Garage recpt outlets Exterior

[al hildenbrand]

Guess these aren't outlets either!

View attachment 12519

If the handbook shows me what an outlet box looks like do I just ignore it?

Edit. If you are not using it for an outlet are you violating the listing?

Outlet Box is a two word term in my opinion, and it is not defined in the NEC. The NEC is silent. There's boxes and box supports shown in the image. Maybe there will be an outlet in one or more of the boxes? I can't tell until the wiring is done.

 

[wwhitney]

Inside the Premises Wiring (System), conductors, regardless of their shape, and the assembly that is a complete system is the Premises Wiring (System).

I agree. But you haven't said which of those conductors you consider wiring and which ones you don't. Or are all the conductors wiring? Is the bus in a panel wiring?

Cheers, Way

 

[wwhitney]

I get, totally, that you want taking to ONLY be at the direct connection. But, that, too, is not limited by the way "taken" sits in context, otherwise it simply would not be possible for 400.7(A)(11) to be in the Code.

You make a good point with 400.7(A)(11). Is the cord connecting the existing receptacle to the inlet part of the Premises Wiring System? Is the building wire from the inlet to the single receptacle part of the Premises Wiring System?

If I have a generator with a single receptacle connected via a cord to an inlet on a Premises Wiring System without a service, is that cord part of the Premises Wiring System? Is there an outlet at the generator? At the inlet?

To advance the discussion, would you please tell me again the exact language in the NEC that says that an outlet can only occur on the boundary of the Premises Wiring System? I can only find the "taken to supply" language in the definition of outlet. If that is the language you use, would you please give your definition of it? I do not see a definition of it that would includes the snap switch without removing the boundary condition.

But, YES, it does. Even the NEC tells you it is not part of the wiring system. And your inspector doesn't open the switch to examine it's insides because it is manufactured and regulated by other laws. You don't "assemble" the switch, you only connect to it.

That's a different legal boundary than I thought you were referring to. That boundary applies to all devices, not just switches. I thought you were referring to the idea that (with exceptions) the NEC does not apply to Utilization Equipment.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[mjf]

So, if a lighting outlet is controlled with (2) 3-way switches, only the switch that has the common feeding the lighting outlet would be an outlet and the other 3-way switch would not be an outlet?

 

[al hildenbrand]

I agree. But you haven't said which of those conductors you consider wiring and which ones you don't. Or are all the conductors wiring? Is the bus in a panel wiring?

When I go to my customer's place to do their wiring, they would be pretty miffed with me if I didn't include the panel work with the "wiring" they expected me to do.

Again, I draw your attention to colloquial use and its context to give you the meaning. When I am asked to install the wiring for a new house, I don't get to quibble over whether a bus is a wire. . . If I don't install a complete service center with busbars included, I haven't completed the "wiring" and the Customer will be the first to tell me.

 

[al hildenbrand]

You make a good point with 400.7(A)(11). Is the cord connecting the existing receptacle to the inlet part of the Premises Wiring System? Is the building wire from the inlet to the single receptacle part of the Premises Wiring System?

Going into "cord sets" is going sideways in this thread. The wiring configuration allowed by 400.7(A)(11) goes into UL 62 and UL 817. Two years ago, at the behest of Mike Holt, Ryan Jackson started this thread about cords above ceilings that goes into depth quickly about the limits of Article 400 with respect to manufactured cord sets.

There is also The Powerbridge thread that is very long, but it is the precursor to the Proposal that resulted in 400.7(A)(11). One of the important features of the wiring configurations allowed by 400.7(A)(11) is that the connection of the wall receptacle outlet to the inlet doesn't have to be direct, nor does it have to be inside the same wall, nor even the same room or floor and the single receptacle that is part of the "listed assembly specific for this application." As just one, of many possibilities, a Battery Backup Standby Power Supply could be cord and plug connected to the wall receptacle attached to the supplying branch circuit. The load receptacle(s) of the Battery Backup Standby Power Supply could then be cord and plug connected to the Inlet of the 400.7(A)(11) listed assembly(s). Or, there might be a multi outlet surge protective device, or there might be a electronic peripheral equipment power controller. . . basically some form of a Utilization Equipment, or even Power Sources that may, or may not be part of the Premises Wiring (System).

To directly answer your two questions, the cord set is not, and the Chapter 3 Wiring Method between Inlet and Outlet is, in my opinion.

 

[al hildenbrand]

To advance the discussion, would you please tell me again the exact language in the NEC that says that an outlet can only occur on the boundary of the Premises Wiring System?

Sure. Again, it is in the Definition of Premises Wiring (System):

Premises Wiring (System). Interior and exterior wiring, including power, lighting, control, and signal circuit wiring together with all their associated hardware, fittings, and wiring devices, both permanently and temporarily installed. This includes (a) wiring from the service point or power source to the outlets or (b) wiring from and including the power source to the outlets where there is no service point.

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

Now, at first flush, one is inclined to still think (I believe this to be another distracting meme) that the Premises Wiring (System) must be continuous, that is not in segments, between power source or service point and the outlets, but I believe a 400.7(A)(11) listed assembly is just that, "a segment of Premises Wiring (System) ending in an Outlet.

Not only are there "segments" but there is apparatus installed within the Premises Wiring (System) such as Controllers and Motor Control Centers, that are DEFINED as NOT part of the Premises Wiring (System). Controllers and MCCs create pools of NOT Premises Wiring (System) within the midst of the Premises Wiring (System). That is interesting to me. There is an electrical circuit that comes out of the Source and goes all the way through the Load and then returns to the Source. . . an electrical circuit. But there are these legal boundaries along the circuit.

So, for the purpose of clarity, I strip the electrical circuit to a simple example. A PoCo transformer secondary 120 Volt winding is the Source. The two wire service drop brings the beginning of the electrical circuit to the Service Point (a legal boundary between PoCo NESC and the NEC ruled Premises Wiring (System)). From the Service Point the electrical circuit goes to a Controller (the simple snap switch) which in turn is connected to a receptacle outlet where a cord and plug connected Appliance is connected.

Having set the stage of our thoughts, I now wrap in the next set of your questions and comments:

I can only find the "taken to supply" language in the definition of outlet. If that is the language you use, would you please give your definition of it? I do not see a definition of it that would includes the snap switch without removing the boundary condition.

The simple example has, when the Appliance is running, only ONE current circulating, the current determined only by the electrical characteristics of the Appliance in relationship to the Source. The current supplied by the Source is the current taken by the Appliance. There is only one current in the complete electrical circuit.

There is no other Load. The conductors and contacts are all loss-less, as this is the boiled down simple example. Therefore, there are no other currents. (Remember that an Outlet is ONLY about CURRENT). The Controller, being a simple snap switch, receives outside mechanical (not electrical) energy from a human operator, to govern the behavior of the Appliance.

Now, because the simple snap switch is wired in as a Controller for the branch circuit downstream of the switch, to the Receptacle Outlet, and in turn the Appliance, the wiring internal to the controller is defined, by Premises Wiring (System) as being NOT INCLUDED which is the legal boundary from NEC to NOT NEC. . . The "NOT NEC" that I am paying attention to is what is defined as the internal wiring of a Controller. It is also, at once, a device that is a switch, but the added condition of being a Controller dominates, in my opinion.

So, the current passing through the internal wiring of the Controller is the current taken by the appliance, and there is that POINT on the WIRING SYSTEM where the current taken to supply the appliance goes into wiring that is NOT wiring system. This is identical to what happens at a Receptacle Outlet. I have arrived at seeing that the definition of outlet describes the condition at the point on the wiring system that is beside and in continuity with the internal Controller wiring that is defined as NOT wiring system. That is how I define an Outlet occurring in a simple snap switch used as a Controller.

 

[al hildenbrand]

So, if a lighting outlet is controlled with (2) 3-way switches, only the switch that has the common feeding the lighting outlet would be an outlet and the other 3-way switch would not be an outlet?

Both 3 ways are each a Controller. Go back to my summary and read it with the idea that a 3 way snap switch, a 4 way snap switch and a single pole snap switch are each Contollers.

 

[wwhitney]

Would you please tell me again the exact language in the NEC that says that an outlet can only occur on the boundary of the Premises Wiring System?

Sure. Again, it is in the Definition of Premises Wiring (System):

Premises Wiring (System). Interior and exterior wiring, including power, lighting, control, and signal circuit wiring together with all their associated hardware, fittings, and wiring devices, both permanently and temporarily installed. This includes (a) wiring from the service point or power source to the outlets or (b) wiring from and including the power source to the outlets where there is no service point.

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

OK, here's the problem: the identified sentence does not say that every outlet is on the boundary of the Premises Wiring System. It does not say anything about what outlets are, or impose any conditions on outlets. It just says that any time you have an outlet, the wiring from the service point or power source to that outlet is part of the Premises Wiring System. E.g., if I say "The US includes the territory from Nevada to West Virginia," that statement doesn't exclude California or Virginia from the US, or imply that Nevada or West Virginia are on the boundary of the US.

Now, the argument presented that current "is taken to supply utilization equipment" applies equally well to every point on the Premises Wiring System. Under that argument, unless the definitions impose the boundary requirement on outlets, every point is an outlet, which is an absurdity. Therefore, the "taken to supply" language in the definition of outlet needs to be interpreted as meaning a connection point, to impose the boundary requirement on outlets. There is no other language to impose that boundary requirement.

Cheers, Wayne

P.S. The definition of Outlet should be changed to something like "a point on the wiring system where utilization equipment is connected or is intended to be connected." I believe that is the intent, and it would resolve the issues of "is a snap switch an outlet?" and "how is a lighting outlet without a luminaire an outlet if no current is being taken?"

 

[al hildenbrand]

Now, the argument presented that current "is taken to supply utilization equipment" applies equally well to every point on the Premises Wiring System. Under that argument, unless the definitions impose the boundary requirement on outlets, every point is an outlet, which is an absurdity. Therefore, the "taken to supply" language in the definition of outlet needs to be interpreted as meaning a connection point, to impose the boundary requirement on outlets. There is no other language to impose that boundary requirement.

There doesn't need to be other language. As it sits, the web of NEC language does not dictate the physical construction of THINGS that are Outlets, which is extremely useful to support the extreme variation that the physical configuration of "Outlets" come it. Compare for a moment how radically different the Lighting Outlet and the Receptacle Outlet are from what you "want" an Outlet to be. A Lighting Outlet, to exist, only has to be "intended" for the direct connection of a lampholder or luminaire, no UE need be present, ever. A Receptacle Outlet ONLY requires the installation of a receptacle to be an OUTLET. Read the definition of "Receptacle" and you will find no involvement of Utilization Equipment, only and Attachment Plug. Read the definition of Attachment Plug, and what do you get? STILL no mention of UE. Why? Because installations like that spelled out in 400.7(A)(11) are allowed, installations where there are segments of Premises Wiring (System) that are only parts of the simple example circuit.

And, yet, and Outlet also exists under a wirenut. Consider an electric wall oven with a factory manufactured and installed flexible metal conduit whip with factory installed conductors. When I, as the field installing electrician wirenut the factory installed whip conductor to the Premises Wiring (System) branch circuit conductor, there is an Outlet. How do we "know" it is an Outlet? Wirenuts or splices are not included by name in the definition.. . . It must be the boundary.

Coming up through the trade, it is "comfortable" to think that an Outlet is a "thing". . . but the use of the word "point" is extremely telling. A 'point" is something that is without dimension (no height, width or length) like a boundary between Premises Wiring (System) and NOT Premises Wiring (System).

I have gone back over 80 years of Code and the main words of the definition simply have not changed. . . think about that! Through the enormous upheaval of more than eight decades of advances, and all of the challenges inquiring minds have levied against and for "clarity", the definition remains the same. I submit that is because this is actually a remarkable, and correct little bit of wordsmithing, and that it will continue to withstand the test of time intact.

The definition of Outlet should be changed to something like "a point on the wiring system where utilization equipment is connected or is intended to be connected." I believe that is the intent, and it would resolve the issues of "is a snap switch an outlet?" and "how is a lighting outlet without a luminaire an outlet if no current is being taken?"

Ah, but it will destroy Receptacle Outlet.

 

[wwhitney]

Ah, but it will destroy Receptacle Outlet.

How so?

Cheers,
Wayne

 

[al hildenbrand]

How so?

..............................

A Receptacle Outlet ONLY requires the installation of a receptacle to be an OUTLET. Read the definition of "Receptacle" and you will find no involvement of Utilization Equipment, only and Attachment Plug. Read the definition of Attachment Plug, and what do you get? STILL no mention of UE. Why? Because installations like that spelled out in 400.7(A)(11) are allowed, installations where there are segments of Premises Wiring (System) that are only parts of the simple example circuit.

 

[wwhitney]

There doesn't need to be other language. As it sits, the web of NEC language does not dictate the physical construction of THINGS that are Outlets

I don't understand how your response relates to the matter at hand. Nobody said anything about physical construction. By "boundary requirement", I mean the idea that an outlet can only occur at the point separating the Premises Wiring System from the Non-(Premises Wiring System). This is something we agree on, and the only language in the NEC that imposes this limitation is the "taken to supply" language in the definition of Outlet.

A Lighting Outlet, to exist, only has to be "intended" for the direct connection of a lampholder or luminaire, no UE need be present, ever.

That is the common wisdom, and likely the intent of the Code writers, but it is not borne out by language of the current definitions:

Outlet. A point on the wiring system at which current is taken to supply utilization equipment.
Lighting Outlet. An outlet intended for the direct connection of a lampholder or luminaire.

This definition of Outlet requires the presence of utilization equipment, as it is missing the "intended" language. And the definition of Lighting Outlet first requires an outlet, which requires the utilization equipment. To be logically consistent, one or the other needs to be changed, e.g.

Outlet. A point on the wiring system at which current is intended to be taken to supply utilization equipment.
or
Lighting Outlet. A point on the wiring system intended for the direct connection of a lampholder or luminaire.

Cheers,
Wayne

 

[al hildenbrand]

This definition of Outlet requires the presence of utilization equipment, as it is missing the "intended" language.

And right there is the heart of the difference in our thinking.

In my reading of that very same definition I can only find that the current is required.

 

[wwhitney]

I proposed the definition "Outlet. A point on the wiring system where utilization equipment is connected or is intended to be connected."

Ah, but it will destroy Receptacle Outlet.

Receptacle Outlets, and Lighting Outlets with blank covers, are covered under the "intended to be connected" part of the definition. That is why we install receptacles, to allow the connection of cord-and-plug utilization equipment, yes?

Cheers, Wayne

 

[wwhitney]

In my reading of that very same definition I can only find that the current is required.

OK, how can current be present if there is no utilization equipment present? No circuit = no current.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[al hildenbrand]

That is why we install receptacles, to allow the connection of cord-and-plug utilization equipment, yes?

That is not the only reason. Again, 400.7(A)(11).

 

[al hildenbrand]

OK, how can current be present if there is no utilization equipment present? No circuit = no current.

Great question. That is the reason Receptacle Outlet is defined as an Outlet. No UE need be present.

You had asked when I was off line and realized my statement "that only the current is required" was incomplete and had to include being "defined" as an alternative to having the current.

Requiring the UE connection, destroys the use of "definition only".

 

[wwhitney]

That is not the only reason. Again, 400.7(A)(11).

Good point. Any other examples? How about:

Outlet. A point on the wiring system where utilization equipment or an attachment plug is connected or is intended to be connected.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[al hildenbrand]

Requiring the UE connection, destroys the use of "definition only".

This desire to emphasize "intend" opens up other wormy cans. . . 210 Section III is "Required Outlets". When I am required to wire my new house with a required front yard receptacle outlet, is that because I am now required to INTEND to use it? Or is it only enough for my Contractor to "intend" my use.