An If Control 'xxxxx' is not switched Off by itself does not trigger a Program when a On command is received.

 

as the only thing in the If section.

 

I understand and agree. Our example, however, has two "things" in the condition section, one of which is triggered by ON. The individual "NOT" condition would be evaluated as "TRUE" when the combined program conditions were triggered based upon receipt of an ON command.

 

Perhaps another way to attempt to make a point, similar to a truth table:

 

condition A: control x is switched on (triggered by ON)

condition B: control x is not switched off (trigger by OFF)

 

tigger conditionA conditionB AorB AandB

ON TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE

OFF FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

 

In the end, whether you use AND or OR makes no difference in this case.

It is starting to sound a lot like a double-negative. My head hurts.

 

It is totally a double negative.

 

Pretty much I think of "control is not" (as compared to "control is") to simply mean, swap the "then" and "else".

 

Or in other words, figure out what the line would do under "control is", and then it does the opposite with "control is not" as far as then or else. The trigger on the other hand is the same regardless.

 

"control is" when acting as its own trigger only runs true, any other trigger and it is always false.

"control is not" when acting as its own trigger only runs false, any other trigger and it is always true.

 

The only purpose I find for using "control is not" is when you have other conditions in the "if" section which lend themselves to being true or false and you want the particular "control" line to match the true or false simultaneous state of the other lines. As a single line in the "if" section, you get the same exact result if you just swap the "then" and "else" contents, so there is no point in using "control is not" as a single "if" condition.

It is totally a double negative.

 

yes, it is. I was just trying to avoid sounding too confident.

In my case the second line enables the motion sensor to take over control of the circuit once the switch is turned off. If that line is left out the switch will still have priority over the motion sensor but will not turn over control to the sensor when the switch is turned off for the night. By adding the second line it allows the switch to always have priority over the circuit (and the sensor) and return control to the sensor for automatic triggering when needed. The other option is to add another program for the "off" condition of the switch and this is just simpler. Either way, it does exactly what I hoped it would and has been working flawlessly for a few days now so thanks again for all the help.

Rick