uf feeder / detached garage

[surf more]

done all the time like that------ down on white ---back on black----for a doorjam switch you would be forced to wire like that to be legal box fill!!!!!!!!!

 

[wbalsam1]

I believe what he wants to do is to feed the garage with a 2 wire circuit and run another 2 wire cable for the travellers to a 3 way switch fed from the same circuit as the wire feeding the garage.

This hookup would be legal based on 300.3(B)(3) ...........

Question: In your opinion, does this method adequately group the phase conductor, grounded conductor and equipment grounding conductor together? :smile:

 

[Kdog76]

Question: In your opinion, does this method adequately group the phase conductor, grounded conductor and equipment grounding conductor together? :smile:

IMO, nope, but in the previous post, with a doorjam switch, how else can you do it?

 

[wbalsam1]

IMO, nope, but in the previous post, with a doorjam switch, how else can you do it?

A switch-loop from a closet lighting fixture controlled by a door-switch would seemingly originate in the lighting fixture, meaning just one cable at the switch. But this OP question is about two or more branch circuits not contained within the same cable going from one building to another. I am curious about relief from not having all the conductors within one cable. :smile:

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Question: In your opinion, does this method adequately group the phase conductor, grounded conductor and equipment grounding conductor together? :smile:

No, but 303.3(B)(3) is an exception to 300.3(B). I don't like it but nontheless I believe it to be code compliant.

 

[wbalsam1]

No, but 303.3(B)(3) is an exception to 300.3(B). I don't like it but nontheless I believe it to be code compliant.

Just in an attempt to better understand this.....300.3(B) states that conductors in different cables shall comply with 300.20(B). In your example, this can not comply. And since your example cannot comply, then 300.3(B)(3) does not pertain.
As I see it, 300.20(B) is intended for like phases to be installed in PVC conduit for ease in termination, and due to hysterisis when entering metal enclosures a groove must be cut to minimze such effects whereas if all of the conductors of the circuit are contained within the same conduit this is not a problem.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Just in an attempt to better understand this.....300.3(B) states that conductors in different cables shall comply with 300.20(B). In your example, this can not comply. And since your example cannot comply, then 300.3(B)(3) does not pertain.
As I see it, 300.20(B) is intended for like phases to be installed in PVC conduit for ease in termination, and due to hysterisis when entering metal enclosures a groove must be cut to minimze such effects whereas if all of the conductors of the circuit are contained within the same conduit this is not a problem.

Maybe I am confused. Actual you have me confused. Where is the op wiring going thru metal. I believe it only has to comply when 300.20(B) comes into play.

 

[wbalsam1]

done all the time like that------ down on white ---back on black----for a doorjam switch you would be forced to wire like that to be legal box fill!!!!!!!!!

Maybe I am confused. Actual you have me confused. Where is the op wiring going thru metal. I believe it only has to comply when 300.20(B) comes into play.

If conductors of the same circuit in different cables heading out to this outbuilding from the house, have to comply (shall comply with 300.20(B)), how will they comply with 300.20(B)? :-?:smile:

 

[Dennis Alwon]

If conductors of the same circuit in different cables heading out to this outbuilding from the house, have to comply (shall comply with 300.20(B)), how will they comply with 300.20(B)? :-?:smile:

I may be dense but I still don't get it. Maybe I need to read this thru a bit more but I was talking about the op's question not the door jamb switch- no sure what that has to do with it.

Firstly, are we on the same page with understanding a 14/2 or 12/2 running out to garage and a 14/2 or 12/2 being used as travellers for the 3 way?

I don't recommend this but my understanding that this is legal if you use non ferrous wiring methods. Why would 300.3(B)(3) even exist if this was not a legitimate hookup.300.20 is when the conductors are used in ferrous metal raceways or enclosures-- I am assuming no ferrous metal to deal with.

Maybe you can give me an example of when 300.3(B)(3) would apply.

 

[wbalsam1]

Dennis says: I may be dense but I still don't get it. Maybe I need to read this thru a bit more but I was talking about the op's question not the door jamb switch- no sure what that has to do with it.

Fred says: I'm not discussing door jamb switch loop with you. That was another poster's question.

Dennis: Firstly, are we on the same page with understanding a 14/2 or 12/2 running out to garage and a 14/2 or 12/2 being used as travellers for the 3 way?

Fred: I am discussing a 14/2 branch circuit originating in a dwelling and extending in a UF cable to a detached residential autombile garage for a receptacle in this garage; and another 14/2 UF being used to act as travellers for a 3-way switch between the two buildings some of the necessary conductors to make the three-way switch work, being contained within another cable. This is how I've understood the thread.

Dennis: I don't recommend this but my understanding that this is legal if you use non ferrous wiring methods. Why would 300.3(B)(3) even exist if this was not a legitimate hookup.300.20 is when the conductors are used in ferrous metal raceways or enclosures.
I am assuming no ferrous metal to deal with. Maybe you can give me an example of when 300.3(B)(3) would apply.

Fred: Your question I've highlighted in red is a good one. I don't have an answer at this time. :-?:grin: (You've stumped me.)
But actually, in all my research here trying to solve this to my satisfaction, I have stumbled on 225.30(D): "additional branch circuits shall be permitted for different uses such as control of outside lighting from multiple locations". This satisfies to me the method of more than one cable going out to the garage. I still believe the conductors of the three-way should be contained within the same cable. I'm just thick-headed, I guess. :smile:

 

[LarryFine]

Question: In your opinion, does this method adequately group the phase conductor, grounded conductor and equipment grounding conductor together? :smile:

In my opinion, yes. I still have to figure out what was being asked about a separate 2-wire switch loop.

 

[wbalsam1]

I wonder if any manufacturer makes 14-2-2 UF. This would work really well. The black for hot, white for grounded, red and white with red stripe (re-identified as a hot color) for travellers. All conductors within one cable. Yes!

 

[Dennis Alwon]

In my opinion, yes. I still have to figure out what was being asked about a separate 2-wire switch loop.

Larry I think the op was feeding the switch on one end and getting the neutral from the other end to avoid installing a 3 wire cable. Same circuit, of course

 

[Cow]

Do people really run that much UF? PVC is so cheap, the only time I touch UF is when I'm repairing an existing UF run the customer doesn't want to change to pvc. My boss doesn't like UF for new installs either. Pvc means you can pick your wire colors too.:smile:

For the record, we don't hardly do any new residential though, just service calls, extending circuits, etc.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Do people really run that much UF? PVC is so cheap, the only time I touch UF is when I'm repairing an existing UF run the customer doesn't want to change to pvc. My boss doesn't like UF for new installs either. Pvc means you can pick your wire colors too.:smile:

For the record, we don't hardly do any new residential though, just service calls, extending circuits, etc.

Most resi guys in my town like to run UF. I prefer PVC-- esp. with the long runs thru rocky areas.

 

[LarryFine]

Larry I think the op was feeding the switch on one end and getting the neutral from the other end to avoid installing a 3 wire cable. Same circuit, of course

There's no problem with doing that, as long as the wire connected to each switch common terminal is grouped with the travelers and/or the switched-load neutral conductor.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

There's no problem with doing that, as long as the wire connected to each switch common terminal is grouped with the travelers and/or the switched-load neutral conductor.

Agreed but I still don't like it.

 

[midnitel]

smart switch looks like good idea

 

[midnitel]

Looked at a job the other day to wire up a detached garage. HO wanted an underground circuit ran out to the garage, in addition he requested a 3-way switch between the garage and house. My first thought was running a 3 conductor UF cable, but to get a 110 volt circuit and a 3-way out there - (and this is about 75' out) am thinking about running 2 2 conductor UF's (probably 12-2). One for feed & neutral, and the other 12-2 UF for travellers. Normally I would run a 3 conductor between the two 3-way switches, but do to the length here, I thought about running 2 2 conductors. See any problems with this idea?

Smart switch looks like good idea in your case.