Big oops ... need suggestions

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Why only 300 posts? :D

By the way, I've totally lost track of this discussion. What is the argument again? :D
 
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Roger I read both items ,the post on the 17th and the ul page. What I gatered from these are
1 - Scotts post had to deal with the seperation of rooms IE: a light in a closet as compared to a light etc. within the confines of a bedroom.This being an interpetation ,pretty much as interpetations have been made here as evident in the past umphteen pages of this thread

2 - The Ul interpetation was that there has been a definitive change in the wording as stated :afci have been around for 3 NEC cycles and there are changes in each of these cycles .However there are still questions concerning how and where to apply these devices in the field.Also there will be instances where applications will have to be dealt with by installers and inspectors in the field on an individual basis.(Yup that really clears that part up :D )
But it does go on to say that only switches that supply outlets outside the bedroom area were not required to have afci protection.This outside to me brings up the point of inside a bedroom switches must have afci protection.

6 - Next question was what about a fire alarm panel in a closet in a bedroom was it required to be afci protected.Well that question was not answered as well as the questions we have here and the UL`S staff didn`t have the answers saying these and other questions and issues will be dealt with in future articles.

So the question of a closet light and switch was almost answered with an opinion :D ) well ok a tread mill.Basically he pulled a politician act and answered a question with a question.I havent gotten an 05 Nec yet to see if there have been any changes to the 05 cycle that would clarify anything posted here.We are 02 for awhile and haven`t gotten around to it.I did have that link to the free online nec that was given awhile back but my pc crashed and I couldn`t save anything from before I restored it.
So roger I guess what I gathered in those two links was that nothing has been really clarified and that until that day comes you can have your own opinion accept others or sit and wait for a definitive answer :D
 
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

originally posted by Charlie B.:
Let us give the NEC authors more credit for thinking through their words.
Click to expand...
Credit for thinking is not what this is about.

This is about the ambiguity in the language used.

The location of the utilization equipment is not specified in the definition of Outlet. This leaves an ambiguity. Until the language is changed to some other meaning, presumably less ambiguous, the Definition of Outlet will remain ambiguous as to location of the utilization equipment.

The cycle leading to the original inclusion of Premises Wiring (System) in the 1978 NEC could not, reasonably, have anticipated a consequence, like I am laying out, for their describing what is not part of the premises wiring.

Until the advent of 210.12 in its present form, any discussion could be dismissed as academic at the point it became tiresome, having no bearing on wiring practice.

But I have a cohesive argument here. Enough so, that I believe if I do not put AFCI protection on the bedroom switch that controls a load somewhere else, I am exposing myself to the outcome of successful litigation at some point in the future. Litigation spurred by a claim arising from harm or loss.

The Court process that decides my fate will not be as enlightened as this Forum, I suspect. They may well look at the AFCI as something that can perform the miracles that the advertising and public service announcements have promulgated. And I suspect they will give less attention to the industry job materials specification and grouping standards. Rather, they will pay attention to the language in the NEC itself.
 
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by al hildenbrand: This is about the ambiguity in the language used.
Click to expand...
I'd be happy to leave it there (Sorry Mike :( ).

But I will still be willing to put my PE Seal on a drawing that does not AFCI-protect a circuit for which a switch in a bedroom operates a light outside the bedroom. If that risks a future litigation, I can but remind myself that everything to which I apply my Seal carries that same risk. It's part of the job.

Furthermore, if you are installing that job, and if you put AFCI protection on that circuit, I will be sure to recommend to the owner that you not get paid for work that is outside the scope of the job and that is not required by any applicable regulations. :cool:
 
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

So Allen, what does this statement
Since switches are devices, not outlets, a switch located in a bedroom but supplying luminaire(s) located outside the bedroom area, such as security lighting or for bathroom lighting, would not require AFCI protection.
Click to expand...
mean to you?

Tell me what politician is this clear and matter of fact. How do you interpret that as answering a question with a question?

You can access the 2005 NEC HERE..

Roger
 
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Charlie B.:

That's one of the differences in perspectives that you and I bring to this discussion. The jobs I work on don't include an additional sharing of the liability with PEs above me. Nor do any PEs give me a scope of work.

The liability is mine, all mine. The scope of the work is in my contractual relationship with my client.

But in either case:
I will be sure to recommend to the owner that you not get paid for work that is outside the scope of the job and that is not required by any applicable regulations.
Click to expand...
This is your opinion. Well and good. If you had put a period after "job" I'd agree with you.

I have, however, shown, given the ambiguity in the definition of Outlet, and lacking a formal definition of wiring and wiring devices, that NEC regulation can be applied.

Edit to add Charlie B., - Al

[ October 19, 2005, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: al hildenbrand ]
 
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Premises Wiring (System) states that wiring devices are premises wiring. Also well and good. The last sentence modifies the first when it includes controller.

Wiring devices are premises wiring.

The Article 100 definition says the device (or as your CIS says "wiring device") is wiring.

In order to delineate the boundary between premises wiring and not premises wiring, an additional sentence adds: a device (controller) (which has just been declared wiring) is not part of the premises wiring. This delineation is required to allow an outlet to be a point where current is taken. . .to let out current into another area outside of the purview of the NEC.
 
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by Charlie B.:
But you are relying on a definition that would, in your interpretation, tell us that the premises wiring system does not include the wiring that is internal to a wall switch.
Click to expand...
Yes. Absolutely.

This had no consequence until the advent of 210.12 in its current form.

Now, however, given an unfortunate accident on a non AFCI protected branch circuit extending from a controlling switch inside a dwelling bedroom to load outside the bed, a smart liability lawyer will be able to think what I've shown, and, I am sure, convey far more pursuasively than I, that the installer, inspector, and PE are liable.
 
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Oh nothin'

sleep.gif
 
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Not to bring the discussion back to my original post or anything, but I did discover today that Siemens makes a two-pole AFCI, which I bought at the supply house for a mere $77.21, plus a four-circuit enclosure for $30.80. That's going to cut into the profit margin considerably on this job, but at least I learned a good lesson from all of this.

And Al, if you need legal counsel, I have a few lawyer friends in the city I can set you up with. :D
 
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

We are only six post away from 200. If everyone that has posted in here posted one more time we could drive this to ???????

Let's go now!
 
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Roger what it means to me is that that statement is an opinion not backed by an actual article or definition.You of all people should see that.Lord knows you jumped my s#@t all to many times for not doing just that :D The definition of outlet has not changed since 1956 and in all that time a debate such as this one to my knoweldge has never been like this one has been :D
So IMO and others until the NEC says a switch is not an outlet and granted it doesn`t say it is but it still doesn`t say it isn`t all opinions aside and interpitations too.Until that day when we can actually see it in black and white (A switch is not an outlet )I feel that it needs to be part of an afci circuit.Just like you feel it shouldn`t.I will wait until me and my inspector determine if it should be afci protected.Not the NEC if we go my the U.L. article that is what we must do since the NEC which we all know is flawless :roll: Hasn`t gotten around to clarifying this situation.So it is up to me and my AHJ to save the electrical industry from the horrors inflicted by article 100..........................
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top