Big oops ... need suggestions

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by LarryFine:
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?

The wiring internal to a switch used as a controller is not part of the premises wiring. The wiring between the switch, if it is mounted at a wall case in a bedroom, and the luminaire, mounted at a box outside the bedroom, IS premises wiring.

 

[electric_instructor]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Also see:
"Device. - A unit of an electrical system that is intended to cary, or control but NOT utilize electric energy."

"Receptacle. - a contact device installed at the outlet for the connection of an attachment plug. ...."

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by marc deschenes:
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.

Outlet. A point on the wiring system at which current is taken to supply utilization equipment.

The definition only talks about one outlet on one point on the premises wiring. The is no statement of number of points, nor location of the points. That is important to understand. There can be two points in series with each other.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by electric_instructor:
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.

That's fine. But it is not complete, in my opinion.

My statements in this thread are solid, in my opinion.

I am not a gadfly, by nature, although some might state otherwise.

This is a matter of evolving application of existing living language encoded by force of law in local jurisdictions. 210.12 raises a legal performance issue if this is not understood.

The NFPA may rule that my take on Premises Wiring (System) is inapplicable, but they haven't yet. The NFPA may well rule that my take has merit.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by LarryFine:
. . .I say it's not the device that defines an outlet, it's what occurs at that point on the circuit.

Here, here!! Well said.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by electric_instructor:
Yes
Anybody that reads the definitions, SHOULD be able to understand them.

The question is how to agree on the understandings.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by electric_instructor:
Also see:
"Device. - A unit of an electrical system that is intended to cary, or control but NOT utilize electric energy."

"Receptacle. - a contact device installed at the outlet for the connection of an attachment plug. ...."

All well and good. But crawl around inside Premises Wiring (System), Controller, and 404.14 for a while.

Then come back to Outlet.

 

[charlie b]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by al hildenbrand: 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.

I am talking about exactly the same situation.

Originally posted by al hildenbrand:
Premises Wiring = (but not limited to) wiring devices
Premises Wiring = (but not limited to) devices

This is another invalid leap of logic. This one is the opposite version of the previous logic error. This one is of the "specific to general" variety. You are saying that "devices" can be used as being equivalent in meaning to "wiring devices." It is not. The definition talks about "wiring devices," which is a specific set of things. Your leap in logic equates this to "devices," a more general set of things (i.e., it includes more things).

Originally posted by al hildenbrand: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 </font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Interior wiring</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Exterior wiring</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Power wiring</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Lighting wiring</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Control wiring</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Signal circuit wiring</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Associated hardware</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hardware fittings</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wiring devices</font>

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

Here you are clearly misreading the definition. The last three items in your list are not being included as examples of "wiring." They are being included as examples of things that, in addition to wiring, are part of the system.

Originally posted by al hildenbrand: The definition never once uses the words "wire" or "wires".

OK. So show me a controller that has internal wiring, and I will tell you that that wiring is not part of the premises wiring system.

 

[marc deschenes]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

AL it says " the wiring system" not the premiss wiring system in the definition for outlet . Surely the conductors in the switch are part of "the system" ? How can they not be ? I still don't see how a transition / connection to the conductors in a snap switch could be considered an outlet
. A connection in and of itself is not an outlet by definition. The connection would have to be made so as to supply current to a piece of utilization equipment , the snap switch does not fit the definition.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by Charlie B.:
The last three items in your list are not being included as examples of "wiring." They are being included as examples of things that, in addition to wiring, are part of the system

They are part of the Premises Wiring (System).

And, hey!, you're the one that is insisting that a switch is a "wiring device", not a controller, because of a document that you use as a quideline for how to group materials lists on plans that you generate. And because this guideline has switches under "wiring devices" and motor controllers somewhere else, that means, to you that a switch is a wiring device, ONLY, in the Premises Wiring (System) definition and it can't be a controller.

But wait. You just said that a switch could be used as a controller.

Which way are you going to have it?

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by Charlie B.:
This is another invalid leap of logic. This one is the opposite version of the previous logic error. This one is of the "specific to general" variety. You are saying that "devices" can be used as being equivalent in meaning to "wiring devices." It is not. The definition talks about "wiring devices," which is a specific set of things. Your leap in logic equates this to "devices," a more general set of things (i.e., it includes more things).

Here you are referring to:

Originally posted by al hildenbrand:
Premises Wiring = (but not limited to) wiring devices
Premises Wiring = (but not limited to) devices

I apologize for misdirecting. I am only trying to cover the two possible interpertations of the two words "wiring devices".

It was not my intention to equate:
(but not limited to) devices = Premises Wiring = (but not limited to) wiring devices
which will yield:
devices = wiring devices

This was not a trick that I was trying to slip in.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by marc deschenes:
AL it says " the wiring system" not the premiss wiring system in the definition for outlet . Surely the conductors in the switch are part of "the system" ? How can they not be ?

A switch, used as a controller of remote load is a special case that is defined as not being part of the premises wiring.

I still don't see how a transition / connection to the conductors in a snap switch could be considered an outlet
. A connection in and of itself is not an outlet by definition.

I absolutly agree. Iwire tried to tell me I was saying that wirenuts were outlets.

The connection would have to be made so as to supply current to a piece of utilization equipment

Yes, but the question is about the "taking" of current from the wiring system, current that is to supply utilization equipment. As I read it, taking is the verb. "To supply utilization equipment" is a modifying phrase. Charlie has a better command of the language of sentence structure, and perhaps he will name the phrase.

Taking of current.

 

[LarryFine]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by al hildenbrand:

Originally posted by LarryFine:
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?

The wiring internal to a switch used as a controller is not part of the premises wiring. The wiring between the switch, if it is mounted at a wall case in a bedroom, and the luminaire, mounted at a box outside the bedroom, IS premises wiring.

Okay, then the switch is NOT where power is taken to be utilized. Obviously, we don't feel that switching power is utilizing it. That occurs at outlets.

Originally posted by al hildenbrand:

Originally posted by marc deschenes:
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.

Outlet. A point on the wiring system at which current is taken to supply utilization equipment.

The definition only talks about one outlet on one point on the premises wiring. The is no statement of number of points, nor location of the points. That is important to understand. There can be two points in series with each other.

Yes, that's true, and we'll even agree that a switch is in series with its load. But, a switch and its load are not two points of utilization; only the load is.

Originally posted by al hildenbrand:

Originally posted by LarryFine:
. . .I say it's not the device that defines an outlet, it's what occurs at that point on the circuit.

Here, here!! Well said.

Okay, it almost sounds like you're agreeing, but we know better than that.
Therefore, we must reiterate that switching a load and being the interface between the wiring system and that load are not one and the same. Outlets are not switching points. (excluding being used as disconnects, etc)

 

[jwelectric]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

I have read intently every post. I must say that both sides are making some very good points. I had decided to just go with the words of those sitting on the code panels at the IAEI meetings I have attended. For the record I have heard opposing views from these panel members. I have kept score and it is about three of five that I have heard field this question that it is not an outlet. The ?about? denotes a discussion between the panel members. I kept score of the original answer of the member fielding the question.

One question that has come to mind is where or what would constitute an outlet for something hard wired such as a disposal or dishwasher in a dwelling unit?

Would it be the _________?
(A) The breaker
(B) The switch
(C) The junction box on the appliance (I believe this to be part of the appliance)
(D) 0ther, give a short description

Questions on this quiz carry the total weigh of the quiz. This quiz carries the total weigh of your final exam. Miss it and fail.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by LarryFine:
Okay, then the switch is NOT where power is taken to be utilized. Obviously, we don't feel that switching power is utilizing it.

The definition of outlet is about "current taken". I don't see anything that talks about voltage drop, or power utilized, or power taken.

Originally posted by LarryFine:
But, a switch and its load are not two points of utilization; only the load is.

Again, the same point is made by the language of the Definition of Outlet: A point on the wiring system at which current is taken to supply utilization equipment. Point of utilization is not used in the definition.

Originally posted by LarryFine:
Therefore, you must feel like my sentence makes your point, but we also know better than that!

I agree with the words you wrote. "It IS what occurs at that point on the circuit", the point at which current is taken from the wiring system, the current that is supplying utilization equipment. Where we diverge is over that pesky "current is taken" that keeps getting reworded or dropped from the re-phrasing.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Great question Mike!

Your informal survey has about 40% agreeing with me? Why. . .you mean I'm not the only one in the whole wide world that is coming to this perspective? (he says facetiously )

 

[electric_instructor]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

I'm sorry, i have read 404.14, YET I fail to see how voltage, and amperage ratings for switches, applies to the question?

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by electric_instructor:
I'm sorry, i have read 404.14, YET I fail to see how voltage, and amperage ratings for switches, applies to the question?

404.14 is not just about ratings, it also is about use.

404.14 Rating and Use of Snap Switches
(A) Alternating Current General-Use Snap Switch A form of general-use snap switch suitable only for use on ac circuits for controlling the following:

Because "Controller" does not specifically include "switch" some said a switch can't be a controller. 404.14 puts that to rest.

 

[electric_instructor]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Getting back to the AFCI, I agree that ANY or ALL DEVICES in residential bedroom require the branch circuit have AFCI protection.

However, I'll quote Electrical Wiring Residential, 15th edition, based on the 2005 NEC, by Ray C Mullin. Unit 2, Page 25.
ALSO in Article 100, 2005 NEC.

A DEVICE is - A unit of an electrical system that is intended to carry or control current, BUT NOT utilize electric energy.

A receptacle is - A contact DEVICE installed at the OUTLET for the connection of an attachment plug.

An OUTLET is - A point on the wiring system at which current is taken to supply utilization equipment.

A receptacle OUTLET is - An OUTLET where one or more receptacles are installed.

A lighting OUTLET is - An OUTLET intended for the connection of a lampholder, a luminaire, or a pendant cord terminating in a lampholder.

By definition, toggle switches and receptacles are DEVICES because they carry current, BUT do NOT consume power.

NEC Article 300.14 states - The minimum length of conductors at an OUTLET, Junction, or SWITCH POINT for splices or the connection of luminairs or DEVICES............

END Quote

It seems obvious that the term OUTLET implies, ANY point on a wiring system at which power is TAKEN from THAT system.(meaning NOT the DEVICE, but the box, and it's intended use, if current will be removed from THE SYSTEM {or LET OUT ! LOL)Which doesn't happen at a switch.

The term OPENING covers all lighting OUTLETS, Receptacle OUTLETS, Junction boxes, switch points, etc.

To further show this point, look at ANY set of blueprints - look at the lighting, and power outlet symbols, all of the OUTLETS (receptacles, and lighting) show a BOX, at which point Energy is taken from the system.
NOW - look at the switch symbols, - Do you see any OUTLET boxes?
I have never seen a general use, or general use snap switch which has an outlet box shown on the prints, only an S, S2, S3, S4, etc.

Why is this?

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by electric_instructor:
It seems obvious that the term OUTLET implies, ANY point on a wiring system at which power is TAKEN from THAT system.

The definition of Outlet, as written in NEC Article 100 does not use "power is taken".

(meaning NOT the DEVICE, but the box, and it's intended use, if current will be removed from THE SYSTEM {or LET OUT ! LOL)Which doesn't happen at a switch.

A "box" is incapable of carrying current. The box cannot be the Outlet without being the point on the wiring system at which current is taken. Further, what if the receptacle is boxless (they make them), or, Where is the outlet when a disposal is hardwired? NOTE: SEE JW's QUESTION ABOVE.


Receptacle Outlet and Lighting Outlet are two word terms. They are different than the one word term Outlet.

Originally posted by Charlie B.: As to the phrase "power outlet," you cannot infer anything at all from the fact that that phrase contains the single word "outlet." This is a two-word phrase that is made up of two individual words. But it is the phrase that is defined, and the definition does not fall back on the individual definitions of the individual words.