AFCI "Myth"

[al hildenbrand]

Ohhhhh, so that's the reason you haven't been able to answer my question, now I think I am beginning to understand your confussion.:grin:

Riiighhht!

It must be the page numbers. :roll:

 

[flashlight]

Quote:
Originally Posted by glene77is View Post
To me,
(1) The receptical is a point where power
exits & returns the branch circuit.
(2) The Switch is a controller.
(3) The OCPD is a controller.
(4) Other circuits passing through a JB
are not covered YET, as regards the AFCI in the NEC.

Do I need to duck?


Not in my book-- I agree w/ your interpretation

 

[al hildenbrand]

Not in my book-- I agree w/ your interpretation

So your book says "power"? Not current?

 

[LarryFine]

So, the receptacle contact device is NOT the outlet?

That's my take. A box with a receptacle mounted in it is a receptacle outlet. There are also lighting outlets, as well as some others.

Evan hard-wired equipment has an outlet point, typically a junction box, where the whip connects to the branch-circuit conductors.

 

[al hildenbrand]

That's my take. A box with a receptacle mounted in it is a receptacle outlet. There are also lighting outlets, as well as some others.

Evan hard-wired equipment has an outlet point, typically a junction box, where the whip connects to the branch-circuit conductors.

Interesting, Larry.

I'd like to stay with the device that is "at" an outlet. . . as this is following on Mark Ode's phrasing from Roger's quote, earlier.

The definition of Premises Wiring (System) says that a device is part of the wiring system (with, IMO, the exception of the wiring inside a device used as a controller).

If the device, the receptacle device, can't be the outlet, then the Outlet, the point on the wiring system at which current is taken, has the current passing the Outlet remaining IN the wiring system until arriving at some other unnamed point where the Utilization Equipment conductors contact the device. Only then does the "taken" current leave the Premises Wiring (System).

 

[al hildenbrand]

Bob,

Sorry, I overlooked your post. I was just going back to pick up something else to follow on with Larry's idea.

While your answering questions .............:grin:

Under your view is there any conductor termination that is not an outlet? (Lets exclude dead ends)

My view of outlet, with relation to conductor termination is, that Outlets are at the termination of the
Premises Wiring (System), but not all conductor terminations are at the termination of the Premises Wiring (System).

There is no Outlet where service entrance conductors terminate at the lugs or bus of a service disconnect, or terminate within a meter socket.

There is no Outlet where conductors of one Chapter 3 wiring method terminate at the splice to the conductors of another Chapter 3 wiring method.

There is no Outlet where conductors of one piece of NM cable terminate in the splice to the conductors of another piece, or other pieces, of NM cable. (While stated for NM, this can apply to any of the Chapter 3 wiring methods.)

There is no Outlet where branch circuit neutral conductors terminate at the neutral bar of a panel.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Originally Posted by al hildenbrand
We know receptacles are devices too. . .are they, also, not outlets?

No, they're located at some outlets.

If, as you describe, there is Premises Wiring (System) on both sides of an Outlet, you are removing one of the objections to an Outlet at a switch. Many have claimed that because there is Premises Wiring AFTER the switch, the switch cannot have an Outlet at it.

By saying that a receptacle DEVICE cannot be an Outlet, but that it is "at" an Outlet, puts the Outlet further upstream on the Premises Wiring than the end, meaning there is Premises Wiring AFTER the Outlet.

I don't find this to conflict with my assertion that "An Outlet occurs in a switch used as a Controller."

 

[flashlight]

Post #24, and the link there, has me convinced: a switch is an "outlet"

I always have treated it that way, anyway, if in a bedroom (to be on the conservative side)

It just seems convoluted to argue that a snap switch is a "controller" and therefore not part of the premises wiring.

 

[LarryFine]

I don't find this to conflict with my assertion that "An Outlet occurs in a switch used as a Controller."

I still disagree with it.

 

[al hildenbrand]

:grin:

I still disagree with it.

I'm just saying, your take on a receptacle contact Device being downstream in the Premises Wiring (System) from the Outlet doesn't conflict with my assertion involving a switch.

I think the more likely meaning of "device installed at the outlet" in:

2008 NEC
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.

. . .the more likely meaning, instead of the Outlet being at the end of the conductors in a J-box, is that the installation of the receptacle contact Device moves the Outlet to the contact face that is against the Utilization Equipment conductor connector. . . the Device being "at" the Outlet at the device contact faces.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Roger,

Is this what you were slapping at on "page 29 of the NEC"?

2008 NEC
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.

There's a lot more on that page, and you weren't clear?

 

[roger]

Roger,

Is this what you were slapping at on "page 29 of the NEC"? There's a lot more on that page, and you weren't clear?

No, that's not what I was slapping at but, looking at that, can you show me where this same wording is used for a switch anywhere in the NEC?

Let's go back to Mark Ode's article and look at the first sentence "Since switches are devices, not outlets,", now you can twist this to what ever you want it to mean but, the bottom line is he says they are "not outlets" period.

Al, I will give you credit for being tenacious, I bet you would argue that the Pope was Protestant if you could work it into the premise wiring angle. :grin:

Roger

 

[al hildenbrand]

Let's go back to Mark Ode's article and look at the first sentence "Since switches are devices, not outlets,", now you can twist this to what ever you want it to mean but, the bottom line is he says they are "not outlets" period.

This, in my opinion, is the meme.

Switches are not outlets.

Roger, show THAT to me in the NEC.

I have never claimed that "switches are outlets" in the entire Big Oops thread, or any thread since.

I maintain that three definitions and 404.14 demonstrate that "An Outlet occurs in a switch used as a Controller."

 

[roger]

This, in my opinion, is the meme.

Switches are not outlets.

Well then what are you trying to tell us? Since they are not outlets a switch on it's own would not need to be AFCI protected if it were located inside but feeding outside outlets.

Whew, we've been in agreement all along. :grin:

Roger

 

[al hildenbrand]

Al, I will give you credit for being tenacious, I bet you would argue that the Pope was Protestant if you could work it into the premise wiring angle. :grin:

Thanks, . . . ahh, I think.

This is actually easier than you might think. And it certainly isn't as imaginative as claiming the Pope was Protestant.

And I really owe it to you.

You provided the reference to 404.14, back about a third of the way into the Big Oops thread, and that was the finishing link, in my mind.

So, thanks Roger. I couldn't have done it without you.

 

[roger]

Thanks, . . . ahh, I think.

It was my pleasure

This is actually easier than you might think. And it certainly isn't as imaginative as claiming the Pope was Protestant.

Al, don't cut yourself short, you have been much more imaginative in your argument than I could have ever dreamed of being. :grin:

And I really owe it to you.

Aw Shucks

You provided the reference to 404.14, back about a third of the way into the Big Oops thread, and that was the finishing link, in my mind.

So, thanks Roger. I couldn't have done it without you.

Don't give it another thought. :grin:

Roger

 

[al hildenbrand]

Al, don't cut yourself short, you have been much more imaginative in your argument than I could have ever dreamed of being. :grin:

You see, that's just it, though. This isn't imaginative.

Once I got to really thinking about the, to me, stunning inconsistencies surrounding all the different kinds of hardware-on-a-yoke (think state fair food on a stick) that, when mounted at a "switch" location, was written off as never being any thing but a "switch because it doesn't utilize power". . . once I got to thinking about this, I just couldn't let go that there had to be a simplified perspective.

I was surprised to find that the problem with linking switches with utilization equipment was centered on the understanding of the definition of Outlet.

The different kinds of hardware-on-a-yoke (staying with the "simple" hardware, setting aside motor control centers, appliances, luminaires, etc) hardware-on-a-yoke that is mounted at a single gang wall case is huge.

The hardware-on-a-yoke are all Devices. . . correct me if I am overlooking something.

1. A Device can be a snap switch.
2. A Device can be a receptacle.
3. A Device can be a vanilla solid state incandescent only rotary dimmer switch.
4. A Device can be an LED or electroluminescent night light, requiring a hot and neutral, with no form of a switch or receptacle, and mounting at a single gang wall case, and covered with a standard decora style coverplate (supplied separately).
5. A Device can be an Occupancy/Vacancy sensor switch that requires a neutral and hot to run the switched leg.
6. A Device can be a electronic timer switch, again, that requires a neutral and hot to run the switched leg.
7. There are more, this is not a complete list.

When any one, including Mark Ode, states something to the effect of Mark's quote: "A switch is a device, not an Outlet." . . . .essentially saying Devices are not Outlets. . . when someone makes a statement like that I simply can't shake myself loose from the reality of the hardware I can hold in my hand.

One can say that "a Device is installed AT some Outlets" and that is quoting the letter of the Code. The confusion that surrounds whether AT means the Device is connected to the point that is the Outlet, or whether the Device, once connected to the Premises Wiring (System) has the Outlet AT it, AT the face of the contacts in the Device, in the case of a receptacle, or AT the point at which the wiring on the switch (used as a Controller) becomes internal to the switch, and, by the definition of Premises Wiring (System), is no longer part of the Premises Wiring (System), until the wiring leaves the switch, or lastly, has the Outlet AT the termination of the conductors in the wall case to the light Device that, in my mind, can't be separated from a luminaire.

In all three cases, the Outlet is AT the Device, the Device is AT the Outlet.

I believe the consistent unified understanding is elegantly simple, and easily uniform, across the myriad of assemblies that comprise the Premises Wiring (System).

The key consistancy, as I see it, is the Outlet "point" has Premises Wiring (System) on one side of it, and "not" Premises Wiring (System) on the other side of it.

That is what makes my "tenaciousness" and "imaginativeness" really neither.

* * * *
(Paranthetically, I'll add, that, in the case of the light device I describe above, -P&S makes a lot of them- , I don't have a good NEC leg to stand on to show that the light creating assembly is a luminaire, because the lable of Device and the way devices are included in the Premises Wiring (System), by definition, doesn't readily permit calling the light device a luminaire. Somehow, the Oultlet point boundary between PW(S) and not-PW(S) needs to be worked into assemblies that are light devices, IMO.)

 

[roger]

Al, whatever you want to be, we will let it be. :grin:

With that said, I am going to leave it with you.


Roger

 

[wasasparky]

For the current, being taken by the utilization equipment, to pass through the switch, used as the controller of that same utilization equipment, the current must "leave and re-enter" the Premises Wiring (System).

Wouldn't a snap switch be part of the PWS?

Premises wiring definition "...together with all their associated hardware, fittings, and wiring devices, both..."

To me, "taken to supply" means "directly connecting to" and not "taken to control".

 

[al hildenbrand]

Wouldn't a snap switch be part of the PWS?

Premises wiring definition "...together with all their associated hardware, fittings, and wiring devices, both..."

You are right that Devices are part of the PWS, however, the last sentence takes back away from the PWS "wiring internal to controllers". 2008 NEC 404.14 assures us that a snap switch is suitable for controlling. . .

To me, "taken to supply" means "directly connecting to" and not "taken to control".

Unlike something like a contactor, a snap switch does not take current in order to control. The only current in a snap switch that flows is the current taken by the Utilization Equipment that it controls, no more, no less.

Take away the Utilization Equipment and there is no current in the snap switch.