Big oops ... need suggestions

allenwayne · Oct 22, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

So Jeff this entire thread was set back over 300 posts because you added to what MR.happy homeowner added and the afci did its job

Just to clarify things,i am sure that you determined what the happy home owner did that caused your now code compliant install to trip

jeff43222 · Oct 22, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by electricmanscott:
Al, you have virtually everybody here arguing against you. You have a code guru from the UL publishing an article that is also against your view. At some point don't you at least start to think that maybe you are wrong?

We Minnesota folk are a tough breed. We don't survive every winter by thinking that maybe we are wrong.

Since Al has survived more winters than I have, and since he knows where I live, I say he's a sage and a prince among men.

jeff43222 · Oct 22, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by marc deschenes:
Jeff my heart bleeds , I wouldn't wish that on anyone .

I've had worse jobs. The homeowners fed me a nice lunch today, so that was a bright spot. Most important, though, I learned some valuable lessons from the experience.

marc deschenes · Oct 22, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Hey Al, it says the system as in complete and the outlet must supply utilization equipment the general snap switch is not using current it allows the flow of current the light is what is utilizing the current I'm still saying your wrong.
We will agree to disagree I guess.

jeff43222 · Oct 22, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by allenwayne:
So Jeff this entire thread was set back over 300 posts because you added to what MR.happy homeowner added and the afci did its job
Just to clarify things,i am sure that you determined what the happy home owner did that caused your now code compliant install to trip

I haven't opened it up yet, but I'm 99% certain that the problem is a neutral-ground short in the homeowner-installed pancake box. At least I know the problem is in the pancake box, because everything works just fine when I remove the pancake box from the circuit.

I did indeed find a two-pole AFCI breaker. I was at the supply house and asked if they had any, and they were happy to sell me a Siemens two-pole AFCI ($77.21) and a small subpanel ($30.80) to house it (homeowner has QO in the main panel, and SqD doesn't make two-pole AFCIs for some reason).

allenwayne · Oct 22, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

So Jeff after you spent $108.01 you found that the homeowner did a screwed up install on a ceiling fan.Not only the money was spent but we have kept a thread going for more than 300 posts. That cost us .3600333 cents per post

al hildenbrand · Oct 22, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by electricmanscott:
Al, you have virtually everybody here arguing against you. You have a code guru from the UL publishing an article that is also against your view. At some point don't you at least start to think that maybe you are wrong?

Frankly Scott,

In the first 3/4 of the learning I've done on this while working through the posts I contributed in the other threads on the subject, especially the one's I link to earlier in this monster thread, I had a great deal of doubt about how to confirm a gut feeling. A gut feeling that electronic purpose defines a 600 VA single pole 120 Volt dimmer as utilization equipment.

But once I realized that the switch in a bed contolling UE outside the bed was a matter of the definition of outlet, I had an epiphany.

Controller
Outlet
Premises Wiring (System)
404.14

make a cohesive and concise NEC language only statement that I am certain of. The nail that holds this down is 404.14 and the use of "controlling" in it and its description of the loads that are controlled.

While I bring a very short list of credentials with me to this discussion, I believe Mark Ode and I share the same thing. . .we have an opinion on the matter.

So far, he is not talking using the Code language, rather he is giving a summarizing opinion.

jeff43222 · Oct 22, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

I told you we're a tough breed....

don_resqcapt19 · Oct 23, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Scott,

Al, you have virtually everybody here arguing against you. You have a code guru from the UL publishing an article that is also against your view. At some point don't you at least start to think that maybe you are wrong?

I see nothing in this thread that should make Al change his position. Until such time as there is a formal interpretation on this issue, this is all just opinions...yes, opinions that are different, but just opinions...
Don

LarryFine · Oct 23, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by don_resqcapt19:
Scott, I see nothing in this thread that should make Al change his position. Until such time as there is a formal interpretation on this issue, this is all just opinions...yes, opinions that are different, but just opinions...

Don, you're such a... such a... moderator!

[ October 23, 2005, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: LarryFine ]

charlie b · Oct 24, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Al, since the last time I re-re-re-stated my view, you have had many chances to re-re-re-re-re-state yours. To be fair to the membership, and to remind you that I have won this debate, I'll go one more time.

You are saying a controller can be constructed with a switch and with no other component. I have agreed with that concept. But then you are using that concept, coupled with the definition of premises wiring system, to conclude that a switch is not part of the premises wiring system. Next, you conclude that a switch "takes" current from the premises wiring system, and that it ultimately passes the current to the utilization equipment. Finally, you conclude that the switch. or some point on or within the switch, or some point in its immediate vicinity, or the box that holds the switch, or something else that is within perhaps 4 inches of the switch's plastic handle, some aspect of "switchliness," is an "outlet."

Here, once again, is the error within your reasoning:

The definition of "premises wiring system" explicitly excludes, among other things, the WIRING WITHIN controllers.

There is no wiring within a switch.

Therefore, the definition of "premises wiring system" DOES NOT exclude a switch, not even a switch that serves as a controller.

That is sufficient proof. But there is more.

The definition of "premises wiring system" explicitly includes, among other things, "wiring devices."

A switch is a wiring device. We don't need the NEC to explicitly define "wiring device," in order for this assertion to be true.

Therefore, a switch is a component of the premises wiring system, and does not "take" current from it.

Therefore, no aspect of a switch would comprise an "outlet"

QED

al hildenbrand · Oct 24, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

At the outset, bear in mind that, for the purposes of the points below, I am specifically talking about a snap switch in a bedroom that is controlling utilization equipment that is not inside the bedroom.

Originally posted by Charlie B.:
you conclude that the switch. or some point on or within the switch, or some point in its immediate vicinity, or the box that holds the switch, or something else that is within perhaps 4 inches of the switch's plastic handle, some aspect of "switchliness," is an "outlet."

There is nothing vague about the location of the point on the premises wiring to which the controller is connected. It is the end of the wiring that is premises wiring and the beginning of the device that is the controller. The physical assemblage that embodies this is (as noted in my first sentence of this post) a snap switch

Originally posted by Charlie B.:
a controller can be constructed with a switch and with no other component. I have agreed with that concept.

OK. If you agree with this, looking at the definition of Controller one knows that a Controller is a "device or group of devices", therefore a switch, being one thing, is a device.

The two word term "wiring device" is undefined in the Code.

"Device" is defined. A "Controller" = device(s) is defined in the Code.

Originally posted by Charlie B.:
A switch is a wiring device. We don't need the NEC to explicitly define "wiring device," in order for this assertion to be true.

Well, a switch is a device used for wiring. The way a switch is used will determine whether it is part of the premises wiring or not. The definition of Premises Wiring (System) says that the internal wiring of SUCH WIRING used as a controller (a switch used as a controller which you just said you agree with).

SUCH WIRING.

SUCH WIRING is "That interior and exterior wiring, including . . . wiring devices." "Wiring devices" = wiring.

-OR- If you prefer:

SUCH WIRING is "That interior and exterior wiring, including . . . devices." "Devices" = wiring.

al hildenbrand · Oct 24, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

The switch that is a device, is defined by the first sentence of Premises Wiring (System) as "wiring". The second sentence of the same definition, after incorporating the first sentence goes on to say that "such wiring" internal to a controller (a switch) is not part of the Premises Wiring (System).

charlie b · Oct 24, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by al hildenbrand: The switch that is a device, is defined by the first sentence of Premises Wiring (System) as "wiring".

No it isn't.

Premises Wiring System is defined as ". . . interior and exterior wiring . . . together with their associated . . . wiring devices." This does not say that a switch is "wiring." It says that the wiring devices associated with the interior wiring are part of the "system."

{Edited to clarify the second sentence above.}

Originally posted by al hildenbrand: The second sentence of the same definition . . . goes on to say that "such wiring" internal to a controller (a switch) is not part of the Premises Wiring (System).

The word "switch" is not in that sentence. You can't insert it without violating the rules of logical reasoning. I say that with authority because it was carefully covered in a course I took in symbolic logic, as part of my BSEE program. That was a while ago, but the rules of logic have not changed. The violation comes from an invalid attempt to go from the general to the specific. The invalidity of that argument is the same as going from "All cats are animals" to "Here is an animal, therefore it is a cat."

There are controllers that have no switches. There are controllers that have wiring internal to their enclosures. The definition excludes the wiring internal to controllers. That does not mean that it is excluding the controllers, or that it is excluding one specific type of controller.

The words "Such wiring" in the second sentence is referring back to the "interior and exterior wiring" in the first sentence. The definition is saying that the "interior and exterior wiring" that is part of the premises wiring system does not include the wiring that is internal to a controller.

So show me a controller that has wires, and I will tell you that those wires are not part of the premises wiring system.

Originally posted by al hildenbrand: The two word term "wiring device" is undefined in the Code.

So are the single words "voltage," "current," and "amps," just to name a few. The code does not have to define every term or phrase it uses. Look at the second sentence in the statement of Scope, under article 100. The industry includes switches in the category of "wiring devices," and your one opinion to the contrary is not going to overturn the industry's usage of that phrase.

[ October 24, 2005, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: charlie b ]

LarryFine · Oct 24, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Maybe this all depends on what the defition of "is" is. :roll:

Al, you mentioned that the switch demarks the end of the premises wiring. Does that also mean that the rest of the wiring in the wall (between the switch and what we all agree is the (next) outlet(s)) is also not part of the premises wiring?

I'll tell you why I ask after your response.

marc deschenes · Oct 24, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Well stated Charlie , and I wish I had such use of language!!

What I don't get in Al's claim is so what if the conductors inside a switch are part of the premises wiring system or not. For the sake of argument I will agree that they are not. A snap switch still does not meet the definition of an outlet . A snap switch is not utilization equipment. In the definition for outlet it says the system as in total,.. that which is and is not premises. Unless the non premises wiring is a piece utilization equipment than it is not an outlet.

Does that make any sence?

electric_instructor · Oct 24, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

I am an electrician instructor, who is certified,(granted this doesn't make me an expert) I teach a 900 hour electricians certified course. The course has about 200 pounds of textbooks(all based on the 2005 NEC).

In NONE of these books is a switch considered an outlet, because it does NOT utilize energy, in fact ALL handbooks, and textbooks that I have ever seen, make a point of stating otherwise.

I suppose that a person could argue the point with all of the authors of the industry specific, and nationally accepted Books?

LarryFine · Oct 24, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Agreed, although Al may say that a receptacle does not utilize electricity either, and thus should not be an outlet to us, to which I say it's not the device that defines an outlet, it's what occurs at that point on the circuit.

electric_instructor · Oct 24, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Yes
Anybody that reads the definitions, SHOULD be able to understand them.
Quoted AGAIN -
"Outlet: - A point on a wiring system at which CURRENT IS TAKEN to SUPPLY utilization equipment."

Sounds simple enough to me?

Lighting outlet is defined, as is a receptacle outlet. There is NO definition for a switch outlet. HUMMMMM--- wonder why? LMAO

"Switch, General-Use. - A swith intended for use in GENERAL DISTRIBUTION and BRANCH CIRCUITS. ......."

"Switch, General-use Snap. - A form of general-use switch constructed so that it can be installed in device boxes, or on covers, or otherwise used in CONJUNCTION WITH WIRING SYSTEMS recognized by this code."

ANYBODY - NOT understand these definitions?

al hildenbrand · Oct 24, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Charlie,

Your difficulty with my logic comes from ignoring the very first sentence of my last post.

Originally posted by Al Hildenbrand: At the outset, bear in mind that, for the purposes of the points below, I am specifically talking about a snap switch in a bedroom that is controlling utilization equipment that is not inside the bedroom.

Please, try to remember it. It applies in this post also.

Premises Wiring = (but not limited to) wiring devices
Premises Wiring = (but not limited to) devices

2005 NEC. Article 100. Premises Wiring (System). That interior and exterior wiring, including power, lighting, control, and signal circuit wiring together with all their associated hardware, fittings, and wiring devices, both permanently and temporarily installed, that extends from the service point or source of power, such as a battery, a solar photovoltaic system, or a generator, transformer, or converter windings, to the outlet(s). Such wiring does not include wiring internal to appliances, luminaires (fixtures), motors, controllers, motor control centers, and similar equipment.

Originally posted by Charlie B.:
The words "Such wiring" in the second sentence is referring back to the "interior and exterior wiring" in the first sentence. The definition is saying that the "interior and exterior wiring" that is part of the premises wiring system does not include the wiring that is internal to a controller.

Premises Wiring = That. . .wiring. . .together with all their associated. . .wiring devices.

Premises Wiring (System). It's the 2 (3) word term. "Such wiring" was just defined as a set in the first sentence of the definition. Such wiring is listed

Interior wiring
Exterior wiring
Power wiring
Lighting wiring
Control wiring
Signal circuit wiring
Associated hardware
Hardware fittings
Wiring devices

This is a big circle, a big set, encompassing the extension from the service point or source of power, and it obviously includes material that will be used to make, and connect to, and be integral parts of utilization equipment.

So. The second sentence, looking at the set created by the first sentence, lists what looks like wiring, saying that it is NOT part of the premises wiring. "Such wiring" = Premises Wiring (System). And now, "Such wiring" has things removed from that set. "Such wiring" does not include wiring internal to. . .controllers.

The text is NOT "Such wires". While wires are part of "wiring", "wiring" is a much larger set of materials and assemblies.

Originally posted by Charlie B.:
So show me a controller that has wires, and I will tell you that those wires are not part of the premises wiring system.

The definition never once uses the words "wire" or "wires".

Big oops ... need suggestions

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Moderator

Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA

Moderator

Senior Member

Senior Member

Moderator

Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA

Senior Member

Senior Member

Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA

Senior Member

Senior Member