Are you a subscriber but don’t have an online account?

Register for full online access.

 
 
 
 
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 38
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    431

    Default Re: July issue JLC, 3-way switching

    Quote Originally Posted by jwelectric View Post
    Yea, what George said!

    The consensus was as long as the white was not used to return to the light everything was okay.

    I don't know if I like that answer, though a white traveller isn't much of a hazard. It could happen if someone used 2-conductor cable from switch to switch and it wouldn't involve a switch loop so the Code section wouldn't apply.

    But you guys, I don't get why, if there's a 3-wire involved as in the JLC example, you wouldn't require the white as the hot on the common screw. This is certainly the supply to the switching system, and at the other end would be the black switch leg on the common.

    I think the code section DOES apply to the switches in this case.

    Ed
    Last edited by edlee120; 07-21-2007 at 09:48 AM.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    2,240

    Default Re: July issue JLC, 3-way switching

    Ed,
    200.7(C)(2) addresses a light that is supplied and a two conductor is dropped to the switch. Here the conductor that feeds the switch MUST be the re-identified white conductor and the conductor that returns to the light MUST be the colored conductor.

    200.7(C)(2) Where a cable assembly contains an insulated conductor for single-pole, 3-way or 4-way switch loops and the conductor with white or gray insulation or a marking of three continuous white stripes is used for the supply to the switch but not as a return conductor from the switch to the switched outlet. In these applications, the conductor with white or gray insulation or with three continuous white stripes shall be permanently reidentified to indicate its use by painting or other effective means at its terminations and at each location where the conductor is visible and accessible.
    An easier reading

    Where a cable assembly contains an insulated conductor for single-pole, 3-way or 4-way switch loops and the conductor with white or gray insulation is used for the supply to the switch but not as a return conductor from the switch to the switched outlet.

    If the switch box ix supplied and the same switch box was used for the switch leg and a three conductor was used between the two switches then the grounded (neutral) would simply pass through the switch box. Any of the conductors from this switch to the other switch could be used to supply the common of the second switch as nothing in 200.7(C)(2) addresses this installation. 200.7(C)(2) only addresses the supply to the switch and the return to the light both of which are in the first box.
    Seeking to be the best and the safest in the electrical trade.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Pacific Palisades,CA
    Posts
    740

    Default Re: July issue JLC, 3-way switching

    Quote Originally Posted by jwelectric View Post
    200.7(C)(2) reidentified to indicate its use by painting or other effective means at its terminations and at each location where the conductor is visible and accessible.
    How many have ever seen a painted identification?
    I suggest that another effective means would be a one inch section of shrink wrap available at most supply houses or
    http://www.wesbellwireandcable.com/T...B301_3-16.html

    I'd use blue, yellow, or some other color than black or red.
    ....Bob Lavery
    "One should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed."
    William of Occam quote

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    492

    Default Re: July issue JLC, 3-way switching

    I don't know what the reasoning is behind the switch leg. But I have seen many, whether wired correctly or not that have not been remarked.

    And on a DIY I see lots of HO that attempt to replace a light fixture and then come up with a wire wire connected to the back fixture wire and that violates everything that they have ever heard. So redo all of the connections and things do down from there.

    If the white (remarked or not) as the always hot then the fixture is wired black to black and white to white they never have to look at the rest of the wiring.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    431

    Default Re: July issue JLC, 3-way switching

    Quote Originally Posted by BillHartmann View Post
    I don't know what the reasoning is behind the switch leg. But I have seen many, whether wired correctly or not that have not been remarked.

    If the white (remarked or not) as the always hot then the fixture is wired black to black and white to white they never have to look at the rest of the wiring.
    The remarking went into the NEC in 1999. So there are a lot out there that haven't been marked. I use a black laundry marker for it, it's pretty much permanent and it's handy. I actually prefer to see an unmarked white wire nutted to a black or two in a ceiling box....it's immediately obvious what's happening.

    According to the 99 NEC Handbook the reasoning for the remarking is this: before it was required, as you say, the white wire would never be at the fixture itself and no one would be confused as to it's function. However with the development of electronic switching devices there came to be a need sometimes for a neutral wire for controls at a switch location. So it was decided that the ungrounded white needed to be differentiated.


    Ed

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    2,240

    Default Re: July issue JLC, 3-way switching

    Quote Originally Posted by edlee120 View Post
    The remarking went into the NEC in 1999. Ed
    Here is the wording found on pages 32 and 33 of the 1962 code cycle and as clear it has been a code requirement for several code cycles.

    page 32
    page 33
    Last edited by jwelectric; 07-21-2007 at 02:47 PM.
    Seeking to be the best and the safest in the electrical trade.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    431

    Default Re: July issue JLC, 3-way switching

    I'm not following ya here buddy. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? We're talking switch loops, so your example "page 33" is relevant. It says painting at the switch box is unnecessary.

    Yes? No?


    Ed

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    2,240

    Default Re: July issue JLC, 3-way switching

    Quote Originally Posted by edlee120 View Post
    I'm not following ya here buddy.
    First the reference made on page 33 is from the
    Quote Originally Posted by jwelectric View Post
    of the 1962 code cycle
    but it says that the black or colored wire MUST be the return from the switch to the light (outlet).

    The only other requirement is that, if used, the white must be re-identified and used to supply the switch. If the supply is in the switch box then the use of the white to supply the switch would not be utilized.

    The only time that the white would be used to supply a switch is if the supply was in the light box.
    Seeking to be the best and the safest in the electrical trade.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    492

    Default Re: July issue JLC, 3-way switching

    Ed

    That has to be the twisted and tortured language in the world.

    Triple double negatives followed by a summersault.

    Now in exception #2 first it talks about a switch OUTLET. At least in todays usage a switch is not an outlet.

    And they are talking about paint the terminal on the switch, not the conductor.

    As I read it #1 requires a neutral that is not being used as a neutral to be remarked.

    But #2 says that if you use a neutral for the RETURN (ie, switch hot) in a switch leg then you don't have to mark the terminal on the switch. (Must be some other section that requires marking switch terminals.) Also note that this is contrary to current code requiring the neutral wire to be the always hot.

    What is not clear is if you except 2 overrides #1 or you need both.

    Edit I see that #2 is talking about the UNIDENTIFIED conductor (the only UNIDENTIFIED CONDUCTOR WOULD BE A BARE ONE). See what I ment about too many double negatives.

    So it does follow current usage for a switch leg. But still does make sense about painting the switch terminal.
    Last edited by BillHartmann; 07-21-2007 at 05:52 PM.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Nothern California
    Posts
    734

    Default Re: July issue JLC, 3-way switching

    Quote Originally Posted by PaliBob View Post
    How many have ever seen a painted identification?
    I see it all the time after the painters leave. All conductors in every box have been re-identified as neutrals. :(

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    431

    Default Re: July issue JLC, 3-way switching

    Quote Originally Posted by jwelectric View Post
    The only other requirement is that, if used, the white must be re-identified and used to supply the switch.

    Nope. It doesn't say that. The so-called identified conductor in this section about grounded conductors would be the white wire. And YOUR reference says, "This exception makes it unnecessary to paint the terminal of the identified conductor at the switch outlet". Now, who knows what the hell they mean by that, except that it's clear you don't need to paint anything.

    Look at this quote about switch loops from the 1996 edition: 200-7 Exception #2 ."....In these applications, re-identification of the white or natural gray conductor shall not be required".

    What's interesting is that exception #1 allows the white to be used ungrounded but it must be re-marked, as for example when used for a 240v circuit. So exception #2 overrules exception #1. And that is the same pattern as your two 1962 code references.

    Then in '99 they moved it to 200.7(C)(2) and added the language we now use, including the re-identification requirement.




    Ed

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    431

    Default Re: July issue JLC, 3-way switching

    Quote Originally Posted by BillHartmann View Post
    Ed

    That has to be the twisted and tortured language in the world.

    Triple double negatives followed by a summersault.

    Now in exception #2 first it talks about a switch OUTLET. At least in todays usage a switch is not an outlet.
    yeah that's some weird stuff. Probably how it feels to someone looking at the current code for the first time.

    So Bill, if I use a pilot switch does that make it an outlet? :-)


    Ed

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    2,240

    Default Re: July issue JLC, 3-way switching

    Ed and Bill

    I guess this goes to show that without understanding of how the code is written it is hard to understand.

    In the 1962 code cycle where I have posted pages 32 and 33 Section 200-7 and the Exceptions that addresses this section the Article (200) is addressing the identification of the grounded (neutral) conductor. In this article when it addresses an unidentified conductor it is addressing a phase conductor.

    The paragraph under Exception One goes on to explain the use of a two conductor cable for use on the outside legs (240 volt) the “conductor” marked, not the terminals.

    I made the post to the 1962 code cycle (200-7) to show that the requirement to re-identify the white/gray conductor of a cable when it is being used for a phase conductor has been a code requirement for over 40 years.

    The requirement to not use the re-identified white wire as a return to the light has been a code requirement for over 40 years.
    In the 1962 code cycle in 200-7 Exception Two it states:
    “Cable containing an identified (white) conductor may be used for single pole, three way or four way switch loops where the connections are so made that the unidentified (colored) conductor is the return conductor from the switch to the outlet (light).”
    The only place that this exception will matter is if the branch circuit feeds the box with the light (explained below)

    In today’s code (2005) the wording is a little easier to understand. “If part of a cable assembly and where the insulation is permanently reidentified to indicate its use as an ungrounded conductor,” Here it makes it plain that it is the insulation of the conductor that is to be marked.

    When being used on switches it is clear that;
    Where a cable assembly contains an insulated conductor for single-pole, 3-way or 4-way switch loops and the conductor with white or gray insulation or a marking of three continuous white stripes is
    (1) used for the supply to the switch
    (2) but not as a return conductor from the switch to the switched outlet.

    This can only happen if the circuit feeds the box where the light is installed. If the circuit is feeding the box where the switch is located then the white (neutral) will just join and pass on through and a color (black) will be the return to the light even if it is a three way switch.

    Quote Originally Posted by edlee120 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jwelectric View Post
    The only other requirement is that, if used, the white must be re-identified and used to supply the switch.
    Nope. It doesn't say that. The so-called identified conductor in this section about grounded conductors would be the white wire. And YOUR reference says, "This exception makes it unnecessary to paint the terminal of the identified conductor at the switch outlet". Now, who knows what the hell they mean by that, except that it's clear you don't need to paint anything.
    Without having to post the whole article and to keep it simple 200-9 of the 1962 code cycle states that a white conductor MUST land on a terminal that is either white in color or marked for identification. The paragraph after Exception Two relieves the requirement to re-identify the “terminal.”

    Quote Originally Posted by edlee120 View Post
    So Bill, if I use a pilot switch does that make it an outlet? :-) Ed
    Yes
    Seeking to be the best and the safest in the electrical trade.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    431

    Default Re: July issue JLC, 3-way switching

    Quote Originally Posted by jwelectric View Post
    I made the post to the 1962 code cycle (200-7) to show that the requirement to re-identify the white/gray conductor of a cable when it is being used for a phase conductor has been a code requirement for over 40 years.
    Well then they must have took it out at some point for switch loops.

    The '96 quote in my previous post is pretty darn clear and that's the oldest code book I happen to have. Look it up.


    Ed

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    2,240

    Default Re: July issue JLC, 3-way switching

    Quote Originally Posted by edlee120 View Post
    Well then they must have took it out at some point for switch loops.
    The '96 quote in my previous post is pretty darn clear and that's the oldest code book I happen to have. Look it up.
    Ed
    Ed you are correct that the requirement was removed from the exception somewhere between the ’62 cycle and the ’99 cycle.
    In the ’99 cycle the requirement was reinstated but this time it was put in the rule itself instead of in the exception.

    The point that I am trying to make clear is that it has never been acceptable to use the white conductor as the return to the light no matter if it is identified by some means or not.
    The white conductor can ONLY be used to supply a switch and this has been the rule for over half a century.

    1996
    1999
    Seeking to be the best and the safest in the electrical trade.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts