Big oops ... need suggestions

[charlie b]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

. . . . . Post #600!

 

[jwelectric]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

I am rolling on the floor with excitement

 

[marc deschenes]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by charlie b:
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.

600+ and right back at the begining

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Whoops! Just lost that one into cyberspace.

I'll do it again.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by marc deschenes:
600+ and right back at the beginning

Well, not really.

Charlie B.:

I have, from the outset, said that the wiring internal to the switch is not part of the wiring system.

I have not said that the switch is not part of the system (pardon the double negative). Just the wiring internal to the switch, when the switch is used as a controller.

You have been clear to state that there is no wiring inside a switch. . .just conductive material.

Well, for the life of me, I can't get my head around how a "conductive material" that is inside a device that IS part of the wiring system IS NOT wiring.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by charlie b:
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?

Given the second sentence of the definition of Premises Wiring (System), I understand exactly the opposite.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by al hildenbrand:
I can't get my head around how a "conductive material" that is inside a device that IS part of the wiring system IS NOT wiring.

Especially in light of 404.14 that gets after the rating, as well as use, of a snap switch.

These "conductive materials" are not insubstantial.

 

[charlie b]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by al hildenbrand: I can't get my head around how a "conductive material" that is inside a device that IS part of the wiring system IS NOT wiring.

I find that easy.</font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">(1) If the switch is part of the wiring system, you don't have to look inside to see how it is constructed.</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">(2) The definition of premises wiring system includes things that are certainly not "wiring." It includes hardware and fittings, neither of which is "wiring."</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">(3) The "conductive material" inside the "no-frills switch" does not look like wire, and it doesn't do a wire's job. I once said that I would lump Busway with "wiring," even though it doesn't look like wire, for lack of a better category. But it does do the same job as wire, and it is part of the premises wiring system.</font>

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

 

[charlie b]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by al hildenbrand: Especially in light of 404.14 that gets after the rating, as well as use, of a snap switch.

These "conductive materials" are not insubstantial.

The "conductive materials can be as substantial as you like, but they are not "wiring." Nothing in 404.14 changes that.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, floats like a duck and paddles like a duck, I say it's a duck.

 

[charlie b]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

If it doesn't look like a wire, and doesn't do a wire's job, and does do a job that wire cannot ever do (i.e., be the mechanism for turning something on and off), then I would not call it "wiring."

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

The term in the first sentence wiring is so all encompassing as to include the entire conductive path for the UE current from the Service Point to the Outlets, except for what is listed in the second sentence of the definition.

And it includes the structures that house and support the wiring.

Now isn't that a confusing sentence. . .did I mean occupancy, dwelling, or something else. . .

Charlie B., there is absolutely no way that you can demonstrate in language of the NEC that the "conductive materials" inside a switch are excluded from the description of "That internal and external wiring".

You can say it, sure. But there is no language that expresses the distinction between conductive material and wiring.

 

[charlie b]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by al hildenbrand:Charlie B., there is absolutely no way that you can demonstrate in language of the NEC that the "conductive materials" inside a switch are excluded from the description of "That internal and external wiring".

And there is absolutely no way that you can demonstrate in language of the NEC that the "conductive materials" inside a switch are included.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by charlie b:
I find that easy.</font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">(1) If the switch is part of the wiring system, you don't have to look inside to see how it is constructed.</font>

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

The same can be said for all manner of wiring assemblies like cable, cord, receptacles, switchgear, the metal inside insulation that is known as "wire", busway.

Originally posted by charlie b:
</font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">(2) The definition of premises wiring system includes things that are certainly not "wiring." It includes hardware and fittings, neither of which is "wiring."</font>

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

So. I know you are not taking a leap of illogic with this one.

Originally posted by charlie b:
</font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">(3) The "conductive material" inside the "no-frills switch" does not look like wire, and it doesn't do a wire's job.</font>

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

What does "wiring" always look like that you can draw this exclusion?

Originally posted by charlie b:
</font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I once said that I would lump Busway with "wiring," even though it doesn't look like wire, for lack of a better category. But it does do the same job as wire, and it is part of the premises wiring system.</font>

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

Wiring goes from one point to another point.

A switch has two points on it that are connected together by the "conductive materials" inside the switch. This is indistinguishable for the "behaviour" of wiring.

 

[charlie b]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by al hildenbrand:But there is no language that expresses the distinction between conductive material and wiring.

You and I are conductive materials. Does that make us "wiring"?

All wiring is "conductive material." Not all conductive materials are wiring. All cats are animals. Not all animals are cats (some are ducks).

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by charlie b:
there is absolutely no way that you can demonstrate in language of the NEC that the "conductive materials" inside a switch are included.

That proves my stance. If the NEC doesn't prohibit it, it is.

 

[charlie b]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by al hildenbrand: A switch has two points on it that are connected together by the "conductive materials" inside the switch. This is indistinguishable for the "behaviour" of wiring.

It is easily distinguishable. Upon movement of the switch handle, the conductive materials will either mate, and complete a connection with each other, or separate, and open the connection with each other. A wire never is used for such a purpose.

On the other hand, a wire can carry current hundreds of feet and more. There is no switch I have heard of that is big enough to do that.

The wire conducts current from one location to another, however far or near the two locations are to each other. Everything a switch does happens in one location (the point or the plane at which its contacts mate or separate), never two.

 

[charlie b]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by al hildenbrand: That proves my stance. If the NEC doesn't prohibit it, it is.

Come on, you can do better than that. This isn't about what is "prohibited," and what is not. It is about what is an "outlet," by the NEC's definition, and what is not.

 

[charlie b]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by al hildenbrand:

Originally posted by charlie b:
I find that easy.</font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">(1) If the switch is part of the wiring system, you don't have to look inside to see how it is constructed.</font>

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

The same can be said for all manner of wiring assemblies like cable, cord, receptacles, switchgear, the metal inside insulation that is known as "wire", busway.

And I would say the same for them. Each item on that list is part of the premises wiring system, and I don't have to tear them apart to see if anything inside them would change that fact. Besides, if I did tear some of them apart to look inside, I might void their UL listing.