Would this be violation?

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jes25

Senior Member
Location
Midwest
Occupation
Electrician
To have 1 light fed from 2 S.P. switches, if it was the same circuit there wouldn't be anyway to overload the neutral. The neutral current would flow on both neutrals about evenly with one switch on.

For the record a 3 way would not work either. The possible design is 2 lights in seperate rooms, that are desired to be turned indivdually or with a "master" switch that would do both. Obviously both would have to be off for light to be off.
 
Re: Would this be violation?

It seems like the master switch would have to be a double pole switch.
Or maybe not. Why would they be on different circuits [assuming same phase]?
~Peter
 
Re: Would this be violation?

I don't see where it would be a violation, but I don't see why someone would want to do such a thing. Why would you want to have to go to two places to turn off the light maybe?
 
Re: Would this be violation?

I've done this in a storage unit with 3 entrances into the unit. 3 single pole switches operated the lights, This way, no one would be in the dark if 3-way switches were installed & someone left the unit shutting off the 3-ways.
 
Re: Would this be violation?

Originally posted by rcarroll:
I've done this in a storage unit with 3 entrances into the unit. 3 single pole switches operated the lights, This way, no one would be in the dark if 3-way switches were installed & someone left the unit shutting off the 3-ways.
Click to expand...
I guess I'm too dense to get this one. If I enter one of the doors and the lights are already on, what would cue me that I need to "turn them on" again with my switch? If I don't, wouldn't I be in the dark when the other switch gets turned off? How were the three SP switches wired in your storage unit?
 
Re: Would this be violation?

The switches were wired in parallel with the lights, not in series with each other. The point was if you walked into the storage building, habit might just have you turn the switch on. In the event that someone in another part of the unit leaves & turns that switch off, you would still have light. Make sense? Ron
 
Re: Would this be violation?

Originally posted by rcarroll:
The switches were wired in parallel with the lights, not in series with each other. The point was if you walked into the storage building, habit might just have you turn the switch on. In the event that someone in another part of the unit leaves & turns that switch off, you would still have light. Make sense? Ron
Click to expand...
Actually, no, it doesn't. If I walk into a room and the lights are already on, my expectation is that operating a switch would turn them off, not keep them on. Habit would keep me walking and ignore the switch.

Mike
 
Re: Would this be violation?

Well, Mike, the owner of the unit wanted it that way & he got it. :) Come to think of it, I also wired one bath fan for 2 bathrooms in an office the same way. Ron
 
Re: Would this be violation?

Originally posted by rcarroll:
Well, Mike, the owner of the unit wanted it that way & he got it. :) Ron
Click to expand...
Been there, done that. :roll:

I wonder how it worked out in actual use.

Mike
 
Re: Would this be violation?

Originally posted by rcarroll:
In the event that someone in another part of the unit leaves & turns that switch off, you would still have light.
Click to expand...
Only problem is, if this other someone leaves and DOESN'T turn the switch off, you have to go to the other end to kill his switch too. A lighting contactor with momentary contact switches would seem to make more sense.
 
Re: Would this be violation?

You're right Brad. However, this was a cheap building with a bunch of wire cages in it. Very simple. I had to assume that the owner stopped by every night to make sure things were shut down. None-the-less, I gave him what he wanted.
 
Re: Would this be violation?

The application that mine would be for is 2 dormers on the front of the house. These dormers have small rec. cans for accent lighting. On the inside the dormers act kinda like a sky light and are in different rooms. So if you are in rm A you can turn on the light in that room only. Same goes for rm B, but if you wanted to turn them BOTH on from the living room you could, and not affect the others lighting postion.
 
Re: Would this be violation?

Originally posted by jes25:
The application that mine would be for is 2 dormers on the front of the house. These dormers have small rec. cans for accent lighting. On the inside the dormers act kinda like a sky light and are in different rooms. So if you are in rm A you can turn on the light in that room only. Same goes for rm B, but if you wanted to turn them BOTH on from the living room you could, and not affect the others lighting postion.
Click to expand...
This sounds like a job for X-10.
 
Re: Would this be violation?

Joe,

Here's an idea that I picked out of an old VoTech text. In this scheme, the living room switch will keep the lights on, no matter the setting at either dormer switch, until the living room switch is turned off.

When the living room switch is off, the dormer three ways act like single poles.
2-wireMasterSwitch.jpg
 
Re: Would this be violation?

Yes, but with Living room switch turned on, dormer lights stay on. What is the advantage of doing that way? Why not just use 2 sp switches?
:confused: :confused:
 
Re: Would this be violation?

Originally posted by dlhoule:
Why not just use 2 sp switches?
Click to expand...
Larry,

As I understand Joe's situation, the two dormer lights are to be controlled seperately from each dormer, and both forced on from the living room, regardless of the individual dormer switch positions.

To begin, there are three switch locations.

Using only 3 SP switches makes it hard for one dormer light to be on, while the other is off.
 
Re: Would this be violation?

Yeah thanks a lot AL. I think I will use this set up. :D :D

The advantage is being able to turn the accent lights (veiwable from outside) without having to run into the bedrooms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top