|
0 members (),
205
guests, and
28
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,381 Likes: 7
Member
|
Harold:
That sounds like a plan! We don't have to like it, but that is how it is by the book.
Could be interesting if any of this is in the '14 changes?
John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,928 Likes: 34
Member
|
The only problem with that plan is the neutral needs to be in the same cable or raceway with the ungrounded conductors.
300.3(B)
I am not sure you can apply 300.3(B)(3)
Greg Fretwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,381 Likes: 7
Member
|
It sounds like Harolds 'plan' would involve extending the feed NM to the 2 gang box, even if it is not necessary, and capping off the black conductor.
John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,928 Likes: 34
Member
|
I would question whether the neutral was in the same "cable or raceway" or even the same circuit as the ungrounded conductors in the switch loops.
Greg Fretwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,381 Likes: 7
Member
|
A 14/2 from the same lighting circuit, neutral capped, hot capped, and EGCs spliced together may make me happy & be compliant.
It could be a PITx; but it sounds compliant?? What say you?
John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,928 Likes: 34
Member
|
I guess the deal breaker would be metal boxes but it still seems like trying to exploit a loophole in 300.3 to avoid doing it right. If you are going to bring the feed into the box anyway, why not just wire the switches to it and take 2 travelers and a neutral to the next box?
You have lost any advantage of using a switch loop.
Greg Fretwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,381 Likes: 7
Member
|
It all depends on the layout man. I was just fooling around with Harolds scenario.
John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,233
OP
Member
|
The whole reason I brought this up, is because there are AHJ's out there who will fail you if there isn't a "neutral" wire in the box, even if the box is a one gang "dead end" 3-way switch. So an EC asked me about it and I told him that I would bounce the idea of this BBoard to see what everyone thought about it. The best suggestion is what I think Greg said about making new wire with built in neutral in every cable. This way the neutral would be there and it would be in the same cable. Oh look, another code change that will help sell more electrical products. gee imagine that. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,928 Likes: 34
Member
|
Once the mindset changes and you stop using dead end switch loops the problem goes away. It is just something we lost from the tool box. We will end up with fewer of those cluttered ceiling boxes with wires going everywhere and that could make a lot of AFCI problems go away. (maybe an unstated goal) If you really need a 3 way switch loop, you can still use 2+2 cable, reidentifying the red tracer lead to an ungrounded color.
Unfortunately if this is on the lamp end of the 3 way loop, we have met the code but we may not have met the objective.
Greg Fretwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,233
OP
Member
|
Greg,
Some of those newer homes I see have complete lighting controllers in the house. So where the switch would normally go, there is a low voltage switch there which then goes to a master controller. This brings back memories of those old LV Remcon Relays that were popular in the 60's. (I think that was the time frame.)
|
|
|
|
Posts: 44
Joined: July 2013
|
|
|
|
