Big oops ... need suggestions

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by marc deschenes:
"The system " is larger than premises wiring and,in my opinion , includes the conductors in the switch.
Click to expand...
So, I can have an Outlet somewhere on the PoCo side of the Service Point? Or I can have an Outlet inside, say, a television?
 
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by al hildenbrand:The language in the last sentence of the definition of Premises Wiring (System), IMO, says the wiring internal to the switch is not part of the premises wiring.
Click to expand...
I have been trying to get you to concede that point for the past several hundred posts.

Now I would like to settle the issue you have been trying to get the others to focus on. Let's start with a plain, simple, no-frills, no electronics, on/off toggle switch, one with internal metal parts, but no internal "wires," and have it control (note that I conceded your use of controller in this context long ago) a light outside the bedroom.

If you want to discuss the electronic dimmer, let's do that later.

The switch I described has no internal wiring. Therefore, it is not excluded by the definition of premises wiring (system). Therefore, it is part of that system. Therefore, current passing through it does not leave and return to the premises wiring system. Therefore, current is not taken from the premises wiring system by the switch (or anything near to the switch or concerning the switch in any way). Therefore, there is no outlet at or around that switch. Therefore, there is no requirement for protecting the branch circuit with an AFCI device.

It's time you conceded this. You have never given any valid argument or rational reasoning against it. The best you have ever offered is to try to qualify the internal metal parts of the switch (the one I describe above) as being included in the "wiring internal to controllers." That is nonsense. I think it is time you conceded that as well.
 
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by marc deschenes:
That happens at the connection to the U.E.
Click to expand...
I totally agree that it happens where the conductors of the premises wiring system connect to the conductors of the utilization equipment.

Totally agree.

But that is not the singular interpretation of "is taken to supply UE". This phrase does not give physical reference of the UE to the point.

Think, in your broad meaning for System (above), of a single Supply connected by two conductors to a single UE. There is only one current in the conductors, Supply and UE. That current is of the same magnitude and direction at any point in the circuit. That is the current taken by the UE. That is the current supplying the UE.

If I say the current crosses a boundary between on set of rules and another set of rules, what is the physical location on that system?

Well, Premises Wiring (System) says it is the wiring internal to a list of things. . .
 
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Good morning Charlie B.

That picture has gotten a rise out of you each time. ;)

You will dismiss a dimmer as UE because it is a "switch" which cannot utilize energy. . .yet you will not let it be a "switch" here. . .one that has physical conductors that are cylindrical, insulated and look suspiciously like "wire."

The list of items incorporated as adjectives of "wiring" in the first sentence of Premises Wiring (System) includes the two words "wiring devices".

It has been your contention that "wiring devices" is a two word term, even though it is not defined in the Code. Further, you have claimed that the singular meaning of "wiring devices" is incontrovertible.

Because "device" is defined in the NEC, I find there is clearly another take on the two words "wiring devices", and that is, that wiring is an adjective for the NEC defined term "device" that clearly groups device with the four items of wiring that are described as wiring, and that you have agreed are wiring.

While you point to definitions outside the body of the NEC?, I can not shake the importance of the definition of the term "device" given by the NEC?.

You can have your outside definitions, but I don't think they trump the use of the Article 100 Definition of Device in the definition of Premises Wiring (System).
 
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by al hildenbrand: You will dismiss a dimmer as UE because it is a "switch" which cannot utilize energy. . . .
Click to expand...
You misunderstand me. I just want to address that separately. I have my comment on the electronic dimmer ready to type up, when the time comes. But that time won't come, until you answer my last "challenge." Please stick with the no-frills switch, and comment on the logical argument that I just presented.
 
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by al hildenbrand:
Good morning Charlie B.

That picture has gotten a rise out of you each time. ;)

You will dismiss a dimmer as UE because it is a "switch" which cannot utilize energy. . .yet you will not let it be a "switch" here. . .one that has physical conductors that are cylindrical, insulated and look suspiciously like "wire."

The list of items incorporated as adjectives of "wiring" in the first sentence of Premises Wiring (System) includes the two words "wiring devices".

It has been your contention that "wiring devices" is a two word term, even though it is not defined in the Code. Further, you have claimed that the singular meaning of "wiring devices" is incontrovertible.

Because "device" is defined in the NEC, I find there is clearly another take on the two words "wiring devices", and that is, that wiring is an adjective for the NEC defined term "device" that clearly groups device with the four items of wiring that are described as wiring, and that you have agreed are wiring.

While you point to definitions outside the body of the NEC?, I can not shake the importance of the definition of the term "device" given by the NEC?.

You can have your outside definitions, but I don't think they trump the use of the Article 100 Definition of Device in the definition of Premises Wiring (System).
Click to expand...
 
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Charlie B.:

Lest we get off into discussion of sentence structure, I read "device" as one of three objects in a compound prepositional phrase used as an adjective to "wiring".
 
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

In the definition for Switch General Use snap, it says that they can be used in cojunction ((something that joins or connects)
with wiring systems recognized by this code.
 
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by al hildenbrand:
But that is not the singular interpretation of "is taken to supply UE". This phrase does not give physical reference of the UE to the point.
Click to expand...
That's understandable, because as with so much in our work, the physical location can be different for every installation. How on earth could the code specify a location?

To me, "the point where current is taken" does specify a location, electrically speaking, which is as close as an all-encompassing code could be to specifying a location.
Think, in your broad meaning for System (above), of a single Supply connected by two conductors to a single UE. There is only one current in the conductors, Supply and UE. That current is of the same magnitude and direction at any point in the circuit. That is the current taken by the UE. That is the current supplying the UE.
Click to expand...
When you say "That is the current taken by the UE." we apparently feel that this is where (on the system) "current is taken" from the wiring system to the load, and not every place along the way that current "leaves" the system, passes through a device, and then "returns" to the system.

Yes, the load current passes through the switch. To you, this is current "being taken", while to us, it is not. To us, "taking current" occurs at only one place (electrically speaking), not at every access point, even if we agree that the switch is external to the wiring system.

Switching devices switch current, but don't "take" it; that's what electrical loads do. The physical location is not relevant; the electrical position is. That's why a switch at the end of a circuit that controls a load upstream from it (the typical 2-wire switch loop) works just as if the load were at the end.
 
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by marc deschenes:
In the definition for Switch General Use snap, it says that they can be used in cojunction ((something that joins or connects)
with wiring systems recognized by this code.
Click to expand...
That's an interesting choice of words. Conjuction with wiring systems recognized by this Code.
 
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Larry,

I get that. I understand that perspective.

That is what makes (among others) the connection point of the two prongs of a cord to, say a clock/radio, to the contacts in a receptacle an Outlet, as defined by Article 100 Definition "Outlet".

My point is the perspective you have so eloquently articulated is not the singular interpretation.
 
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by al hildenbrand: Because "device" is defined in the NEC, I find there is clearly another take on the two words "wiring devices", and that is, that wiring is an adjective for the NEC defined term "device" that clearly groups device with the four items of wiring that are described as wiring, and that you have agreed are wiring.
Click to expand...
Sorry, Al, but I flat out do not understand what you are trying to say in the bold portion above.

The definition of premises wiring system has two sentences. I think you are talking about "Sentence One" here. Is that right?

That sentence is about what is part of the system. We have disagreed about the meaning of "wiring devices." But whatever those two words mean, they describe something that is in the system. What I do not understand about the bold section above is what you are trying to say about what is, or is not, in the system. Specifically, I don't understand your phrase,
four items of wiring that are described as wiring
Click to expand...
Could you tell me what you meant?

In the mean time, "Sentence Two" is about what is not part of the system. I have twice invited you to comment on my reasoning on how that sentence relates to the no-frills (and no wires) toggle switch. I'll extend the invitation again. Please comment on this:
Originally posted by charlie b:The (no-frills, on/off toggle) switch I described has no internal wiring. Therefore, it is not excluded by the definition of premises wiring (system). Therefore, it is part of that system. Therefore, current passing through it does not leave and return to the premises wiring system. Therefore, current is not taken from the premises wiring system by the switch (or anything near to the switch or concerning the switch in any way). Therefore, there is no outlet at or around that switch. Therefore, there is no requirement for protecting the branch circuit with an AFCI device.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by charlie b:
Originally posted by al hildenbrand:
four items of wiring that are described as wiring
Click to expand...
Could you tell me what you meant?
Click to expand...
</font>
  • <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">power</font>
  • <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">lighting</font>
  • <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">control</font>
  • <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">signal circuit</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
 
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

What about an illuminated switch.These both direct current to an actual point of utilization and utilize current at the switch.Switch off light in switch on,switch off light in switch on.Switch on ,switch off ,switch on ,switch off.
Sounds like a part of karate Kid Electrician III.....Switch on switch off.......... :roll: Where is MR. Miagi when you really need him?
 
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by Charlie B.:
I have twice invited you to comment on my reasoning on how that sentence relates to the no-frills (and no wires) toggle switch. I'll extend the invitation again.
Click to expand...
Well, that depends on whether the conductors internal to a switch are part of the wiring system as wiring or whether they are something else, something that is not wiring.

To comment further is getting the cart before the horse, no?

Let's keep working on the first sentence of the Article 100 Definition of Premises Wiring (System).
 
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Allen,

I like the fact that you are introducing the thought of DC, here. The Article 100 Definition of Outlet covers DC also.

As for the light in the switch. . .why you're just a troublemaker,. . .aren't you? :)
 
Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by al hildenbrand: To comment further is getting the cart before the horse, no?
Click to expand...
No. To pin this down is "game over, better luck next year" for your point of view.
Originally posted by al hildenbrand: Well, that depends on whether the conductors internal to a switch are part of the wiring system as wiring or whether they are something else, something that is not wiring.
Click to expand...
They conductive materials within the "no-frills, on/off toggle switch" of which I am speaking are not "conductors," by anyone's definition of that term. They are not "wiring." They are something else, and that something else does not have a name assigned by the NEC. Specifically, the conductive materials are not addressed in "Sentence Two."

And if you expect to support your case with the fact that the NEC does not define "conductors," (it does define three related phrases, but not that one word), then you might as well expect the NEC to define volt, amp, and watt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top