DIYbanter - View Single Post

Bud--

wrote:
On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 02:33:49 -0600, bud--
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 11:47:22 -0800, "alarman" wrote:

Steve Barker DLT wrote:
OR in the NEC
Hmmm...lessee...Nope, can't find where is says you SHOULD tape the white in
the NEC.

(Hint: It's not done)

js

You didn't look very hard

200.7(C)(2)Where a cable assembly contains an insulated conductor for
single-pole, 3-way or 4-way switch loops and the conductor with white
or gray insulation or a marking of three continuous white stripes is
used for the supply to the switch but not as a return conductor from
the switch to the switched outlet. In these applications, the
conductor with white or gray insulation or with three continuous white
stripes shall be permanently reidentified to indicate its use by
painting or other effective means at its terminations and at each
location where the conductor is visible and accessible.

tape is considered an effective means.
The 1993 NEC explicitly allowed the white wire to feed a switch without
being remarked. I didn't pickup the change, which was by 2002 and may
have been 1999. If the light was wired under the 1993 (1996?) (or
probably earlier) NEC it is code compliant (though remarking is a good
idea).

=====================
The current language (above) does not appear to allow power feed to a
light, with 3 wire romex to 3-way switches (or 3 and 4-way switches).
The feed to one 3-way with the white as supply would be compliant.
Wiring to the other 3-way and 4-ways does not appear to comply. I would
not call travelers a "supply" wire. I do not see how you can use a
remarked white wire to a 4-way switch, mentioned above.

The way I read the language you have to wire power to 3–way (to 4–way)
to 3-way to light.

I agree there is at least one legal way to wire 3 and 4 way loops that
you can not make comply to this rule. (IE. fed from the center)
You missed your chance to write a proposal for the 2011 to fix it (Nov
7 as I recall) Look at the ROP when it comes out and see if there is a
proposal you can modify with a comment, assuming this is not already
pointed out.

C)(2) made sense when (1996NEC) a white could feed a switch. The section
should have been deleted when that practice was eliminated.

(C)(1) allows a remarked white to be used as a traveler.

The law of unintended consequences.

I never thought of modifying the code by an unrelated comment to the ROP.

--
bud--