120v exhaust fan 277v lighting

[jap]

Would it be a violation to use a 2p 277v Rated switch with the 277v for the lighting run through one side of the switch and the 120v run through the other side ?

I say it is,but a friend of mine says that it is'nt.

The lights and the fan need to be controlled off of the same switch.

I've always used a contactor with a 277v coil and ran the 120v circuiit thru the contactor.

I would also have an issue with the 2 different voltages available on the switch, much like a multiwire branch circuit to a receptacle, but there would be no way to tye the handles together to since the power comes from 2 different sources.

He also claims that the 300v between issue does not come into play since the 2 voltages are not "between" but are on the same switch.

I am so used to doing things the right way, that when I get into a disagreement on crazy stuff like this, I dont know how to respond to it.

 

[cowboyjwc]

While I understand where you are coming from and I even agree with your final comment.

I'm not sure that this would be a code violation, but I haven't really looked into it that much yet. I'm not sure but 300.3(C) may allow it.

My real question would be that if it's an exhaust fan, I'm pretty sure that it would need to be running when the lights were on so a DPDT switch wouldn't seem to be the answer.

 

[nakulak]

I believe that is a bad practice. I also believe it is a violation of 404.8 B (possibly C also), also a violation of 210.7 B i believe.

 

[cowboyjwc]

I believe that is a bad practice. I also believe it is a violation of 404.8 B (possibly C also), also a violation of 210.7 B i believe.

I don't think that 404.8(B) could be used, if you use the argument stated in the OP. Remember what the one phrase that floats around here all the time says, "the code says, what it says" and it says ....adjacent devices.

Now, I think that you are dead on with 210.7(B). Good call.

 

[hillbilly1]

I have seen this spec'ed on several different big box type stores for their restrooms, so either it's legal or several engineering firms are wrong.

 

[LarryFine]

I've seen and done it, but don't be surprised if the 2p switches have notes prohibiting use on different circuits.

 

[iwire]

I've seen and done it, but don't be surprised if the 2p switches have notes prohibiting use on different circuits.

I agree with Larry.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

_______________________________________________________________
9-106 Log #3650 NEC-P09 Final Action: Accept in Principle
(404.8(C), FPN (New) )
_______________________________________________________________
Submitter: Donald A. Ganiere, Ottawa, IL
Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:
FPN: See 210.7(B) for disconnect requirements when more than one circuit supplies a switch.
Substantiation: Listed or not, if you supply the switch with more than one circuit a means to simultaneously disconnect the ungrounded conductors must be provided on the line side of the switch per 210.7(B). Without this FPN many code users will miss this critical safety requirement.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
Accept the proposal as written, but change ?when? to ?where?.
Panel Statement: The qualifying language is a condition of place and not time. CMP-9 agrees that the note is appropriate in this context.
Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12

 

[hillbilly1]

_______________________________________________________________
9-106 Log #3650 NEC-P09 Final Action: Accept in Principle
(404.8(C), FPN (New) )
_______________________________________________________________
Submitter: Donald A. Ganiere, Ottawa, IL
Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:
FPN: See 210.7(B) for disconnect requirements when more than one circuit supplies a switch.
Substantiation: Listed or not, if you supply the switch with more than one circuit a means to simultaneously disconnect the ungrounded conductors must be provided on the line side of the switch per 210.7(B). Without this FPN many code users will miss this critical safety requirement.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
Accept the proposal as written, but change ?when? to ?where?.
Panel Statement: The qualifying language is a condition of place and not time. CMP-9 agrees that the note is appropriate in this context.
Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12

Can't be any clearer than that, I will have to look at the next set of prints to see if the engineers are up on it!

 

[Split Bolt]

Personally, whether legal or not, I don't do that! I can just imagine some maintenance guy getting killed trying to change a switch! I have left many commercial bathrooms with two switches, in two separate boxes right next to each other!:grin:

 

[nakulak]

It makes no sense for there to even be a switch there for the fan. There should either be an occupancy sensor for the fan, or the fan run off the contactor for the store lights .