Big oops ... need suggestions

[George Stolz]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by electricmanscott:

Originally posted by jimwalker:
Can you live with yourself if you kill some little kid with your uninspected work ?

Wow. Could you over dramatize this just a little more? :roll:

I could try:
This could be you!!!

 

[jeff43222]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by LarryFine:

I do have a couple of alternate suggestion for Jeff:


1) Find the load end of the 3-wire circuit, where the neutral splits, and place a 2-circuit sub-panel there. If you're lucky, this might be in a wall that one side isn't exposed to view.

The 3-wire cable is now a feeder, and the circuit officially originates at this new panel, where one or two (if you are likely to add another fan or something on the other circuit) AFCI breakers can be located.

If the load end of the 3-wire cable is in a receptacle (too low on the wall), you can extend it up by splicing within the box. Replace it with a deep old-work box if you need to, or blank off this box and replace the receptacle with a second box.

Unfortunately, I have no idea where the neutral splits. Between the two circuits, there are a lot of outlets, both receptacles and lights. It's entirely possible the split is in a j-box in the attic somewhere, and at least half of the attic is buried under several feet of blown-in fiberglass.

I'm also not crazy about the idea of putting in a subpanel in the attic, mainly because it's not very convenient for the occupants if they need to reset a breaker. The whole rest of the house is finished, and there really isn't a suitable place to install a panel in the bedrooms. And the bathrooms are obviously out.


2) This may be the simplest solution of all: try to find another circuit in the attic (maybe an exhaust fan or such), one that is not fed via a 3-wire citcuit, and place that circuit on the required AFCI breaker.

You can still use the same 3-wire between the original switch box and the new fan box. Feed the power to the fan box, feed the switch/dimmer combo with the white, and return on the black and red.

The original wires to the switch can be capped off in the switch box, or even in the box the split-switched receptacle is in to make more room in the switch box, because you can clip the wires where they enter the switch box.

(in this case, clip them at then receptacle, too, so nobody can unwittingly reenergize them in the future)

I thought of this idea, too, but when I looked in the panel I discovered that just about every circuit in the house is on a multiwire circuit. The few that weren't were illegal to tap into (e.g., laundry) and/or nowhere near the bedrooms.

I think Al's solution will work best, provided I can find a suitable two-pole breaker.

 

[jeff43222]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by electricmanscott:

Originally posted by ronaldrc:
I would do like Peter suggested see how much load the red and black multi. circuit would pull with their full loads combined, if not over 16 amps. make them one circuit, tie them together with a wire nut and put it on your AFCI.

What is 16 amps the determining factor here?

I was wondering that myself, especially since the multiwire circuit in question is wired up with #14 and protected with a pair of 15A breakers.

My investigation of the idea of combining the two circuits didn't take long. The homeowner told me they occasionally have problems with overload on the circuit in question already, so I don't think combining the two circuits would be a good idea.

 

[LarryFine]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by allenwayne:
Larry if you control electricty with a switch then IMHO you are utilizing that same electricity.IE: switched receptacle , ceiling fan,ceiling light.To say that a switch doesn`t utilize electricity is like saying a faucet doesn`t utilize water since there is a cut off valve that really controls the flow of the water in a sink.Since there is a circuit breaker that really controls and utilizes electricity.

Allen, I would say exactly that. A faucet does not utilize water. A sink, washing machine, dishwasher, toilet, lawn sprinkler, etc., yes. Likewise, a switch (unless it contains a pilot light) does not utilize any electricity.

In 96 cycle when the code had receptacle outlet in a bedroom had to have afci protection,in that cycle I would agree a switch that didn`t eminate from that same room didn`t have to be afci protected.But when 02 cycle came around all that changed.To say that a switch in a bedroom that doesn`t eminate from that same bedroom doesn`t have to be afci protected,is like saying a smoke detector that starts from another area doesn`t have to be afci protected

The difference is that a smoke detector does indeed utilize electricity. "Utilization" of electricity is what an electrical load does; it uses electricity to create heat, light, sound, mechanical movement, etc. A switch does none of these things.

You can`t have a double edged sword and expect not to get cut from both edges

In my opinion, there is no double edge here; the distinction is clear: controlling and using electricity are two different animals.

 

[ronaldrc]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Jeff I went back and read your post and found the mention of a 15 amp breaker on page two.Years ago it was not unusual to mix #12 and #14 nm romex using the #14/3 for switching purposes.

Though it was a 20 amp. but being an electrician I'm sure you knew that.

 

[peter d]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Jeff said the house was rewired in 1989. There were no requirements for separate 20 amp circuits in bathrooms, or even separate cicuits in bathrooms at all at the time.

My house has 15 amp circuits in all the bathrooms (built in 1984.) So far, so good.

 

[allenwayne]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

As I see it.This all is determined by how one interpets the wording .Since the NEC is written in many vauge sentences that can be interpeted by the reader in several different ways,how I or you interpet a vauge subject and IMO this IS one of those.Is up to the reader and the listener they can either agree or disagree and either is still correct ,since the way it is written is debatable(this thread is a prime example of that)
Who agrees that controlling a part of a circuit is a means of utilizing that same current?
210.12 tells us that under this article all 15 & 20 amp outlets installed in dwelling unit bedrooms shall be protected by an arc - fault circuit interrupter listed to protect the ENTIRE BRANCH CIRCUIT.The breaker protects the same current that the switch controls that the lamp utilizes,so how can we only recognize 2 parts of a circuit when we know there are 3 add in the wire it becomes 4 items etc etc etc.All of the sum has to be considered one in the same.There is no getting around this. If ten items make up a particular circuit then 10 items must conform to what the rule states.In a bedroom it starts as an afci breaker and finishes at thelast device/outlet/light/fan......... In that afci circuit.
Going back to an already beat dead thread
If a closet is in a bedroom and that closet has a light and that light is controlled by a switch IN THAT bedroom,IMHO that switch IN THAT bedroom that is controlling that light in a closet needs to be part of a gfci circuit.Unless you are in an area like Oregon that has it in writting that a switch that controls a light in another room
need not be on the afci circuit and smokes don`t either.This is clear and plain writting and can`t be interpeted anyother way.But 210.12 leaves it open to debates like this one.In my opinion......................same as well you know and we all have one

 

[roger]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Allen, put a panel in the same bedroom, now take all the 125v 15 and 20 amp breakers, let's say they are SWD rated and some are used that way, but they do not serve circuits in the bedroom, they will not need to be AFCI breakers yet they are switches.

Now take a circuit feeding exterior lighting with a switch locted at a sliding glass door inside this bedroom, same difference it is not serving the bedroom.

Of course this is a moot point anyways since a switch simply connects wires.

The Smoke alarms located outside of the bedroom do not have to be on an AFCI circuit just because they have to be interconnected.

BTW, the 96 code did not require any AFCI protection.

Roger

 

[electricmanscott]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by ronaldrc:

Though it was a 20 amp. but being an electrician I'm sure you knew that.

So assuming it was a twenty amp circuit where does the 16 amps come into play?

George, well done.

Five pages to decide that a two pole breaker is the way to go. That's why I love you guys.

[ October 16, 2005, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: electricmanscott ]

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by LarryFine
Likewise, a switch (unless it contains a pilot light) does not utilize any electricity.

A receptacle does not utilize energy either. It is merely the point at which the Premises Wiring (System) is bounded, stops. For that matter, an outlet does not utilize energy. I think this is part of where we are hoodwinking ourselves in this distinction between switch and outlet.

Utilization equipment current passes from and to the Service Point to the Premises Wiring (System).

The utilization equipment current passes from and to the Premises Wiring (System) at an outlet.

Article 100 Definition of Premises Wiring (System) is clear to tell us that a controller (a switch) is not part of the Premises Wiring (System) even though the controller is connected to the Premises Wiring (System). Current in the controller is utilization equipment current which is passing from and to the Premises Wiring (System).

The Code does not prohibit having two outlets in series with each other.

A receptacle and a switch are both terminated to the ends of the Premises Wiring (System). Neither of them utilize energy. The current in them is that of utilization equipment, equipment that is not part of the Premises Wiring (System). Both the receptacle and switch look like, to me, that they are installed at outlets to the Premises Wiring (System) and the only current in them is utilization equipment current.

 

[roger]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Al, let's leave all attempts to rationalize a switch as an item that utilizes electricity in any form, and simply use the article 100 definitions of an outlet.

Don't you think it is deliberate that the word "outlet" is not used with the word "switch" in any definition, yet receptacle, lighting, power, etc... are all used to describe an outlet.

Would you say it was just an over-site or infarct by design to not use "switch" in any of these definitions?

Roger

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

2005 NEC Article 100

Power Outlet. An enclosed assembly that may include receptacles, circuit breakers, fuseholders, fused switches, buses, and watt-hour meter mounting means; intended to supply and control power to mobile homes, recreational vehicles, park trailers, or boats or to serve as a means for distributing power required to operate mobile or temporarily installed equipment.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Roger,

What is said in the definition of Premises Wiring (System) about what is not the Premises Wiring (System) is the linch pin. Controllers (switches) are included there.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by Roger:

attempts to rationalize a switch as an item that utilizes electricity

I am not saying that.

Switches, receptacles and outlets do not utilize energy. The utilization equipment does.

The Outlet definition is about current.

 

[LarryFine]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

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

Clearly, a receptacle, while not utilization equipment itself, is a point where current is taken to supply utilization equipment. If you replace a switch with a switch/receptacle combo, then this device has rendered this box to be an outlet.

[ October 16, 2005, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: LarryFine ]

 

[roger]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Al, looking at both sides of the switch with a load applied, is there any voltage drop across the terminals, ( lets not go microscopic ) now, how about across the terminals of a receptacle?


Once again, why was the word "switch" left out as a definition of "outlet"?

Roger

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by roger:
Once again, why was the word "switch" left out as a definition of "outlet"?

For the same reason that "receptacle" is not in the definition of Outlet.

Originally posted by roger:
is there any voltage drop

Again, "Outlet" is about current, not voltage, not an outlet "utilizing energy".

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by LarryFine:
Clearly, a receptacle, while not utilization equipment itself, is a point where current is taken to supply utilization equipment. If you replace a switch with a switch/receptacle combo, then this device has rendered this box to be an outlet.

I'm talking about the switch. The current in the switch comes from and goes to the Premises Wiring (System). The current in a receptacle comes from and goes to the Premises Wiring (System). The utilization equipment (not part of the Premises Wiring (System)) utilizes energy drawing current.

The receptacle does not draw current.

The switch does not draw current.

The utilization equipment, utilizing energy, is the reason current is drawn.

 

[roger]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Al, look at page 38 of the 2002, or page 31 0f the 2005, (I'm to lazy to look at earlier codes) and you will find "Receptacle Outlet", I can not find "Switch Outlet" on any page, I have looked though.

Al,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by roger:
is there any voltage drop
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, "Outlet" is about current, not voltage, not an outlet "utilizing energy".

you know current will not flow with out voltage drop, is the total length of conductor an outlet?

Roger

[ October 16, 2005, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: roger ]

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by Roger:
you know current will not flow with out voltage drop, is the total length of conductor an outlet?

Whether a receptacle or a switch or a wire has a voltage drop is a another issue.

The definition of Outlet only involves current, premises wiring and utilization equipment.

The utilization equipment draws the current. The point on the premises wiring that the utilization equipment current leaves and returns to the premises wiring system is an outlet. The definition of Outlet does not say "with voltage drop" or "with no voltage drop".

Lastly, the wire will either be part of the Premises Wiring (System) or on the other side of the outlet and be part of the utilization equipment.

Originally posted by Roger:
you will find "Receptacle Outlet", I can not find "Switch Outlet"

You will not find "Luminaire Outlet" there (on the appropriate page - as I don't have the print version, only electronic). Nor is the word Outlet in the definition of Luminaire. Does that mean that the outlet at which a luminaire is connected is not an outlet? That seems to be the logic you are using by searching for "Switch Outlet".