Okay, I try to make this sound simple:

1-light, 2-3ways, 1-4way
Power feeds one 3-way.
Light is fed from the box the 4-way is in.

Since 200.7(C)(2) only allows the white conductor to be used as a SUPPLY to a switch, is there any way to wire this without using a 14/4 between the 3-way containing the swith leg and the 4-way???

If I only use a 14/3, I must reidentify the white conductor as a traveller and I don't think I can do that.

Help.

Laura

In my opinion, there is no supply to a 4 way switch per se, however they specifically mention 4 way switch loops in 200.7(C)(2).

I think a white traveller that is re-identified is perfectly fine.

I think I read that the re-identified conductor is to be used to feed a switch but I think the intent is for feeding one of the 3 ways with power. I agree with Ryan, your not really supplying power to a 4 way. Very un-conventional. I'm sure it would work and the inspector would never catch it.

Sure would be interesting to troubleshoot

I think that this is an easy one. The 14-3 coming from the 3 way with the feed should remain the white neutral wire. The 14-3 wire from the 4 way to the other 3 way should be re-identified with either tape ( which ususally falls off.) or we use to carry magic markers or(Sharpies) to re-paint the white conductor wire -black.

But can a traveller be considered a supply to a switch, because by code, we are only allowed to reidentify the white conductor if it is used to supply the switch.

I believe that we debated this particular topic sometime last year. Opinions varied, and I don't think that we were able to more than 'agree to disagree'.

My reading of 200.7(C)(1) is that you may use the white conductor _anywhere_ as long as it is properly re-identified as not being the grounded conductor. This includes being either the supply or the return in a switch loop.

My opinion is that 200.7(C)(1) renders 200.7(C)(2) redundant. During our debate last year, someone else noted that in previous versions of the code, 200.7(C)(2) permitted the white conductor to be used in switch loops as the supply to the switch _without_ re-identification.

Thus in previous versions of the code, you clearly had two options: re-identify the white conductor, _or_ use the white conductor without re-identification in a very narrow application. Then the code evolved to eliminate the second option, but rather than removing 200.7(C)(2), it was modified to be redundant with 200.7(C)(1).

Just my opinion. Any updates for 2005 on this topic?

-Jon

electra,

since you are tying the white hot on the three way system you are in essence following the code to the letter the hot is the common and is the supply of the switch, the travelers (red and black)are the return. IMHO,
h20sparkfalls

The intent of 200.7(C)(2) is to eliminate polarity confusion at the lighting outlet by assuring that the final connection at the lighting outlet itself is 'color coded" properly.
Re-identification in the manner you describe is acceptable.