controller, not etc., etc., etc. The point IS on the wiring system. Beyond that point, the current is OUT of the wiring system. The current is LET OUT of the wiring system at the point that the current is taken. A point on the wiring system at which current is taken to supply utilization equipment.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
(A) The breaker.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
I further submit that within this statement lies the crux of our disagreement. I perceive that you would say current leaves the wiring system as it enters the light switch, returns to the wiring system on the other side of the switch, leaves the wiring system when it enters the light, and returns to the wiring system at the other end of the light. By contrast, I say that current remains within the wiring system until it gets to the light.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
I think Charlie B has pinned it down nicely.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
I can't give any real argument against this point of view. It runs contrary to my intuition, but this would not be the first time that has happened.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Let's not slow down just 15 more to the big 400
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
I'm going to lock this thread as soon as it hits 399...just on principle
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
I am not going to reveal whether anyone succeeded in paying me off to not close this at 299, nor the identity of the person who offered the alleged bribe, nor the make and model of car I just bought. But the bids are open for allowing this thread to go beyond 399.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions If the premise wiring stopped lets say at the wall box and the utilization equipment wiring stops at the equipment then the section in between would be an unregulated 'no code zone'. Certainly an NTL is not going to include an unseen connection as part of the listing. I firmly agree with Al and I think Charlie also that an outlet is indeed the boundary between the NEC and NTLs or the AHJ. An outlet is not a specific device or piece of equipment. I also agree with Charlie's assessment that the current can go into and out of the premises system but it does not get to the outlet until the final exit into utilization equipment.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Geez what the heck am I doing staying on topic.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
I further submit that within this statement lies the crux of our disagreement. I perceive that you would say current leaves the wiring system as it enters the light switch, returns to the wiring system on the other side of the switch, leaves the wiring system when it enters the light, and returns to the wiring system at the other end of the light. By contrast, I say that current remains within the wiring system until it gets to the light. Your words are a nice and agreeable summation of the discussion to this point.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Charlie, Don
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions I agree with you, Don. But I think that Al disagrees in the following way. Al believes the switch is not part of the premises wiring system. So the current leaves the wiring system when it enters the switch. Al further takes note that the switch does pass current on to the utilization equipment. Al and I appear to agree that the current does not go directly from the switch to the utilization equipment, but rather it first passes through (more of) the wiring system. Al concludes that the definition of outlet is met by (1) Current leaves the wiring system at the switch, and (2) Current taken from the switch does go to utilization equipment. I disagree in that (1) I think the switch is part of the wiring system, and (2) Current is not "taken" from the wiring system until you get to the light fixture.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions I think that some very interesting point have been brought to light by both sides. I can see and understand the points made by both sides. Through this discussion I think that other questions have been answered (for me at least) and other questions have arisen. I would like to see more debate brought forth or at least six more post.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
I haven't yet examined the changes in the language of what is currently known as 404.14, but I note that the 1978 NEC states: Note the inclusion of the words "use. . .for controlling" in the passage. The 1978 Code Cycle saw the introduction of the Definition of Premises Wiring (System), and that definition says the wiring, internal to controllers, is not part of such wiring as makes up the system. I submit that the creation of the Definition of Premises Wiring (System) was created with full knowledge that a switch controlling a light is, in fact, a controller. The Definition of Premises Wiring (System) creates the leaving of current at a controller, and when the controller is a switch, and the UE a luminaire, the "current taken" at the point, on the wiring system that is the switch, and the point on the wiring system that is the connection to the UE, as defined in "Outlet", is indistinguishable because no physical location of the UE is given. And, lest this be glossed over, the language is encompassing enough to deliberately include current taken from DC, AC, single phase and multiphase wiring systems of many, many configurations. "Outlet" defines, in one short collection of language, the boundary between wiring system and not wiring system for a large number of types of different systems, hence the narrow focus on "current".
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Would a no fuse disconnect at an AC unit be an outlet?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
I am not saying the current is taken from the switch.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
I say: "Yes." Page 7
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Boy we are close to the big 400 edited to add This is number 400 and still going strong [ October 25, 2005, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: jwelectric ]
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Al I am confused as to why controller keeps coming up, I like things simple. IMO at this point we are done, there is no reason (or requirement) for me to go digging deeper into what a switch is. If you where to be in some sort of litigation over this IMO the overwhelming accepted trade opinion expressed by UL, NEC consultants, instructional books and the majority of electricians would be on your side. I understand there is no guarantee you would win, there is never a guarantee you will prevail in civil litigation even if you are in the right.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Bob, The lack of physical location of the UE with respect to the Outlet as defined by Article 100 Outlet give rise to there being no way to differentiate between current taken at a controller and current taken at a outlet.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
It is my opinion that the outlet is the point between the NEC and the NTLs (or the AHJ).
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
You're arguments not with me! To wit: Yes, but that (to supply utilization equipment) does not occur at switches, only load attachemnt/connection points.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Almost all the time the no fuse disconnect is just that, a disconnect, and the thermostat, low voltage wiring and relay in the AC unit is the controller.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Mike, Congradulations on achieving the 400th!
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Thusly, a switch may control an outlet, but the switch does not qualify as one, as much as it wants to. I do not agree with the "takes and returns current" idea. Unless power is utilized at the switch, its enclosure, etc. isn't an outlet.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
At a switch, current might be "taken" to supply the switch, and then fed back into the system, but it definitely is not "utilized" by the switch, unless the switch depends on electricity to operate. If not "load attachemnt/connection points", how would you define the point where utilization equipment receives its current?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
In "Outlet" the "point" is not a specified physical location tied to specific things like </font> The same lack of specificity about the physical location of the utilization equipment is necessary for my submission in this thread to work.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
The utilization equipment takes the current.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Larry I think I can summarize Al's position. I do not believe he is saying that current is used by the switch. The definition of controller, which many times a switch is, says that it is not part of the PWS (premises wiring system). So the PWS supplies this switch which is not part of the PWS. So at this point the current is taken from the PWS into the switch, it then leaves this switch back into the PWS to eventually supply the UE. There is no doubt that the switch supplies the UE with current. As far as the open or closed switch question I do not think it matters. Is a duplex receptacle an outlet when nothing is plugged into it?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Congradulations on achieving the 400th!
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
And let's be clear about this. When the definition excludes the wiring internal to controllers, it is explicitly excluding it from being part of "such wiring." That phrase refers back to the "interior and exterior wiring" in sentence one. It would be nonsense to say "such wiring excludes switches." So the definition is not saying that. The definition is saying that "interior and exterior wiring" does not include wiring internal to controllers.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Page 8
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Hey!! I just noted that the Article 100 Definition of Device was changed substantially in 2005!!! The definition has has little editorial things done since the definition was first introduced in the 1940 NEC. BUT, in 2005 "or control" was added. This web, this net just gets finer and better at catching all the meaning.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Boy does that open a can of worms. It would have to be written like this.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions umm, Seems to be a hot thread.Started reading up to page six,and then -yawned-. But getting back to the solution of the current installation,and taking in consideration point that Larry Fine made. This bed room was on top floor,more than likely attic space.Which brings me to a basic solution, that I have used in same installations in commercial occupancies.(*the afterthought) Drill sheetrock ceiling with 1 1/8 holesaw,extend a (threaded) stem from fan,(useing the fan excussion cup on the stem next to ceiling)and mount threaded mallable box/hubs above ceiling in attic space,support box.Back threads with locknut or drill/tap box hub with set-screw. *No new outlet in bedroom,on the existing branch circuit, the 210.12(B)senario is solved, in this installation.. noted: I've been known use conduit bodies too.. [ October 25, 2005, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: dillon3c ]
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
dillon you are not actually trying to answer the original question are you?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions awl, I sorry..I just peeked into the thread..Guess I should have continued to read.. Oh well.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Charlie B, I have attempted to answer your question. May I ask you: "What does wiring look like, to you, that so clearly differentiates the conductive path inside a snap switch from all the other physical configurations of conductive paths that the NEC allows that you WILL call wiring?" Cannot wiring be manufactured in the little ribbon pieces (pardon my lack of technical jargon here) that are used in a snap switch?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
At the light switch, the current taken from the premises wiring going to the switch is taken by the luminaire, and, because the definition of Outlet does not specify a PHYSICAL location of the utilization equipment, that current taken at the switch is indistinguishable from the current taken at the luminaire.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
It is very obvious that a phrase like "interior and exterior wiring" would never refer to the conductive parts inside a switch. So the definition would not try to exclude them.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Charlie B., Where does busway figure in?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions AL, you said this a while back ... "The definition of Outlet only involves current, premises wiring and utilization equipment." The word "premises" is not in the definition of outlet.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
I would not, by counter-example, lump a "switch" in with "wires," because it does not share that same purpose. The conductive materials within a switch perform the function of permitting or interrupting current flow. They are not there to bring current from a spot on one wall to a spot in the ceiling. Other things, namely "wiring," does that job. So the conductive materials within a switch are neither "wires" nor "wiring."
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions A thread of 432 posts by jeff43222 was just too weird. So I'll make it 433. And now I've taken part of the longest thread in Mike Holt history Steve
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Wow, I'm away from the forum for a few days and this thing is up to 435 posts, and still no closer to being resolved. So I guess it's business as usual around here.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Welcome back Peter Let?s take little different look at this discussion of an outlet. My thoughts of today wouldn?t leave a motor circuit. From the service or other panel to a motor we install a feeder to a disconnect. From the disconnect to the controller and then to the motor. From the disconnect to the controller we install branch circuits and install branch circuits from the controller to the motor. Applying the same rules of defining an outlet one of two things must take place here. Either the box on the motor is the outlet of this circuit based on the fact that the NEC mandates the installation all the way to the motor, Or The disconnect and controller are outlets. If they are outlets then it is possible that the switch is also an outlet as outlined in 430.111 430.111 Switch or Circuit Breaker as Both Controller and Disconnecting Means. A switch or circuit breaker shall be permitted to be used as both the controller and disconnecting means Give me some help here?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Device A unit of an electrical system that is intended to carry but not utilize electric energy. or A device can be taken to mean: electrical device designed to carry power, but not use it Outlet A point on the wiring system at which current is taken to supply utilization equipment. Receptacle A receptacle is a contact device installed at the outlet for the connection of an attachment plug. A single receptacle is a single contact device with no other contact device on the same yoke. A multiple receptacle is two or more contact devices on the same yoke. Receptacle Outlet An outlet where one or more receptacles are installed. Switch -- A device for making, breaking, or changing the connections in an electric current. Switch, General-Use switch intended for use in general distribution and branch circuits. It is rated in amperes, and it is capable of interrupting its rated current at its rated voltage. Switch, General-Use Snap A form of general-use switch constructed so that it can be installed in device boxes or on box covers, or otherwise used in conjunction with wiring systems recognized by the National Electrical Code (NEC). this last bit is from Mark Ode I have to conclude that switches are devices and not outlets.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Someone find that stupid bunny and kill it.going and going and going.................. Page 9
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
In my post here I was asking a question about the last sentence of the definition of Premises Wiring (System) outlined by Al. Please help.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Mike, I appreciate the quandary. In my opinion, each is an outlet. In my opinion, the Article 100 Definition of Premises Wiring (System) clearly states that the wiring internal to: </font> At the points on the premises wiring that the wiring internal to motors and controllers are connected, the current that is taken is the only current in the circuit, that being, the current supplying the motor. The current taken from the wiring system into the wiring internal to the controller and or motor, being the current supplying the motor, is exactly the Article 100 Definition of Outlet.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Al, Don
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Charlie B., At the moment, I am reveling in the delicious irony that I am back to looking closely at the common single pole dimmer switch. In the photo below, please observe a Lutron, 600 VA, solid state, incandescent only, rotary, dimmer switch. I took the back off and placed the knob inside the back. Note the discrete electronic components connected with wire. This assembly of multiple electronic components (visible, I hope. I can take additional photos.) exists to control the luminaire and by electronic purpose, change the lumen level delivered by the luminaire. Given that the current supplying the luminaire comes into the internal wiring of the dimmer, this wiring then reconnects to the premises wiring at another point on the premises wiring. The switch connects between two different points on the premises wiring. Can you show me in Code that one of those points must be on the wall and the other point must be on the ceiling?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
If the Definition of Outlet specified the physical position of the utilization equipment in relation to the outlet, instead of talking only about the current taken to supply the utilization equipment, I would not be here in this discussion, for my points would be indefensible.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Speaking first about single (not multi-wire) branch circuits, I now submit that this circumstance is rare. In fact, I can't say that I've ever seen it. Here is what I mean: For the sake of discussion, pretend for a moment (and let's disregard all notions of "electron drift") that the way current flows is that individual electrons move through a wire at the speed of light, and go around the complete path (source to load and back again) many, many times per second. I submit that on any single round trip, a single electron can pass through only one outlet. A branch circuit supplying, for example, receptacle outlets, can serve a dozen or more such receptacle outlets. Suppose there is a lamp plugged into each, and all are turned on. On one round trip, a single electron might go through the receptacle outlet serving "lamp #1," and on the next round trip it might go through the receptacle outlet serving "lamp #2." The lamps (and the outlets) are in parallel, and a single electron might go through any one of the outlets on any given round trip. However, one the electron goes through the outlet, then through the lamp, then back to that same outlet (now on the neutral), it will not pass through another outlet until after it has first returned to the source. For a single branch circuit, the only circumstance that will allow a single electron to pass through two or more outlets on a single round trip would be if the two or more pieces of utilization equipment are in series with each other. That would give each piece of equipment less than the full rated voltage of the supply. That is why I would call this circumstance "rare." Now let us turn to multi-wire branch circuits. Consider a 120/240V panel. Consider two breakers, two hot conductors, and one neutral conductor, leaving the panel together. Run this set of conductors through a number of receptacle outlets. Plug lamps into two outlets (from different phases), and turn them on. A single electron can leave the source via one breaker, go to one outlet, go through the lamp, return to the same outlet (i.e., is now back within the premises wiring system), follow the neutral wire to the nearest point at which the circuit neutrals are tied together, go "backwards" through that neutral wire to the other outlet, backwards through the other lamp, out the "hot conductor" serving the second lamp, back to the second outlet, and back to the source (going "backwards" through the second breaker). In this instance, the same electron passed through two outlets in a single round trip.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
BUT, a single electron is not equal to current taken to supply utilization equipment. The current in a complete circuit is not a discrete packet, rather it is continuous and the same magnitude and direction at any point on the simple two wire circuit. AND, again, the definition of Outlet talks only of current, not voltage drop, not power, not energy.AND, the Code does not prohibit Outlets in series.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Mike Holt was asked this question I apologise if it has already been posted I think it is worth reading again "Q5. Is a switch in a bedroom for an outside light required to be AFCI protected? A5. No. The requirement of 210.12(B) is that all 15 or 20A, 120V branch circuits that supply outlets in dwelling unit bedrooms must be protected by a listed AFCI device. However, the circuit conductors for a switch controlling a lighting outlet, that is not located in the bedroom, is not required to be AFCI protected. Notice the words circuit conductors for a switch. Does this help at all? certainly the conductors inside the switch are a part of the circuit. how about the the fact that the definition for branch circuit general-purpose is that which supplies two or more recetacles or outlets for lighting and appliances . There is no such thing as circuit suppling a switch because there is no outlet at a switch
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
certainly the conductors inside the switch are a part of the circuit.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions I hope we all agree that the conductors in the switch are part of the circuit. If by definition it is not considered a circuit to wire just switches then I don't see how a switch is an outlet. It says two or more recetacles or outlets for lighting which are both clearly defined . If we don't have a circuit how do we have an outlet? If you say the first (meaning switch ) is reliant on the second ,(meaning that point witch current is taken to supply the utilization equipment) then the first is not an outlet. It is a path on which current flows .
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Al, I'd be glad to respond to your comments about the dimmer switch with its internal electronics. But not until we are done "bantering" (I like that choice of words) about the single pole, single throw, no-frills, on/off switch that is located on a bedroom wall and that operates a light in another room. You don't get to change (or divert) the subject until you either (1) Agree that nothing about it or near it is an outlet, or (2) Declare that you will never agree to that statement.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
What? I don't get to switch the discussion to what you are talking about? Well then, I see no outlet from continuing. . . .
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Can you show me in Code that one of those points must be on the wall and the other point must be on the ceiling? Edit "dimmer" to "switch" - Al
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Al, please respond to my question as to wether or not in your opinion, Two or more switches connected to conductors connected to an over current device consitutes a general purpose branch circuit or any other type for that matter.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
If a switch is an outlet then why do manufacturers make switch and outlet boxes?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
The reference you have made to a general purpose circuit is that it hits more than one outlet. If it hit only one then it would be an individual circuit. Neither definition has anything at all to do with a switch being an outlet.
[ October 26, 2005, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: jwelectric ]
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Larry, Larry, Larry, As paradoxical as this must sound, in this thread, I have never put forth the claim that "a switch is an outlet." It's true. Honest.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Charlie B., Wow! That was worthy of the FireSign Theater itself!! Hoowweeee. I am not worthy! [ October 26, 2005, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: al hildenbrand ] Page 10
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Honest. Now I'm more confused than ever. Sounds like I have to go back and re-read the whole thread using Charlie's Rule of Technical Reading. I don't think I can take it.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
AND, again, the definition of Outlet talks only of current, not voltage drop, not power, not energy. Agreed, as I have said before. But I'll say again, for a single circuit (not multi-wire branch circuit), it is rare, and I can't recall ever seeing an example.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Would you care to state (as clearly) the device, box, component, specific point in space, or general volume of space that does comprise the "outlet"?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
It does because if switches were installed at outlets ,it would stand to reason that such circuits would be defined as such.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions How about this,... can an individual branch circuit be controled by a general use snap switch? [ October 26, 2005, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: marc deschenes ]
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
The definition that you posted was about a branch circuit not about outlets.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions I will now state that I have gone with the answer given by my state DOI on how to look at this. With the definition of ?Premises Wiring? in the last sentence stating that,
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
So if I run a 14/2 to only switches I have have a branch circuit With switch outlets ????
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Well, all I can say to this is that I think you have seen them in profusion, yet not recognized them for themselves. The real point of my statement is in the sense of the "current" that is in the circuit. For the purpose of this point, the "circuit" is the complete conductive path from within the supply out to and through the utilization equipment and back again to within the supply. The utilization equipment determines the current that will flow in order for the utilization equipment to be "supplied". At any instant in time, the current is the same magnitude and same direction throughout the "circuit". The "current" is supplying the utilization equipment and at the point that the premises wiring becomes NOT premises wiring the "current" is taken (from the premises wiring). The "current" is let out of the premises wiring. An Outlet occurs.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Al, finish the sentance , a point on a system at which current is taken to supply utilization equipment . Is the switch now utilization equipment?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
The point, the location, of the outlet occurring is that point where the wiring internal to the switch becomes external to the switch. Considering that this is about a luminaire controlled by a switch that is in a dwelling bedroom, then, most of the time, the system will have a nominal voltage of 120V and will be Alternating Current. The AC will make both sides of the wiring internal to the switch points where current is taken (just like the two contact points on a receptacle).
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
</font>
</font>
</font>
</font>
</font>
It doesn't have to be called anything. It can be called a "switch." The issue is whether it is part of the system or whether it is not part of the system. It is.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
I have just resummarized what I AM saying here. Edit to correct a double negative - Al [ October 26, 2005, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: al hildenbrand ]
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
I don't think anyone disagrees with that. But the current is not let out of the premises wiring at the on/off switch. It is let out when it gets to the receptacle or to the luminaire. Many people have said that. I am one. You are not.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
It can't be the load, because that takes power at its outlet.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Look real close to the definition;
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
The parallel loads as seen from the switch will have an equivalancy of a single load with a single current.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
I don't think it is a tangent at all. I think that meaning is as clear as the Code rises to, most of the time. Page 11
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions I defer to Charlie , does the use of the words "the system" in the definition of outlet provide for a more broad description of what "the system" is ? Could it be that "the system"refered to is bigger more inclusive, than the premises wiring system??
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Al, I think what it is called is a connection not an outlet.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
And I add, an Outlet occurs because the current taken at this point that connects to NOT premises wiring is the current supplying the utilization equipment.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Here is a picture os a switch. It shows two places for the conductors to connect. Are the parts inside this switch under the control the NEC.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
What about a box where a receptacle has been removed and the wires joined to continue the circuit? How about a dedicated-circuit-fed receptacle or the last receptacle on a circuit that has been removed?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Please help.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
So you agree, then, that it is the presence of the device (or fixture, disconnect, whip, etc.)that defines the outlet? To avoid wasted e-space, that's what I mean when I say that you're saying a switch is an outlet. The switch makes the box the outlet, right?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Porgie, firefighter; just a student like you... "Like me?" ...just a student like you... "Stop that singing and finish your homework!"...just a student like youuuuuuuu! It's amazing how far back one has to read to catch up on a thread this long!
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
And I add, an Outlet occurs because the current taken at this point that connects to NOT premises wiring is the current supplying the utilization equipment. I didn't get quite far enough. . . Consider: Single supply with a single utilization equipment connected with a complete circuit. There is only one "current" in the circuit: the current supplying the utilization equipment. At every (and any) point along the complete circuit from supply to UE there is only one current present and that current is taken to supply the UE. Now, let's add a layer of bureaucratic abstraction and say that one part of the circuit is under one set of rules, the middle is under another set of rules, and the end is under a third set of rules. The "middle" is the Premises Wiring (System).Now, in a single short definition, let's define both boundaries for the rules on either side of the middle part of the circuit.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
And, No.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Psst!! PSSSSST! Listen, don't tell any one! Part of the definition of the boundary for the Rule for the middle section has to allow parts in the middle of the middle section to not be under the rules of the middle section.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Switches are still under the jurisdiction of the NEC. There are UL considerations, wiring methods, bonding issues, separation of different voltages in a box containing two switches, and a host of other ways that the NEC has something to say about switches.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Yes. They have to be listed. How they get that way is up to the manufacturer, and the NEC does not tell them how to build the switch. But the switch itself is not beyond the jurisdiction of the NEC.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Would you care to state (as clearly) the device, box, component, specific point in space, or general volume of space that does comprise the "outlet"? When will you be sending in your proposal?? Time is running out!! edit smiley face[ October 26, 2005, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: sandsnow ]
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Alright, I am claiming . . . Page 12
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
</font>
Great questions. No. And, No. I'm having trouble following the logic. You seem to be contradicting yourself. No wonder I'm confused! :roll:
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Here's a picture of Wing-Nut? :roll: Roger
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
210.12 requires that the question be answered, in my opinion.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
I assure you, it is consistent.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Roger, Charlie B. & I are talking about a switch in a bedroom controlling a luminaire outside the bedroom. Where is the wirenut used as a controller in a bedroom?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Al, the wing nut can control the conductor continuity (of a circuit not serving the bedroom) to a luminaire outside the bedroom as well as a snap switch can. The bottom line is, if the circuit does not serve the bedroom the method of joining a broken conductor together to complete a circuit does not need to be AFCI protected even if the joining of the conductor takes place with in the walls of the bedroom. Now, continue your discussion, debate, argument, or what ever it is. Roger
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Dwelling occupant safety? Roger
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
I see that it made it to over 500.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Hey Al what if we smart wire just the bedrooms and they are controlled from the utility room and all power originates from that system,we still have to add afci protection for these areas and the switches either smart or snap wouldn`t they at that point be the point of utilization. Yes they are part of the wiring system but without them we have a non operating circuit.Lets chew on that for a moment......So at that point the switch that has gone through countless statements that it is not a valid point of utilization ,isn`t it in this case a part of the circuit that does in fact utilize power that is supplied from other than a bedroom. After 500 posts Al there is only so much straw left we can grab at.Keep the faith keep the faith !!!!!!!!Or maybe I have my head up and ocked and I am just trying to keep this thread alive for the unpresidented 1000 post award. Come on Jeff you still have a chance 1000,1000,1000 now click your boots together and say there is no place like mikes.There`s no place like Mikes
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions OK! _lets see what this does? An AFCI device (breaker) requires a neutral connection, - correct? That hasn't been mentioned. By my understanding of the code, all branch circuits supplying OUTLETS in a (dwelling unit) bedroom, require AFCI protection. A switch doesn't UTILIZE a neutral. Possably a requirement for a power outlet? Does this include the neutral, and if so, does this neutral pass through the swithbox, on it's way to the luminaire? If so, could an arc take place at the switch? Therefore, creating a need for the AFCI protection?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Lets not forget that the SYSTEM in question, is not a series system. it is parallel, and utilizes BOTH sides. that would seem to simplify the definition of an OUTLET. BUT, what if BOTH sides of a circuit are included in close proximity? I think that this requires a close look at the INTENT of the CODE?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions You can run a 14/2 to a duplex receptacle and have a branch circuit . Why ? Because a receptacle outlet is defined. Remove the receptacle replace it with a switch. What do you have? I'm not sure but I know it is not a circuit. Why? Because there is not such thing as a switch outlet. Can you have an outlet without a circuit? Not in my opinion. Page 13
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
If you have a 14/2 going to a receptacle, and you remove the receptacle, & replace with a switch, then you have a DIRECT SHORT, if the switch is placed in the ON position.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions I don't know how to use the graemlins , can't quote well. Have a hard time with bold and many others features as well, but I know what a branch circuit is Branch Circuit: The circuit conductors between the final overcurrent device protecting the circuit and the outlet(s). A receptacle outlet qualifies as an outlet that can be supplied from a branch circuit . A switch does not qualify. I don't care how many you connect or the way that they are connected , fill a room of wall space with them , they are not by definition outlets or installed at them or on a branch circuit for that matter. A switch is not a contact device installed at the outlet. A receptacle is. If they were we call them switch outles and we would call them that because the would be defined that way. Now picture a bunch of those graemlins,, the smiley ones
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions I never knew that a direct short, (intentional or not) was considered UTILIZATION of Power! LMAO I was being a smart A*ss, I am of the opinion that a switch IS NOT, an outlet! Read back in the string! I have argued that point exactly! However, following the string, a switch that is in a bedroom, and CONTROLS an outside luminaire, COULD cause an arc, IF a neutral (or ground) is in proximity to the switch. What is the purpose (or intent) of the requirment of an AFCI on ALL branch circuits that feed OUTLETS in a dwelleing unit? I agree that the definitions need to be updated! But lets just look at the INTENT of the CODE. Electricity is a relativly new thing, if ya look back (compared to other trades) SO we are all still striving for perfection!
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Looking only at the definition of "Outlet", the words do not specify anything about the current put back into the wiring system, only the current taken. I understand this as: a neutral may or may not be present. With respect to "need", it depends upon who one is listening too. The National State Association of Fire Marshalls, in my opinion, has emphatically stated that we all "need" AFCIs, everywhere, and that AFCIs ARE "fire detectors". The technology embodied in the common AFCI manufactured assembly has never embodied that capability. Putting my tirade aside, "need" is not quantified in the NEC as a scale used to determine if we wire this way or that way. It does lead to a different and interesting discussion, just not part of whether a switch, used as a controller of a remote outlet, has an outlet at the point that the wiring of the switch becomes internal to the switch. P.S. I like your tag line
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
I don't think there is anything in the NEC that prohibits series wiring.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Well, I JUST KNEW I would keep the string going! We have enough going as is! LMAO
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions A side question has come up about an arc in a switch. Is it not true that every time a switch controlling a light is opened and closed a spark occurs?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
V ery true, BUT the manufacturers, CLAIM that the AFCI can tell the differance, between that kinda arc, or the arc created by a motor, like a vacume cleaner, when plugged, or un-plugged!
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions as I have said - go back to the origional requirements for the GFCI. I hated them too! Every time I tried to use a weed eater it would trip! ANY saw or dril would cause a trip! I forsee, more or less the same progression of the AFCI. :roll:
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
If they were we call them switch outles and we would call them that because the would be defined that way. Marc. I really understand that you disagree with me. I get that. But the definitions you are using to define outlet are not the definition of outlet. The definitions of the terms you are using use "outlet" in their definitions. When you come to a single word term "outlet" in the definition of another term (even if that term is a two or more word term like, say, "receptacle outlet"), insert the definition of "Outlet" in for the word "outlet". Insert that definition only inside the other term's definition. The term itself, like, say, "receptacle outlet" is a different thing than "Outlet". Only the definition of Outlet defines "outlet".
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
I've tracked the definition of outlet to my earliest NEC, the 1933, and it is word for word unchanged between then and now (except that the list of utlization equipment was replaced with that term, utilization equipment).
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions The POINT on the system must be defined! I think that we GOT that! I'll say it again, ANY A/C system requires BOTH an OUTPUT of power, as well as a POINT of return? Does not ANY USE of A/C power require a supply from , and a return to? Explain to me where the switch RETURNS ANY power? Ya! Damm*tt I KNOW, the definition of A/C --- :roll:
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Al, What you are saying is that a switch is a device installed at an outlet. Replace the word outlet for the definition of outlet , and a switch does not qualify as a device installed at one. In my opinion Hey ,I learned something new today
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Part of how I started down this road that lead to my perspective now, was by illustrating a branch circuit with a switch in a bed that controlled a low voltage decorative luminaire outside the bed. The branch circuit continues from the switch to the luminaire. That BC extension needs AFCI in my opinion. When the switch is a Lutron RadioRA or some other smart switch, and doesn't have hard wiring that is 125V 15 or 20Amp that extends from the switch to the luminaire, I don't think the AFCI requirement applies because of the switch location. I have argued that the smart switch is utilization equipment in its own right because it performs electronic purpose and utilizes energy to that end. But that is another thread. This is about, focused on, whether the current inside a snap switch, used as a controller of a luminaire, leaves the premises wiring and whether that "leaving" is an outlet.I hear Nays and a few Yeas. Let's talk code.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
YEP! when ya talk SMART! You have left the code FAR behind!
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Quite simply, the current to supply the UE that enters the switch re-enters from the switch and continues down a conductor to the hot side of the UE. The definition of outlet doesn't concern itself with power, only the current that is taken to supply a UE. Page 14
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions ONE WAY street! LOL No return path! KEY is it is in SERIES, and UTILIZES NO power! POWER merely passes through, it isn't utilized! LOL :roll:
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
That is, an outlet occurs at a switch used to control another outlet, at the point that current is taken into the internal wiring of the switch.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions OOPS, YOU just gave up the ghost! YOU said the magic word! HOT conductor!
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
YOU said the magic word! HOT conductor!
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
If so, could an arc take place at the switch? Therefore, creating a need for the AFCI protection? Maybe the code should specify AFCI protection for any cable within any wall, ceiling, or floor space adjacent to bedrooms.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions If the switch CONTROLS the HOT conductor alone, then it MUST be a part of the SYSTEM. To be a TRUE controller, it must control the neutral(Grounded Conductor)as well. OTHERWISE The Neutral conductor can still control(carry) OTHER OUTLETS, at the same time. Otherwise, it would CONTROL, the NEUTRAL as well. In order to TAKE, or utilize power, it must be able to convert into kenetic, thermal, or light energy, alone, with no other connection.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
IT does.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions It states that it will protect the branch circuit, not JUST the outlets.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Personally I would feed multipul bedrooms on the same circuit, including any outside fixtures.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions OK, I gotcha, I understand what ya mean. Think ya can convince the majority of the code making panels?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Edit spelling - Al [ October 27, 2005, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: al hildenbrand ]
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
I've broken into MANY switches, but have NEVER seen any wiring? BUT good luck! LMAO
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions I think that perhaps "the" system is not the same as the premises wiring system."The system " is larger than premises wiring and,in my opinion , includes the conductors in the switch. The point of outlet is not the same as a connection point between systems. The conductors in the switch, in this example , are a part of a system or the system controlling the lighting outlet ,the connection to those conductors in the switch is not the point at which current is taken to supply U.E. That happens at the connection to the U.E.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Think ya can convince the majority of the code making panels? The CMPs will have to deal with proposals to change existing language.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Page 15
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
It's time you conceded this. You have never given any valid argument or rational reasoning against it. The best you have ever offered is to try to qualify the internal metal parts of the switch (the one I describe above) as being included in the "wiring internal to controllers." That is nonsense. I think it is time you conceded that as well.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Well, Premises Wiring (System) says it is the wiring internal to a list of things. . .
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Al, outlets are installed on branch circuits.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Good morning Charlie B. That picture has gotten a rise out of you each time. You can have your outside definitions, but I don't think they trump the use of the Article 100 Definition of Device in the definition of Premises Wiring (System).
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
That picture has gotten a rise out of you each time. The list of items incorporated as adjectives of "wiring" in the first sentence of Premises Wiring (System) includes the two words "wiring devices". It has been your contention that "wiring devices" is a two word term, even though it is not defined in the Code. Further, you have claimed that the singular meaning of "wiring devices" is incontrovertible. Because "device" is defined in the NEC, I find there is clearly another take on the two words "wiring devices", and that is, that wiring is an adjective for the NEC defined term "device" that clearly groups device with the four items of wiring that are described as wiring, and that you have agreed are wiring. While you point to definitions outside the body of the NEC?, I can not shake the importance of the definition of the term "device" given by the NEC?. You can have your outside definitions, but I don't think they trump the use of the Article 100 Definition of Device in the definition of Premises Wiring (System).
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Charlie B.: Lest we get off into discussion of sentence structure, I read "device" as one of three objects in a compound prepositional phrase used as an adjective to "wiring".
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
In the definition for Switch General Use snap, it says that they can be used in cojunction ((something that joins or connects)
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
To me, "the point where current is taken" does specify a location, electrically speaking, which is as close as an all-encompassing code could be to specifying a location. When you say "That is the current taken by the UE." we apparently feel that this is where (on the system) "current is taken" from the wiring system to the load, and not every place along the way that current "leaves" the system, passes through a device, and then "returns" to the system. Yes, the load current passes through the switch. To you, this is current "being taken", while to us, it is not. To us, "taking current" occurs at only one place (electrically speaking), not at every access point, even if we agree that the switch is external to the wiring system. Switching devices switch current, but don't "take" it; that's what electrical loads do. The physical location is not relevant; the electrical position is. That's why a switch at the end of a circuit that controls a load upstream from it (the typical 2-wire switch loop) works just as if the load were at the end.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Larry, I get that. I understand that perspective. That is what makes (among others) the connection point of the two prongs of a cord to, say a clock/radio, to the contacts in a receptacle an Outlet, as defined by Article 100 Definition "Outlet". My point is the perspective you have so eloquently articulated is not the singular interpretation.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
That sentence is about what is part of the system. We have disagreed about the meaning of "wiring devices." But whatever those two words mean, they describe something that is in the system. What I do not understand about the bold section above is what you are trying to say about what is, or is not, in the system. Specifically, I don't understand your phrase, Could you tell me what you meant? In the mean time, "Sentence Two" is about what is not part of the system. I have twice invited you to comment on my reasoning on how that sentence relates to the no-frills (and no wires) toggle switch. I'll extend the invitation again. Please comment on this:
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions What about an illuminated switch.These both direct current to an actual point of utilization and utilize current at the switch.Switch off light in switch on,switch off light in switch on.Switch on ,switch off ,switch on ,switch off. Sounds like a part of karate Kid Electrician III.....Switch on switch off.......... :roll: Where is MR. Miagi when you really need him?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Let's keep working on the first sentence of the Article 100 Definition of Premises Wiring (System).
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Allen, I like the fact that you are introducing the thought of DC, here. The Article 100 Definition of Outlet covers DC also. As for the light in the switch. . .why you're just a troublemaker,. . .aren't you?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
They conductive materials within the "no-frills, on/off toggle switch" of which I am speaking are not "conductors," by anyone's definition of that term. They are not "wiring." They are something else, and that something else does not have a name assigned by the NEC. Specifically, the conductive materials are not addressed in "Sentence Two." And if you expect to support your case with the fact that the NEC does not define "conductors," (it does define three related phrases, but not that one word), then you might as well expect the NEC to define volt, amp, and watt. Page 16
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Using the picture below of a switch I see where the incoming electricity (current in) attaches to the switch and I see where the conductor connects going (current out) to the light. Now the part in between is not a wire although it is a conductor of current. It is internal to the device. The parts internal the switch does not fall under the jurisdiction of the NEC so therefore can not be part of the premise wiring. In other words the current leaves the premise wiring upon entering the controller (switch). The switch controls the light i.e. on or off therefore the general use snap switch is a controller as defined in the last sentence of Premises Wiring (System).
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
First set aside all the ancillary phrases that modify the fundamental parts of the sentence, and bring them back in their proper place. It becomes clear that the object of the sentence is "wiring." So we are left with, Now bring back the other phrases. The object "wiring" is modified four times, with four prepositional phrases:</font>
Whatever is meant by the two words "wiring devices," that stuff is part of the premises wiring system. Of the two words "wiring" and "devices," the noun is "devices," and "wiring" is an adjective that modifies that noun. At your suggestion, I looked up the word "device" in the NEC article 100. From that definition, it is clear to me that a "switch" is a "device." That tells me that a switch is included among the things that are part of the premises wiring system.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions con?junc?tion P Pronunciation Key (kn-jngkshn) n. The act of joining. The state of being joined. A joint or simultaneous occurrence; concurrence: A general use snap switch is used in conjunction (The state of being joined ) with a wiring system recognized by the N.E.C. Does the state of being joined consitute a point on the system where current is taken to supply U.E. No Not all connections are outlets and the one in and around the the general use snap switch in this example is not an outlet. It is a device in the state of being joined with a recognized wiring system. Much like Roger's wire nut. Is it a controller ? yes. It is a device used to control the flow of current to the outlet ,in this case outside of the bedroom.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Once the truth of this statement is grasped, the rest of your argument falls apart.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Pardon me Charlie, I just read the next sentence. I'll go read some more. I'll be back!
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions I'll be heading to lunch now. On that topic, I think most of you must be on the East Coast. It's not fair to those of us out West. I go home at night, and the next morning there are 50 more posts on this thread. I think I'll ask Mike Holt to put a moratorium on posting anything before 7:00 am Pacific Time.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
On that topic, I think most of you must be on the East Coast. It's not fair to those of us out West. I go home at night, and the next morning there are 50 more posts on this thread. I think I'll ask Mike Holt to put a moratorium on posting anything before 7:00 am Pacific Time.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
After crawling around in the first (implied) sentence of the Article 100 Definition of Premises Wiring (System) I read "that wiring" </font>
What can you show me in the language of the NEC that says that the conductors in a switch, a switch which is part of the wiring system, are not wiring?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
No. I do not agree with this. There are conductive materials within my "no-frills, on/off toggle switch," but they are not "conductors." They are not "wiring." And they are not among the things being excluded in "Sentence Two." So show me a switch that has conductors (no wait, you have already done that), and I will call those conductors "conductors." As to whether I will call them "wiring," in the sense used in "Sentence Two," I have already promised to address that, once we finish the "no-frills switch" debate. {Edited to insert a missing word.} [ October 27, 2005, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: charlie b ]
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Happens all the time.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
No, wait. I lost your logic again.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
No outlet, no AFCI.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Here's another: Oct 26, 11:09 am Here's Mike agreeing with you, Oct 26, 4:55 PM. Six minutes later, you confirmed your agreement with Mike: And the real kicker, Same day, 4:58 pm: This is the center of the discussion with you as I see it. Do you understand that if the switch is part of the premises wiring system, then there is no outlet there, and no requirement for AFCI?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
I'm not sure how you missed that. I have never meant to give the impression that a switch is not part of the Premises Wiring (System) as defined in the opening line of its definition. I thought I consistently said that a switch is part. . .just that the second sentence excludes the wiring internal. . .
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Article 100:
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Now I'm claiming . . . . . Page 17
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
. . . . . Post #600!
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
I am rolling on the floor with excitement
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Whoops! Just lost that one into cyberspace. I'll do it again.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Well, for the life of me, I can't get my head around how a "conductive material" that is inside a device that IS part of the wiring system IS NOT wiring.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
These "conductive materials" are not insubstantial.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
These "conductive materials" are not insubstantial.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, floats like a duck and paddles like a duck, I say it's a duck.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
If it doesn't look like a wire, and doesn't do a wire's job, and does do a job that wire cannot ever do (i.e., be the mechanism for turning something on and off), then I would not call it "wiring."
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
The term in the first sentence wiring is so all encompassing as to include the entire conductive path for the UE current from the Service Point to the Outlets, except for what is listed in the second sentence of the definition. You can say it, sure. But there is no language that expresses the distinction between conductive material and wiring.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
So. I know you are not taking a leap of illogic with this one. What does "wiring" always look like that you can draw this exclusion? Wiring goes from one point to another point. A switch has two points on it that are connected together by the "conductive materials" inside the switch. This is indistinguishable for the "behaviour" of wiring.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
All wiring is "conductive material." Not all conductive materials are wiring. All cats are animals. Not all animals are cats (some are ducks).
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
The wire conducts current from one location to another, however far or near the two locations are to each other. Everything a switch does happens in one location (the point or the plane at which its contacts mate or separate), never two.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Page 18
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Edit second " mark on conductive materials - Al [ October 27, 2005, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: al hildenbrand ]
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
If the NEC doesn't prohibit the "conductive materials" inside a plain old snap switch from being wiring, . . . The NEC is about safe installation. The NEC prohibits protecting #12 with a 100 amp breaker. But it does not prohibit protecting #1/0 with a 20 amp breaker, so we can do that.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
It has to be used within its ratings. Isn't that wiring?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
The NEC doesn't say that the "conductive materials" inside a plain old snap switch are "wiring," so therefore they aren't.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
A receptacle has ratings. It is not wiring. But it is part of the premises wiring system.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Give'm and inch, they'll take a mile.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
You need to get one of those stickers that Mike Holt will be publishing soon, based on my soon-to-be-famous rule for reading the NEC. It says what it says. So go back and read it again, and read it as if you were seeing it for the first time.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Hey, regardless of where or when the ongoing discussion will end, let's take a poll of whether a switch located in a bedroom, yet operating an exterior circuit, say swimming pool lights, needs to be AFCI protected. I assume the way the Roger
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
I'm heading away from this computer shortly. So the entire membership should feel free to continue to offer comments and opinions. I'll not be reading them until the morning, and I might just skip this thread.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Roger, I can't get that "New Poll" button that you posted to work.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
A receptacle has ratings. It is not wiring. But it is part of the premises wiring system. I hear your words, it's the leap the appears as a discontinuity.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
PLEASE NOTE: THIS IS NOT THE POLL. This is just a suggested wording for the poll.RULES FOR POLLS </font>
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Al, when the first sentence mentions "interior and exterior wiring," I envision runs of #6 going from service panel to subpanel, and runs of #12 branch circuits. Then when the second sentence says "such wiring does not include wiring internal to controllers," I envision a motor controller mounted on a wall, with pushbuttons, pressure switches, overload relays, and internal wiring that connects all that stuff together. It is you who is making an illogical leap from the second sentence to the oddly shaped metal internals of a thing that opens and closes a circuit, and that has nothing that even vaguely looks like wiring.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Charlie B., The poll you suggest looks good to me.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Have a good night. Page 19
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Does this mean that we are not going to a 1000?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
We'll see.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
I'd say it the switch looks, walks, talks, floats, like a fancy wire nut, as in a device used to make a connection.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions To me, it's not relevant whether the switch is part of the wiring system; that's just semantics (like a lot of this thread is about). What matters is what occurs at this location. By the way, Al, while you say the code does not specify a physical location, I say let's start at the other end: the hypothetical switch in question exists in space, so we have a place. Anyway, I still say that no current is supplied to (or "taken by", if you like) anything at switch locations. Please, we know you consider the load current "taken" at the switch. What we disagree on is whether what occurs at switch locations is "current taking". To say that current is leaving and then re-entering the wiring system is silly, but if you like it, go for it We all understand what we all mean with the terms we're all using. We all know what each device in a wiring system does. What we're bantering about is what the code wording means. As with most subjects, the fact that we're even having a thread about this, and especially how long it is, and that it is still growing, indicates that there is no real concensus, but there is a majority. Each "side" of the discussion (Al vs. et al) says that they're using the literal NEC wording, the opposition is interpreting, suggesting what the intent is, and we're not supposed to do that. Since Al has said that boxes without devices are not outlets (see here), but it's not the presence of the device that makes a box with a switch, I don't get what he feels is the deciding factor. Al?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Charlie, you don't have to change it if you don't want to, but I think the question should include 210.12(B) as below. Consider a simple on/off toggle switch that is located in a bedroom. That switch operates a light outside the bedroom. The circuit comprises no other loads and no other switches. Question: Do you believe that article 210.12(B) of the NEC requires this circuit to have AFCI protection? YES or NO Roger
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Just curious: why the "The circuit comprises no other loads and no other switches." requirement? What would be different if there were several switches in the bedroom controlling several loads outside the bedroom? How about: "The circuit supplies no loads within the bedroom." Edit: "The circuit supplies no outlets within the bedroom." Yeah, that's it! [ October 27, 2005, 07:53 PM: Message edited by: LarryFine ]
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Wow! I didn't expect my post to paralyze the thread!
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
As for the light in the switch. . .why you're just a troublemaker,. . .aren't you? Who me nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Just a relocated ny`r that has been in the south since the late 70`s and I like to stirr the nest to see what wasps still are alive
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
The definition of outlet is such that the current inside the switch, used as a controller, then, is coming from a point that satisfies the definition. Remember when Iwire and I were discussing factory vs. installer assembled appliance whips that are hard wired in a j-box? It's back on page 21, thereabouts, it think. The discussion there deals with the distinction of where the point of the outlet is. The edge of the premises wiring that is against, and in electrical contact with, the edge of the utilization equipment wiring is the Outlet, is the point on the wiring system at which current is taken to supply utilization equipment.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
349 to go guys don`t stop now.What gets me as ironic in another thread the nec has been twisted to suit the posts here the posts are twisted to suit the nec.Go figure
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
both larry both.I go from here to other sites but still back space my way here.One sec have to return to ebay I have a pair of new blue handle klein 9 in.linesmans bid for $4.50 and $6.00 shipping and there were 12 min left when I jumped in here
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Got them 10.50 for a $28.00 pair of journeyman side cutters.Big O eat your heart out.Besides I need them my dumb rear didn`t do what i tell our guys to do TREAT AS IF LIVE NO MATTER WHAT
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
A general use snap switch is a device used in conjunction with wiring systems and does not require an outlet to do so , just connections to the systems. Page 20
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
However, point in fact I do possess a valid Washington State license as an "Elect Trainee." I don't have any work hours credited under that license as yet. But if a WA Journeyman or Master can come here and tell me how to do it, I could work under your supervision.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions On the way to work this morning, I thought of another good reason to believe that "wires internal to controllers" was not intended to refer to switches, even through switches are sometimes used as controllers. Look at the current flowing from a panel to a motor controller, and from there to a motor. Within the motor controller, the only thing that the current passes through, on its way to the motor, is the main line contactor. In parallel with that path, current goes through a set of on/off pushbuttons or HOA switches, a remote on/off switch or two, perhaps through the contact of a pressure or level switch, through overload relays, and maybe some other things. There is wiring connecting these pushbuttons and relays and other things. But that wiring does not carry the current that is heading towards the motor. That is why the wiring from the pushbutton to the overload relay does not belong in the category of premises wiring. By contrast, all of the current passing through a light switch on its way to the light will pass through the internal conductive materials internal to the switch. There is no reason not to include the switch and everything that makes up the switch in the category of premises wiring.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
I'm number one! Guess how I voted!
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
When a luminaire has a remote switch, the current that supplies the luminaire (utilization equipment) has to be taken at the point of the controller (switch). The switch does not take the current. The luminaire does, as it is the load, the utilization equipment. The luminaire current is not in the premises wiring and it is going to the luminaire while passing through the switch, its just that an additional piece of premises wiring is part of the path. You're contradicting yourself here, it seems to me.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
As soon as I posted the poll, I cast my vote. Then I checked the results, and saw my own vote posted. I gather that the Poll Master is a bit slow in reporting the number of votes cast.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Mike, you keep going back to this "not under the jurisdiction of the NEC" thing. It is not a relevant consideration. At issue is whether the switch, in its entirety or in relation to any of its constituent parts, is, or is not, covered under the phrase "premises wiring system." You don't get to say, "it's not covered by the NEC, so it's not in the premises wiring system." Rather, it is the NEC itself that says what is, and what is not, in the premises wiring system. Our discussion is all about understanding what the NEC is telling us.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions I agree that the NEC mandates what it covers and what it doesn?t cover. This is pointed out here: Therefore the internal parts of the switch can not be part of the premise wiring.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
A wire nut in a junction box is part of the wiring system. Would you say that the metal twisting thing that grabs the wires is not part of the wiring system? Would you say that the plastic surrounding the metal twisting thing that grabs the wires is not part of the wiring system? You need to look again at the definition of premises wiring system, and in particular at the first sentence. It says "wiring . . plus associated hardware . . . ." It doesn't say that the outer part of the hardware is in and the inner parts are out.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Good afternoon folks, Charlie, Thanks for getting the poll up. Back in a few minutes.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Look at the current flowing from a panel to a motor controller, and from there to a motor. Within the motor controller, the only thing that the current passes through, on its way to the motor, is the main line contactor. In parallel with that path, current goes through a set of on/off pushbuttons or HOA switches, a remote on/off switch or two, perhaps through the contact of a pressure or level switch, through overload relays, and maybe some other things. There is wiring connecting these pushbuttons and relays and other things. But that wiring does not carry the current that is heading towards the motor. That is why the wiring from the pushbutton to the overload relay does not belong in the category of premises wiring.
Charlie, please note that the enclosure shown is not a required part of the motor controller. The controller is available by itself, in a small boxboard container, for installation in any wall case of sufficient volume. The motor controller is the switch in this case.Now, I know you are not trying to confuse the discussion about switches used as controllers with switches used as motor controllers.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
It is the SECOND sentence that says what is out, as Mike is talking about.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Charlie B.: The definition of Premises Wiring (System) (is) "That . . .wiring. . .together with. . .wiring devises." Wiring devices ARE "That. . .wiring" (just not ALL of it ) Now, look at the bold italics below in the quote box: "Such wiring" is referring directly to the subject of the first sentence, "That. . .wiring". "Such wiring" is all the wiring between the service point and the outlet(s) as described. And, and this is important, "That. . .wiring" includes the screws and plastic conduit and enclosures and washers and nuts and etc. They are "wiring", "That. . .wiring". The second sentence invokes "That. . .wiring" with "Such wiring" so it is including the non-conductive bits as well, and says the wiring internal to controllers is not included in "That. . .wiring". It ultimately doesn't matter WHAT the switch is made of. If it is used as a controller, its INSIDE is not part of "That. . .wiring".
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
I copied that image to my computer and enlarged as much as I could, without losing too much image quality. I did not see any wires. So I would say that there is no wiring in that motor controller. From that I would conclude that the infamous "Sentence Two" was not talking about that specific controller, when it excluded "wiring internal to controllers" from the premise wiring system. Rather, it was talking about other controllers, namely, the ones that have interior wiring.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
And, and this is important, "That. . .wiring" includes the screws and plastic conduit and enclosures and washers and nuts and etc. They are "wiring", "That. . .wiring". It is the "premises wiring system" that includes both "that . . . wiring" AND the screws and plastic conduit. The "that . . . wiring" part is wires. Just wires.The "such wiring" refers back to the wires, just the wires. Page 21
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
The definition says "that . . . wiring . . . together with all their associated hardware. . . " The hardware is associated with the wiring. The hardware itself is not wiring.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Break down the sentence. Wiring devices is one of three objects of a prepositional phrase acting as an adjective to "That. . .wiring".
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Edit spelling - Al [ October 28, 2005, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: al hildenbrand ]
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Break down the sentence yourself. The two words "together with" are the conjunction between "that wiring" and the entire set of three objects. </font>
</font>
</font>
[ October 28, 2005, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: charlie b ]
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
I'm going away until Monday morning. May I ask that the membership try to keep the new posts down to 100 or fewer, while I'm taking a break from this debate.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Wow an entire page between two posters.Ok which one will get all the way to 1000 ? Charlie has already claimed 2 important number slots Jeff get back here and be #1000.Just like an electrician start trouble and sit and giggle on the sidelines as others hash it out.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
[QB] If the switch had a pilot light I would say it would require AFCI protection , because the connection to the light is an outlet.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions The basis that this debate has turned into is just what the definition of premise wiring and outlet covers. Some are trying to inject other definitions into the debate and turn it around. What Charlie B and Al have been debating is the definition of premise wiring and outlet. I will debate these points only. Where the fault in the code lies is in the definition of ?Premises Wiring (System).? I am posting this definition and leaving out the unnecessary words. As defined by outlet the second that the current leaves the premise wiring and enters the switch it has been taken. It then leaves the switch and continues on to supply the equipment that it is controlling. The fact that the switch is a controller of, in this case an outside light, and the internal parts are not part of the premise wiring it must be labeled an outlet. These are the words as printed in these two definitions.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
"Taken to supply utilization equipment" is not the same as "taken to control utilization equipment." So, even if we agree that switches "take" current, they control, they don't supply. That's what outlets do.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
By definition an outlet is; Outlet. A point on the wiring system at which current is taken to supply utilization equipment. Where the debate revolves is the question of supply to the equipment. Here is where the second sentence of premises wiring comes into play. Such wiring does not include wiring internal to controllers, The internal parts of the switch (controller) are not part of the premises wiring. The current left the premises wiring when it entered the switch (controller) therefore constituting an outlet. It is the fact that the switch is a controller and has wiring internal that is the debate that the controller (switch) is an outlet. Then this would negate every load (outlet) due that current is always returned to the source after passing through the load. To use a receptacle outlet, current passes through the phase conductor through the load and back through the neutral. I don?t know of any load that consumes current (amperage). The load consumes wattage and wattage is not what is in question. The taking of current to supply is the question. Again the purpose of the debate. The controller (switch) is where the current is taken from the premise wiring to control the light. The fact that the current is taken for control then the controller is what is suppling the appliance.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
How exactly does the switch take the current?? and why can't it do it without an outlet?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
How many systems does the NEC recognize??
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
I still say it doesn't do that, it merely connects or interrupts the current in the system; i.e., it switches. In addition, an outlet is an outlet, regardless of the state of the load, whereas, according to the switch-is-an-outlet-proponents' own definition, the load current's passing through the switch is a prerequisite to its definition. Therefore, a switch only requires its enclosure to be called an outlet while the load current is flowing. Open the switch and it's no longer an outlet. What is it then? Personally, I find this concept tough to accept.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
When the current leaves the premise wiring and enters the internal wiring of the controller (switch) the outlet takes place.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Why would a switch not be an outlet regardless of the load? You ask, Open the switch and it's no longer an outlet. What is it then? The best way I know to answer this is to ask what the light is when current is no longer flowing. Is it still an outlet? Using your example the light would no longer be an outlet not the receptacle unless current was flowing. Page 22
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
here is 700
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Does not the switch supply current to the light? Is not the switch the controller for the light? [ October 29, 2005, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: jwelectric ]
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
I ask why a switch requires an outlet to be an outlet because it can't be one by itself.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Inquiring minds want to know. No, lights and receptacles are located at outlets. As far as I know, nobody has claimed that outlets depend on current flowing at any given instant to qualify. [ October 29, 2005, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: LarryFine ]
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Not again! [ October 29, 2005, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: LarryFine ]
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Doggone it!
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
I hate it when I hit "quote" instead of "edit"!
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
What else is required?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
If the light or receptacle are located at the outlet, just what is the outlet?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
No, it controls the current to the point of outlet in this case outside the bedroom An outlet. You can't have a circuit of just General use snap switches, there has to be an outlet involved. [ October 29, 2005, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: marc deschenes ]
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
You can't have a circuit of just General use snap switches, there has to be an outlet involved.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
The definition of Outlet says "current is taken", present tense. Not "will be taken", not "has been taken", not "was taken". Read the definition of Lighting Outlet and Receptacle Outlet again. Note that the location specified is the "Outlet". In place of the word "Outlet", in the definition of the two word term "Lighting Outlet", insert the words (all of them) of the definition of "Outlet". Don't insert the words in the two word term, just in the definition where "outlet" is used. You will read that the location of the Lighting Outlet, then, is "that point on the premises wiring system at which current is taken to supply utilization equipment." The "outlet" at a "Lighting Outlet", nowhere in the definition, is said to be a "box". Rather, it is the connection to the end of the Premises Wiring emerging at the box. In a "Receptacle Outlet", the outlet happens at the connection of the plug to the inner contacts of the receptacle. At a hard wired appliance, the outlet occurs at the end of the wiring provided as part of the appliance. Again, while this will happen at a J-box or wiring compartment under a wirenut or terminal, the "outlet" is not the box or compartment, it is the end of the Premises Wiring. [ October 29, 2005, 08:32 PM: Message edited by: al hildenbrand ]
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Never mind, I'm just being hurtful. [ October 29, 2005, 08:31 PM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
George , you are a funny guy and from what I can tell a smart one too.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
No George, don't hold back! Tell us how you really feel! The next time I see an AFCI breaker, I am going to smash it to pieces!
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Now Al, do the same thing for "switch outlet" Oh yeah,.. never mind there is no such thing.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Deleted because I think it's allready been covered. [ October 29, 2005, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: peter d ]
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Is there any punishment for a felony threadjacking like this one? Page 23
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Oh yeah,.. never mind there is no such thing.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions This deal of switches being outlets has been debated from one angle with a lot of off beat definitions thrown in. I want to look at it in a different way also. I would appreciate someone addressing my outlook if they would be so kind. I have asked a question after some of these quotes. 517.13(B) Exception No. 1: Metal faceplates shall be permitted to be grounded by means of a metal mounting screw(s) securing the faceplate to a grounded outlet box or grounded wiring device. (switch faceplates don?t require grounding) Please would someone take the time to address all these outlets outlined by the NEC.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Mike, An "outlet box" has nothing to do with the Article 100 definition of "outlet". Don
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
how do we go this far and not go anywhere
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions My thinking on this is that the NEC has named each one of these places ?outlet.? It has named each location as being a box that contains an outlet. The code clearly is not talking about a junction box as outlined thirty times in the 2005. 334.30 of every outlet box, junction box, cabinet, or fitting. Table 430.12(B) Terminal Housings Edited to add; An outlet box can be used as a junction box [ October 30, 2005, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: jwelectric ]
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Larry, An "inlet" is not defined as a single word term, and is not a word used in the difinition language of Premises Wiring (System), or Outlet. You seem to be implying that "inlet" is a Service Point? The following is defined, but it is a three word term.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Mike, I think that is just sloppy code, where "field language" has been mixed with "code language". There is nothing in the sections that you have cited that define an "outlet". The only definition of outlet that can be used with the NEC is found in Article 100. The words "outlet box" are trade words for a box. This is just like when the older editions of the NEC permitted 360 degrees of bend between fittings. When that was put into the code, the "trade language" meaning of fitting (conduit body) was used and not the "code language" meaning of fitting which includes couplings. Don
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions I will agree that panel 17 has made its share of mistakes but I have a hard time believing that all the other code panels would follow suit and make the same mistake cycle after cycle. Using section 680.23(F)(2)(b) (or an outlet box used to enclose a snap switch) tells me that a snap switch or the switch constitutes an outlet. This same terminology is used in 29 different articles in the code. It was used 59 times in the 2002 and 57 times in the 1999 cycles. I have also been trying to make heads or tails from 210.20(D) and 210,21. Here we are told that a lamp holder is an outlet. Is it part of the fixture itself, yes but it is also an outlet as pointed out here. One outlet where the lamp holder connects to the premises wiring and another at the lamp holder itself. Why are we hung up on the fact that the only place an outlet can occur is the exact point where it leaves the premise wiring? Using section 210.21 which states; I am finding it hard to leave a switch out of the outlet category. As I have pointed out in the pervious posts where I quoted the code and its use of the words ?outlet boxes? it is clear that switches was included in this terminology. Article 314 Outlet, Device, Pull, and Junction Boxes; Conduit Bodies; Fittings; and Handhole Enclosures, here it makes it very clear that there is a difference between the use of a boxes or conduit bodys.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Don
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions The use of the word "outlet" in 210.12 indicates the point of connection to the utilization equipment. The connection to the device (general use snap switch) does utilize the current therefore there is no outlet at the switch. Also look in the U.L. white book you will see that a switch is not a device listed to supply , but to controll the flow of current .
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Also look in the U.L. white book you will see that a switch is not a device listed to supply , but to controll the flow of current . Now using your own words you have nailed down the fact that the switch is a device which controls as UL has listed. The code states that a device that controls is an outlet device. The way that I read the definition of device none of them utilize electric energy. This would include the receptacle outlet.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Mike, Look at the following from UL's "QCIT.GuideInfo Metallic Outlet Boxes". Don
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Mike , a switch is not a device listed to be installed at an outlet . If the switch had a pilot light you would have an argument. The outlet is at the light not at the switch.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Does it not clearly state, ?that is intended to control but not utilize?. Where are you getting that it is required to utilize the current?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
What is a receptacle? Does it utilize current? Is it a point that leaves the premise wiring? Is it a device? Does it carry current? Does it fit the definition of device? Does not a switch fit this same definition?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
The connection to the switch is just that , a connection.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
[ October 31, 2005, 09:18 AM: Message edited by: jwelectric ] Page 24
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
As for the White Book, we brought this up back on page eleven. Re-quoting myself:
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Good morning Charlie B.: I'm going to be in and out a bit today so, bear with me. Note that there is a separator after "interior and exterior wiring," and there is a separator after "hardware, fittings and wiring devices,", thus bracketing the whole phrase: To show it another way, noting the square brackets, [ ]: {That interior and exterior wiring, [including power, lighting, control, and signal circuit wiring (together with all their associated hardware, fittings, and wiring devices)]}, (both permanently and temporarily installed), etc. Thinking of this in terms of "sets" or Venn diagrams: Premises Wiring (System) is the complete set. The set is broken into two parts: Interior and Exterior. Interior and Exterior added together equal the complete set. The complete set is broken down into "stuff A" and "stuff B" again with the phrase: "including power, lighting, control, and signal circuit wiring together with all their associated hardware, fittings, and wiring devices". "Stuff A" added together with "stuff B" equals, again, the complete set. But "stuff A" is neither equal to "interior wiring" nor "exterior wiring". The same is true for "stuff B". Individual constituents of "stuff A" may be in either "interior wiring" or "exterior wiring". The same is true for "stuff B". "Such wiring" of the second sentence refers to "That interior and exterior wiring". Edit typo - Al [ October 31, 2005, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: al hildenbrand ]
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions I am leaving now going to the NC Ellis Cannady IAEI meeting in Greensboro. All of the boring stuff will be over with when I get there and they will be settled down to code. I will stay for the banquet and it will be late when I get home. I know that the two of you are into some kind of English debate here but if you find the time please address the code quotes that I have posted. I promise to stay up tonight and read all the new post.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Just because a switch is a device, does not make it also an outlet. Don
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions This whole debate hinges on the effectiveness of the AFCI itself. Furthermore, prove to me that faulty premises wiring is a major cause of residential fires, and I will consider this a worthwhile issue.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
No. There are three parts, and the three parts added together equal the complete set. Draw a Venn Diagram with three circles that have no common area (i.e., are mutually exclusive). </font>
</font>
</font>
I agree. And in doing so, it is not referring back to the associated hardware, fittings, or wiring devices. It is referring back to wires, just to wires. Why does the presence of absence of a comma not matter? The three things (hardware, fittings, and wiring devices) can be interpreted as being "associated with" the original words "interior and exterior wiring," as I believe. Those three things can be associated with the four things (power wiring, lighting wiring, control wiring, and signal circuit wiring), as you have said. But "Interior and Exterior Wiring," as a set of two things, is exactly identical to the set of "power, lighting, control, and signal circuit wiring," as can be seen from the Venn Diagram I describe above. So that grammar error does not change the meaning of the sentence.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
First a note about the English language. You cannot take a two (or more) word phrase and find its meaning by looking up each of the words separately, then adding the separate definitions together. Any argument you put forth with that as its basis will have no merit whatsoever. You want proof? Try discovering what the following phrases mean by looking up the individual words separately: </font>
But now to your individual comments, in order of their appearance in bold above: </font>
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
The box is an "outlet box." But there may or may not be an "outlet" at that location.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
And the definition of device I am finding it hard to leave a switch out of the outlet category. This indicates you're of the opinion that all devices are outlet devices, which is not true. As others have stated, the generic term "outlet boxes" is not the same as the NEC definition of "outlet". One describes a piece of hardware, and the other (as Al has pointed out) describes a point on the system where a certain even occurs.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Now we're up to 750, and not even an "agree to disagree" in sight.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions It's think it's time to close it and not discuss this topic ever again!! The next step would be to get a formal interpretation from the NFPA, and that would be the "official" answer that people are looking for. It's obvious that an "agree to disagree" is necessary, and let people make their own decsions about this topic in the meantime, because it's obvious that people are burrowed in to deep to change their positions at this point. [ October 31, 2005, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: peter d ]
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
(I know: No, you aren't jesting, and I shouldn't call you Shirley)
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Charlie B., You are straining too hard at making a distinction where there is none. Calling the absence "bad grammar" is your opinion. And we know that "opinion" is not enforceable Code. There is no separator, "no comma", between "wiring together" in the middle of the phrase I apologize for failing to specify "stuff A" and "stuff B". </font>
The color added divides the contents of the same large rectangle (the Premises Wiring (System) into two parts. The orange is as labeled in the separate orange swatch, and the blue is as labeled in its separate color swatch.
That's it. When the second sentence of "Premises Wiring (System)" is applied, one puts a small circle, or whatever shape, into the appropriate relationship to the four overlapping areas.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
</font>
</font>
The "appropriate relationship" can be shown by drawing a circle that contains both the leading "I" in "Interior" and the leading "E" in "Exterior," but that does not contain any of the blue area. The "such wiring" is referring back to "wiring." It is referring back to the orange areas.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
This is not about a single missing comma. The first sentence in the definition of Premises Wiring (System) is clear to use two commas to separate out this one part of the sentence: Using bold italics doesn't get the bracketing commas to jump off the screen, but I think you'll tell if you look close. The same quote above shown in several lines is: That interior and exterior wiring, [including power, lighting, control, and signal circuit wiring (together with all their associated hardware, fittings, and wiring devices)], both permanently and temporarily installed, etc. The two square brackets correspond to the location of the commas I am talking about. These two commas are there and hold the bracketed phrase together.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
I've got Halloween obligations now, to take part in. I'll check in later tonight.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions I withdraw my conditional acceptance of your Venn Diagram, since you did not accept the condition. Unless you separate the blue and orange, you will have the Venn Diagram Wrong. The omission of the comma doesn't change the meaning of the sentence. The only way it can be diagrammed, and obtain a result that is not obvious nonsense, is to diagram it as thought the comma were there. What do I mean by "nonsense"? I want you to hold up a plastic cover plate and a conduit bushing and explain how they look like wiring, walk like wiring, quack like wiring, and swim like wiring. Maybe then we can believe the code intends to include hardware, fittings, and wiring devices as being subsets of "wiring." Until then, I will continue to assert that they are subsets of "Premises Wiring System," and are mutually exclusive of all types of "wiring." Here is how the sentence is structured: </font>
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
You have four areas. They do not overlap each other, and your image shows that fact correctly, but not as clearly as it could. Add a vertical line separating the blue and orange, and it will be more clear. That is the important point, and I have been saying that all along. Your claim rings hollow. Here's why. When I am called to work at a new building as an electrical contractor, I am hired to install the "wiring". If all I am installing is the interior wiring, say this is a single store space inside the Mall of America. (For those of you not familiar, this is a four story tall mall in the shape of a donut surrounding a roofed amusement park. It's huge. Almost all of the stores have no outside walls.) I am hired to wire the store. The general contractor will look at me like I am from Mars if I show up with just wire, and ask, where are the subcontractors that do all the associated hardware and fittings. That general contractor, hiring me to do the "interior wiring" for this new store in the Mall, is expecting the wiring he is paying for to be complete.He's not going to ask me to do "the Premises Wiring (System)." He doesn't have to. He knows that I understand that the interior wiring I do at this store will be complete, that is, the "interior wiring" will have all it's stuff, "stuff A" and "stuff B". When I complete an "interior wiring" job, I will not get paid unless that interior wiring includes the complete installation of the all the required wiring devices. Wiring devices are not a separate piece. My client will not arrange a separate contract with me for this other stuff that, you claim, is not part of the interior wiring. He doesn't have to. My client knows that wiring devices are part of the interior wiring, as are all the fittings and associated hardware.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions I have read and disagree. It is late and I need to get early in the morning to get back to the IAEI meeting but don't fret I haven't given up. Page 25
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Now I might not be smart enough to dissect a sentence nor to know the difference between a verb and a adverb. I might have trouble knowing the difference between a noun and one that is a pro from one that is proper but I can read a sentence and understand what I have read. If you are to have me believe that the educated people who wrote this code are so stupid as to use slang terms while writing the codes that are to be adopted into law then I will be the first to stand up and burn my book. Let?s take a good look at; I can?t help but notice that the term ?outlet box? is not mentioned in table 314.16 nor can I find a volume allowance for an outlet in 314.16. The word ?outlet box? is found in 314.25(B) - 314.27(B),(C) & (D) with each referring to a lighting outlet. Now take a look at 314.42 and see where the phrase ?outlet box? is used outside the text of a light fixture. Now I understand that ?us? uneducated people use the two word term ?outlet box? as a noun at the supply house when referring to different boxes. It will take more that this being pointed out to convince me that after reading those sections pointed out above that the NEC uses the two word term ?outlet box? as a noun. It is very clear that the word ?outlet? is an adjective to tell what kind of box to which they are referring. As hard as the definition of ?Premises Wiring (System)? has been cut to pieces over the past upteen pages it shouldn?t be to hard to figure out the phrase ?outlet box? and its use as either a two word noun or an adjective describing a noun.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Mike, a switch is a device, a device designed to mount on flush device boxes ,outlet boxes and the covers of outlet boxes. If you want to know What a listed box is intended for look in the white book. AL, a switch is a device, it requires no outlet. Just a connection.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
I wire buildings. My job is wiring buildings. When I get to the job, I do the wiring. At no time, when communicating with others, do I have to add "together with all their associated hardware, fittings, and wiring devices" to the use of "wire" and "wiring". The colloquial use of "wire" and "wiring" includes "all their associated hardware, fittings, and wiring devices", which is yet another reason that my take on Premises Wiring (System) cannot be denied.Edit spelling - Al [ November 01, 2005, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: al hildenbrand ]
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions You will have noticed that the thread is closed. It will be opened again two more times, briefly. There is no hope that any new information will be proffered to make either side of this debate a clear winner. It is equally clear that neither side has any notions of conceding the debate to the other side. So the time has come to wrap it up. If anyone has a reason that they will not be able to post their summary during that two day window of opportunity, then please send me a Private Message. I will make some arrangement to accommodate you.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Before I post the results of the poll, I would like to clarify one aspect of the "rules" for closing out this thread. In fairness to all, each member may share his or her own views, but not more than one more time. As is mentioned above, each member who wishes may make one post that summarizes your views on anything discussed in this thread. You will have two days (Thursday and Friday, November 3 and 4) to post your views. There will be no additional debating, and no commenting on anyone else's views. Once you have posted your views, you are done. You may not go back and edit your post, to reply to anything any other member posts during these two days. If you try to do that, your post will be deleted. The intent here is to bring this thread to a close, even if that does not bring any issues to a close. If anyone feels that this process is unfair to their point of view, you are welcome to send any comments or complaints to the Chief Moderator or to the owner of this Forum. If you don't know how to get in touch with them, send me a Private Message, and I will let you know.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions The poll is now closed. Here are the results:
Question: Do you believe that article 210.12(B) of the NEC requires this circuit to have AFCI protection?
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions This thread is now open, and will remain open until Friday November 5. Each member is invited to express your views on any issue that has been discussed in this thread. Remember the rules. You can post one time only, and you may not edit your post to respond or comment on any post made by any other member. If you do so, your post will be deleted. I suggest that you do not try to wait until the end to get the "last word in." I am invoking my Moderator's priviledge to make the last post, before closing this thread. But that post will consist of nothing more than a "good night and good luck," along with a statement of fact regarding the total number of posts that have been made to this thread. Let the statements of viewpoints begin.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
Ok, I'll start. As far as the debate goes, a switch is not an outlet. It interrupts the path of current. It does not utilize current. I can't plug into a switch. AFCI not required.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
The key to this issue are the words "current is taken to supply utilization equipment" in the Article 100 definition of outlet. Just because current is taken at the switch to control the utilization equipment does not mean that it is taken to supply utilization equipment at that same point. If the current it taken to control, but not supply the equipment, that point on the system is not an outlet. The outlet only exists where the current it taken to supply the equipment, not where it is taken to control that same equipment. Therefore the branch circuit that supplies loads in locations other than a dwelling unit bedroom, with a switch or other controller in that bedroom, is not required to have AFCI protection by the 2005 NEC. I hope that someone who has participated in this debate has submitted a proposal to clear up this issue. No matter what proposal would be submitted, the CMP would have to comment and that would put this issue to rest. Online proposals can still be submitted until 5 PM on Friday, November 4, 2005 Charlie, thanks for the great job in managing this thread.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Here is an e-mail I got from Raleigh a while back concerning the Arc-Fault protection of switches. My question was two parts, one with the neutral and the other with out. Raleigh, NC 27603-3400 In every cycle I have from 1975 to 2005 makes direct references to an ?outlet box?. To infer that the code would use slang language is preposterous. Back when I took classes at the Community College I was taught a 4 square box was an outlet box. It was a point where I was taking current to feed something. This big debate of what an outlet is came about when the Arc-Fault rule was entered and people trying to get around the rule. The definition of ?outlet? states that a point on the system where current is taken to supply. I can not see where it says current is being taken from the system. Should I enter a junction box and take current form that box to supply current to a box that I will hang a light and from and from the same junction box I leave to hit a receptacle. I just made that junction box an outlet as described by the sections in the code and the definition of outlet. This is how I was taught the code way back when. I can see the logic and understand the point that my instructor was making. I also under stand the logic in not requiring the electrical contractor to supply an Arc-Fault breaker for one switch although I foresee this coming. My final statement is that it saddens my heart that a thread that would have made the 1000 post mark was so abruptly shut down. There was much left that could be learned from the debate.It is only when we close our minds that we stop learning. Thank you Charlie B and Al for the knowledge that I gained from your debate and the points both of you made. I now look at Premise wiring in a different way.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions I tend to view the term "premises wiring" as a one way street. From the Utility (which is free from the NEC), the premises wiring begins (and is governed by the NEC), then ends at the outlet(s), and thereafter the NEC treads very lightly. The definition of "premises wiring" and most of the NEC support this belief. The concept that a switch does not fall under "premises wiring" and therefore is an outlet contradicts this principle. I admit, I haven't read this thread through and haven't seen the arguments on both sides. My first attempt resulted in irrational anger, which doesn't help anybody. My analogy: Premises wiring is the national interstate system. The conductors are roads. Northbound are ungrounded, Southbound are grounded. Whatever. A switch is an intentional break in an ungrounded conductor. It is not an outlet, pure and simple. It's a speed bump on the road to the load, not the exit ramp to the load. To the electrons flowing in the circuit, the switch is the "Exit, 1 mile" sign. Would it make sense to exit the freeway only to get dumped back on the road for another mile? That essentially what is said when you say a "switch is an outlet." I saw a post stating that if a neutral is present, it's an outlet, but if there isn't, it's not. Can you present one case where this idea is supported by the NEC? The only item I know of that remotely resembles this idea is 404.3-ish (book's in the truck) where it states that neutrals don't have to run with switching loops. Nowhere is the word "outlet" used, if memory serves. Point to one reference - one reference to the term "switch outlets" in the NEC. If such an animal exists, why is it not defined? It would be such a tremendous omission that has led 75% of electricians polled believe it to be fiction. Quite an omission, considering a house can have roughly half it's wiring devices as switches. In conclusion, it's commendable to look at the NEC from all sides, poke it, prod it, and look at it from different perspectives. Argue both sides of an issue to gain full respect for it. But believing your own b.s. is a perilous road to madness. If you can't come back, you'll only take others with you. As your mother once said, "Your face is going to freeze like that!" Only in this case, it's mental perception, not looking crosseyed. Don, I hope you write something, I haven't the time.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions My belief is based on the idea that AFCI protection was originally introduced to address fires caused by arcing faults in power cords and other parts of appliances, lighting fixtures, power strips, etc., not in-wall wiring and devices. I have been involved with several fires caused by overvoltages introduced into homes caused by primary-to-secondary faults or lightning. In each case, plugged-in devices and wiring were where the damage occured, not in the outlets. It seems logical that, if the premises wiring and devices were the issue, either all circuits, or at least those adjacent to bedrooms (i.e., wiring within the walls) would have the requirement, not just those with bedroom openings. If every electrical device, equipment, load, etc. were the intended target, then why wouldn't the NEC say that baseboard heaters, their thermostats, 240v A/C receptacles, etc., require AFCI protectiopn, and not just... "...125-volt, single-phase, 15- and 20-ampere outlets installed in dwelling unit bedrooms..."? Plus, why only dwelling unit bedrooms, and not hotels and motels, dormatories, apartments, overnight summer camps, and maybe even hospitals? They all certainly have plenty of outlet use, especially dorm rooms at colleges! Another kinda-related example: suppose someone installs a whole-house exhaust fan that, for some reason, is placed in a bedroom ceiling instead of a hallway? Must the fan be AFCI protected? What about its switch or timer? Please note: the above questions are purely rhetorical, and not meant to elicit a response. "That's all I have to say about that." - Forrest Gump
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions First I'll offer a philosophical statement: I would have been glad to have this thread settle for a "let's agree to disagree" ending. But the thread never headed down or even approached such a path. So another way was needed to bring it to an end. I hope the membership will forgive the out-of-the-ordinary way that I chose to bring about that end. Now to my summary of my viewpoint. I am a schooled and skilled Technical Writer, more so than is commonly seen in members of the engineering community. One of the skills of a Technical Writer is the ability to take a long sentence (and long sentences, such as the one I am writing now, are pure evil incarnate), and replace it with a series of shorter sentences that convey, as nearly as possible, the same meaning. The Technical Writer is free to rearrange the order of the thoughts expressed in the original sentence, if by doing so the original meaning comes through in a clearer way. You have to know our language well, in order to keep the "shorter, replacement sentences" true to the original "too-long sentence." I do know our language well; I am confident in what follows. Here, then, is my interpretation of the definition of "Premises Wiring (System)," written in shorter sentences, and offered for the purpose of rendering clear that which (apparently) was not clear. This is not intended to be code language, nor even a translation into common conversational English. Rather, it is intended as a translation from code language to the language of the Technical Writer's Profession. </font>
Finally, here is my interpretation of the Article 100 definition of "outlet." If current leaves the Premises Wiring System at a given point, and if the very next place it goes is anywhere other than a piece of utilization equipment, then that "given point" is not, by definition, an "outlet." Saying that current is "taken" to control utilization equipment is not the same as saying that current is "taken" to supply utilization equipment. The definition uses the word "supply," not the word "control." If the utilization equipment is not taking current at that specific point, then that specific point is not an "outlet." This does not happen at a simple ("no frills") on/off toggle switch. The point at which the utilization equipment (i.e., luminaire) takes the current is within the outlet box to which the luminaire is mounted, not at the outlet box that houses the switch. Those are two different points, and only one of them is an "outlet." Current is not taken from the premises wiring system at the switch, as the switch is part of that system. Therefore, there is no "outlet" on, in, or near the switch. No outlet, no AFCI required.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
There is not even a glimmer of hope that I could come up with anything remotely intelligent after Charlie. Well done sir!
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Charlie is a tough act to follow ,but here goes. The language in 210 .12( b ) tells us the answer it tell us that , All 120-volt, single phase, 15- and 20-ampere branch circuits supplying outlets installed in dwelling unit bedrooms shall be protected by a listed arc-fault circuit interrupter, combination type installed to provide protection of the branch circuit. The use of the word "outlet" is the key . A general use snap switch is a device . It is not listed to be installed at the point of outlet. It does not require electric energy to function. It does not supply , It interrupts the flow of electricity to the outlet and is rated to do so . By using the word " outlet" they have defined that, what is to be protected is the point of supply to the utilization equipment. The switch does not utilize electric energy therefore no outlet at the switch. Thanks for reading and I learned a good deal by taking part, so... thanks for posting as well.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions Have been following this thread a little and did not see any discussion of lighted switches. Otherwise I would say that current is not taken from the premesis wiring system at a switch, it is just controlled there. Mark
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
I have had one or more requests that I extend the deadline, by members who cannot yet take the time to post their final statements. I'll keep this thread open over the weekend.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
If you really want to get technical about the whole situation, a light switch can utilize current. Maybe not right away, but it may eventually. In my bedroom, I have a dimmer switch. What is in most dimmer switches? An enternal lighted handle. My point is that, it can be a power source. It may not be not, but it can when miss homeowner puts a dinner on. Can this be enough to cause an arcing condition. Yes. Therefore, It must be considered an outlet and yes the fan must be ARc fault protected. Ok, I will admit. I could not find anything new to discuss so Im digging very very deep!!!
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions 210.12(B) Dwelling Unit Bedrooms. All branch circuits that supply 125-volt, single-phase, 15- and 20-ampere outlets installed in dwelling unit bedrooms shall be protected by an arc-fault circuit interrupter listed to provide protection of the entire branch circuit. Call me crazy but it states all "circuits" must be protected not all devices. If I change a receptacle should I change breaker? Heaven forbid.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
From the Author: This has been a very interesting discussion. Thanks to everyone that took part in this and several other threads that discuss the issues raised by applying the requirements of the 2005 NEC 210.12 to real world wiring. I have learned a lot from all who participated. The background that I bring with me to this discussion is, in part, informed by being a one person electrical contracting business owner, by being a working (hands on the tools) Minnesota Master Electrician, by holding a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering, and by text editing for the past eighteen years (resulting in my position as Senior Technical Electrical Consultant for several books and two ongoing monthly magazines). How the NEC? Article 100 Definition of Premises Wiring (System) defines an Outlet in a Switch used as a Controller, Introduction. My motivation in articulating what I have come to understand the meaning of Outlet, and Premises Wiring (System), to be is simple: we need to talk about it. The hardware one may install in dwelling bedroom switch locations, occasionally, is obviously utilization equipment in its own right, or, has obvious components that, by themselves, would be utilization equipment. When this hardware is discussed in a community of peers, diverse opinions are expressed, some cogently, some dogmatically, some with deliberate obfuscation. The status quo is that, no matter what goes on in the hardware that is used as a switch, "The hardware is a switch, not an outlet." This has been stated in many ways. The contradiction of the hardware in my hand that, in part, is a switch, has been impossible for me to ignore. I decided to speak out. Using the language of the NEC itself, I have come to defend as a cohesive whole an interpretation of:</font> Definition of Outlet. The earliest definition of outlet, that I have in NEC books in my possession, is: </font>
The Problem. The definition of outlet is a simple and uncomplicated definition, born in the early 1900s. The definition of outlet applies to AC and DC systems, single circuits, multiwire circuits, single phase AC and multiphase AC. Over many decades, electricians have come to believe that "outlets utilize energy" and that "switches control energy, they don't utilize energy, so switches are not outlets". These two beliefs have risen to the level of intuitively self evident truth, in spite of the definition of Outlet clearly stating that an outlet itself is only current passing a point, that utilizing energy is not what the outlet itself does. Until the advent of the 2002 & 2005 NEC Arc Fault Circuit Interrupter requirements, the inaccuracy of these two beliefs had only academic interest. Today, these two inaccurate beliefs are adversely affecting new wiring installations. Definition of Premises Wiring (System). The Definition of Premises Wiring (System) was added to the NEC in 1978. The definition is in two parts. The core of the first part is: "Premises Wiring (System). Wiring extends from point or source to outlet." The core of the second part is: "Premises Wiring (System). Wiring does not include wiring." The first part of the definition of Premises Wiring (System) begins "That interior and exterior wiring,. . ." The one word wiring is the subject of the first part of the definition. "Premises Wiring (System)" (is) "That interior and exterior wiring,"
"Wiring" in context. The context for the word wiring can be read to mean "The wiring an electrician installs for a customer." The context of "wiring" is broad and, in addition to the metal of the wire, includes all the parts that make the wiring a complete system from the source or supply to the outlet. These parts include , and are not limited to, insulation, sheath or raceway, connectors, enclosures, mounting and/or support systems, devices, fittings, etc. The definition of Premises Wiring (System) continues, after "That interior and exterior wiring," with one unbroken phrase comprised of two clauses: "including power, lighting, control, and signal circuit wiring together with all their associated hardware, fittings, and wiring devices,". This unbroken phrase is making clear that the metal of the wire is not all that is meant by "wiring" even when considering power wiring, lighting wiring, control wiring and signal circuit wiring. This unbroken phrase says, among other things, that "wiring devices" are a part of "interior and exterior wiring". "Wiring" appears in the NEC over 750 times in varied contexts. The dictionary defines "wiring" as "a system of connected wires." The dictionary defines "wire" as "a pliable thread or slender rod of metal." Note the lack of "conductive" in the dictionary definition. Any electrician can think of wire that is not pliable, nor a thread, nor slender, nor a rod. Certainly, the meaning of "wiring", as used in the definition of Premises Wiring (System) must include electrical conductivity and a more varied physical form, so, another definition than that of the common dictionary must be referenced. My copy of the IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronic Terms does not include "wiring".My copy of the IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronic Terms does include "wire" and it makes an interesting statement: Looking at the context of "Interior and exterior wiring," in the definition of Premises Wiring (System), I find "wiring" to be the completed assembly I, as an electrician, leave at an occupancy at the end of my job. If my job was to do a temporary or permanent install, the completed assembly is the "wiring". The point of this summary is to show that a wiring device, as used in the definition of Premises Wiring (System), is part of "That interior and exterior wiring,". The second part of the definition of Premises Wiring (System) invokes the subject of the first part ("Interior and exterior wiring") and lists wiring that is not included. The internal wiring in controllers are called out as not part of "such wiring". Snap Switch as Controller The common snap switch, as referenced by 2005 NEC 404.14, is used as a controller. Because a current traveling inside the snap switch is not traveling in part of the Premises Wiring (System), the current has to be taken from the Premises Wiring (System). Because the snap switch only carries and controls the current, the current is determined by the utilization equipment. The current in the snap switch is the current taken by the utilization equipment, it is the current supplying the utilization equipment. The current taken from the Premises Wiring (System) at the point that the current goes internal to the controller is the current taken by the utilization equipment for its supply in utilizing electric energy.Conclusion Hence, an outlet occurs at a switch used as controller of an outlet. A switch located in a bedroom and controlling an outlet outside the bedroom must be provided AFCI protection. This is a general statement that only has application in wiring installations governed by the 2002 and 2005 NEC 210.12. But a greater good is served by clarifying what an outlet, as defined, actually is. Electricians should not be misled into believing that a box is an outlet, that an outlet utilizes energy, that a switch cannot have an outlet inside it because a switch only controls energy. While most electricians believe these statements to be self evident truth, that doesn't make the statements correct. Today, new installations of a switch inside a bedroom, controlling outlet(s) outside the bedroom, may be supplied by a non-AFCI protected overcurrent protective device. In most jurisdictions, the Authority Having Jurisdiction will approve the installation. All such non-AFCI installations will then operate, and, over the passage of time, will suffer a statistically guaranteed minimum number of failures. Some of these failures will result in property loss, injury and potentially death. Subsequent liability litigation can easily demonstrate how poorly electricians understand the meaning of outlet, and can easily demonstrate an outlet occurs in the switch inside the bedroom, as I have, and that the AFCI, had it been installed, would have prevented the loss. It only takes one cup of coffee in one lap to result in litigation that changes what had been industry wide accepted practice.It is time to pay attention to the confusion about what an outlet is, and teach a consistent perspective, based on the actual language of the NEC. The existing confusion is affecting installations of wiring systems adversely. |
Postagens relacionadas
Publicidade
ÚLTIMAS NOTÍCIAS
Toplistas
#1
Top 8 resultado do jogo do bicho de hoje das 14 2022
2 anos atrás#2
Top 5 treino para academia masculino 2022
1 anos atrás#3
Top 6 comida tipica dos negros 2022
1 anos atrás#4
Top 6 como ser ponto de coleta mercado livre 2022
1 anos atrás#5
#6
Top 7 com quanto tempo escuta o coração do bebe 2022
2 anos atrás#7
Top 8 resultado do jogo do bicho 14 30 2022
1 anos atrás#8
Top 5 cha dos famosos para emagrecer 2022
1 anos atrás#9
Top 7 receita de brownie sem ovo 2022
2 anos atrás#10
Publicidade
Populer
Publicidade
direito autoral © 2024 estudarpara Inc.
