3-way switch loops

[George Stolz]

Re: 3-way switch loops

Originally posted by peter d:
Yes, I do push the cable in and it bends the clamp down into the box, thereby taking up space. However, until the code changes the wording from "internal" to "internal and intergral" I don't think we need to count integral box clamps in calculations.

In that case...

250.12 Clean Surfaces. Nonconductive coatings (such as paint, lacquer, and enamel) on equipment to be grounded shall be removed from threads and other contact surfaces to ensure good electrical continuity or be connected by means of fittings designed so as to make such removal unnecessary.

...until this states that factory applied nonconductive coatings shall be removed, I will not remove them because they are not specifically referenced.

Factory paint is still paint.

An integral clamp that moves inside the box is still internal.

Over-specification creates loopholes, as demonstrated time and time again in the NEC. Here is one instance where over-specifying criteria for an action did not take place, and that's exploited?

 

[peter d]

Re: 3-way switch loops

To throw some more gas on this fire, follow this link and scoll down about 1/3.

Pay particular attention to the way UL tests box volume.

 

[peter d]

Re: 3-way switch loops

George, all I will say that in pricinciple I happen to agree with you. But applying the letter of the code, I don't think we need to count these clamps. Do they take up space? Yes. Is it a big deal? No.

We will have to agree to disagree. Forget about that link I posted.

 

[peter d]

Re: 3-way switch loops

Oh, one more thing. If you feel so strongly about this, submit a proposal to change the code!!

 

[George Stolz]

Re: 3-way switch loops

Cough cough

From the link Peter just posted:
The volume inside an outlet box does not include any deductions for integral
clamps. The clamps are removed from the box when the volume is determined
by UL. Therefore a single deduction in the NEC is required for the space the
clamps take up inside the box. A B520A is 18 cubic inches after the clamp deduction for #14 wire.

 

[iwire]

Re: 3-way switch loops

Originally posted by georgestolz:

Originally posted by iwire:

Originally posted by georgestolz:
2. If the clamping doesn't take place outside the box, it's required to be accounted for in the box fill.

That is your opinion, not a fact.

Fact:

George are you holding an NFPA interpretation in your hand?

No?

Then that remains your opinion.

You argument here seems to be based on this;

"No allowance shall be required for a cable connector with its clamping mechanism outside the box"

That does not prove your point.

Would you agree the sky is blue?

Does that mean the ocean can not be blue as well?

Even the box manufacture states not everyone agrees on this.

It will really be the call of the AHJ.

Here in MA I can not ask the NFPA for interpretation (well I can but it won't mean anything ) I would have to get an interpretation form our state.

[ July 10, 2005, 09:02 PM: Message edited by: iwire ]

 

[iwire]

Re: 3-way switch loops

Originally posted by georgestolz:
Cough cough

Have a cold George?

You could be good enough to cut and paste the whole thing.

This procedure was determined by IAEI and UL. Not everybody agrees to this.
The 2002 NEC (314.16(B)(2)) still has the deduction requirement. Keep an eye
on the 2005 NEC because it may be changed.

George you can keep going just like the energizer bunny and I will still hold my opinion.

 

[peter d]

Re: 3-way switch loops

Originally posted by iwire:
It will really be the call of the AHJ.

And we all know how much fun this is in RI, don't we Bob.

 

[peter d]

Re: 3-way switch loops

By Bob:

George you can keep going just like the energizer bunny and I will still hold my opinion.

D*** YANKEES, THEY'RE SO STUBBORN!



[ July 10, 2005, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: peter d ]

 

[jwelectric]

Re: 3-way switch loops

You all come on now we don?t need but 11 more to make this a 100 post thread.


edited to change number

[ July 10, 2005, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: jwelectric ]

 

[iwire]

Re: 3-way switch loops

Originally posted by jwelectric:
You all come on now we don?t need but 11 more to make this a 100 post thread.


edited to change number

1

 

[iwire]

Re: 3-way switch loops

Originally posted by jwelectric:
You all come on now we don?t need but 11 more to make this a 100 post thread.


edited to change number

2

 

[peter d]

Re: 3-way switch loops

Now come on Bob, you can do better than that. We could always start debating about SA branch circuit, which way the ground pin goes, or should we require antishort bushings for MC cable!


3

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: 3-way switch loops

It is and Al is already holed up in a cabin reading it.

It was family and supper, actually. . .

5

 

[George Stolz]

Re: 3-way switch loops

What does an anurism feel like?

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: 3-way switch loops

Come on, Bob. . .I think George has you on Code reference.

Remember at the beginning of this thread you had never seen a plastic box with internal clamps.

6

Edit - post count

[ July 10, 2005, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: al hildenbrand ]

 

[LarryFine]

Re: 3-way switch loops

I like to apply a bit of practicality when applying rules such as this and cable bundling. For example:

When bundling cables, I'm more conservative with, say, a group of circuit home-runs where the entire load of these several circuits is on the conductors, than I would be for, say, a group of cables coming from a multi-gang switch box on a single circuit.

Likewise, if we're talking about a box with, for example, a) more than one circuit, b) a high-current load, or c) a larger device (i.e., GFCI rec.), I will be more conservative than if a box with, say, a single lighting circuit.

Of course, I agree that my application of circumstances doesn't require the rules to bend to suit me, but I attemp to consider the reasoning behind the rules.

Let me ask this: would Tomic cable connectors be considered internal or external devices?

 

[peter d]

Re: 3-way switch loops

I stand by my words:

Originally posted by peter d:

By Bob:

George you can keep going just like the energizer bunny and I will still hold my opinion.

D*** YANKEES, THEY'RE SO STUBBORN!

I put myself in that Yankee category too!

 

[physis]

Re: 3-way switch loops

[ July 10, 2005, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: physis ]

 

[peter d]

Re: 3-way switch loops

Edit: 10

[ July 10, 2005, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: peter d ]