Red and white as travelers on a 3 or 4 way switch

Status
Not open for further replies.
DonnyPinFLA said:
I would have red and black as travelers and the reidentified white as the common in a 3 way.

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You do realize that "common" is on both 3-ways? So one of the "commons" would be the return to the light. Unless you are using the white as the feed to the switch, thus landing on the "common", then you can't re-identify it and use it on the other "common" to the light.
 
So how would you wire a dead end 3way with switch leg, power, and the 3wire travelers on one side and just the 3wire travelers on the other side if the white couldn't be the common as you just stated?

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk
 
In the graphic the white is not being used as the return conductor of the switch loop to the switched outlet.

The black is the return portion of the switch loop to the outlet

The white conductor passes through the switched outlet as a traveler’

For what it is worth when passing through a light outlet I always tied a white to a red conductor and a red to a black conductor that’s the way I prefer to junction the travelers at a lighting outlet
 
DonnyPinFLA said:
So how would you wire a dead end 3way with switch leg, power, and the 3wire travelers on one side and just the 3wire travelers on the other side if the white couldn't be the common as you just stated?
Click to expand...
By re-coloring it and using it as a traveler. Sometimes, the correct answer is the least-incorrect answer.
 
DonnyPinFLA said:
So how would you wire a dead end 3way with switch leg, power, and the 3wire travelers on one side and just the 3wire travelers on the other side if the white couldn't be the common as you just stated?

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

If you're wiring box to box with a dead end you would tie & re-identify the white of the 3-wire cable to the hot/black in the first box. Then the black & red are the travelers and the re-identified white would then land on the common of the 3-way in the 2nd box. That way it is not the return to the light.

If going through the light you would wire it as the graphic shows.
 
And all this confusion so some trunk slammer can wire a three way. (Not you).
What about all the 3w in use for 40 or more years that were never "reidentfied" are people dying? One example of the code not being needed.
 
Donny,

Turn your attention to the polarization of the lamp socket of the luminaire.

200.7(C)(1) last sentence is old Code. It predates LEDs and CFLs. The wording is about maintaining the connection of the lampholder screw shell of an incandescent bulb to the GROUNDED conductor.

200.7(C)(1) last sentence says the HOT conductor at the lampholder cannot be white or a reidentified white.

We've all seen reidentification methods that have failed, and if so done on the conductors at the lampholder, one has two whites going to it.

This meaning (a white may not supply the lampholder) was worked into the Code in the middle of the 1900s long before "reidenification" was added.
 
DonnyPinFLA said:
The code states... If used for single-pole, 3-way or 4-way switch loops, the reidentified conduc-tor with white or gray insulation or three continuous white or gray stripes shall be used only for the supply to the switch, but not as a return conductor from the switch to the outlet.

It must be a supply. I see the travelers being the return conductors because those are the wires that will be returning power to the switch leg. Is this not correct?
Click to expand...
A white wire as a traveler IS a supply TO THE SWITCH.

DonnyPinFLA said:
Let's says for instance a dead end 3 way. How could the white there be the traveler?
Click to expand...

If you say the white wire HAS to be on the Common, then it sounds like you are claiming that a Threeway Switch is an OUTLET.:?
 
Or get rid of the glorified extension cord (romex) and use conduit and normal colored THHN wires with the proper colors going to the switches and the devices. Sorry, can’t stand that stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited by a moderator:
7635tools said:
Or get rid of the glorified extension cord (romex) and use conduit and normal colored THHN wires with the proper colors going to the switches and the devices. Sorry, can’t stand that stuff.
Click to expand...
Haven't wired many houses, have you?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
al hildenbrand said:
200.7(C)(1) last sentence is old Code.

This meaning (a white may not supply the lampholder) was worked into the Code in the middle of the 1900s long before "reidenification" was added.
Click to expand...

wwhitney said:
FWIW, that last sentence first appeared in the 2011 NEC.
Click to expand...

The permission to use the white as a supply conductor in a "switch loop" and the requirement for travelers has moved around in the Code, and the language has evolved. . .

Are you claiming that it didn't exist before 2011?
 
al hildenbrand said:
The permission to use the white as a supply conductor in a "switch loop" and the requirement for travelers has moved around in the Code, and the language has evolved. . .

Are you claiming that it didn't exist before 2011?
Click to expand...

In the 2008 NEC, the idea was there but the language didn't make it mandatory. 200.7(C)(1) was a blanket allowance for reidentification of the white conductor in a cable. So the language in 200.7(C)(2) about reidentification being allowed for a switch loop if the white conductor wasn't used as a return conductor was moot. In 2011 they fixed this by adding the current last sentence of 200.7(C)(1).

Cheers, Wayne
 
In a normal three way circuit you have 4 types of conductor: the unswitched 'hot', the alternately switched 'travelers' where one or the other is 'hot', the switched 'hot' which is either on or off and supplied the load, and the 'neutral'.

IMHO the basic coding requirement is that _at the load_ the 'neutral' is white with no recoding and the switched hot is black (or red or one of the other allowed 'hot' colors) without recoding.

IMHO the alternately switched 'travelers' are part of the supply to the switch for a dead end three way; one or the other traveler is 'hot' and the switch selects from this alternating supply to connect the switched leg.

Since travelers alternate between energized and not, and are therefore switched, I can see the argument that they might not be considered 'supplies', but I don't think this is a good interpretation. The whole goal of this bit of code is to make sure that the wires at the load are a white and a black, while permitting ordinary cable to be used in situations where there are no neutral conductors.

-Jon
 
winnie said:
The whole goal of this bit of code is to make sure that the wires at the load are a white and a black, while permitting ordinary cable to be used in situations where there are no neutral conductors.

-Jon
Click to expand...


Amen.

JAP>
 
al hildenbrand said:
The permission to use the white as a supply conductor in a "switch loop" and the requirement for travelers has moved around in the Code, and the language has evolved. . .

Are you claiming that it didn't exist before 2011?
Click to expand...

wwhitney said:
In the 2008 NEC, the idea was there but the language didn't make it mandatory. 200.7(C)(1) was a blanket allowance for reidentification of the white conductor in a cable. So the language in 200.7(C)(2) about reidentification being allowed for a switch loop if the white conductor wasn't used as a return conductor was moot. In 2011 they fixed this by adding the current last sentence of 200.7(C)(1).
Click to expand...

Yes, Wayne, the language evolved. That's not my point, in the context of the OP question. In my opinion, when trying to understand the difference between "supply" and "return", as used specifically in 200.7(C)(1) last sentence, it is important to remember the origin of the rule.

In my opinion, the rule origin centers on reducing the property loss, personnel injury or death associated with exposed conductive surfaces of light fixtures that are incorrectly wired with the screw shell of a lampholder being energized. As I have posted in this thread, the beginnings of this rule(s) started long before the 2011 or 2008 NECs. Old Code.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top