I have 5 rows of lighting I need to control from 3 locations.
2 of the locations would be to just power on and off.
The 3rd location would be for dimmer control. However, I need
independent dimmer control for each of the 5 rows.
I know by wiring a single 4-way circuit, I can control power on and off
at all 3 locations, but this would power on and off all 5 rows at the
same time.
Since I only need power control at two of those locations, I was
thinking of wiring it as follows:
- source power to the first 3-way switch (power control point)
- then continue the circuit to the 4-way switch (power control point)
- then continue the circuir into a junction box to split out to 5
3-way dimmer switches

The intent would be for the 5 3-way dimmers to control each of the 5
rows independently.
Can this be done without causing a problem ?

On 11 Sep 2006 14:46:53 -0700, wrote:

I have 5 rows of lighting I need to control from 3 locations.
2 of the locations would be to just power on and off.
The 3rd location would be for dimmer control. However, I need
independent dimmer control for each of the 5 rows.
I know by wiring a single 4-way circuit, I can control power on and off
at all 3 locations, but this would power on and off all 5 rows at the
same time.
Since I only need power control at two of those locations, I was
thinking of wiring it as follows:
- source power to the first 3-way switch (power control point)
- then continue the circuit to the 4-way switch (power control point)
- then continue the circuir into a junction box to split out to 5
3-way dimmer switches

The intent would be for the 5 3-way dimmers to control each of the 5
rows independently.
Can this be done without causing a problem ?



You're not being clear as to what you want to do...

You have five sets of lights (A - E),
you want to be able to control power on/of
independantly for each of A-E from either
of points 1 or 2, and the brightness of
each of A-E from point 3?

Either way, it sounds like a candidate for X-10
switching.

It's that, or run a minimum of 12 conductors,
and use 10 DPST switches and 5 dimmers.

wrote in message
ups.com...
I have 5 rows of lighting I need to control from 3 locations.
2 of the locations would be to just power on and off.
The 3rd location would be for dimmer control. However, I need
independent dimmer control for each of the 5 rows.
I know by wiring a single 4-way circuit, I can control power on and off
at all 3 locations, but this would power on and off all 5 rows at the
same time.
Since I only need power control at two of those locations, I was
thinking of wiring it as follows:
- source power to the first 3-way switch (power control point)
- then continue the circuit to the 4-way switch (power control point)
- then continue the circuir into a junction box to split out to 5
3-way dimmer switches

The intent would be for the 5 3-way dimmers to control each of the 5
rows independently.
Can this be done without causing a problem ?


I think that you can make this work. However instead of using a 3-way
switch and a 4-way switch you would just use two 3-way switches. One 3-way
will have the line fed into it. The other 3-way will have the load coming
out of it and going to the switch box housing five single pole dimmers.
This way you will be able to turn all five rows of lights off and on using
either 3-way switch and when the power is on you can dim or turn off each
individual row using its respective dimmer.


John Grabowski
http://www.mrelectrician.tv

Interesting concept, but the problem is the final set of three way switches
would have to have their traveler wires in parallel. Any one switch that was
switched to turn on a bank of lights would also feedback through the system
and cause others banks of lights to energize or disconnect



wrote in message
ups.com...
I have 5 rows of lighting I need to control from 3 locations.
2 of the locations would be to just power on and off.
The 3rd location would be for dimmer control. However, I need
independent dimmer control for each of the 5 rows.
I know by wiring a single 4-way circuit, I can control power on and off
at all 3 locations, but this would power on and off all 5 rows at the
same time.
Since I only need power control at two of those locations, I was
thinking of wiring it as follows:
- source power to the first 3-way switch (power control point)
- then continue the circuit to the 4-way switch (power control point)
- then continue the circuir into a junction box to split out to 5
3-way dimmer switches

The intent would be for the 5 3-way dimmers to control each of the 5
rows independently.
Can this be done without causing a problem ?

Leviton mfg. makes a series of line carrier controls, some with dimming
capabilities. These could independently control your banks of lighting
through a single pair of wires, including dimming and from multiple
locations



wrote in message
ups.com...
I have 5 rows of lighting I need to control from 3 locations.
2 of the locations would be to just power on and off.
The 3rd location would be for dimmer control. However, I need
independent dimmer control for each of the 5 rows.
I know by wiring a single 4-way circuit, I can control power on and off
at all 3 locations, but this would power on and off all 5 rows at the
same time.
Since I only need power control at two of those locations, I was
thinking of wiring it as follows:
- source power to the first 3-way switch (power control point)
- then continue the circuit to the 4-way switch (power control point)
- then continue the circuir into a junction box to split out to 5
3-way dimmer switches

The intent would be for the 5 3-way dimmers to control each of the 5
rows independently.
Can this be done without causing a problem ?

Yes, you're right.
It wasn't evident when I initially looked at it on paper with 2 of the
5 needed switches.
Once you add the 3rd, a loop is created such that no matter what the
position of those 3-way dimmers, the lights would never go out.

So, redesigning my original idea, instead of wiring the junction box
between the 4-way switch and the 5 3-way switches, I think I'll place
the junction box after the 2nd 3-way switch and replace the 5 3-way
dimmers with plain dimmers (1 for each light bank).

So, the resulting circuit would be :
source - 3way - 4way - 3way - junction - 5 plain dimmers - 5 light
banks

Essentially the junction box would be spliting the common with all the
neutrals tied together.

Thanks for the input.


RBM (remove this) wrote:
Interesting concept, but the problem is the final set of three way switches
would have to have their traveler wires in parallel. Any one switch that was
switched to turn on a bank of lights would also feedback through the system
and cause others banks of lights to energize or disconnect



wrote in message
ups.com...
I have 5 rows of lighting I need to control from 3 locations.
2 of the locations would be to just power on and off.
The 3rd location would be for dimmer control. However, I need
independent dimmer control for each of the 5 rows.
I know by wiring a single 4-way circuit, I can control power on and off
at all 3 locations, but this would power on and off all 5 rows at the
same time.
Since I only need power control at two of those locations, I was
thinking of wiring it as follows:
- source power to the first 3-way switch (power control point)
- then continue the circuit to the 4-way switch (power control point)
- then continue the circuir into a junction box to split out to 5
3-way dimmer switches

The intent would be for the 5 3-way dimmers to control each of the 5
rows independently.
Can this be done without causing a problem ?

it sounds like you want to wire a 3 way light, but then break the lit
portion into 5 inependantly controlled (dimmed) systems. the problem
occures if you have lots and lots of lights

as long as the primary switches can handle it you won't have a
problem.

it sounds like florecent lights, usualy 4 40watt bulbs in a single
fixture, so a 10 amp circuit would allow for 1 light on each bank, a 15
would allow for 2, and a 20 would allow for 3. if you want more then
you need a contactor to switch the lights.

Empress2454 #124457


The best Games


a href=http://www.gamestotal.com/Multiplayer Online Games/a a
href=http://www.gamestotal.com/Strategy Games/abra
href=http://uc.gamestotal.com/Unification Wars/a - a
href=http://uc.gamestotal.com/Massive Multiplayer Online
Games/abra href=http://gc.gamestotal.com/Galactic Conquest/a -
a href=http://gc.gamestotal.com/Strategy Games/abra
href=http://www.stephenyong.com/runescape.htmRunescape/abra
href=http://www.stephenyong.com/kingsofchaos.htmKings of chaos/abr





wrote:
I have 5 rows of lighting I need to control from 3 locations.
2 of the locations would be to just power on and off.
The 3rd location would be for dimmer control. However, I need
independent dimmer control for each of the 5 rows.
I know by wiring a single 4-way circuit, I can control power on and off
at all 3 locations, but this would power on and off all 5 rows at the
same time.
Since I only need power control at two of those locations, I was
thinking of wiring it as follows:
- source power to the first 3-way switch (power control point)
- then continue the circuit to the 4-way switch (power control point)
- then continue the circuir into a junction box to split out to 5
3-way dimmer switches

The intent would be for the 5 3-way dimmers to control each of the 5
rows independently.
Can this be done without causing a problem ?

What you're saying is pretty much how John Grabowski has described it,
although I don't see any problem in keeping the 4 way switch


"jtorr" wrote in message
oups.com...
Yes, you're right.
It wasn't evident when I initially looked at it on paper with 2 of the
5 needed switches.
Once you add the 3rd, a loop is created such that no matter what the
position of those 3-way dimmers, the lights would never go out.

So, redesigning my original idea, instead of wiring the junction box
between the 4-way switch and the 5 3-way switches, I think I'll place
the junction box after the 2nd 3-way switch and replace the 5 3-way
dimmers with plain dimmers (1 for each light bank).

So, the resulting circuit would be :
source - 3way - 4way - 3way - junction - 5 plain dimmers - 5 light
banks

Essentially the junction box would be spliting the common with all the
neutrals tied together.

Thanks for the input.


RBM (remove this) wrote:
Interesting concept, but the problem is the final set of three way
switches
would have to have their traveler wires in parallel. Any one switch that
was
switched to turn on a bank of lights would also feedback through the
system
and cause others banks of lights to energize or disconnect



wrote in message
ups.com...
I have 5 rows of lighting I need to control from 3 locations.
2 of the locations would be to just power on and off.
The 3rd location would be for dimmer control. However, I need
independent dimmer control for each of the 5 rows.
I know by wiring a single 4-way circuit, I can control power on and off
at all 3 locations, but this would power on and off all 5 rows at the
same time.
Since I only need power control at two of those locations, I was
thinking of wiring it as follows:
- source power to the first 3-way switch (power control point)
- then continue the circuit to the 4-way switch (power control point)
- then continue the circuir into a junction box to split out to 5
3-way dimmer switches

The intent would be for the 5 3-way dimmers to control each of the 5
rows independently.
Can this be done without causing a problem ?

On 11 Sep 2006 14:46:53 -0700, wrote:

I have 5 rows of lighting I need to control from 3 locations.
2 of the locations would be to just power on and off.
The 3rd location would be for dimmer control. However, I need
independent dimmer control for each of the 5 rows.
I know by wiring a single 4-way circuit, I can control power on and off
at all 3 locations, but this would power on and off all 5 rows at the
same time.
Since I only need power control at two of those locations, I was
thinking of wiring it as follows:
- source power to the first 3-way switch (power control point)
- then continue the circuit to the 4-way switch (power control point)
- then continue the circuir into a junction box to split out to 5
3-way dimmer switches

The intent would be for the 5 3-way dimmers to control each of the 5
rows independently.
Can this be done without causing a problem ?


Wire each row with a master X10 or Insteon dimmer switch.

The individual switch locations can be dimmer control or ON/OFF toggle
functions. The Insteon, which is newer technology, give you the
ability to have a remote status indicator of the dim level at each
switch control. No special wiring is necessary (see below).

Try to put all devices on one hot leg of your incoming 240 V. service
(I am boldly assuming you are in the North American power system...If
not, please disregard.... Sorry)

Not doing so can cause control failure problems. There are products
that bridge the hot legs to transfer carrier current control signals,
but it is nicer not to be forced to use them.

http://www.smarthome.com/

is a source of products. They are not particularly inexpensive.

Beachcomber

wrote:
I have 5 rows of lighting I need to control from 3 locations.
2 of the locations would be to just power on and off.
The 3rd location would be for dimmer control. However, I need
independent dimmer control for each of the 5 rows.
I know by wiring a single 4-way circuit, I can control power on and off
at all 3 locations, but this would power on and off all 5 rows at the
same time.
Since I only need power control at two of those locations, I was
thinking of wiring it as follows:
- source power to the first 3-way switch (power control point)
- then continue the circuit to the 4-way switch (power control point)
- then continue the circuir into a junction box to split out to 5
3-way dimmer switches

The intent would be for the 5 3-way dimmers to control each of the 5
rows independently.
Can this be done without causing a problem ?


As a practical matter you need to install a set of dimmer controls
rather than installing multi point switching. If you use three and four
way switches: two way and intermediate across the pond: you will have an
off switch built into each of the dimmers that you cannot control from
the other two switching points. Installing a five circuit dimmer panel
with two remote control points is far more practical. With the separate
dimmer switches once they are turned down below the firing point of the
lights they control or to the off position you would have to return to
the dimmer to turn the lights back on. I suspect you will find that
very irritating.
--
Tom Horne

"This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous
for general use." Thomas Alva Edison

According to Tom Horne, Electrician :

As a practical matter you need to install a set of dimmer controls
rather than installing multi point switching. If you use three and four
way switches: two way and intermediate across the pond: you will have an
off switch built into each of the dimmers that you cannot control from
the other two switching points. Installing a five circuit dimmer panel
with two remote control points is far more practical. With the separate
dimmer switches once they are turned down below the firing point of the
lights they control or to the off position you would have to return to
the dimmer to turn the lights back on. I suspect you will find that
very irritating.

One way of looking at this is think of this setup is to consider
it to be two distinct sections. The first is two 3-way switches providing
two switch control of a "device", and the second section is a "device"
that happens to consist of 5 dimmers and their lights.

Feed the power thru the 3-ways terminating in the 5 pack of dimmers,
the dimmers split off the hot of the tail end of the 3-ways, and
then feeds neutral and hots to the fixtures.

Of course, once you've thrown one of the three ways to power off
the lighting, you can't turn the lights back on from the dimmers.

This is what John G described and is probably the best way to go.

If the second 3 way was a 4 way, and the dimmers all had three
way switches, _then_ you could switch them all on/off at each
location, _but_, once you switched one of the three way dimmers
_opposite_ to the others, the regular switches would alternate
which set of lights were on, and you couldn't get them all off
(or on) without changing switches at the dimmers.

_That_ would drive you crazy in short order.

And finally, the most sophisticated/reasonably useful set up would
be to set up a string of 3-4-3 pole switches in the normal "three
position switching" pattern, where the final 3-way switch is adjacent to
the 5 (ordinary) dimmers. Making a total of 6 devices required at
the dimmer location. One master 3-way that operates with the other
3 and 4 way switch to three-point switch the "device", which again
is the 5 dimmer/light fixture segment.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

According to jtorr :
Yes, you're right.
It wasn't evident when I initially looked at it on paper with 2 of the
5 needed switches.
Once you add the 3rd, a loop is created such that no matter what the
position of those 3-way dimmers, the lights would never go out.

So, redesigning my original idea, instead of wiring the junction box
between the 4-way switch and the 5 3-way switches, I think I'll place
the junction box after the 2nd 3-way switch and replace the 5 3-way
dimmers with plain dimmers (1 for each light bank).

So, the resulting circuit would be :
source - 3way - 4way - 3way - junction - 5 plain dimmers - 5 light
banks

Essentially the junction box would be spliting the common with all the
neutrals tied together.

Yup, that's the way to do it. Think of the 5 plain dimmers and
5 light banks as a single "device" fed with a _single_ switched hot and
ordinary neutral. The switched hot and ordinary neutral are supplied
by the inline string of 3-4-3 way switches.

Aka "divide and conquer" ;-)
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

Don't forget Lutron and Lightolier Controls.
Both companies make "multi-location" dimming systems, and many smarter,
memory based systems.

RickR

RBM (remove this) wrote:
Leviton mfg. makes a series of line carrier controls, some with dimming
capabilities. These could independently control your banks of lighting
through a single pair of wires, including dimming and from multiple
locations

On 11 Sep 2006 16:36:45 -0700, "jtorr" wrote:

Yes, you're right.
It wasn't evident when I initially looked at it on paper with 2 of the
5 needed switches.
Once you add the 3rd, a loop is created such that no matter what the
position of those 3-way dimmers, the lights would never go out.

I don't think so. I think you were right in the first place.

Explain this loop to me that you refer to above.

I consider the possibility before I read the second post, and I don't
think there is one.

I don't know where your first, second, and bank of five switches are
to be, but if you do it without the 4-way, and without the 5 3-way,
you'll have to go back to one of the first two switches to turn things
on when the master power is off because of one of them. That is
exactly what you were trying to avoid.

If you have a 3-way, a 4-way, and in parallel five 3-way dimmers,
you'll have everything you want. Explain to me, in detail, why the
lights would never go out. I think they will go out fine.

I presume you are not using fluorscents, unless you have special ones
that can dim.

Posted and mailed, but please reply by post in the thread, or both
ways. Not just to me.


So, redesigning my original idea, instead of wiring the junction box
between the 4-way switch and the 5 3-way switches, I think I'll place
the junction box after the 2nd 3-way switch and replace the 5 3-way
dimmers with plain dimmers (1 for each light bank).

So, the resulting circuit would be :
source - 3way - 4way - 3way - junction - 5 plain dimmers - 5 light
banks

Essentially the junction box would be spliting the common with all the
neutrals tied together.

Thanks for the input.


RBM (remove this) wrote:
Interesting concept, but the problem is the final set of three way switches
would have to have their traveler wires in parallel. Any one switch that was
switched to turn on a bank of lights would also feedback through the system
and cause others banks of lights to energize or disconnect



wrote in message
ups.com...
I have 5 rows of lighting I need to control from 3 locations.
2 of the locations would be to just power on and off.
The 3rd location would be for dimmer control. However, I need
independent dimmer control for each of the 5 rows.
I know by wiring a single 4-way circuit, I can control power on and off
at all 3 locations, but this would power on and off all 5 rows at the
same time.
Since I only need power control at two of those locations, I was
thinking of wiring it as follows:
- source power to the first 3-way switch (power control point)
- then continue the circuit to the 4-way switch (power control point)
- then continue the circuir into a junction box to split out to 5
3-way dimmer switches

The intent would be for the 5 3-way dimmers to control each of the 5
rows independently.
Can this be done without causing a problem ?

According to mm :
If you have a 3-way, a 4-way, and in parallel five 3-way dimmers,
you'll have everything you want. Explain to me, in detail, why the
lights would never go out. I think they will go out fine.

Think: in a 3-4-3 switch circuit, the light "toggles" on/off on any one
of the switches being thrown.

If that second 3 way switch is paralleled 5 ways, consider this:

1) Have all the 5 paralleled switches flipped the same way.
2) Arrange the other two switches so that all 5 lights go on.
3) Flip one of the paralleled switches. Its light goes off.
4) Now switch one of the unparalleled switches:

1) The lights that are on, go off
2) The lights that are off, go on.

In other words, unless ALL of the 5 paralleled switches are the same way, you can't
turn them all off from the two unparalleled switches.

You need another threeway to make this work.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.