harborrick
Member
- Location
- Irvine California
Do the lights and smoke alarms need to be Arch Faults.I realize the outlets need to be.
Thanks Rick
Thanks Rick
Location of Arch Faults
- Thread starter harborrick
- Start date
- Status
ron
Senior Member
- Location
- New York, 40.7514,-73.9925
Re: Location of Arch Faults
NEC 2002 says all outlets. If your jurisdiction is not on the 2002, then it would be recepts only.
Some local jurisdictions have modified this code section.
NEC 2002 says all outlets. If your jurisdiction is not on the 2002, then it would be recepts only.
Some local jurisdictions have modified this code section.
B
bthielen
Guest
Re: Location of Arch Faults
I have noticed quite often that there is confusion or possibly misuse of the term outlet. Sometime over the years the term outlet has been used interchangeably with receptacle. Am I correct that an "outlet" includes light fixture boxes, switch boxes, and receptacle boxes alike and a receptacle is only a place where a plug may be inserted to make an electrical connection? Perhaps someone would be able to offer a good clear definition.
Bob
I have noticed quite often that there is confusion or possibly misuse of the term outlet. Sometime over the years the term outlet has been used interchangeably with receptacle. Am I correct that an "outlet" includes light fixture boxes, switch boxes, and receptacle boxes alike and a receptacle is only a place where a plug may be inserted to make an electrical connection? Perhaps someone would be able to offer a good clear definition.
Bob
- Location
- Lockport, IL
- Occupation
- Semi-Retired Electrical Engineer
Re: Location of Arch Faults
</font>
This has been a matter of some discussion on this forum, and there is not a universal agreement. Here is my interpretation:
</font>
- <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Light fixture boxes: Yes</font>
- <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Switch boxes: No.</font>
- <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Receptacle boxes: Yes</font>
- <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Smoke detector boxes: Yes</font>
bphgravity
Senior Member
- Location
- Florida
Re: Location of Arch Faults
I would say that if a "switch box" has a grounded conductor present, then it could be considered an outlet.
I would say that if a "switch box" has a grounded conductor present, then it could be considered an outlet.
charlie
Senior Member
- Location
- Indianapolis
Re: Location of Arch Faults
Bryan, I don't agree with you; however, it is a moot point since a switch that feeds a bedroom outlet (light or receptacle) will be protected with the AFCI that protects that circuit. You do make an interesting point with the concept of the grounded conductor. Why would it be there? IMO, a grounded conductor would feed another device and that would make it an outlet when that device was installed (until it was installed, the grounded conductor is just a spare conductor).
Bryan, I don't agree with you; however, it is a moot point since a switch that feeds a bedroom outlet (light or receptacle) will be protected with the AFCI that protects that circuit. You do make an interesting point with the concept of the grounded conductor. Why would it be there? IMO, a grounded conductor would feed another device and that would make it an outlet when that device was installed (until it was installed, the grounded conductor is just a spare conductor).
Re: Location of Arch Faults
Charlie, I think I agree with you but I would like your interpretation for a conversation myself and some other inspectors have been having. I believe the definition of an outlet would not mean a switch but since most of the lighting outlets in the bedrooms are served by the switches then they will also be arc fault protected. In the area I inspect in though we have a lot of larger homes where the master bedroom may have a patio or open up onto a deck with a 3 or 4 gang switch box at the back door to control exterior lighting. My opinion is since no current is taken at that switch and the lighting outlet is not in the bedroom then those switches do not have to be arc fault protected but I would like more opinions on this. Also would you think the same thing would apply to a closet?
Charlie, I think I agree with you but I would like your interpretation for a conversation myself and some other inspectors have been having. I believe the definition of an outlet would not mean a switch but since most of the lighting outlets in the bedrooms are served by the switches then they will also be arc fault protected. In the area I inspect in though we have a lot of larger homes where the master bedroom may have a patio or open up onto a deck with a 3 or 4 gang switch box at the back door to control exterior lighting. My opinion is since no current is taken at that switch and the lighting outlet is not in the bedroom then those switches do not have to be arc fault protected but I would like more opinions on this. Also would you think the same thing would apply to a closet?
charlie
Senior Member
- Location
- Indianapolis
Re: Location of Arch Faults
I have seen the other conversation and have purposely stayed out of it since there can be no clear cut winner. The Code is written with the definitions clear in the minds of the panel members and then a rule is made that makes everyone paranoid and no one know what the definitions are any more.
My favorite example is the bathroom which everyone knew exactly what it was and what to do with it until GFCIs were required in 1975. All of a sudden, no one knew what a bathroom was anymore since GFCIs cost about $40.00 at the time. The definition of a bathroom was placed in the Code in the next cycle. Now, it seems that no one is sure what an outlet is in a bedroom.
Everyone complains about the complexity of the Code, care to opine as to the reason? Anyway, IMHO the bedroom outlets include all of the receptacle outlets, smoke detector outlets, and lighting outlets. Switches are not normally current using devices and are not mounted in switch outlets. Also, if a closet is a closet then it is not a bedroom.
I have seen the other conversation and have purposely stayed out of it since there can be no clear cut winner. The Code is written with the definitions clear in the minds of the panel members and then a rule is made that makes everyone paranoid and no one know what the definitions are any more.
My favorite example is the bathroom which everyone knew exactly what it was and what to do with it until GFCIs were required in 1975. All of a sudden, no one knew what a bathroom was anymore since GFCIs cost about $40.00 at the time. The definition of a bathroom was placed in the Code in the next cycle. Now, it seems that no one is sure what an outlet is in a bedroom.
Everyone complains about the complexity of the Code, care to opine as to the reason? Anyway, IMHO the bedroom outlets include all of the receptacle outlets, smoke detector outlets, and lighting outlets. Switches are not normally current using devices and are not mounted in switch outlets. Also, if a closet is a closet then it is not a bedroom.
al hildenbrand
Senior Member
- Location
- Minnesota
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
Re: Location of Arch Faults
The AFCI Confusion thread, especially pages 2 and 3, speaks to the different views. Some cyber ink is used with several definitions.
The bottom line, for me, is that the Article 100 definition of Outlet only says that current be taken to supply Utilization Equipment, nothing is said about returning current.
From the Article 100 definition of Utilization Equipment, a switch is present for lighting purpose, that of control, ON-OFF, of a luminaire.
As Tom Baker states in the AFCI Confusion thread, "A switch is installed at an outlet."
Editted to re-direct links. The AFCI Forum Section was removed and combined with the NEC Forum Section resulting in renumbering of the topics in the old AFCI section. This edit only restores the link to the actual thread referenced. - Al
[ January 14, 2005, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: al hildenbrand ]
The AFCI Confusion thread, especially pages 2 and 3, speaks to the different views. Some cyber ink is used with several definitions.
The bottom line, for me, is that the Article 100 definition of Outlet only says that current be taken to supply Utilization Equipment, nothing is said about returning current.
From the Article 100 definition of Utilization Equipment, a switch is present for lighting purpose, that of control, ON-OFF, of a luminaire.
As Tom Baker states in the AFCI Confusion thread, "A switch is installed at an outlet."
Editted to re-direct links. The AFCI Forum Section was removed and combined with the NEC Forum Section resulting in renumbering of the topics in the old AFCI section. This edit only restores the link to the actual thread referenced. - Al
[ January 14, 2005, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: al hildenbrand ]
al hildenbrand
Senior Member
- Location
- Minnesota
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
Re: Location of Arch Faults
Charlie wrote:
While I "know your intent" in the phrase "current using" to mean using energy, I respectfully submit that this slip of the cyber-pen points to the importance of the exact word used in the Article 100 definition of Outlet is current, not energy.
Charlie wrote:
Kirchoff tells us that the sum of the currents about a point is always zero. The current(s) in added to the current(s) out equals zero.
While I "know your intent" in the phrase "current using" to mean using energy, I respectfully submit that this slip of the cyber-pen points to the importance of the exact word used in the Article 100 definition of Outlet is current, not energy.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Re: Location of Arch Faults
Don
I don't agree with Tom on this one. The current is not taken to supply utilization equipment at the switch location. The current is taken to supply the utilization equipment at the point where the utilization equipment is connected to the wiring system. In the case of a lighting circuit, this point is at the light fixture, not at the switch that controls the light fixture.
Don
al hildenbrand
Senior Member
- Location
- Minnesota
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
Re: Location of Arch Faults
Don,
Perhaps you can help me understand what I am missing. In this thread I have spent time with the definition of Premises Wiring (System). The definition does not use the term Utilization Equipment.
The wiring internal to a controller is not part of the Premises Wiring.
A bedroom switch that turns the overhead luminaire on and off is the controller of the luminaire.
I understand the Premises Wiring definition to say that the conductors internal to the switch, used as a controller, to not be part of the Premises Wiring.
If the current leaves and returns to the Premises Wiring at the terminals of the bedroom light switch, what else, besides an outlet, is that point?
As the controller of the luminaire, the current is the current of the utilization equipment, especially because the switch is a device, not normally using energy.
Don,
Perhaps you can help me understand what I am missing. In this thread I have spent time with the definition of Premises Wiring (System). The definition does not use the term Utilization Equipment.
The wiring internal to a controller is not part of the Premises Wiring.
A bedroom switch that turns the overhead luminaire on and off is the controller of the luminaire.
I understand the Premises Wiring definition to say that the conductors internal to the switch, used as a controller, to not be part of the Premises Wiring.
If the current leaves and returns to the Premises Wiring at the terminals of the bedroom light switch, what else, besides an outlet, is that point?
As the controller of the luminaire, the current is the current of the utilization equipment, especially because the switch is a device, not normally using energy.
- Location
- Bremerton, Washington
- Occupation
- Master Electrician
Re: Location of Arch Faults
Don you are right, but I explain this the same way Mike Holt does. Isn't there a code change for the 05 cycle on the issue of a switch not having to be AFCI protected?
Don you are right, but I explain this the same way Mike Holt does. Isn't there a code change for the 05 cycle on the issue of a switch not having to be AFCI protected?
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Re: Location of Arch Faults
Al,
I don't see where the definition of premises wiring or controller has anything to do with the question. If it does not directly supply power to ulitization equipment, it is not an outlet.
Don
Al,
I don't see where the definition of premises wiring or controller has anything to do with the question. If it does not directly supply power to ulitization equipment, it is not an outlet.
Don
ryan_618
Senior Member
- Location
- Salt Lake City, Utah
Re: Location of Arch Faults
I guess if there were a change in the definition of outlet, or even a note or FPN to the definition to elaborate on it, that could change the thoughts on what the requirement is.
I could be wrong, but I don't think there is. The only change I am aware of to 210.12 is the 6 foot from the panel rule when the conductors are in a metal wiring method.
I guess if there were a change in the definition of outlet, or even a note or FPN to the definition to elaborate on it, that could change the thoughts on what the requirement is.
al hildenbrand
Senior Member
- Location
- Minnesota
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
Re: Location of Arch Faults
Don wrote:
When a device that is a switch, a simple snap switch, is used to control a lighting outlet, the current going to the lighting outlet (the utiliztation equipment) has to be taken from the premises wiring in order for the current to pass through the switch.
The current to the luminaire is taken from the premises wiring at the controller. Remember, the wiring in the controller, by definition, is not part of the premises wiring system
To say this yet another way, the only current in the switch is the current going to the luminaire, i.e., the only current leaving the wiring system at the controller is the current going to the utilization equipment. There can't be current in the controller unless there is utilization equipment for it to go to.
A controller without utilization equipment is an incomplete circuit.
Don wrote:
Directly is what mucks this up for me. I understand other's reading of outlet to be: the current leaves the wiring system and enters the utilization equipment without re-entering the wiring system and returns to the wiring system only after leaving the utilization equipment.
When a device that is a switch, a simple snap switch, is used to control a lighting outlet, the current going to the lighting outlet (the utiliztation equipment) has to be taken from the premises wiring in order for the current to pass through the switch.
The current to the luminaire is taken from the premises wiring at the controller. Remember, the wiring in the controller, by definition, is not part of the premises wiring system
To say this yet another way, the only current in the switch is the current going to the luminaire, i.e., the only current leaving the wiring system at the controller is the current going to the utilization equipment. There can't be current in the controller unless there is utilization equipment for it to go to.
A controller without utilization equipment is an incomplete circuit.
al hildenbrand
Senior Member
- Location
- Minnesota
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
Re: Location of Arch Faults
What is that explanation, Tom?. . .either yours or Mike's? I must be misunderstanding what you meant. Is Mike's illustration 210-4 in his Illustrated Changes to the NEC? - 2002 Edition, page 27, where two snap switches, a dimmer switch and a fan speed control are called out (labeled) as "Switch Outlets" what you are referring to?
- Location
- Lockport, IL
- Occupation
- Semi-Retired Electrical Engineer
Re: Location of Arch Faults
As I mentioned in "the other thread" that is presently discussing outlets, the word ?outlet? has many definitions. In laymen?s language, the word ?outlet? means either a shopping center or an activity that releases internal frustrations.
But even in the electrical professional?s use of ?Conversational English,? the word ?outlet? can include any 2x4 or 4x4 (or other size) box in which something is installed and connected to wires. I believe that the image you are describing (I don?t have that book) employed the sloppy language of conversation, not the precise language of Article 100. Mike?s book is not the code itself, and he is free to choose his own terms.
But when we talk about whether a given box constitutes an ?outlet? in the context of Article 100, we should be asking ourselves ?Why should anyone care?? The answer is that we need to care if and only if Article 210.12(B) will make us spend the extra time and money to protect the circuit with an AFCI device. Here is my take on the intent of 210.12(B):
The probabilities of an arc fault occurring in an electrical item, in decreasing order, are as follows:
</font>
As I mentioned in "the other thread" that is presently discussing outlets, the word ?outlet? has many definitions. In laymen?s language, the word ?outlet? means either a shopping center or an activity that releases internal frustrations.
But even in the electrical professional?s use of ?Conversational English,? the word ?outlet? can include any 2x4 or 4x4 (or other size) box in which something is installed and connected to wires. I believe that the image you are describing (I don?t have that book) employed the sloppy language of conversation, not the precise language of Article 100. Mike?s book is not the code itself, and he is free to choose his own terms.
But when we talk about whether a given box constitutes an ?outlet? in the context of Article 100, we should be asking ourselves ?Why should anyone care?? The answer is that we need to care if and only if Article 210.12(B) will make us spend the extra time and money to protect the circuit with an AFCI device. Here is my take on the intent of 210.12(B):
The probabilities of an arc fault occurring in an electrical item, in decreasing order, are as follows:
</font>
- <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. Lamp cord</font>
- <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. Light fixture and ceiling fan</font>
- <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. Smoke detector</font>
- <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">4. Switch.</font>
- <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">5. Junction box</font>
- <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">6. Conduit</font>
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Re: Location of Arch Faults
Al,
What the current does before it gets to the outlet has nothing to do with the question. The definition of outlet has nothing to do with how the power supply to the outlet is controlled. It is simply the point on the wiring system where the utilization equipment is connected to the power source. A switch is not utilization equipment and therefore a switch box or switch itself is not an outlet.
Al,
What the current does before it gets to the outlet has nothing to do with the question. The definition of outlet has nothing to do with how the power supply to the outlet is controlled. It is simply the point on the wiring system where the utilization equipment is connected to the power source. A switch is not utilization equipment and therefore a switch box or switch itself is not an outlet.
Don
al hildenbrand
Senior Member
- Location
- Minnesota
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
Re: Location of Arch Faults
Thanks, Don & Charlie B. & everyone
This has been a stimulating discussion, and I appreciate everyones time and interest in the sparring.
In the interest of not having two parallel threads going to the same statements, Don, I refer y'all to my last entry in at 11:05 AM at the bottom of page six. I am speaking to your last entry before mine in this thread.
I think I've run out of words.
Thanks, Don & Charlie B. & everyone
This has been a stimulating discussion, and I appreciate everyones time and interest in the sparring.
In the interest of not having two parallel threads going to the same statements, Don, I refer y'all to my last entry in at 11:05 AM at the bottom of page six. I am speaking to your last entry before mine in this thread.
I think I've run out of words.
- Status