Is a smoke alarm Utilization Equipment?

Status
Not open for further replies.
don_resqcapt19

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
This question came up on another forum. If it is not, then dwelling unit smoke alarms would not have to be on AFCI protected circuits.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
This question came up on another forum. If it is not, then dwelling unit smoke alarms would not have to be on AFCI protected circuits.
Click to expand...

I would say so according to this:

Utilization Equipment. Equipment that utilizes electric
energy for electronic, electromechanical, chemical, heating,
lighting, or similar purposes.
Click to expand...

It uses electric energy for electronic purposes.

Edit: I don't see the term "utilization equipment" in the definition or requirements for AFCI. At least not in the 2008.
 
Last edited:
Little Bill said:
....

Edit: I don't see the term "utilization equipment" in the definition or requirements for AFCI. At least not in the 2008.
Click to expand...
The rule says that the branch circuits that serve "outlets" must have AFCI protection. The definition of "outlet" says that is the point where power is taken to supply utilization equipment.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
The rule says that the branch circuits that serve "outlets" must have AFCI protection. The definition of "outlet" says that is the point where power is taken to supply utilization equipment.
Click to expand...

Didn't we do this dance here at least once already?
 
IMHO Yes, a smoke alarm is Utilization Equipment as defined in Article 100.

A smoke alarm utilizes electrical energy to power an electronic circuit that detects small particles of combustion in the air to determine if a fire is present and then acts to announce the presence of a fire to the occupants of the building.

The J-box where the smoke alarm is connected would be an outlet.

Chris
 
raider1 said:
IMHO Yes, a smoke alarm is Utilization Equipment as defined in Article 100.

A smoke alarm utilizes electrical energy to power an electronic circuit that detects small particles of combustion in the air to determine if a fire is present and then acts to announce the presence of a fire to the occupants of the building.

The J-box where the smoke alarm is connected would be an outlet.

Chris
Click to expand...

I would agree
 
raider1 said:
IMHO Yes, a smoke alarm is Utilization Equipment as defined in Article 100.

A smoke alarm utilizes electrical energy to power an electronic circuit that detects small particles of combustion in the air to determine if a fire is present and then acts to announce the presence of a fire to the occupants of the building.

The J-box where the smoke alarm is connected would be an outlet.

Chris
Click to expand...

Gregg Harris said:
I would agree
Click to expand...

I will agree also, but mostly because Chris smarter than me and rarely wrong, a freebie.:D
 
jumper said:
Goldy, reread that sentence, it could easily be misconstrued.
Click to expand...
A marvelous book (Science Made Stupid) describes the Scientific Method and the difference between inductive and deductive methods as follows:
(non-copyright violating paraphrase, for educational purposes.)

In the Inductive Method, you
A. Formulate a hypothesis.
B. Get a grant.
C. Perform the experiment.
D. Analyse the results and change the data to support your hypothesis.

In the Deductive Method (which I favor), you
A. Formulate a hypothesis.
B. Get a grant.
C. Perform the experiment.
D. Analyze the results and change and backdate your hypothesis to match the observed result.
 
Last edited:
I tend to agree that the smoke alarms are utilization equipment, but have argued the opposite for industrial instrumentation for the purposes of the Exception to 501.30(B).

Is "power utilization equipment" different from "utilization equipment"?
 
Goldy, let me clarify: Your previous statement could mean that if you are "proved wrong" it was because somebody "misunderstood" what you were saying.

Let me edit the clauses a bit different:

"Whenever I am proved wrong,..... I was just misunderstood. "

A bit clearer?
 
jumper said:
Goldy, let me clarify: Your previous statement could mean that if you are "proved wrong" it was because somebody "misunderstood" what you were saying.

Let me edit the clauses a bit different:

"Whenever I am proved wrong,..... I was just misunderstood. "

A bit clearer?
Click to expand...
Yes but not at all what I intended to say. :)

My preferred paraphrase would be:

"Whenever I appear to have been proven wrong....I was just misunderstood initially."

However, for enhanced sarcastic emphasis, I chose to state it in a(n apparently) self-contradictory way. :angel:
If in fact I actually ever said that.
 
jumper said:
Without me delving into 501, what is your reference/UL section/etc for such a distinction?
Click to expand...
The exeption I cited uses those words.
(B) Types of Equipment Grounding Conductors. Flexible metal conduit and liquidtight flexible metal conduit shall include an equipment bonding jumper of the wire type in compliance with 250.102.
Exception: In Class I, Division 2 locations, the bonding jumper shall be permitted to be deleted where all of the following conditions are met:
(1) Listed liquidtight flexible metal conduit 1.8 m (6 ft) or less in length, with fittings listed for grounding, is used.
(2) Overcurrent protection in the circuit is limited to 10 amperes or less.
(3) The load is not a power utilization load.
Click to expand...
It has been a common practice around here to use the LFMC as the EGC for 120 volt powered instrumentation.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
The exeption I cited uses those words.

It has been a common practice around here to use the LFMC as the EGC for 120 volt powered instrumentation.
Click to expand...


Well, I am out of my league here, hazardous locations are not my forte, that why I asked for clarification. I would have assumed non powered utilization equipment something like a thermistor or such.:ashamed1:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top