Big oops ... need suggestions

[jwelectric]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Using the picture below of a switch I see where the incoming electricity (current in) attaches to the switch and I see where the conductor connects going (current out) to the light.

Now the part in between is not a wire although it is a conductor of current. It is internal to the device. The parts internal the switch does not fall under the jurisdiction of the NEC so therefore can not be part of the premise wiring. In other words the current leaves the premise wiring upon entering the controller (switch).
The switch controls the light i.e. on or off therefore the general use snap switch is a controller as defined in the last sentence of Premises Wiring (System).

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

 

[charlie b]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by al hildenbrand: Let's keep working on the first sentence of the Article 100 Definition of Premises Wiring (System).

If you wish.

Let me point out that it is not a sentence, as it has neither subject nor verb. It can be understood as if it were a sentence by assigning "Premises Wiring (System)" as the noun, and by assigning the unwritten (or "understood," as an English teacher would say) word "is" to be the verb.

First set aside all the ancillary phrases that modify the fundamental parts of the sentence, and bring them back in their proper place. It becomes clear that the object of the sentence is "wiring." So we are left with,

"Premises Wiring (System)" is wiring.

Now bring back the other phrases. The object "wiring" is modified four times, with four prepositional phrases:</font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">". . . including power, lighting, control, and signal circuit wiring,"</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">". . . together with all their associated hardware, fittings, and wiring devices,"</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">". . . both permanently and temporarily installed," and</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">". . . that extends from . . . to . . . ."</font>

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So with all the other words brought back in their proper context, we now have,

"Premises Wiring (System)" is wiring and some other stuff.

Whatever is meant by the two words "wiring devices," that stuff is part of the premises wiring system.

Of the two words "wiring" and "devices," the noun is "devices," and "wiring" is an adjective that modifies that noun. At your suggestion, I looked up the word "device" in the NEC article 100. From that definition, it is clear to me that a "switch" is a "device."

That tells me that a switch is included among the things that are part of the premises wiring system.

 

[marc deschenes]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

con?junc?tion P Pronunciation Key (kn-jngkshn)
n.
The act of joining.
The state of being joined.
A joint or simultaneous occurrence; concurrence:

A general use snap switch is used in conjunction (The state of being joined ) with a wiring system recognized by the N.E.C.
Does the state of being joined consitute a point on the system where current is taken to supply U.E.
No

Not all connections are outlets and the one in and around the the general use snap switch in this example is not an outlet.
It is a device in the state of being joined with a recognized wiring system. Much like Roger's wire nut.
Is it a controller ?
yes.

It is a device used to control the flow of current to the outlet ,in this case outside of the bedroom.

 

[charlie b]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by jwelectric: Most filaments are a slightly coil of wire and they do cause an arc when the switch is opened.

The voltage created across the switch at the moment of its opening, created by virtue of an attempt to rapidly change the current in a coil, is equal to the inductance of the coil times the rate of change in current. Yes, the filament is built in the shape of a coil. But its inductance is so very, very slight that the voltage is negligible. In order to draw an arc across free air space, you need far more voltage than can be created by the coil-shaped filament of a light bulb.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by Charlie B.:
Let me point out that it is not a sentence, as it has neither subject nor verb.

Do not we understand a definition, as written in the language of Article 100, with an implied passive verb "(is)" between "Premises Wiring (System)." and "That. . ."?

 

[charlie b]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by jwelectric: Now the part in between is not a wire although it is a conductor of current.

The second sentence of the definition excludes certain wiring from being part of the system. The switch has no wiring. Therefore, the switch is not among the things being excluded.

Once the truth of this statement is grasped, the rest of your argument falls apart.

 

[charlie b]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by al hildenbrand: Do not we understand a definition, as written in the language of Article 100, with an implied passive verb "(is)" between "Premises Wiring (System)." and "That. . ."?

Did you not see that I said exactly the same thing?

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Pardon me Charlie,

I just read the next sentence.

I'll go read some more.

I'll be back!

 

[charlie b]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

I'll be heading to lunch now.

On that topic, I think most of you must be on the East Coast. It's not fair to those of us out West. I go home at night, and the next morning there are 50 more posts on this thread. I think I'll ask Mike Holt to put a moratorium on posting anything before 7:00 am Pacific Time.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by charlie b:
I'll be heading to lunch now.

On that topic, I think most of you must be on the East Coast. It's not fair to those of us out West. I go home at night, and the next morning there are 50 more posts on this thread. I think I'll ask Mike Holt to put a moratorium on posting anything before 7:00 am Pacific Time.

But Charlie he is on the east cost also

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by Charlie B.:
First set aside all the ancillary phrases that modify the fundamental parts of the sentence, and bring them back in their proper place.

OK.

After crawling around in the first (implied) sentence of the Article 100 Definition of Premises Wiring (System) I read "that wiring" </font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">modified by a compound adjective - "interior and exterior"</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">modified by two prepositional phrases - "including. . ." and "together with. . ."</font>

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">"Premises Wiring (System) (is) That wiring. . .together with. . .wiring devices."

Devices are differentiated from "stuff" (which I will take you to mean "equipment") by the Article 100 Definition of Device. It is intended to carry or control electrical energy.

I understand that you agree there are conductors inside the device.

I understand that you agree that a switch is part of the Premises Wiring (System).

I understand that you find busway, a manufactured equipment assembly that includes conductors, associated hardware and fittings, to be wiring.

What can you show me in the language of the NEC that says that the conductors in a switch, a switch which is part of the wiring system, are not wiring?

 

[charlie b]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by al hildenbrand: I understand that you agree that a switch is part of the Premises Wiring (System).

Are you agreeing with this? You haven't been before. This one thing is all the proof I need, so you might want to clarify your opinion about that statement.

 

[charlie b]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by al hildenbrand: Devices are differentiated from "stuff" (which I will take you to mean "equipment") by the Article 100 Definition of Device.

By "stuff," I explicitly meant the "associated hardware, fittings, and wiring devices." I used the word "stuff" just to keep the sentence short, so that the principal words in the sentence can be more easily seen in their proper context.

Originally posted by al hildenbrand: I understand that you agree there are conductors inside the device.

No. I do not agree with this. There are conductive materials within my "no-frills, on/off toggle switch," but they are not "conductors." They are not "wiring." And they are not among the things being excluded in "Sentence Two."

Originally posted by al hildenbrand: What can you show me in the language of the NEC that says that the conductors in a switch, a switch which is part of the wiring system, are not wiring?

So show me a switch that has conductors (no wait, you have already done that), and I will call those conductors "conductors." As to whether I will call them "wiring," in the sense used in "Sentence Two," I have already promised to address that, once we finish the "no-frills switch" debate.

{Edited to insert a missing word.}

[ October 27, 2005, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: charlie b ]

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by charlie b:

Originally posted by jwelectric: Most filaments are a slightly coil of wire and they do cause an arc when the switch is opened.

The voltage created across the switch at the moment of its opening, created by virtue of an attempt to rapidly change the current in a coil, is equal to the inductance of the coil times the rate of change in current. Yes, the filament is built in the shape of a coil. But its inductance is so very, very slight that the voltage is negligible. In order to draw an arc across free air space, you need far more voltage than can be created by the coil-shaped filament of a light bulb.

I don't think Mike is saying that the inductive properties of the filament wire coil specifically causes arcing. . .just that a switch's making and breaking of the current taken to supply the lamp ( slick how I worked that in, eh? ) results in arcing at the contacts of the switch.

Contact bounce, contaminants, surface irregularity, circuit characteristics all contribute to the phenomena that transpire at the connection between the two contacts. It's just not purely resistive.

Happens all the time.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by charlie b:

Originally posted by al hildenbrand: I understand that you agree that a switch is part of the Premises Wiring (System).

Are you agreeing with this? You haven't been before. This one thing is all the proof I need, so you might want to clarify your opinion about that statement.

I do not find ambiguity in my agreeing with you that switches are part of the wiring system.

I do find it fascinating the you equivocate by calling the current path through a switch to be through some mysterious conductive materials, but these materials are not conductors, let along part of the "wiring" of the Premises Wiring (System).

No, wait. A switch is part of the wiring system. A switch includes the internal parts of the switch. That means the internal parts, the mysterious conductive parts, are part of the wiring system.

Yup.

No, wait. I lost your logic again.

 

[charlie b]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by al hildenbrand: I do not find ambiguity in my agreeing with you that switches are part of the wiring system.

I hope you won't make me go back through this thread and find all the time you said it wasn't. You have said that when current passes through a switch, it leaves the premises wiring system, then returns to it, and leaves it again when it gets to the luminaire. You have said that current is taken from the premises wiring system somewhere along the process of current passing through the switch.

But if a switch is part of the premises wiring system, as I have always said, then as current passes through the switch it never leaves (i.e., is never taken from) the premises wiring system. That means that there is no outlet. You have to have current taken from the premises wiring system for there to be an outlet.

No outlet, no AFCI.

 

[charlie b]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by charlie b: I hope you won't make me go back through this thread and find all the times you said it wasn't.

Here's one. Oct 26, 4:32 pm

Originally posted by al hildenbrand: The point, the location, of the outlet occurring is that point where the wiring internal to the switch becomes external to the switch. . . 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).

Here's another: Oct 26, 11:09 am

Originally posted by al hildenbrand: The current taken from the wiring system into the wiring internal to the controller and or motor, being the current supplying the motor, is exactly the Article 100 Definition of Outlet.

Here's Mike agreeing with you, Oct 26, 4:55 PM. Six minutes later, you confirmed your agreement with Mike:

Originally posted by jwelectric: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.

And the real kicker, Same day, 4:58 pm:

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.

Do you understand that if the switch is part of the premises wiring system, then there is no outlet there, and no requirement for AFCI?

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by charlie b:

Originally posted by al hildenbrand:
I understand that you agree that a switch is part of the Premises Wiring (System).

Are you agreeing with this? You haven't been before.

Charlie B.,

I'm not sure how you missed that. I have never meant to give the impression that a switch is not part of the Premises Wiring (System) as defined in the opening line of its definition. I thought I consistently said that a switch is part. . .just that the second sentence excludes the wiring internal. . .

 

[charlie b]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Article 100:

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

If the switch is part of the wiring system, then current is not taken from the system at that point.

 

[charlie b]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Now I'm claiming . . . . .