Pierre C Belarge
Senior Member
- Location
- Westchester County, New York
14/4 is commonly stocked where I work, and has been for a number of years.
Romex switch legs
- Thread starter lakee911
- Start date
- Status
So when you say I don't use enough circuits, what do you base that statement on? Just because you do things different than me, therefore I must be doing it wrong.
You also claim my phone is ringing at all hours of the night from customers with tripped breakers. What do you base that statement on?
I've simply stated that certain installations will meet minimum code. You turn around and claim that's the say I do things.
Last edited:
jetlag
Senior Member
- Location
- Eatonton, Georgia
The way you were first describing how much you would put on a single circuit no matter if the bed rooms were 20x20 ,I didnt see how it could add up to enough circuits . If you use the minimum or more then it is legal. If you start adding can lights and other things the minimum will get quickly overloaded.
If I start adding can lights, then I adjust the number of circuits accordingly. Please stop assuming so much about my installations.
In 18 years, I have only had one circuit that ended up overloaded, and that's simply because the homeowner decided not to fix the house's central vac when it broke and start using an ancient portable vacuum that pulled 16 amps when running.
jetlag
Senior Member
- Location
- Eatonton, Georgia
I thought you were argueing because thats how you do wiring , I said from the start if you figure the the minimum from the square ft of the house it is legal and you said you didnt care about the square ft . You say Im hung up on square ft but thats how the code figures the required number of circuits for gen light and recepts , its not me its the NEC
jetlag
Senior Member
- Location
- Eatonton, Georgia
What do most people use the 14/4 for there ? Soon we will need it to send a neutral and hot from ceiling to switch box , and have a return hot for the fan and light.
drewsserviceco
Member
I hate to be the first one to say it, but.... all this discussion (read arguing) is over an extra 25' of 14/2 to feed the switch first, man I would hate to work under those profit margins. I understand that you are doing it correct, however I see no need to feed the light first. I do wire separate circuits for lighting and receptacles, so I see your point there. It also is good to see the general light/recept. broken up so meticulously.
A large portion of my business has been retrofitting custom lighting to existing/occupied homes, and it has always been a pain when the light is fed first. One, it is one more box to open up (or track down, in the case of can lights) and two, I am adding switches at their existing location, so why not put the feed there to begin with.
IMO I am happy to see the code change. It just reinforces what my experience has led me to practice.
A large portion of my business has been retrofitting custom lighting to existing/occupied homes, and it has always been a pain when the light is fed first. One, it is one more box to open up (or track down, in the case of can lights) and two, I am adding switches at their existing location, so why not put the feed there to begin with.
IMO I am happy to see the code change. It just reinforces what my experience has led me to practice.
wwhitney
Senior Member
- Location
- Berkeley, CA
- Occupation
- Retired
No, it has been deleted. However, that had nothing to do with the new requirement for neutrals in switch boxes. In the 2008 NEC, 200.7(C)(2) was a redundant section, because it provided a permission that was a subset of the permissions provided by 200.7(C)(1). This commonly caused people to read 200.7(C)(2) as a restriction on the permission in 200.7(C)(1), but that was neither a literal reading nor the code committee's intent, as indicated by their comments on the successful 2011 proposal to delete 200.7(C)(2).
BTW, the way this situation came about is that at one time 200.7(C)(2) didn't require remarking. So it provided an extra permission that 200.7(C)(1) did not. Then a proposal was approved to require remarking in 200.7(C)(2), and the text of 200.7(C)(2) was changed rather than just deleting it. That oversight persisted until the 2011 version.
Cheers, Wayne
- Location
- Chapel Hill, NC
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Contractor
Article 200.7(C)(2) Nec 2008 is now 200.7(C)(1) NEC 2011 with some wording change. The color change is the changed portion.
200.7(C)(1) 2011 NEC said:
K8MHZ
Senior Member
- Occupation
- Electrician
14/3 is available everywhere. Run power to the switch first, then 14/3 to the fan/light. Why bother taking power to the ceiling, then trying to either find 14/4 or cobble something up with 2 runs of 14-2?
Either that, or run power to the ceiling & leave it there, and install an RF-controlled fan/light. NOW look at how much NM you've saved!
I have no doubt that more & more supply houses will start to stock 14-4 very soon.
Our local HD has 4 conductor NM in stock.
K8MHZ
Senior Member
- Occupation
- Electrician
4 conductor can be a money saver if used right.
There are 2 neutrals, a white and a white with a stripe, enabling two separate circuits, each with their own neutrals to be run in one shot, as opposed to 2 runs of 2 conductor.
K8MHZ
Senior Member
- Occupation
- Electrician
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Journeyman Electrician
Used mostly for temporary light stringers. Gives you three circuits in one cable. Divide them up anyway you want, two lights-one power, one lights-one egress lighting-one power, etc.
wwhitney
Senior Member
- Location
- Berkeley, CA
- Occupation
- Retired
Wow, that was not in the 2011 Draft NEC I looked at, 200.7(C)(2) had just been totally deleted. But I see the change to 200.7(C)(1) is in the final 2011 NEC, due to a proposal by Mike Holt at the ROC stage. While I don't agree with the change, at least the new language is unambiguous, unlike the 200.7(C)(1)/200.7(C)(2) redundancy that was present in the 1999-2008 NECs.
Cheers, Wayne
- Status