Big oops ... need suggestions

sandsnow · Oct 26, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by al hildenbrand:
Larry, Larry, Larry,

As paradoxical as this must sound, in this thread, I have never put forth the claim that "a switch is an outlet."

It's true.

Honest.

Thanks for clearing that up, Al.
Now I'm more confused than ever. Sounds like I have to go back and re-read the whole thread using Charlie's Rule of Technical Reading. I don't think I can take it.

sandsnow · Oct 26, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by charlie b:

Originally posted by al hildenbrand: What? I don't get to switch the discussion to what you are talking about?
Well then, I see no outlet from continuing. . . .

Click to expand...

I don't mean to snap at you. But wire you giving me a hard time? If you continuous along your current path, I'll not have the power to stop you, but you'll be out of controller before the next electron. You'll be taken out back and get the end of a whip, though I'm sure you will snap back. I don't agree with your point. But I premise not to be more receptacle of other people's opinions, even if they're dimmer than mine.

Yeah, bravo!!!!!

charlie b · Oct 26, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by al hildenbrand: An interesting mental exercise. BUT, a single electron is not equal to current taken to supply utilization equipment. The current in a complete circuit is not a discrete packet, rather it is continuous and the same magnitude and direction at any point on the simple two wire circuit.

AND, again, the definition of Outlet talks only of current, not voltage drop, not power, not energy.

OK. So you don't like analogies. I'll say it again, using "current," instead of electrons.

In any set of parallel paths, some current will take one path, and some current will take another path. In the case of a single circuit (not multi-wire branch circuit), I submit that (except in rare occasions, and there is no example of those rare occasions in my house) current flowing in one path will not flow through more than one outlet.

Originally posted by al hildenbrand: AND, the Code does not prohibit Outlets in series.

Agreed, as I have said before. But I'll say again, for a single circuit (not multi-wire branch circuit), it is rare, and I can't recall ever seeing an example.

charlie b · Oct 26, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by al hildenbrand: As paradoxical as this must sound, in this thread, I have never put forth the claim that "a switch is an outlet."

I will accept this statement, and can even attest to it. But it leads to a question. You believe, as you have clearly stated, that a circuit consisting of a switch in a bedroom that operates a light outside the bedroom does require AFCI protection. That can only mean that you believe this circuit would have an outlet in the bedroom.

Would you care to state (as clearly) the device, box, component, specific point in space, or general volume of space that does comprise the "outlet"?

marc deschenes · Oct 26, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by jwelectric:

Originally posted by marc deschenes:
Al, please respond to my question as to wether or not in your opinion, Two or more switches connected to conductors connected to an over current device consitutes a general purpose branch circuit or any other type for that matter.

Click to expand...

I will step to the plate for Al and answer this question,

Branch Circuit, General-Purpose. A branch circuit that supplies two or more receptacles or outlets for lighting and appliances.
Branch Circuit, Individual. A branch circuit that supplies only one utilization equipment.

Click to expand...

The reference you have made to a general purpose circuit is that it hits more than one outlet. If it hit only one then it would be an individual circuit.
Neither definition has anything at all to do with a switch being an outlet.

It does because if switches were installed at outlets ,it would stand to reason that such circuits would be defined as such.

marc deschenes · Oct 26, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

How about this,... can an individual branch circuit be controled by a general use snap switch?

[ October 26, 2005, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: marc deschenes ]

jwelectric · Oct 26, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by marc deschenes:
How about this,... can an individual branch circuit be controled by a general use snap switch?

Yes, but your definition was:

how about the the fact that the definition for
branch circuit general-purpose is that which supplies two or more recetacles or outlets for lighting and appliances .

The definition that you posted was about a branch circuit not about outlets.

jwelectric · Oct 26, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

I will now state that I have gone with the answer given by my state DOI on how to look at this.

With the definition of ?Premises Wiring? in the last sentence stating that,

?Such wiring does not include wiring internal to appliances, luminaires (fixtures), motors, controllers, motor control centers, and similar equipment.?

and Al?s explanation of the make up (what is on the inside) then by the very words of the NEC, the NEC does not cover that part of the switch.

If the internal parts of the switch are not under the control of the NEC then the switch itself is not part of the premise wiring. The switch is a controller of the light (or what ever) it is in series with.
So by the very definition of ?Premises Wiring? the switch has to be called something and ?outlet? sounds good to me.

marc deschenes · Oct 26, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

So if I run a 14/2 to only switches I have have a branch circuit With switch outlets ????

al hildenbrand · Oct 26, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by Charlie B.:
OK. So you don't like analogies. I'll say it again, using "current," instead of electrons..

I've got nothing against analogies. Why, some of my best friends are analogies.

Originally posted by Charlie B.:
In any set of parallel paths, some current will take one path, and some current will take another path. In the case of a single circuit (not multi-wire branch circuit), I submit that (except in rare occasions, and there is no example of those rare occasions in my house) current flowing in one path will not flow through more than one outlet.

Well, all I can say to this is that I think you have seen them in profusion, yet not recognized them for themselves.

The real point of my statement is in the sense of the "current" that is in the circuit. For the purpose of this point, the "circuit" is the complete conductive path from within the supply out to and through the utilization equipment and back again to within the supply. The utilization equipment determines the current that will flow in order for the utilization equipment to be "supplied". At any instant in time, the current is the same magnitude and same direction throughout the "circuit".

The "current" is supplying the utilization equipment and at the point that the premises wiring becomes NOT premises wiring the "current" is taken (from the premises wiring). The "current" is let out of the premises wiring. An Outlet occurs.

marc deschenes · Oct 26, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Al, finish the sentance , a point on a system at which current is taken to supply utilization equipment .
Is the switch now utilization equipment?

al hildenbrand · Oct 26, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by charlie b:
Would you care to state (as clearly) the device, box, component, specific point in space, or general volume of space that does comprise the "outlet"?

Originally posted by al hildenbrand: I would summarize the switch / outlet equation as: An outlet occurs when a switch, on the premises wiring, is used to control utilization equipment at another outlet on the premises wiring.

The point, the location, of the outlet occurring is that point where the wiring internal to the switch becomes external to the switch. Considering that this is about a luminaire controlled by a switch that is in a dwelling bedroom, then, most of the time, the system will have a nominal voltage of 120V and will be Alternating Current. The AC will make both sides of the wiring internal to the switch points where current is taken (just like the two contact points on a receptacle).

charlie b · Oct 26, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by jwelectric: With the definition of ?Premises Wiring? in the last sentence stating that,

?Such wiring does not include wiring internal to appliances, luminaires (fixtures), motors, controllers, motor control centers, and similar equipment.?

Click to expand...

and Al?s explanation of the make up (what is on the inside) then by the very words of the NEC, the NEC does not cover that part of the switch.

I'll tell you what I have been trying to tell Al. Let's see if you follow it in the way I follow it. Start by looking at the first sentence. No, check that, start by looking at the words just before the first sentence. Those words represent the thing that the article is about to define. So by the time we are done reading that paragraph, we are supposed to understand what does, and what does not, comprise the "premises wiring system."

(First sentence): The premises wiring system includes wiring (i.e., interior and exterior wiring).
(Still the first sentence): The premises wiring system includes some things associated with wiring (e.g., hardware and wiring devices).
(Second sentence): Going back to that interior and exterior wiring, the interior and exterior wiring that is part of the premises wiring system does not include the wiring internal to (among other things) controllers.

Al has taken the leap from what the second sentence says to what the second sentence does not say. Specifically, the second sentence does not say,

(Second sentence): Going back to that interior and exterior wiring, the premises wiring system does not include controllers, not even switches that serve as controllers.

Let me try it by diagramming the sentence. Anyone out there still remember diagramming sentences? Look for the subject, verb, and object of the second sentence.

The subject is "wiring."
That subject is modified by the adjective "such," referring the reader back to the "interior and exterior wiring" mentioned in the first sentence.
The verb is "include."
That verb is modified by the adverbial phrase, "does not."
The object is "wiring."
That object is modified by the adjective phrase "internal to . . . controllers . . . ."

So the second sentence boils down to,

. . . wiring . . . include . . . wiring. . . .

Or, adding back some of the modifiers,

(Such) wiring . . . (does not) include . . . wiring (internal to . . . controllers). . . .

Once again, the second sentence says that the interior and exterior wiring that is in the premises wiring system does not include the wiring internal to controllers.

Originally posted by jwelectric: So by the very definition of ?Premises Wiring? the switch has to be called something and ?outlet? sounds good to me.

It doesn't have to be called anything. It can be called a "switch." The issue is whether it is part of the system or whether it is not part of the system. It is.

al hildenbrand · Oct 26, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by marc deschenes:
Al, finish the sentance , a point on a system at which current is taken to supply utilization equipment .
Is the switch now utilization equipment?

Marc, I have stated repeatedly in this thread: I am not saying that a switch is an outlet.

For you I will go on to say that I am not saying:

A switch is a branch circuit.

A switch is utilization equipment.

A switch is a lighting outlet.

A switch is an outlet box.

I have just resummarized what I AM saying here.

Edit to correct a double negative - Al

[ October 26, 2005, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: al hildenbrand ]

charlie b · Oct 26, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by al hildenbrand: At any instant in time, the current is the same magnitude and same direction throughout the "circuit".

Not if you are discussing (as I was) a single circuit with parallel loads. The current splits, and later rejoins. I am talking about current in one of those parallel loads seeing one, and only one, outlet.

Originally posted by al hildenbrand: . . . at the point that the premises wiring becomes NOT premises wiring the "current" is taken (from the premises wiring). The "current" is let out of the premises wiring. An Outlet occurs.

I don't think anyone disagrees with that. But the current is not let out of the premises wiring at the on/off switch. It is let out when it gets to the receptacle or to the luminaire. Many people have said that. I am one. You are not.

LarryFine · Oct 26, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by al hildenbrand:
If the Definition of Outlet specified the physical position of the utilization equipment in relation to the outlet, instead of talking only about the current taken to supply the utilization equipment, I would not be here in this discussion, for my points would be indefensible.

Let me ask: what utilization equipment takes power at the switch location?

It can't be the load, because that takes power at its outlet.

jwelectric · Oct 26, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Look real close to the definition;

Such wiring does not include wiring internal to appliances, luminaires (fixtures), motors, controllers, motor control centers, and similar equipment.

The definition states that wiring internal to the switch is not under the jurisdiction of the NEC.
If the internal parts of a switch do not fall under the jurisdiction of the NEC then it can not be part of the premise wiring.
If the switch is a controller of the light could it not be an outlet as defined in ?Premises Wiring (System).??

Al have I gone off into a tangent?

al hildenbrand · Oct 26, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by Charlie B.:
Not if you are discussing (as I was) a single circuit with parallel loads. The current splits, and later rejoins. I am talking about current in one of those parallel loads seeing one, and only one, outlet

So now you want me to switch to something other than a switch controlling an outside luminaire?

The parallel loads as seen from the switch will have an equivalancy of a single load with a single current.

al hildenbrand · Oct 26, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by Charlie B.:
But the current is not let out of the premises wiring at the on/off switch.

This is the center of the discussion with you as I see it.

al hildenbrand · Oct 26, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by jwelectric:
Look real close to the definition;

Such wiring does not include wiring internal to appliances, luminaires (fixtures), motors, controllers, motor control centers, and similar equipment.

Click to expand...

The definition states that wiring internal to the switch is not under the jurisdiction of the NEC.
If the internal parts of a switch do not fall under the jurisdiction of the NEC then it can not be part of the premise wiring.
If the switch is a controller of the light could it not be an outlet as defined in ?Premises Wiring (System).??

Al have I gone off into a tangent?

Mike,

I don't think it is a tangent at all. I think that meaning is as clear as the Code rises to, most of the time.

Big oops ... need suggestions

Senior Member

Senior Member

Moderator

Moderator

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Moderator

Senior Member

Moderator

Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member