I could use some help

[jetlag]

I missed 300.3(B)(3) as others have stated that would allow the use of only one 14/3 NM to carry the needed neutral and use 14/2 NM for the other two cables.

Thanks to all

Good for you, there are some that are not getting this someway , talking dead ends and things , and neutral in every box, 1 - 14/3 between every box gives you a neutral in every box . I believe some are not understanding you are using 1 circuit and 3 gang boxes . :grin:

 

[jetlag]

And what about a 2/gang with 2 deadend 3/ways on different circuits? Wouldn't it need 2 neutrals, one for each circuit?

yes it would but he is only using one circuit :grin:

 

[Dennis Alwon]

why would the code require a neutral in every switch box?

I agree this should be out of the scope of the NEC however here it is for 2011.

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.

 

[480sparky]

I agree this should be out of the scope of the NEC however here it is for 2011.

Exception 2 will become a widely ignored one by other trades and homeowners.

For example, we install a dead-end 3-way at the bottom of the basement stairs, and don't put the neutral in it because it's exposed. We simply sleeve the NM in a short piece of EMT for physical protection.

Then along comes John Q. Handyman or Joe Homeowner, who merrily covers up the both sides of the wall with sheetrock.

Oh well, I guess that's more money for us.:roll:

 

[jetlag]

I agree this should be out of the scope of the NEC however here it is for 2011.

It is clear now that the whole purpose of the neutral in every box is in case some one needs it later , since the code states it is not required if it can be easily added later through conduit or wall cavity . What a terrible waste, do you realize how many thousands of unneeded neutrals will be ran for only a few cases when someone has to fish in a neutral. The cost for this will be millions over the years, wasted .Any way I didnt think it was any concern of the NEC if we have to cut a hole in the sheetrock to get a neutral in :-?

 

[iwire]

Jetlag for NFPA President!

 

[480sparky]

It is clear now that the whole purpose of the neutral in every box is in case some one needs it later , since the code states it is not required if it can be easily added later through conduit or wall cavity . What a terrible waste, do you realize how many thousands of unneeded neutrals will be ran for only a few cases when someone has to fish in a neutral. The cost for this will be millions over the years, wasted .Any way I didnt think it was any concern of the NEC if we have to cut a hole in the sheetrock to get a neutral in :-?

Yeah, but just think of the money the guys that install all those dimmers and gizmos that require a neutral are going to save over having to install a neutral for themselves!

Oh, wait, they won't do that anyway.... they'll just use the bare ground anyway and call it a day. After all, they've been doing that for decades now.

Besides, we now have to provide the cable buy and the telephone guy with a super-duper easy peasy way to ground their systems.

Next thing you know, we'll be running the water and gas lines in houses for the plumbers since we have to bond to them anyway.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Exception 2 will become a widely ignored one by other trades and homeowners.

For example, we install a dead-end 3-way at the bottom of the basement stairs, and don't put the neutral in it because it's exposed. We simply sleeve the NM in a short piece of EMT for physical protection.

Then along comes John Q. Handyman or Joe Homeowner, who merrily covers up the both sides of the wall with sheetrock.

Oh well, I guess that's more money for us.:roll:

I think exception 2 should be done away with. If the NEC is becoming a design manual then do it right and get rid of Except. #2. I can accept where a raceway is involved and getting a neutral will be easier however, I would hate to have to add that neutral in a full conduit. Get rid of exception #1 and really tick off Bob.:grin:

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Yeah, but just think of the money the guys that install all those dimmers and gizmos that require a neutral are going to save over having to install a neutral for themselves!

If you cannot add a neutral from the same circuit then what? It seems like this is a bad exception. Someone will pick up a circuit neutral from a different circuit that is available to them.

 

[jetlag]

Yeah, but just think of the money the guys that install all those dimmers and gizmos that require a neutral are going to save over having to install a neutral for themselves!

Oh, wait, they won't do that anyway.... they'll just use the bare ground anyway and call it a day. After all, they've been doing that for decades now.

Besides, we now have to provide the cable buy and the telephone guy with a super-duper easy peasy way to ground their systems.

Next thing you know, we'll be running the water and gas lines in houses for the plumbers since we have to bond to them anyway.

I think we should demand plumbers are required to run a metal water line to the surface within 6 ft of our box to ground , so we dont have to crawl to who knows where to find it .:grin::grin:

 

[jxofaltrds]

I think exception 2 should be done away with. If the NEC is becoming a design manual then do it right and get rid of Except. #2. I can accept where a raceway is involved and getting a neutral will be easier however, I would hate to have to add that neutral in a full conduit. Get rid of exception #1 and really tick off Bob.:grin:

I agree a design manual.

I think it is a way of getting us to buy 4-wire.

There is no way you could add a grounded conductor for NM after the fact. I mean it would be a code violation.

 

[480sparky]

If you cannot add a neutral from the same circuit then what? It seems like this is a bad exception. Someone will pick up a circuit neutral from a different circuit that is available to them.

That's the reason this section was added. Too many cheapskates were using the ground as a neutral because they were too lazy or too stingy to get the neutral there to begin with.

So it now falls on us to do the hard work for them.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

That's the reason this section was added. Too many cheapskates were using the ground as a neutral because they were too lazy or too stingy to get the neutral there to begin with.

So it now falls on us to do the hard work for them.

I know the reason the section was added however I don't like the exception 2 that goes with it.

99% of the time I meet this requirement already so it is no big deal but it will be a bit of a hassle in some situations.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I
There is no way you could add a grounded conductor for NM after the fact. I mean it would be a code violation.

The grounded conductor does not have to be run with the other conductors if you use 300.4(B)(3). Many EC's still run 2 wire between the 3 ways and have the feed in both boxes and the switch leg in one of those boxes.

You pick the feed up at box 1 and the neutral at box 2 where the switch leg is. Legal but bad design because of the emf's.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

BTW, I just wrote a proposal to eliminate exception 2 of 404.2(C) for the 2014. It probably won't fly but what the heck.

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

Isn't this just great. NEC wants us to now deal with the unknown future. How far will they take this ? How about we make you set a 100 amp sub panel in a detached garage because some day someone just might want a 240 line for an air conditioner or maybe turn garage into an apartment and your simple 14-2 UF will not be enough. Lets start making us install 400 amp service min for any house because someday we might add a pool and hot tub. Wire for the future on owners money.
This is flat out stupid to raise the cost for everyone because a few might need it. We now are safe guarding the handyman.
As to why is simple, they sell more wire. NEC is nothing more than a private business that take bribes from companies that sell material.

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

BTW, I just wrote a proposal to eliminate exception 2 of 404.2(C) for the 2014. It probably won't fly but what the heck.

Why would they not want that ? Seems like a sale of more wire and thats what they really want.

 

[jxofaltrds]

The grounded conductor does not have to be run with the other conductors if you use 300.4(B)(3). Many EC's still run 2 wire between the 3 ways and have the feed in both boxes and the switch leg in one of those boxes.

You pick the feed up at box 1 and the neutral at box 2 where the switch leg is. Legal but bad design because of the emf's.

Dennis

I are you saying that I could 'add' a grounded conductor using this rule? As in a deadend adding the gc after the fact?

I still think that 300.3(B) applies. What am I missing?

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Dennis

I are you saying that I could 'add' a grounded conductor using this rule? As in a deadend adding the gc after the fact?

I still think that 300.3(B) applies. What am I missing?

As long as it is he same circuit and nm cable is involved.

As I read 300.3(B) the last sentence states unless otherwise permitted in (B)(1)-(B)(4).

B3 allows wires to be run in different cables for non ferrous wiring methods.

 

[jxofaltrds]

As long as it is he same circuit and nm cable is involved.

As I read 300.3(B) the last sentence states unless otherwise permitted in (B)(1)-(B)(4).

B3 allows wires to be run in different cables for non ferrous wiring methods.

I agree with what you are saying and I read it the same way.

But did they mean that grounded conductors could be run (only) by themselves?