AFCI "Myth"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sparksnarks said:
I don't mean to be disrespectful, but do you guys read the NEC??
Click to expand...

:grin::grin::grin:

I can promise you the members responding have read the NEC, I have no doubt in my mind at all that Al H. has spent more time in the NEC then most.

Heres how I see it.

First we know nothing about the NEC, then we learn the NEC and think we have a handle on it. At this point many stop but others start really reading it with a critical eye and these people do find inconsistencies and oddities. So before you go assuming you know more then those here take the time to read the thread with an open mind.:)
 
Used to be more of a stretch, but with the 2008 NEC 210.12(B) expanding the areas that AFCI protection is required for, the situation becomes more common. And the situation is this: Single family dwelling with a detatched garage. The garage is on its own 15 Amp 125 V circuit. The garage circuit supplies receptacles and luminaires on and in the garage, ONLY. Now, a switch inside the house back hallway controls the luminaire on the side of the garage service door. My question, back to you, Sparksnarks, is, does the switch, installed in an area under 210.12(B), controlling load outside the area under 210.12(B), cause the garage branch circuit to be AFCI protected?
Click to expand...

210.12(B) only requires AFCI protection on branch circuits supplying outlets in these specific locations. Garage lighting is not included on the list. So likely you would want to use dedicated branch circuits for the garage lighting and receptacles. Thus the switch, even though its located in the hallway, would not be on a AFCI protected circuit since it is not supplying outlets in the hallway. But to be fair, there is nothing that says you can't have AFCI protection on lighting in a garage....so, you could have the switch in the hallway feed off a AFCI circuit. However, you would want to make sure you don't have any receptacle outlets on the branch circuit since the garage receptacles have to be GFCI protected.
 
By the way, I have been reading your posts for almost a year...and I respect alot of what you have to say. I dont believe or claim any advanced understanding of the code. Maybe I see things with a simple eye. Anyway, I think practical use of the code is the only way to understand it, and yes there are inconsistancies and oddities, thats when I ask the NFPA what the !@*# they are talking about....lol
 
This is the response I got from the NFPA concerning that scenario.

1. A switch is not considered an outlet in the Code. AFCI protection is required if the branch circuit in question also supplies any outlet in a location which requires AFCI protection.
 
Sparksnarks said:
This is the response I got from the NFPA concerning that scenario.

1. A switch is not considered an outlet in the Code. AFCI protection is required if the branch circuit in question also supplies any outlet in a location which requires AFCI protection.
Click to expand...


Exactly, and this is what many of us have said all along.

Roger
 
roger said:
Exactly, and this is what many of us have said all along.

Roger
Click to expand...

I agree with Roger, we may have said it differently, but we meant the same thing. If the switch controls a light and a light box is an outlet and it's required to be AFCI protected then the switch is going to be protected anyway.
 
Sparksnarks said:
This is the response I got from the NFPA concerning that scenario.

1. A switch is not considered an outlet in the Code. AFCI protection is required if the branch circuit in question also supplies any outlet in a location which requires AFCI protection.
Click to expand...

Can we please put this on a "breaking news" crawl on the board?
 
Sparksnarks said:
This is the response I got from the NFPA concerning that scenario.

1. A switch is not considered an outlet in the Code. AFCI protection is required if the branch circuit in question also supplies any outlet in a location which requires AFCI protection.
Click to expand...

Where is this mystery code written and if this is correct why isnt it in the code book where others can share this knowledge????
 
I want in on this too ;)

I want in on this too ;)

Ok, if I'm understanding the arguments for a switch being an outlet correctly, then the following would apply: Any wiring beyond the switch no longer belongs to the Premises Wiring System (it's now utilization equipment). If the breakers used are switch rated each one becomes an outlet and any wiring beyond them is utilization equipment and the entire panel, if located in an area required to be AFCI protected, must also be AFCI protected (AFCI main disconnect upstream).

In all of the code examples given, outlets denote a delineation between the premises wiring system and utilization equipment, whether it's plugged in, wirenutted in, screwed in etc. If connections, breakable or not, within the premises wiring system are outlets, they would de facto become the end of the premises wiring system, which is not logical. I can't accept a switch being an outlet any more than I could accept one of the two sets of screws on the back of a receptacle (load side) being an outlet.

Let's get crazy for a moment and look at this example - I decide to put skylights in my bedroom, and instead of any kind of luminaires inside the room, I mount weatherproof ones on the roof shining in through the skylights. The switch controlling them is in the bedroom. The outlet that it controls though is outside the bedroom, so wouldn't require AFCI protection. The bedroom is lit, and I just saved 30 bucks on an AFCI breaker ;)

I do agree though that the definitions need to be more precise.
 
PetrosA said:
outlets denote a delineation between the premises wiring system and utilization equipment
Click to expand...
I don''t think this can be found in the Code. I believe that the "delineation" is part of the meme.
A point on the wiring system at which current is taken to supply utilization equipment.
Click to expand...
I don't see anything in this that says the current, once taken, cannot re-enter the Premises Wiring (System) before being re-taken again at another outlet in series.

Think about a standard Receptacle Outlet where current for Utilization Equipment is taken. . . nothing is said about the current returning to the Premises Wiring (System), but the current does return.

My point is that I could have a nonmetallic wiring method and nonmetallic enclosures and set up two monopoint receptacles, like a laboratory single prong banana plug and jack. One banana plug would connect to the ungrounded conductor and supply the Utilization Equipment. In a DC model, current would only be taken at one banana plug. If the other banana plug is on the other side of the room (ignoring EMF - non Code issue) and is connecting to the grounded conductor, nothing in the Code describes this "point". The only Outlet, in this hypothetical, is the single prong banana plug jack connected to the ungrounded conductor.

Remember, "Outlet" applies to all voltages, and AC or DC, single or polyphase. As much as we work with AC, breaking it down to a DC model helps, IMO.
 
PetrosA said:
Ok, if I'm understanding the arguments for a switch being an outlet correctly, then the following would apply: Any wiring beyond the switch no longer belongs to the Premises Wiring System (it's now utilization equipment). If the breakers used are switch rated each one becomes an outlet and any wiring beyond them is utilization equipment and the entire panel, if located in an area required to be AFCI protected, must also be AFCI protected (AFCI main disconnect upstream).

In all of the code examples given, outlets denote a delineation between the premises wiring system and utilization equipment, whether it's plugged in, wirenutted in, screwed in etc. If connections, breakable or not, within the premises wiring system are outlets, they would de facto become the end of the premises wiring system, which is not logical. I can't accept a switch being an outlet any more than I could accept one of the two sets of screws on the back of a receptacle (load side) being an outlet.

Let's get crazy for a moment and look at this example - I decide to put skylights in my bedroom, and instead of any kind of luminaires inside the room, I mount weatherproof ones on the roof shining in through the skylights. The switch controlling them is in the bedroom. The outlet that it controls though is outside the bedroom, so wouldn't require AFCI protection. The bedroom is lit, and I just saved 30 bucks on an AFCI breaker ;)

I do agree though that the definitions need to be more precise.
Click to expand...
I still say that as it is written in the queens english right now the switch opening /membrane penetration is defined as an outlet I believe the original intention is to be a point where you can acess the electrical system thus coining an outlet.
 
quogueelectric said:
Where is this mystery code written and if this is correct why isnt it in the code book where others can share this knowledge????
Click to expand...

Good morning Quo,

I think Sparks has obtained some outside info
from the authors of the NEC,
and they are restating the "Intent" of the code.

Current oddities and questionable wordings aside,
I think the NFPA will pursue the "Intent" .

I sure wish this NEC would get SIMPLER each revision!
But that would take away some of the fun from the AHJ.

In a local town, the Code Enforcement does not "publish" a set of "written" amendments!
Having called for an early (too early) inspection, I mentioned (politely and breifely)
that I wanted to get some more info on local amendements, directly from the AHJ.
He smiled, cause he knew he was in charge. No Written Amendments, imagine that!

Sparks has a point,
sometimes we need to request an explanation from the author of the code in question.

How's the weather in N.Y.? Bet the trees are turning good colors!
:)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top