Big oops ... need suggestions

charlie b · Oct 26, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

. . . post #500!

LarryFine · Oct 26, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by al hildenbrand:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Originally posted by al hildenbrand:

Originally posted by Larry Fine:
Questions: 

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?

2. What if a switch is removed (bypassed) because, say, a fixture with a remote has been installed?

3. What about a box where a receptacle has been removed and the wires joined to continue the circuit?

4. How about a dedicated-circuit-fed receptacle or the last receptacle on a circuit that has been removed?



Click to expand...



1. No to the first half, and either end of the whip can be the outlet, depending upon who assembled the whip.

2. Then there is no longer an outlet occuring where the switch had been.

3. If there is no longer a receptacle there, it is no longer an outlet, only a j-box.

4. Same as #3.

Originally posted by al hildenbrand:

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?

Click to expand...

Great questions.

No.

And, No.

Originally posted by al hildenbrand:
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.

I'm having trouble following the logic. You seem to be contradicting yourself. No wonder I'm confused! :roll:

roger · Oct 26, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Here's a picture of Wing-Nut? :roll:

Roger

al hildenbrand · Oct 26, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by Sandsnow:
When will you be sending in your proposal?? Time is running out!!

Well, that is after the fact. I'm not laying out new Code, nor a proposal for the same.

This point of mine comes from existing language in force in most of the country as Law.

The only place that this matters is in applying 210.12 to govern new installs.

But, were it not for that, there would be no ramifications, and this whole discussion could be dismissed as without application to the real world. . .but, here we are, with 210.12.

210.12 requires that the question be answered, in my opinion.

al hildenbrand · Oct 26, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by Larry Fine:
I'm having trouble following the logic. You seem to be contradicting yourself. No wonder I'm confused!

It took me a while to get to this, too.

I assure you, it is consistent.

al hildenbrand · Oct 26, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Roger,

Charlie B. & I are talking about a switch in a bedroom controlling a luminaire outside the bedroom.

Where is the wirenut used as a controller in a bedroom?

sandsnow · Oct 26, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by al hildenbrand:

210.12 requires that the question be answered, in my opinion.

If you want THE answer from the only people who matter, then send in a proposal. It will be answered by being accepted or rejected with accompanying explanation.

al hildenbrand · Oct 26, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by charlie b:
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.

The manufacturer's internal workings of their electrical product are regulated by NRTLs and the published listing regulations, no?

al hildenbrand · Oct 26, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by sandsnow:
If you want THE answer from the only people who matter, then send in a proposal. It will be answered by being accepted or rejected with accompanying explanation.

A proposal to what effect? As I read the NEC, the Code already exists.

roger · Oct 26, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Al, the wing nut can control the conductor continuity (of a circuit not serving the bedroom) to a luminaire outside the bedroom as well as a snap switch can.

The bottom line is, if the circuit does not serve the bedroom the method of joining a broken conductor together to complete a circuit does not need to be AFCI protected even if the joining of the conductor takes place with in the walls of the bedroom.

Now, continue your discussion, debate, argument, or what ever it is.

Roger

al hildenbrand · Oct 26, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by roger:
as well as a snap switch can.

Continuity, yes.

Dwelling occupant safety?

roger · Oct 26, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by al hildenbrand:

Originally posted by roger:
as well as a snap switch can.

Click to expand...

Continuity, yes.

Dwelling occupant safety?

Yep, it is as safe as all other wiring within the bedroom walls that is not serving the bedroom.

If it would make you (or anyone) feel better, put an explosion proof cover on this switch, or install it in an explosion proof assembly. :roll:

Remember, the circuit does not supply the bedroom so AFCI protection is simply not needed.

Roger

jwelectric · Oct 26, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

I see that it made it to over 500.

allenwayne · Oct 26, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Hey Al what if we smart wire just the bedrooms and they are controlled from the utility room and all power originates from that system,we still have to add afci protection for these areas and the switches either smart or snap wouldn`t they at that point be the point of utilization.
Yes they are part of the wiring system but without them we have a non operating circuit.Lets chew on that for a moment......So at that point the switch that has gone through countless statements that it is not a valid point of utilization ,isn`t it in this case a part of the circuit that does in fact utilize power that is supplied from other than a bedroom.
After 500 posts Al there is only so much straw left we can grab at.Keep the faith keep the faith !!!!!!!!Or maybe I have my head up and ocked and I am just trying to keep this thread alive for the unpresidented 1000 post award.
Come on Jeff you still have a chance 1000,1000,1000 now click your boots together and say there is no place like mikes.There`s no place like Mikes

allenwayne · Oct 26, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Oh forget it..... :roll:

LarryFine · Oct 26, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by jwelectric:
I see that it made it to over 500.

electric_instructor · Oct 27, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

OK! _lets see what this does?

An AFCI device (breaker) requires a neutral connection, - correct?

That hasn't been mentioned.

By my understanding of the code, all branch circuits supplying OUTLETS in a (dwelling unit) bedroom, require AFCI protection.

A switch doesn't UTILIZE a neutral. Possably a requirement for a power outlet?

Does this include the neutral, and if so, does this neutral pass through the swithbox, on it's way to the luminaire?

If so, could an arc take place at the switch? Therefore, creating a need for the AFCI protection?

electric_instructor · Oct 27, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Lets not forget that the SYSTEM in question, is not a series system. it is parallel, and utilizes BOTH sides.
that would seem to simplify the definition of an OUTLET.

BUT, what if BOTH sides of a circuit are included in close proximity?

I think that this requires a close look at the INTENT of the CODE?

marc deschenes · Oct 27, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

You can run a 14/2 to a duplex receptacle and have a branch circuit .
Why ?
Because a receptacle outlet is defined.

Remove the receptacle replace it with a switch.
What do you have?

I'm not sure but I know it is not a circuit.
Why?
Because there is not such thing as a switch outlet.

Can you have an outlet without a circuit?

Not in my opinion.

electric_instructor · Oct 27, 2005

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

define circuit? Even Branch Circuit?

Big oops ... need suggestions

Moderator

Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA

Moderator

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Moderator

Senior Member

Moderator

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member