Big oops ... need suggestions

[charlie b]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

The definition says "that . . . wiring . . . together with all their associated hardware. . . "

The hardware is associated with the wiring. The hardware itself is not wiring.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by Charlie B.:
It is the "premises wiring system" that includes both "that . . . wiring" AND the screws and plastic conduit.

No, Charlie, AND, in any type font, is not used.

Break down the sentence. Wiring devices is one of three objects of a prepositional phrase acting as an adjective to "That. . .wiring".

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by Charlie B.:
The "such wiring" refers back to the wires, just the wires.

This is the false dichotomy.

Edit spelling - Al

[ October 28, 2005, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: al hildenbrand ]

 

[charlie b]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by al hildenbrand: No, Charlie, AND, in any type font, is not used.

It says "together with." That still says that the screws and plastic conduit are "together with" the wiring, and it does not say that they are the wiring.

Originally posted by al hildenbrand: Break down the sentence. Wiring devices is one of three objects of a prepositional phrase acting as an adjective to "That. . .wiring".

Break down the sentence yourself. The two words "together with" are the conjunction between "that wiring" and the entire set of three objects.
</font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wiring together with hardware.</font>

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The hardware is not being called "wiring."
</font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wiring together with fittings.</font>

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The fittings are not being called "wiring."
</font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wiring together with wiring devices.</font>

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The wiring devices are not being called "wiring."

{Edited in an attempt to increase clarity.}

[ October 28, 2005, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: charlie b ]

 

[charlie b]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by al hildenbrand:

Originally posted by Charlie B.:
The "such wiring" refers back to the wires, just the wires.

This is the false dichotomy.

It's not a dichotomy, and it's not false.

 

[charlie b]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

I'm going away until Monday morning. May I ask that the membership try to keep the new posts down to 100 or fewer, while I'm taking a break from this debate.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Have a good weekend, Charlie.

 

[allenwayne]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Wow an entire page between two posters.Ok which one will get all the way to 1000 ? Charlie has already claimed 2 important number slots Jeff get back here and be #1000.Just like an electrician start trouble and sit and giggle on the sidelines as others hash it out.

 

[LarryFine]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by jwelectric:
Based o the above questions the inside of the switch is not part of the premise wiring and this is where the current leaves the premise wiring and enters the switch to return to the premise wiring. I understand where Al is coming from, I think.

Oh, I understood Al's point from the beginning - I just disagree with it.

 

[marc deschenes]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

[QB]

Originally posted by jwelectric:
[qb]Based o the above questions the inside of the switch is not part of the premise wiring and this is where the current leaves the premise wiring and enters the switch to return to the premise wirining."

If that were the definition of outlet Al would have a much stronger argument.

The general-use snap switch. A form of general-use switch so constructed that it can be installed in flush device boxes or on outlet box covers, or otherwise used in conjunction with wiring systems recognized by the NEC.

The system in which ,the switch is being used ,is recognized and conjunction means the act of being joined or the condition of being joined.
This act of being joined does not require an outlet it requires a connection.

Not all connections have outlets present

If the switch had a pilot light I would say it would require AFCI protection , because the connection to the light is an outlet.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

The basis that this debate has turned into is just what the definition of premise wiring and outlet covers. Some are trying to inject other definitions into the debate and turn it around. What Charlie B and Al have been debating is the definition of premise wiring and outlet. I will debate these points only.

Where the fault in the code lies is in the definition of ?Premises Wiring (System).?
I am posting this definition and leaving out the unnecessary words.

Premises Wiring (System). That interior and exterior wiring, ? installed, that extends from the .. source of power, .., to the outlet(s).
Such wiring does not include wiring internal to appliances, luminaires (fixtures), motors, controllers, motor control centers, and similar equipment.

The definition states that the premise wiring is the wiring form the power source to the outlets. I don?t think this is being disputed.
The disagreement comes from the second sentence where it is stated that the wiring internal a controller is not included.

If we were talking about a controller for a piece of machinery, lets say an old ice cube relay controller, and then we wouldn?t be having this debate. But because we are talking about a simple switch things are ?supposed? to change. I don?t think so.

The second sentence clearly states that the wiring that is inside of the switch (controller) is not included in the definition of premise wiring. Being that there is current on the conductor that attaches to the terminal of the switch (controller) and enters the internal parts of the switch (controller) then this current has left the premise wiring and entered into the switch (controller).

Controller. A device or group of devices that serves to govern, in some predetermined manner, the electric power delivered to the apparatus to which it is connected.

As defined by outlet

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

the second that the current leaves the premise wiring and enters the switch it has been taken. It then leaves the switch and continues on to supply the equipment that it is controlling.

The fact that the switch is a controller of, in this case an outside light, and the internal parts are not part of the premise wiring it must be labeled an outlet. These are the words as printed in these two definitions.

 

[LarryFine]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by jwelectric:
the second that the current leaves the premise wiring and enters the switch it has been taken.

I disagree. The current hasn't been "taken", but more like "borrowed", because it's then returned. "Take: To obtain from a source; derive or draw." I don't see "return" included in this definition.

I'll even concede that the load's current leaves the "premises wiring system" where it connects to the switch. But I disagree that every point on a circuit where the current leaves the wiring system is an outlet.

To me, "taking of current" is not what occurs at a switch. Yes, it leaves the wiring system, but what occurs at a switch and what occurs where a load is fed is not the same thing; switches control, loads consume.

I think the NEC would have been worded differently had it (or 'they') intended that every device location were considered an outlet. It would have been easier to word the definition to be all-inclusive.

Another thought: since all the current that leaves the wiring system and passes through a switch then re-enters the wiring system, then it's equally an inlet. It seems that "inlet" and "outlet" negate each other.

At a switch, just as much current is "given" as "taken", so the net current consumption is zero. My point is that a switch is a passivedevice, and not a consuming device. Al obviously feels that's not relevant.

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

"Taken to supply utilization equipment" is not the same as "taken to control utilization equipment." So, even if we agree that switches "take" current, they control, they don't supply. That's what outlets do.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by Larry Fine
I disagree. The current hasn't been "taken", but more like "borrowed", because it's then returned. "Take: To obtain from a source; derive or draw." I don't see "return" included in this definition.

If I borrow a dollar from you I have not borrowed it until I take it from you. The second I take it then the contract is set.
Every appliance that uses power returns the current to the source, so to say the switch gives the current back is saying that the switch does the same as every piece of equipment.

Originally posted by Larry Fine
I'll even concede that the load's current leaves the "premises wiring system" where it connects to the switch. But I disagree that every point on a circuit where the current leaves the wiring system is an outlet.

By definition an outlet is;
Outlet. A point on the wiring system at which current is taken to supply utilization equipment.

Where the debate revolves is the question of supply to the equipment. Here is where the second sentence of premises wiring comes into play.
Such wiring does not include wiring internal to controllers,
The internal parts of the switch (controller) are not part of the premises wiring. The current left the premises wiring when it entered the switch (controller) therefore constituting an outlet.

Originally posted by Larry Fine
To me, "taking of current" is not what occurs at a switch. Yes, it leaves the wiring system, but what occurs at a switch and what occurs where a load is fed is not the same thing; switches control, loads consume.

It is the fact that the switch is a controller and has wiring internal that is the debate that the controller (switch) is an outlet.

Originally posted by Larry Fine
Another thought: since all the current that leaves the wiring system and passes through a switch then re-enters the wiring system, then it's equally an inlet. It seems that "inlet" and "outlet" negate each other.

Then this would negate every load (outlet) due that current is always returned to the source after passing through the load. To use a receptacle outlet, current passes through the phase conductor through the load and back through the neutral.

Originally posted by Larry Fine
At a switch, just as much current is "given" as "taken", so the net current consumption is zero. My point is that a switch is a passivedevice, and not a consuming device. Al obviously feels that's not relevant.

I don?t know of any load that consumes current (amperage). The load consumes wattage and wattage is not what is in question. The taking of current to supply is the question.

Originally posted by Larry Fine
"Taken to supply utilization equipment" is not the same as "taken to control utilization equipment." So, even if we agree that switches "take" current, they control, they don't supply. That's what outlets do.

Again the purpose of the debate. The controller (switch) is where the current is taken from the premise wiring to control the light. The fact that the current is taken for control then the controller is what is suppling the appliance.

 

[marc deschenes]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

How exactly does the switch take the current?? and why can't it do it without an outlet?

 

[jwelectric]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by marc deschenes:
How exactly does the switch take the current?? and why can't it do it without an outlet?

The second that the current enters the switch it leaves the conductor supplying the switch.
The definition of premises wiring states that the wiring internal of a controller is not part of the premise wiring. The switch is the controller of the light.
An outlet is any point where current is taken. The switch takes the current from the circuit. See how easy that is?

 

[marc deschenes]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Why does it require an outlet to do so

 

[marc deschenes]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

How many systems does the NEC recognize??

 

[LarryFine]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by jwelectric:
The second that the current enters the switch it leaves the conductor supplying the switch.

Okay, but at the same instant, it also gives the current back into the wiring system. Why isn't it also an inlet?

An outlet is any point where current is taken. The switch takes the current from the circuit.

I still say it doesn't do that, it merely connects or interrupts the current in the system; i.e., it switches.


In addition, an outlet is an outlet, regardless of the state of the load, whereas, according to the switch-is-an-outlet-proponents' own definition, the load current's passing through the switch is a prerequisite to its definition.

Therefore, a switch only requires its enclosure to be called an outlet while the load current is flowing. Open the switch and it's no longer an outlet. What is it then? Personally, I find this concept tough to accept.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by marc deschenes:
Why does it require an outlet to do so

I am not sure I understand the question. What do you think constitutes an outlet?

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

When the current leaves the premise wiring and enters the internal wiring of the controller (switch) the outlet takes place.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by Larry Fine
Okay, but at the same instant, it also gives the current back into the wiring system. Why isn't it also an inlet?

Does not the load do the same thing? Will there not be the same current coming out of a light that enters it?

Originally posted by Larry Fine
In addition, an outlet is an outlet, regardless of the state of the load, whereas, according to the switch-is-an-outlet-proponents' own definition, the load current's passing through the switch is a prerequisite to its definition.

Therefore, a switch only requires its enclosure to be called an outlet while the load current is flowing. Open the switch and it's no longer an outlet. What is it then? Personally, I find this concept tough to accept.

Why would a switch not be an outlet regardless of the load?
You ask, Open the switch and it's no longer an outlet. What is it then?
The best way I know to answer this is to ask what the light is when current is no longer flowing. Is it still an outlet? Using your example the light would no longer be an outlet not the receptacle unless current was flowing.