404.2(c)

Status
Not open for further replies.
ryan_618

ryan_618

Senior Member
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah
Change to the 2008 will require that a nuetral be installed at each switch location, if the switch is supplying a light that uses a nuetral. In other words, say goodbye to switch loops and dead-end three ways.
 
ryan_618 said:
Change to the 2008 will require that a nuetral be installed at each switch location, if the switch is supplying a light that uses a nuetral. In other words, say goodbye to switch loops and dead-end three ways.
Click to expand...
This thread is useless without a link. :grin:
 
ryan_618 said:
Change to the 2008 will require that a neutral be installed at each switch location, if the switch is supplying a light that uses a neutral. In other words, say goodbye to switch loops and dead-end three ways.
Click to expand...


:mad:


I thought the NEC was not a design manual. :mad:

It's OK, I can see MA amending this foolishness right out of our code along with this as well New 300.4(G) :cool:
 
Last edited:
I can see both sides of this issue. I lean towards leaving it the way it was.

If you had a huge commercial building full of motion-detecting switches, it would add up to a respectable amount of current flowing on the EGC. In a house, I can't see the problem. Assuming each switch throws .5 mA on the EGC (as the proposal implied) then you could have a potentially lethal amount of ground fault current when a dozen motion switches are installed.

The first huge problem with this theory is that the .5 mA is the max amount of leakage current permitted by the UL, not necessarily the actual amount the switches put out. The second huge problem with the theory of someone actually getting injured from this is the fact that grounding connections in modern houses are numerous and redundant in a compliant installation. For someone to receive a potentially lethal shock, the grounding connections would have to be lifted and the right number of dimmers would have to be on the affected circuit.

I'd probably have a better chance of getting struck by lightning than to get injured from a motion sensor's use of the EGC for a return path. Probably why it's considered safe today.

That's the problem with absolutists. They will tolerate no objectionable current absolutely, and this is the dubious result. :mad:
 
I would have to say at this time based on this proposal, it is time to either come up with larger cu inch capacity nail on boxes or change the box fill allowances to allow for the increased box fill now required to ensure a neutral is brought into every switch box. Changes such as this one, based in my humble opinion once again to please manufacturer's, are for myself personally only helping to make eventual retirement seem all the more golden. :mad:
 
404.2(c)

I agree that this is a design issue.

I like to include the neutral if I am using a wiring method that comes with wires "already installed." MC, NMC, etc. The presence of the neutral can make troubleshooting easier, as well as allow for future additions to the circuit.

One factor is the increased use of timers, occupancy sensors, photocells, and the like. Sometimes these need a neutral.

If you're using pipe, however, you can always add a neutral later.

I think the code panel has lost focus on this one.
 
I would like in opinion on the following subject:

According to the latest NEC code can you use 2 Wire NM cable(romex) to act as travellers between 3 way switches.

I personally don't like that idea but someone from my company has been telling me that it is okay if you are using NM cable and plastic boxes.

The idea of any cable assembly I believe is to have the cancelling effects of magnetic induction eliminated by always using 2 ungrounded conductors(switch leg) or an ungrounded and grounded neutral conductor(feed or load) in the same cable assembly.

I haven't had a chance to look at the code book before I wrote this but any help would be appreciated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top