3 way current carrying conductor

Status
Not open for further replies.

al hildenbrand

Senior Member
Location
Minnesota
Occupation
Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
Are the conductors in a California (key word) 3 way required to all be counted as current carrying?
There is one instance of switch positions that results in ALL four conductors carrying the switched load current, so, Yes.
 

480sparky

Senior Member
Location
Iowegia
What is that and is it a legal method anyway?

Calif3wayanim.gif


No.
 

GoldDigger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Placerville, CA, USA
Occupation
Retired PV System Designer
The circuit which switches only the hot is compliant. The version which switches the neutral is not.
Which one is the California 3-way and what is the other one called?
Chicago?
 

al hildenbrand

Senior Member
Location
Minnesota
Occupation
Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
Ken,

While there is no definitive reference we can point to for the naming convention, I believe the most common names for the circuit you posted in your post is a "farmer", "Carter" or "Chicago" threeway, that is distinguished by polarity reversal in the lampholder.

The OP is, in the name "California" threeway, asking about another threeway configuration, until he tells us otherwise, distinguished by a conductor that bonds the Common terminal of one threeway switch to the other Common terminal of the other threeway switch, and does nothing else, and the Common terminals have no other connections.
 

al hildenbrand

Senior Member
Location
Minnesota
Occupation
Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
fig5.gif



Looks legal to me?

Some, here, have argued that, when the hot conductor continues on past the end threeway switch to supply unswitched load, AND the two threeway switches are in the position shown in the diagram, that the current is split between two parallel conductors, and that 310.10(H) says that can only be done when the conductors are 1/0 and larger.
 

mbrooke

Batteries Included
Location
United States
Occupation
Technician
Some, here, have argued that, when the hot conductor continues on past the end threeway switch to supply unswitched load, AND the two threeway switches are in the position shown in the diagram, that the current is split between two parallel conductors, and that 310.10(H) says that can only be done when the conductors are 1/0 and larger.

True, but the intention inst to parallel, rather an inadvertent byproduct?
 

GoldDigger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Placerville, CA, USA
Occupation
Retired PV System Designer
True, but the intention inst to parallel, rather an inadvertent byproduct?

Note also that in the diagram shown the conductors are only in parallel when they are carrying no current.
Finally, nowhere do you have single lengths of conductor connecting the same two endpoints directly.
Once you put the switch in the middle, you do not have parallel conductors.
The same argument has been applied to a manual bypass switch around a photocell, and I do not thing the parallel conductor rules apply there either.

The intent of the rule, FWIW, is the use of multiple conductors to increase the ampacity of the circuit.
 

mbrooke

Batteries Included
Location
United States
Occupation
Technician
Note also that in the diagram shown the conductors are only in parallel when they are carrying no current.
Finally, nowhere do you have single lengths of conductor connecting the same two endpoints directly.
Once you put the switch in the middle, you do not have parallel conductors.
The same argument has been applied to a manual bypass switch around a photocell, and I do not thing the parallel conductor rules apply there either.

The intent of the rule, FWIW, is the use of multiple conductors to increase the ampacity of the circuit.

My thoughts, I do not believe this constitutes the intent of parallel conductors.


Now, correct to assume that in the right position all 4 wires will carry the load with added voltage drop as well?
 

GoldDigger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Placerville, CA, USA
Occupation
Retired PV System Designer
My thoughts, I do not believe this constitutes the intent of parallel conductors.


Now, correct to assume that in the right position all 4 wires will carry the load with added voltage drop as well?
In the diagram shown (Coast 3-way) no cross section of the circuit has more than 3 wires. And in the center section all three will be counted as CCCs.
If you combine several runs of that diagram into one raceway, then you could have more than four.
 

John120/240

Senior Member
Location
Olathe, Kansas
Before 14-2-2 Romex we would borrow the white wire & common name was California 3 Way. Let me try to explain: One coach light at front door. Coach light at garage overhead door. 3 way between front door & inside garage with power at front door. Send the front door switch leg to garage on the white of 14-3 with red/black travelers.
At front door & inside garage there was always a two gang switch box where you could pick up neutral. You had to keep all of it on the same circuit.
 

ActionDave

Chief Moderator
Staff member
Location
Durango, CO, 10 h 20 min from the winged horses.
Occupation
Licensed Electrician
Before 14-2-2 Romex we would borrow the white wire & common name was California 3 Way. Let me try to explain: One coach light at front door. Coach light at garage overhead door. 3 way between front door & inside garage with power at front door. Send the front door switch leg to garage on the white of 14-3 with red/black travelers.
At front door & inside garage there was always a two gang switch box where you could pick up neutral. You had to keep all of it on the same circuit.
That is a slight variation on a California three way but meets the same criteria of current on one wire with no opposing current to balance the circuit. What I have always known as a California three way is also known as California travelers, hot in one box, switch leg in the other, 14-2 or 12-2 romex for your travelers.

They will do anything they can out in California to save $2 worth of wire so that by the time you build 200,000 houses in a month you might make some money.
 

mbrooke

Batteries Included
Location
United States
Occupation
Technician
The funny thing is none of my inspectors seem to care what mbrooke on the Internet feels the intent is. :)

Right or wrong it is IMO a violation.


But the conductors aren't parallel while they are carrying current. And, if that was the true intent of the parallel conductor rule I can think of over a dozen scenarios used every day (UPS/timer bypass as one example) that would be illegal. You may feel it is a violation, and it might be depending on interpretation, but nothing explicitly prohibits it. ;)
 

al hildenbrand

Senior Member
Location
Minnesota
Occupation
Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
But the conductors aren't parallel while they are carrying current.

???? Again. Look at the Fig. 5 that you posted. The top "traveler" black wire is the continuous hot. If that hot is extended beyond the end threeway switch to any more load, that load current will travel in parallel conductors when the switches are in the exact position shown in the Fig. 5 photo in this thread.

but nothing explicitly prohibits it. ;)

Are the parallel conductors compliant with the language of 310.10(H)? If the conductors are #12 or #14, they are not compliant. They are prohibited.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top