ECN Forum
Posted By: harold endean Re: 404.2 switches - 08/07/13 02:26 AM
Someone just asked me today this question, so I thought that I would throw it out here. This would be for new construction and as per 2011 NEC. Section 404.2(C)

Here is the example:

By the front door you have 2 three way switches. One for the spot light between the front door and garage the second switch is by the garage door.
One for the overhead living room lights and the other switch is by the kitchen opening.
Both 3 way switches are "Dead end" switches, meaning that the feed and neutral is at the other side of the 3-way switches.
1) Should that install fail inspection? There is no neutral at the front door.
2) Do you have to have a neutral in that double gang switch box to meet code?
3) What if there was a four way switch for that living room light and it is by the dining room opening.
4) Would the 4-way switch (in a 1 gang box) need a neutral in it.

What are your thoughts?
Posted By: HotLine1 Re: 404.2 switches - 08/07/13 02:56 AM
Harold:

As neither of the exceptions likely apply, the neutral should be present at each switch location.

That is how I understand the written word. Now, from a practical real world inquiry.....is a neutral required for the operation of multiple lighting controls at EACH location??

Gentlemen, let the comments begin.

Posted By: gfretwell Re: 404.2 switches - 08/07/13 06:09 AM
If you are following the letter of the law in 2011, I agree with john. You need a neutral there. I am not sure how you deal with having more than one feed into a location. Again the letter of the law will require a separate neutral for all of them.

We are still on 2008. I have not seen this litigated.

It seems the "switch loop" as we know it is gone. From a practical sense you need to feed through switching locations, not down and back.
Posted By: HotLine1 Re: 404.2 switches - 08/07/13 01:23 PM
I have to find some time to see if any of the multi location lighting controls that are available do require a neutral connection at each location.

My point is, if there are no devices for multi control points that require a neutral, why is it required?
Posted By: ghost307 Re: 404.2 switches - 08/07/13 03:11 PM
The reason that I was given at the IAEI conference to review the 2011 NEC was that there are switches available that require a grounded conductor and in most cases they ended up using the ground wire to complete the circuit. Add to that the number of times that a homeowner decides to add a receptacle into a switchbox and the CMP decided that the addition of a neutral wire was cheap insurance to allow a proper installation in all cases.
Posted By: BigB Re: 404.2 switches - 08/07/13 04:08 PM
Originally Posted by HotLine1
I have to find some time to see if any of the multi location lighting controls that are available do require a neutral connection at each location.

My point is, if there are no devices for multi control points that require a neutral, why is it required?


There are. HAI switches for one, require a neutral, as do most Insteon devices. Also your electronic low voltage dimmers require a neutral. I am sure there will be new energy saving devices on the way that will need that neutral.
Posted By: BigB Re: 404.2 switches - 08/07/13 04:09 PM
Originally Posted by ghost307
The reason that I was given at the IAEI conference to review the 2011 NEC was that there are switches available that require a grounded conductor and in most cases they ended up using the ground wire to complete the circuit. Add to that the number of times that a homeowner decides to add a receptacle into a switchbox and the CMP decided that the addition of a neutral wire was cheap insurance to allow a proper installation in all cases.


I had surmised that the code change was looking into the future to accomodate home automation, occupancy sensors and the like. It is dissapointing to hear that it was done to dumb down our installations to accomodate future additions by unqualified persons.
Posted By: gfretwell Re: 404.2 switches - 08/07/13 04:34 PM
As usual the NFPA gets pressured by manufacturers to make code accommodations for devices that do not even exist yet.

I remember several years ago that IAEA had a scathing article in the magazine condemning switches and other equipment that were powered through the load (like 2 wire timers and occupancy sensors).
I figured it would just be a matter of time before they put a stop to that. This is the first step. In 50 years, most houses will have an available neutral.

I would have been 117 years old wink
Posted By: ghost307 Re: 404.2 switches - 08/07/13 06:52 PM
Actually the addition of the neutral to save people from their own stupidity was secondary.
What actually started the proposal was the decision of some manufacturers to make a switch that required power to operate and then decided that the way to sell even more of them was to use the hot and ground to power the switch. This put 'objectionable current' on the grounding conductor which the Code doesn't allow...but the manufacturers refused to withdraw or modify their product so the rule was passed to accomodate their poor product design.
Once again one bad apple ruined it for everyone.
Thanks a lot to the marketing guys at the *** company.
Posted By: gfretwell Re: 404.2 switches - 08/07/13 09:05 PM
NEMA used to (and may still) allow something like a half a MA on the ground without considering it objectionable.
This is plenty to power most CMOS devices.
That was how it got started but IAEA seemed to be more concerned with load powered devices that put current through the load at a very low level, when the device was considered to be "off".
I think the title of the article was something like "Is it really off". That was the first time I heard the push for requiring a neutral everywhere.
Posted By: ghost307 Re: 404.2 switches - 08/07/13 09:58 PM
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.
Posted By: gfretwell Re: 404.2 switches - 08/07/13 11:23 PM
Quote
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.
Posted By: renosteinke Re: 404.2 switches - 08/08/13 12:47 AM
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.
Posted By: harold endean Re: 404.2 switches - 08/08/13 02:41 AM
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.?
Posted By: gfretwell Re: 404.2 switches - 08/08/13 02:51 AM
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.
Posted By: HotLine1 Re: 404.2 switches - 08/08/13 01:24 PM
Gentlemen:
Thanks for the info & opinions.

Posted By: gfretwell Re: 404.2 switches - 08/08/13 06:19 PM
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.

Posted By: HotLine1 Re: 404.2 switches - 08/08/13 07:09 PM
Hmmm, I wonder if Southwire is tuned in??
Posted By: gfretwell Re: 404.2 switches - 08/09/13 01:57 AM
They probably were in on the proposal.
Posted By: harold endean Re: 404.2 switches - 08/09/13 02:12 AM
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?
Posted By: HotLine1 Re: 404.2 switches - 08/09/13 02:20 AM
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?
Posted By: gfretwell Re: 404.2 switches - 08/09/13 05:47 AM
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)
Posted By: HotLine1 Re: 404.2 switches - 08/09/13 01:24 PM
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.



Posted By: gfretwell Re: 404.2 switches - 08/09/13 04:45 PM
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.
Posted By: HotLine1 Re: 404.2 switches - 08/09/13 06:54 PM
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?
Posted By: gfretwell Re: 404.2 switches - 08/09/13 08:34 PM
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.
Posted By: HotLine1 Re: 404.2 switches - 08/10/13 12:57 AM
It all depends on the layout man. I was just fooling around with Harolds scenario.

Posted By: harold endean Re: 404.2 switches - 08/12/13 01:15 PM
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. smile
Posted By: gfretwell Re: 404.2 switches - 08/12/13 05:05 PM
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.
Posted By: harold endean Re: 404.2 switches - 08/19/13 02:04 PM
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.)
© ECN Electrical Forums