Garage recpt outlets Exterior

[al hildenbrand]

Any other examples?

Well, yes, but you've been clear to push back against them.

OK. What about the use of short cords at a small theater lighting booth patch panel. Consider of theater ceiling with a collection of receptacle outlets each individually wired back to a patch panel and given their individual "Inlet". Beside the patch panel set an array of dimmers that have load side receptacle outlets. Use a short flexible cord to connect the inlet to the dimmer load side receptacle outlet.

The dimmer may be either hard wired or cord and plug connected to its supply.

 

[wwhitney]

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

Whether UE needs to be present under the existing definition is what we are debating. The definition of outlet as currently written, regardless of what anyone intended, does require UE to be present, as "current is taken" means current is flowing, the circuit is complete, and it is the utilization equipment that is completing the circiut. You are reading the definition as if it said "current may be taken", which it does not say.

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.

What does this mean? It sounds like you are saying you edited post #134, but I don't see any changes.

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

What does this mean? Are you referring to the Manual of Style?

My main point in the last few posts is that if you read the definitions de novo, if you read them according to Charlie's Rule, the definitions don't match the common perceptions, and probably don't match the Code's intentions. The definitions need to be cleaned up.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[al hildenbrand]

How about:

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

I don't like it.

Again. I have come to understand what I think is absolute brilliance in the wordsmithing of the existing Article 100 Definition of Outlet. I do not think it needs changing. The emphasis only on current is a stunning insight, to me, as it uncouples the "thingness" that you are trying to adhere to, and it supports the extraordinary diversity of mechanical assemblies that are in the wild within the jurisdiction of the NEC.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Whether UE needs to be present under the existing definition is what we are debating. The definition of outlet as currently written, regardless of what anyone intended, does require UE to be present, as "current is taken" means current is flowing, the circuit is complete, and it is the utilization equipment that is completing the circiut. You are reading the definition as if it said "current may be taken", which it does not say.

I disagree that the "is taken", as it modifies "A point on the wiring system" is ONLY a present tense verb. It is a much more complicated verbal construction.

I believe that the actual verb in the definition is an implied verb. Outlet. (is) A point on . . .

 

[al hildenbrand]

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.

What does this mean? It sounds like you are saying you edited post #134, but I don't see any changes.

My apologies. The sentence I wrote is very sloppy. I'm straddling Real Life (RL) and This Thread. (Foreshadowing: As rich as this discussion is, Wayne, I regret that I am going to have to slow down for a bit to handle my Meat Space Real Life.)

I did not alter post #134. I posted it, re-read it, and went back to RL and had an afterthought that I had said " 'only' the current". I then came back online to post that, not in #134, but a new post, and saw you had already replied. . . This sentence you ask for the meaning of is my poor attempt as saying that, "in addition to current being what Outlet is about, the nesting of the language on the NEC has to support Outlets that are Outlets by Definition ONLY."

 

[al hildenbrand]

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

What does this mean? Are you referring to the Manual of Style?

I am labeling the Article 100 Definition of Receptacle Outlet as a "definition only" Outlet. It is defined without mention of current, intention or UE.

 

[al hildenbrand]

My main point in the last few posts is that if you read the definitions de novo, if you read them according to Charlie's Rule, the definitions don't match the common perceptions, and probably don't match the Code's intentions.

:thumbsup:

I love this! I totally agree.

The Code says what it says.

And, after my initial period of struggling with what I thought it said, what I was taught it said, what I had heard it said, what I recalled it said, and especially what I WANTED it to say, etc., I relaxed and read it again as if for the first time and was blown away by the intricacy and brilliance of the nesting of all the various passages that we have been including and alluding to in this thread. It became a contextual whole to me.

 

[wwhitney]

I disagree that the "is taken", as it modifies "A point on the wiring system" is ONLY a present tense verb. It is a much more complicated verbal construction.

Upon reflection, I agree that "is taken" does not necessarily mean continuously. Otherwise, when you turn the light switch on, you have an outlet, when you turn the light switch off, you don't. So the taking can be intermittent.

However, I still say there must be a possibility for the current to be taken. A blanked off junction box does not allow this possibility and does not fit the existing definition of "outlet", contrary to our common understanding or intention.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[iwire]

But what is being discussed is not intricacy or brilliance, it is simply happenstance and a collection of code passages written by different people in different eras with different goals in mind.

Knowing this let's me come to terms with these types of issues.

I do not work with AFCIs but using the forums as my guide I don't see that inspectors are having a great deal of difficulty understanding the intentions of years of CMPs

JMNSHO.

 

[wwhitney]

Foreshadowing: As rich as this discussion is, Wayne, I regret that I am going to have to slow down for a bit to handle my Meat Space Real Life.

No problem, same here.

I am labeling the Article 100 Definition of Receptacle Outlet as a "definition only" Outlet. It is defined without mention of current, intention or UE

Receptacle Outlet. An outlet where one or more receptacles are installed

It sounds like what you are saying is that all receptacles are Receptacles Outlets, and therefore they are Outlets. I.e. the word "outlet" in the definition isn't a prerequisite for Receptacle Outlet but an expansion of what the term Outlet includes. I find that a very unusual and nonstandard way to read definition.

If I say "An Electric Car is a Car where one or more Electric Motors are installed", I'm not saying that anything that anything with an Electric Motor is a Car. I'm saying that anything this is both Car and has an Electric Motor is an Electric Car.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[wwhitney]

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.

If you want to distinguish between a blanked off ceiling box, which is there to allow someone to easily install a luminaire in the future, and other blanked off boxes, then you have to talk about intention. That's the only difference.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[wwhitney]

If I say "An Electric Car is a Car where one or more Electric Motors are installed", I'm not saying that anything that anything with an Electric Motor is a Car. I'm saying that anything this is both Car and has an Electric Motor is an Electric Car.

Sorry I garbled that. I meant to write: If I say "An Electric Car is a Car where one or more Electric Motors are installed", I'm not saying that anything with an Electric Motor is a Car. I'm saying that anything that is both a Car and has an Electric Motor is an Electric Car.

 

[al hildenbrand]

However, I still say there must be a possibility for the current to be taken. A blanked off junction box does not allow this possibility and does not fit the existing definition of "outlet", contrary to our common understanding or intention.

This is, arguably, another "outlet by definition".

Lighting Outlet. An outlet intended for the direct connection of a lampholder or luminaire.

And consider that the language is not "intended for a lampholder or luminaire", but rather, in spite of the Definition of Outlet, is ADDING "direct connection". If "A point on the wiring system at which current is taken to supply utilization equipment" MEANT "direct connection always" then the Lighting Outlet definition would not repeat it.

What the definition of Lighting Outlet does say, with the whole definition of Outlet inserted, is kind of strange:

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

It might benefit with a little punctuation. . . but, nonetheless, there it is.

The Article 100 Definition of Lighting Outlet permits an intention to stand in for a thing (the lampholder or luminaire). This is an important allowance, on the part of all the CMPs that have put their pens to these two definitions. At some time in the future, maybe, a lampholder or luminaire, directly connected, will "take" current. Until then, this point IS an Outlet.

Like I said, "is taken" is a complex verbal construction.

 

[kwired]

Wow, I started to select things to quote about 40 posts back, then decided not to quote any of them as some of what I wanted to address was already in the discussion and then some.

Time to change from hip waders to chest waders.

I am done (for the moment) with further contribution to this topic, but someone will say something I just have to respond to so probably not

 

[wwhitney]

This is, arguably, another "outlet by definition".

I'm sorry, I don't see it in the current definition. If Lighting Outlet is to be an outlet by definition, it should read:

Lighting Outlet. A point on the premises wiring system intended for the direct connection of a lampholder or luminaire. This is considered an outlet.

Absent explicit language like that, the word "outlet" in the definition of Lighting Outlet is a restriction, a limitation. Something must first be an Outlet before it can be a Lighting Outlet.

Under Charlie's rule, the current definitions simply don't distinguish between a blanked off junction box installed in the ceiling intended for a luminaire and other blanked off junction boxes. Either they both are outlets (under a wildly expansive reading of "is taken to supply"), or neither are. So if we want to have that distinction, the definitions need adjusting.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[wwhitney]

And consider that the language is not "intended for a lampholder or luminaire", but rather, in spite of the Definition of Outlet, is ADDING "direct connection". If "A point on the wiring system at which current is taken to supply utilization equipment" MEANT "direct connection always" then the Lighting Outlet definition would not repeat it.

That is a good point, and if the definitions were logically consistent I would give it weight. But the reality is that they are not, the definitions may have been written by two different people, and the difference may not be intentional. I would say, rather, that the writer of the definition of "Lighting Outlet" got that part correct, and the "direction connection" wording should be imported into the definition of Outlet.

Like I said, "is taken" is a complex verbal construction.

I think you are ascribing a far too complicated meaning to the words "is taken" to attempt to resolve the difficulties that occur under a plain reading per Charlie's rule.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[al hildenbrand]

But what is being discussed is not intricacy or brilliance, it is simply happenstance and a collection of code passages written by different people in different eras with different goals in mind.

Knowing this let's me come to terms with these types of issues.

"Simply happenstance" seems to say "an absence of any control on the part of the wordsmiths." I whole heartedly disagree that the molding of, and the existing present language of the 2014 NEC is "only by chance."

As for "goals in mind", . . . Yes, and I find that interesting. I willingly give the "different people in different eras with different goals in mind" the over-arching intention to understand, and to learn, and to wordsmith a Living Document to the best of their abilities with all each brings to the group relationship. It is the added power of the group that helps to moderate (although not always) the attempts of special, or private, interests to subvert the Living Document to private or special interest.

I do not work with AFCIs but using the forums as my guide I don't see that inspectors are having a great deal of difficulty understanding the intentions of years of CMPs

JMNSHO.

Given that the only thing that shows the CMP "intent" is that which is written and documented, and given that inspectors use writing and documentation, then Yes, I agree.

But that doesn't prevent us from getting comfortable, each, as individuals. Until we really think about it, some of the basic 1st-year-of-schooling generalizations that helped each of us with the first understandings, just keep being repeated, and the full nuance is never explored.

A classic example is, "A switch is not an Outlet because it only controls, it doesn't use power."

In this thread I am speaking to a selection of colloquial statements that permeate those of us working on the Premises Wiring (System). Many of the colloquial statements describing Switches, Outlets, Outlet Boxes, Receptacle Outlets and Lighting Outlets are supporting what I find to be an incomplete, or just plain inaccurate, knowledge of the Article 100 Definition of Outlet. Applying Charlie's Rule articulates how I engender an ongoing relationship between the written words that change very slowly, and my understanding of those words.

 

[kwired]

Wow, I started to select things to quote about 40 posts back, then decided not to quote any of them as some of what I wanted to address was already in the discussion and then some.

Time to change from hip waders to chest waders.

I am done (for the moment) with further contribution to this topic, but someone will say something I just have to respond to so probably not

I knew I'd eat my own words on being done here

My two cents on a blanked off outlet box.

If a lighting outlet is required - I agree a blanked off box meets the requirement - nothing requires a luminaire be installed on it - just that you provide a lighting outlet. IMO that don't mean slap up a box and run no conductors to it though, you still must be able to power a luminaire should you decide to install one if you are calling it a lighting outlet. I may buy into an empty raceway allowing conductors to be pulled to it to be acceptable, though I still am leaning toward the conductors must be there and ready to connect to a luminaire, but a box designed for NM cable with no cable entering it - no way.

Required receptacle outlets, mostly from 210.52 here but there are possibly other required receptacle outlets, we have that word "receptacle" in there. So a blanked off box may be an outlet, but is definitely not a "receptacle outlet" without the receptacle.

 

[al hildenbrand]

. . . the writer of the definition of "Lighting Outlet" got that part correct, and the "direction connection" wording should be imported into the definition of Outlet.

The difficulty, then, is how to quantify the "intending" of the direct connection. Who, and when, does the pivotal "intention" come from and how do I recognize it after the fact for all the rest of the existence of the installation of the assembly?

When I walk up to a box with a blank plate on it, mounted flush in a framed Dwelling Living Room wall with a drywall surface and with a 14/2 with ground in and out that are wirenutted black to black, white to white, and EGC to EGC, how do I determine the "intent"?

 

[al hildenbrand]

I knew I'd eat my own words on being done here

:thumbsup:

Come on in. What ever this is, up to our chests, is fine!