Re: Big oops ... need suggestions
originally posted by Charlie B.:
Let us give the NEC authors more credit for thinking through their words.
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.
