AFCI for FCU?

[al hildenbrand]

The issue is the fact that a switch is not installed as an outlet.

The intent of the installer is simply not part of the Code surrounding "Outlet".

If you can say the the installer's intent prevents a switch, used as a controller, from having an outlet, then you are conflicting with your earlier ignoring of a recessed luminaire intended to illuminate a room as not being "in the room or similar area."

 

[don_resqcapt19]

...If you can say the the installer's intent prevents a switch, used as a controller, from having an outlet, ...

A switch supplies an outlet, it is not installed at an outlet.

...then you are conflicting with your earlier ignoring of a recessed luminaire intended to illuminate a room as not being "in the room or similar area."

Those two concepts have nothing to do with each other. One has to do with the location of the outlet and the other has to do with "if a switch is installed at an outlet".

 

[al hildenbrand]

A switch supplies an outlet, it is not installed at an outlet.
Those two concepts have nothing to do with each other. One has to do with the location of the outlet and the other has to do with "if a switch is installed at an outlet".

Sures sounds like both are about "location of the Outlet."

Outlet is "a point" on the wiring system where current is taken for utilization equipment. A switch, being three dimensional, is bigger than a point. One does not intall a switch "at an outlet".

Rather, the Outlet from the Premises Wiring (System) is the boundary between what IS Premises Wiring (System) and what is NOT Premises Wiring (System). This boundary has no thickness, and can't have a three dimensional switch "installed" IN it.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Al I can tell you that many inspectors might agree with you but this has been brought up at many a meeting with inspectors and contractors and the ruling was a switch is not an outlet. I will try and remember to ask at our state meeting in Raleigh this year-- we usually have 7 or so cmp members attend.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Al I can tell you that many inspectors might agree with you but this has been brought up at many a meeting with inspectors and contractors and the ruling was a switch is not an outlet. I will try and remember to ask at our state meeting in Raleigh this year-- we usually have 7 or so cmp members attend.

Hi Dennis. It's all well and good to simply ask, or poll, is a switch an outlet straight out. We've done that here. I believe the real underlying issue is the highly entrenched electrical meme that "a switch is not an outlet because it doesn't use power". This meme is so far from the definition of Outlet that re-education of the words in the definitions is indicated -- especially "Outlet" and what it is. If "using power" is a requirement for a switch to be an outlet, then a receptacle outlet cannot be an Outlet because it, too, does not use power. Again, the definition of Outlet concerns current only. Not power.

The members and moderators of the Forum have been engaging with me, and others holding my perspective, and have held forth in exchange of ideas and beliefs. I believe more exchange of understanding of the Code language is needed with more and more people.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Really, this is a thread about a fan ceiling unit, a 125 V 15 A powered unit to blow tempered air in the bedroom it is installed to heat, and whether that FCU branch circuit requires AFCI protection. Admittedly, the presence of an outlet in the FCU is not hard to understand. But, whether the outlet is "in the bedroom" is debatable.

George, is the FCU that is the object of your OP designed to be serviced through the opening into the bedroom? Or does one get at the electrical only by a different area, say a utility area adjacent to the ceiling and outside of the bedroom?

Edit to add:

Recessed into the ceiling, accessed through the integral door of the FCU flush in the ceiling.

Just like a recessed light. Set up to be serviced from within the room. The outlet is in the room.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

...Just like a recessed light. Set up to be serviced from within the room. The outlet is in the room.

And just like the other issue, subject to debate. While the outlet is accessible from in the room, it is not actually in the room. The code rule requires the branch circuits that serve outlets in the specified rooms to have AFCI protection. Like I said in my other posts, I don't think that there is any question that the code writers intent was for this circuit to have AFCI protection, but, in my opinion, the wording of the code rule does not reflect that intent.

 

[S'mise]

It could be argued that switches are outlets these days, given the new requirements of running a neutral to switch boxes (for devices utilizing power)

 

[FREEBALL]

afci

afci

I am reading the intent of afci, going from the change to combination afci, to any item that is able to be accessed to an outlet with a cord and plug is to be afci because there is the possibility of being connected to an extension cord in which the circuit would be subject to physical damage. Now my thinking on this is because cords are being placed along floors and extension cords are being used. The reason counter top receptacles in kitchens are not covered is because their cord runs are not as long and there is no chance of damage from walking etc. I hope this is somewhat correct. I would think that if a circuit that is feeding an item that is not subject to this would not need to be afci, however this does not seem to be the case since lighting circuits are also required to be AFCI. Maybe the lighting circuit is required because of switched recptacles, in which there would be an issue of damage to the circuit if an extension cord is being used.

Jeff

 

[kwired]

I am reading the intent of afci, going from the change to combination afci, to any item that is able to be accessed to an outlet with a cord and plug is to be afci because there is the possibility of being connected to an extension cord in which the circuit would be subject to physical damage. Now my thinking on this is because cords are being placed along floors and extension cords are being used. The reason counter top receptacles in kitchens are not covered is because their cord runs are not as long and there is no chance of damage from walking etc. I hope this is somewhat correct. I would think that if a circuit that is feeding an item that is not subject to this would not need to be afci, however this does not seem to be the case since lighting circuits are also required to be AFCI. Maybe the lighting circuit is required because of switched recptacles, in which there would be an issue of damage to the circuit if an extension cord is being used.

Jeff

The AFCI rule is for all 15 and 20 amp 125 volt "outlets" in the rooms specified in 210.12. Does not matter if they are receptacle outlets, lighting outlets, or "hard wired" equipment. Put a hardwired 120 volt baseboard heater in one of those rooms mentioned it must be AFCI protected. Put in same wattage 240 volt baseboard heater it does not require AFCI protection. Put in a 240 volt air conditioner receptacle - no afci required, put in a 120 volt receptacle (15 or 20 amp) for air conditioner - AFCI required.

They are prejudiced against 15 and 20 amp 125 volt circuits with this AFCI protection thing. Someday they likely will extend it to other voltages, and probably even higher amperages.