ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
Increasing demand factors in residential
by gfretwell - 03/28/24 12:43 AM
Portable generator question
by Steve Miller - 03/19/24 08:50 PM
Do we need grounding?
by NORCAL - 03/19/24 05:11 PM
240V only in a home and NEC?
by dsk - 03/19/24 06:33 AM
Cordless Tools: The Obvious Question
by renosteinke - 03/14/24 08:05 PM
New in the Gallery:
This is a new one
This is a new one
by timmp, September 24
Few pics I found
Few pics I found
by timmp, August 15
Who's Online Now
1 members (gfretwell), 32 guests, and 14 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,335
S
Member
I see what you are saying now. Old habits are hard to break. Trying to make it work mu old way which saved time and material (rqual dollars saved). I can still do it my way, add one more 12/2 run and make sure I don't parallel my neutrals.


"Live Awesome!" - Kevin Carosa
Stay up to Code with the Latest NEC:


>> 2023 NEC & Related Reference & Exam Prep
2023 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides

Pass Your Exam the FIRST TIME with the Latest NEC & Exam Prep

>> 2020 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides
 

Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 853
L
Member
Originally Posted by renosteinke
Here's how you can do it:

Ordinary B/W/G Romex brings power to the first 3-way switch, then B/R/W/G continues to the 4-way(s), B/R/W/G to the last 3-way, then B/W/G to the lights. Between the 3-ways. you use the black and red as your 'travelers.'


I like the idea, but I don't like the rule.


This has been my standard for years. However,there are times when I will just drop a switch leg.

How is it safer? Appears they are just making it easier for the DIY crowd. We have lost our last ally.

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,044
Tom Offline
Member
I've noticed a few references to 300.3(B). IMO, 300.3(B) does not apply to non-metallic sheathed cable generally. Read a little further and you will come to 300.3(B)(3) which would allow the conductors of a circuit to be in different non-metallic sheathed cables if 300.20(B) is complied with.


Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example.
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,923
Likes: 32
G
Member
I may be the only fan but in resi, I would think about running smurf from the kludge ceiling box to the switch locations. That eliminates a bunch of problems.


Greg Fretwell
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,233
H
Member
When I was in business, I would always run my feed to a 3 way/(4W) switch to the first box, then leave the last box to go to the light fixture. This way it was always easier to trace out problems. I never had to drop down lights to see if I had a feed in there. I could check for incoming feed at the switch. So now with the new code, it would not be an issue.

P.S. when the new code goes into effect, do you think the AHJ will look at each box to make sure that there is a neutral in there?

Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,923
Likes: 32
G
Member
If it is the "violation of the week" they will. That seems to be the way things go. wink

The inspectors I have seen will blitz one particular violation (along with the normal look/see) until all of their installers get into line. It is usually right after a seminar where they all talk about it.
I agree it will be something that will add some time to your inspections trying to figure out where are the wires are coming from and going to. In one of those big 4 and 5 gang boxes with multiple circuits feeding it, this might really be a trick. Just because there is a neutral, doesn't mean it is the right neutral.


















Greg Fretwell
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,044
Tom Offline
Member
I use Harold's method for three ways and single pole switches. The main reason I do this is to save a couple of trips up & down a ladder, which is my least favorite tool, and I absolutely hate taking down a light fixture just to troubleshoot connections that could have been avoided by running power to the switch location rather than dropping a switch leg from the fixture box.

As far as neutrals at the switch are concerned, I've seen Howard Homeowner use the equipment ground as a current carrying conductor often enough to think that requiring a neutral at the switch location is a good idea. To the average homeowner, the only difference between a grounded conductor (neutral) and a grounding conductor is the insulation. It'll probably take a few code cycles to work out some of the kinks pointed out by others.


Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example.
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,273
T
Member
I would say that Code writers are preparing the whole land for Title 24 type energy conservation gadgets which are expected to need a grounded conductor.

Otherwise, the demand seems to be a deliberate attempt at wasting copper, time and other materials.


Tesla
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,445
Likes: 2
Cat Servant
Member
Tesla, I agree with you.

That's been a sore spot with me for years; if you search this site you'll find I had a thread long ago, asking if the NEC had lost focus.

The question is just where 'practical safeguarding' and 'good design' part ways. Make no bones about it; many of the 'safety' arguments are dependent upon design choices. (For example, compare the different US and UK approaches to power in bathrooms).

The NEC plainly states that it is not a design manual, and explains that a 'safe' installation might not be the most efficient design, or have any provisions for future changes.

I don't want to get off on a tangent; if we want to discuss this in more depth, perhaps a new thread is in order.

Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,148
R
Member
The real reason behind this rule is so that UL can correct a mistake they made when they permitted electronic switching type device to use the EGC as the grounded conductor. The standard permits up to 0.5mA of current on the grounding conductor. While this is not enough to cause a serious shock, it is enough to feel and the reaction to this low level shock may result in injury. For example you it may cause you to fall off a ladder or something like that.
I expect that sometime in the not too distant future the UL standard will be changed to prohibit the use of an EGC as a grounded conductor for these devices.


Don(resqcapt19)
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5