Big oops ... need suggestions

[marc deschenes]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

I defer to Charlie , does the use of the words "the system" in the definition of outlet provide for a more broad description of what "the system" is ?
Could it be that "the system"refered to is bigger more inclusive, than the premises wiring system??

 

[marc deschenes]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Al, I think what it is called is a connection not an outlet.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by LarryFine:
Let me ask: what utilization equipment takes power at the switch location?

The definition of Outlet only talks about current, not power.

Larry, forgive me for reposting this if you read it, but it is at the heart of my certainty:

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.

And I add, an Outlet occurs because the current taken at this point that connects to NOT premises wiring is the current supplying the utilization equipment.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by marc deschenes:
Al, I think what it is called is a connection not an outlet.

No, I think it is a "boundary".

 

[jwelectric]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Here is a picture os a switch. It shows two places for the conductors to connect. Are the parts inside this switch under the control the NEC.

 

[LarryFine]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by al hildenbrand:

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.

I definitely agree with you here, Al, that is the point of the discussion. The najority seems to feel that connecting to, or otherwise feeding, a load is a requirement.

To me, fed out to a switch, and then back in 'unmodified' isn't the same as fed out to a load, energy used, and returned to the neutral. Questions:

Is any place the wiring is accessible (a blanked-off junction box, e.g.) an outlet, or only where a device or "whip" is fed? What if a switch is removed (bypassed) because, say, a fixture with a remote has been installed?

What about a box where a receptacle has been removed and the wires joined to continue the circuit? How about a dedicated-circuit-fed receptacle or the last receptacle on a circuit that has been removed?

 

[LarryFine]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by jwelectric:
As an instructor I would not want to give the wrong information to a student about this matter. There have been some good points brought forth by both sides of this debate but at the same time questions has arisen about just where is the outlet in this motor installation.
When I gave my answer, some were quick to respond with the question posted.

A little deliberation on this question would help me out of a bind as I cannot give a definitive answer.

E-mails are still coming in asking for an answer which I do not have.
Please help.

JW, I think this thread and its subject (well, the "current" subject ) would be a great lesson. Sometimes, the philosophical discussions are more important than those about mere facts. That this subject has gone on so long points out that we don't always have a definitive answer, nor must we.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by Larry Fine:
To me, fed out to a switch, and then back in 'unmodified' isn't the same as fed out to a load, energy used, and returned to the neutral.

The definition of Outlet says nothing about the return of the current, unmodified or energy used.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Origninally posted by Larry Fine:
(well, the "current" subject

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by Larry Fine:
Questions: </font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. Is any place the wiring is accessible (a blanked-off junction box, e.g.) an outlet, or only where a device or "whip" is fed?</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. What if a switch is removed (bypassed) because, say, a fixture with a remote has been installed?</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. What about a box where a receptacle has been removed and the wires joined to continue the circuit?</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">4. How about a dedicated-circuit-fed receptacle or the last receptacle on a circuit that has been removed?</font>

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

</font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. No to the first half, and either end of the whip can be the outlet, depending upon who assembled the whip.</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. Then there is no longer an outlet occuring where the switch had been.</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. If there is no longer a receptacle there, it is no longer an outlet, only a j-box.</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">4. Same as #3.</font>

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

 

[LarryFine]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

So you agree, then, that it is the presence of the device (or fixture, disconnect, whip, etc.)that defines the outlet? To avoid wasted e-space, that's what I mean when I say that you're saying a switch is an outlet. The switch makes the box the outlet, right?

 

[LarryFine]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by al hildenbrand:
Wow! That was worthy of the FireSign Theater itself!!

Porgie Tirebiter, he's a spy and a girl delighter,
Porgie, firefighter; just a student like you...
"Like me?"
...just a student like you...
"Stop that singing and finish your homework!"
...just a student like youuuuuuuu!

It's amazing how far back one has to read to catch up on a thread this long!

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by al hildenbrand:

Originally posted by LarryFine:
Let me ask: what utilization equipment takes power at the switch location?

The definition of Outlet only talks about current, not power.

Larry, forgive me for reposting this if you read it, but it is at the heart of my certainty:

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.

And I add, an Outlet occurs because the current taken at this point that connects to NOT premises wiring is the current supplying the utilization equipment.

I didn't get quite far enough. . .

Consider: Single supply with a single utilization equipment connected with a complete circuit. There is only one "current" in the circuit: the current supplying the utilization equipment.

At every (and any) point along the complete circuit from supply to UE there is only one current present and that current is taken to supply the UE.

Now, let's add a layer of bureaucratic abstraction and say that one part of the circuit is under one set of rules, the middle is under another set of rules, and the end is under a third set of rules.

The "middle" is the Premises Wiring (System).

Now, in a single short definition, let's define both boundaries for the rules on either side of the middle part of the circuit.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by LarryFine:
So you agree, then, that it is the presence of the device (or fixture, disconnect, whip, etc.)that defines the outlet? To avoid wasted e-space, that's what I mean when I say that you're saying a switch is an outlet. The switch makes the box the outlet, right?

Great questions.

No.

And, No.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Psst!!

PSSSSST! Listen, don't tell any one!

Part of the definition of the boundary for the Rule for the middle section has to allow parts in the middle of the middle section to not be under the rules of the middle section.

 

[charlie b]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by jwelectric: The definition (of premises wiring system) states that wiring internal to the switch is not under the jurisdiction of the NEC.

No it doesn't, Mike. It states that the wiring internal to controllers is not part of the premises wiring system.

Switches are still under the jurisdiction of the NEC. There are UL considerations, wiring methods, bonding issues, separation of different voltages in a box containing two switches, and a host of other ways that the NEC has something to say about switches.

 

[charlie b]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by jwelectric: Here is a picture os a switch. It shows two places for the conductors to connect. Are the parts inside this switch under the control the NEC.

This is a followup to my post just above.

Yes. They have to be listed. How they get that way is up to the manufacturer, and the NEC does not tell them how to build the switch. But the switch itself is not beyond the jurisdiction of the NEC.

 

[charlie b]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by al hildenbrand:

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.

I see the same.

 

[sandsnow]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by charlie b:

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"?

Al,
I saw where you responded to this, and I think I got your point. It scared me.

Anyway, by logic or deduction or what have you, if you feel the switch in Charlie's example requires AFCI protection, then the switch must be a type of outlet, because only outlets require AFCI protection.

We should then be able to come up with a definition for the Code comparable to receptacle outlet.

Switch Outlet. An outlet where one or more switches are installed.

When will you be sending in your proposal?? Time is running out!!

edit smiley face

[ October 26, 2005, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: sandsnow ]

 

[charlie b]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Alright, I am claiming . . .