iwire said:
No comment on the 300.3(B) issues I brought up?
For the downstream loads supplied by the hot and neutral that has passed through the switching circuit in my sketch, assuming the wiring method continues as NM to the end of the circuit, leads to 300.3(B)(3).
iwire said:
I don't see any code section supporting the view that if paralleling simply happens by consequence that is OK. :smile:
.
IMO the 310.4 does not apply to grounding conductors or raceways, but I know the RMC would actually be both grounded and grounding.
I'm thinking about service conductors in a conduit, specifically, the length between the meter and the service disconnect. With respect to 310.4, it seems to me, 310.2(B) will rule out ferrous RMC as a "conductor", but not aluminum. An aluminum raceway will be a parallel conductor to the grounded service conductor inside it. That parallel current path "simply happens by consequence" of the design. No allowance for the conductivity of the raceway is offered when sizing the grounded service conductor.
If 310.4 makes the common - common conductor in parallel with the hot, in my sketch, a violation, then aluminum raceway between the meter and service disco is a violation when the grounded service conductor is smaller than 1/0.
I think a slightly refined definition of "parallel" (310.4) and "parallel installation" (300.3) is in order.
dicklaxt said:
my network becomes a hot, neutral, control wires (switch legs) and switches that can control anything desired
I agree that the switches are controllers (404.14). I can't find anything that ties the switched conductors (travelers, common - common, switched leg) with "control wires".
dicklaxt said:
When I speak of pipe I'm saying any RMC.
What about 300.20(B)?