1 members (Scott35),
414
guests, and
29
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 984 Likes: 1
Member
|
Agreed, Greg. Part of the issue is that the manufacturers who used the ground as a current carrying path were very dodgey about exactly how much current they were pulling, not to mention that every one of the fancy switches was adding more and more to the ground wire. That's when NFPA took notice and changed the Code rules for neutrals in switch boxes.
P.S. Just so everyone else on the forum knows what you and I both already know, IAEI reviews the Code so its members are well versed in the changes but they have nothing to do with revising or changing the NEC.
Ghost307
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,931 Likes: 34
Member
|
IAEI reviews the Code so its members are well versed in the changes but they have nothing to do with revising or changing the NEC
... well almost. IAEI usually has people on the TCC and a number of IAEI officials on the various CMPs. They also submit a lot of proposals under the IAEI banner. The same is true of the IBEW, big manufacturers and NEMA. This is far from a pure "user based" process as they would have us believe. Big money swings a big club at NFPA.
Greg Fretwell
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,445 Likes: 3
Cat Servant Member
|
Unless you're using pipe, every switch needs to have a neutral present.
Forget "CMOS" and electronics. Even today 'illuminated' switches operate by not completely shutting things 'off;' they let just enough juice through to light that bulb.
Energy codes want things like timers, which means you'll need a neutral to power the clock.
Put in context with other NEC changes - like AFCI's and restrictions on MWBC's - and it looks as if the only way they want you to wire a circuit is Power -> ALL switches -> device. Looks like they want to do away with having all the connections in the fixture canopy.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,233
OP
Member
|
I see and I hear the reasons for a neutral at every "box". Yet the practicality of the problem shows that when you have a 2 gang box, with two dead end 3 way switches located there. You could always install a occupancy timer/sensor at the OTHER side of that 3-way switch wiring. SO a neutral at that particular box, should not need, (or ever need?) a neutral there at that 2 gang box.?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,931 Likes: 34
Member
|
Playing devil's advocate A occupancy sensor at the other end might not be looking at the right spot in the room.
I think Reno is right. This may be the end of the switch loop.
I guess we can toss all of those 200.7 rules about reidentifying white wires in cables.
Greg Fretwell
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,382 Likes: 7
Member
|
Gentlemen: Thanks for the info & opinions.
John
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,931 Likes: 34
Member
|
I suppose we might see more 4 wire NM. If they throw a blue wire in there we can still have a 3 way dead end loop. A regular 1 way loop will need 3 wire.
Greg Fretwell
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,382 Likes: 7
Member
|
Hmmm, I wonder if Southwire is tuned in??
John
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,931 Likes: 34
Member
|
They probably were in on the proposal.
Greg Fretwell
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,233
OP
Member
|
So the opinion is that even if you have 2 dead end 3 way switches in one 2 gang box, you would have to drag in another 2 wire cable just to have a neutral in that box. The hot wire wouldn't be hooked up, but the neutral would be. Is that what we agree on?
|
|
|
Posts: 356
Joined: August 2006
|
|
|
|