2011 code

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

earlejohnson

Member
Location
ga.
looking but cant find the code number for nuetral in every box or a way (conduit) to get one there. need code ref. please. thank you.
 
the nec does not design,...............................well only when lobbied by the wire manufactures.
 
202ecmCBfig2.gif
 
404.2(C) Switches Controlling Lighting Loads. Where switches
control lighting loads supplied by a grounded general purpose
branch circuit, the grounded circuit conductor for the controlled
lighting circuit shall be provided at the switch location.

Exception: The grounded circuit conductor shall be permitted
to be omitted from the switch enclosure where either
of the following conditions in (1) or (2) apply:

(1) Conductors for switches controlling lighting loads enter
the box through a raceway. The raceway shall have
suffıcient cross-sectional area to accommodate the extension
of the grounded circuit conductor of the lighting
circuit to the switch location whether or not the
conductors in the raceway are required to be increased
in size to comply with 310.15(B)(3)(a).
(2) Cable assemblies for switches controlling lighting
loads enter the box through a framing cavity that is
open at the top or bottom on the same floor level, or
through a wall, floor, or ceiling that is unfinished on
one side.
 
In Mike's slide shown in post #6, I don't see that as an example of the exception. That wall cavity is not open at the top or bottom on the same floor level. I don't see any use of part (2) of the exception in typical dwelling unit construction.
 
jumper said:
lol.

Informational Note: The provision for a (future) grounded
conductor is to complete a circuit path for electronic lighting
control devices.
Click to expand...
But the code is not for the future.
90.1(B) Adequacy. This Code contains provisions that are considered necessary for safety. Compliance therewith and proper maintenance results in an installation that is essentially free from hazard but not necessarily efficient, convenient, or adequate for good service or future expansion of electrical use.
Click to expand...
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
In Mike's slide shown in post #6, I don't see that as an example of the exception. That wall cavity is not open at the top or bottom on the same floor level. I don't see any use of part (2) of the exception in typical dwelling unit construction.
Click to expand...

I don't like this rule but it does say thru a wall, floor or ceiling which is open on one side. The attic is open and it is the ceiling. Now if that is not what they meant then IMO they worded it poorly.
 
I wrote a proposal to eliminate the language of exception #2 and it was rejected.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Dennis Alwon, Alwon Electric Inc.
Delete text as follows:
(2) Cable assemblies for switches controlling lighting loads enter the box through a framing cavity that is open at the top or bottom on the same floor level, or through a wall, floor, or ceiling that is unfinished on one side.
Sunstantiation: Since the NEC has taken steps, with this new section, to be a bit of a design manual to prevent problems down the road then this exception should be deleted. If a wall is open that doesn?t mean that a neutral from the same circuit will be available. This will effective defeat the purpose of this rule. Also it is very likely that if the neutral is available then the neutral will not necessarily be run with the ungrounded conductor creating unwanted electro magnetic fields.
Panel Statement: See the Panel action and statement on Proposal 9-84.
Click to expand...

I am not sure how this response fits my proposal.

9-84 Statement said:
The submitter possibly misunderstands the intent of the requirement. CMP 9 is well aware that open
neutrals should not be run up wall cavities, and the wording does not suggest that an individual conductor would not
have been fished. The point of the allowance is to recognize a construction practice that allows easy access to replace a
cable assembly in the future. In a sense, it is the cabled wiring equivalent to the raceway with extra room. As can be
seen from the proposals submitted in the cycle, there is considerable concern relative to whether this rule is excessive.
This is not the time to make the rule even more onerous, which would be the effect of accepting this proposal.
Click to expand...
 
Dennis Alwon said:
I don't like this rule but it does say thru a wall, floor or ceiling which is open on one side. The attic is open and it is the ceiling. Now if that is not what they meant then IMO they worded it poorly.
Click to expand...
If you are in the wall you are not going through a ceiling or a floor, you are going through a top or bottom plate.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
I wrote a proposal to eliminate the language of exception #2 and it was rejected.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________


I am not sure how this response fits my proposal.
Click to expand...

Wow, they actually said in their rejection statement that it is to help with future work! I thought the NEC wasn't concerned with "Future"?
 
so if u were to run a wire from a {switchloop} were the feed hits the lightbox first you have to run a 3 wire down to the light the line load and a nuetral in stead of just the line and load
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top