Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

4 way motion sensor (outdoor)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • kwired
    replied
    Originally posted by ronaldrc View Post
    Yes" They don't have a correct answer because every thing is wrong when you say it is a code violation to parallel
    circuits.

    Everything in the Electrical construction trade is wired in Parallel with a few exceptions like christmas lights.

    Ronald
    There is a difference between simply "in parallel" and one node of a circuit containing two or more conductors joined together at each end only for the purpose of creating a higher ampacity conductor.

    Leave a comment:


  • ronaldrc
    replied
    Originally posted by mwm1752 View Post
    is this why the forum usually eliminates "how to" questions?

    Yes" They don't have a correct answer because every thing is wrong when you say it is a code violation to parallel
    circuits.

    Everything in the Electrical construction trade is wired in Parallel with a few exceptions like christmas lights.

    Ronald

    Leave a comment:


  • mwm1752
    replied
    is this why the forum usually eliminates "how to" questions?

    Leave a comment:


  • kwired
    replied
    Originally posted by PetrosA View Post
    You are correct. For that state to exist there has to be a mechanical connection at both ends, though. With the design discussed here, there is not a connection (mechanical or electrical) at both ends of the two conductors. Assuming a three wire cable and any number of sensors, the feed (a two wire) originates at a panel, switch, photocell or timeclock - first end. The feed ends at the last sensor, with the load side taken via two wire cable to the lights (other end). You could say that a "portion" of the circuit is in parallel at various times, but not the entire circuit and the electrical connection only exists between the activated sensor and the load - not back to the feed at any point other than at an activated sensor.

    When using parallel conductors for the purpose of making an equivalent larger conductor - nothing says the entire circuit must be parallel conductor. You could start out from a 400 amp breaker with two sets of 3/0 for use as a single conductor, land in a junction point then leave that junction point with 500kcmil.

    IMO 310.10(H) is intended to apply to conductors that are joined together to make a higher ampacity conductor out of the set, there can be incidents where they are otherwise joined together, like for the purpose of controlling a load from multiple switches like we have here. We have three conductors (I think in OP) that would be parallel to one another. Lets say they are 15 amp conductors on a 15 amp circuit. We did not connect them the way we did in an effort to try to make a 45 amp conductor out of them, none of them are going to carry more than 15 amps without tripping the 15 amp overcurrent device.

    Leave a comment:


  • PetrosA
    replied
    Originally posted by iwire View Post
    The code says electrically joined at each end not mechanically joined.
    You are correct. For that state to exist there has to be a mechanical connection at both ends, though. With the design discussed here, there is not a connection (mechanical or electrical) at both ends of the two conductors. Assuming a three wire cable and any number of sensors, the feed (a two wire) originates at a panel, switch, photocell or timeclock - first end. The feed ends at the last sensor, with the load side taken via two wire cable to the lights (other end). You could say that a "portion" of the circuit is in parallel at various times, but not the entire circuit and the electrical connection only exists between the activated sensor and the load - not back to the feed at any point other than at an activated sensor.

    Leave a comment:


  • kwired
    replied
    Originally posted by kingpb View Post
    As I like to think iwire is usually on target and typically I am in agreement with his points of view; I have to take opposites sides here.

    If referring to parallel in the pure form of circuit theory, the sensors are individual paths or branches for electrons to flow, thus they do form a parallel circuit. But how does that apply to conductors in parallel

    So, it is my opinion, and we all know electrical people have opinions just ask your significant other, that although it is a parallel circuit, it is not, by definition of 310.10(H) conductors joined to form a single conductor, after all you also have 3 sensors with slightly different electrical properties in each branch.

    That's my opinion, and that's all that matters to me. iwire can have his own opinion, and although I don't agree, I can agree to disagree.
    Kind of been my conclusion in the past on this topic. I don't think NEC intended for this rule to apply to conductors that are not "in parallel" for the purpose of making a single conductor with a higher ampacity. You must also consider the fact that if the circuit in question is 14 AWG on a 15 amp overcurrent device, the current is still limited to the ampacity of either conductor as opposed to putting two 14 AWG in parallel and expecting to make a 30 amp circuit out of it.

    Bob can have his opinion, I can have mine. I do see where his point of view comes from, others have said essentially what I just said, and I can see where that point of view comes from also. If anything NEC needs to clear this up somehow, but I also don't see it being easy to get that done no matter which way it may end up being worded in the end, you will need to propose some pretty impressive wording IMO or they will just say it is fine the way has been for a long time now.

    Leave a comment:


  • GoldDigger
    replied
    Originally posted by iwire View Post
    I am used to being different.


    IMO exception one supports my view point.
    For an applicable discussion of the controls in parallel versus conductors in parallel distinction, in more general terms, see this thread: http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthrea...58#post1510558

    Leave a comment:


  • iwire
    replied
    I am used to being different.


    IMO exception one supports my view point.

    Leave a comment:


  • kingpb
    replied
    As I like to think iwire is usually on target and typically I am in agreement with his points of view; I have to take opposites sides here.

    If referring to parallel in the pure form of circuit theory, the sensors are individual paths or branches for electrons to flow, thus they do form a parallel circuit. But how does that apply to conductors in parallel

    So, it is my opinion, and we all know electrical people have opinions just ask your significant other, that although it is a parallel circuit, it is not, by definition of 310.10(H) conductors joined to form a single conductor, after all you also have 3 sensors with slightly different electrical properties in each branch.

    That's my opinion, and that's all that matters to me. iwire can have his own opinion, and although I don't agree, I can agree to disagree.

    Leave a comment:


  • readydave8
    replied
    Originally posted by kwired View Post
    If lights are staying on all night, it is likely that motion is being detected or at least one motion sensor is defective, not a photocell issue.
    Problem I was concerned with was master photocel putting motion detector in to override, motion dectectors are not all the same, turning power off and then back on can sometimes make them stay on (Although it's supposed to be a much shorter "off" than would be if photocel off all day)

    But the main drawback to plan: motion dectectors have been known to behave erratically, harder to troubleshoot with multiple motion dectectors, customers have been known to become unreasonable when a fairly new, perhaps a little bit expensive, system gives trouble while still relatively new.

    And I have had jobs involving motion detectors that went fine, just not as often trouble free as jobs that don't involve motion detectors.

    Leave a comment:


  • kwired
    replied
    Originally posted by iwire View Post
    Again, that is your opinion of it, not mine.
    Your opinion is all that matters?

    Leave a comment:


  • iwire
    replied
    Originally posted by PetrosA View Post
    How does this constitute a paralleled installation? Which conductors are mechanically joined at both ends?
    The code says electrically joined at each end not mechanically joined.

    Leave a comment:


  • iwire
    replied
    Originally posted by kwired View Post
    Fair enough, but I will refer OP to some of the past discussion on this, as there is no winning the debate on either side.


    Again, that is your opinion of it, not mine.

    Leave a comment:


  • PetrosA
    replied
    How does this constitute a paralleled installation? Which conductors are mechanically joined at both ends?

    Leave a comment:


  • Lectricbota
    replied
    Originally posted by kwired View Post
    This has [COLOR=#a52a2a]been beat to death in the past with no real consensus as to whether or not it is a violation or not.[/COLOR]

    I am not going to post any details as to why it is or isn't a violation, or it will just derail the thread, as it has at least two or three times in the past.

    If it is a violation then one must run the sensors as a part of a control circuit and control a contactor with them, and then slave the lights off the contactor, as it is clear you can parallel switches of a control circuit.

    That would be an understatement.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X