wrote in
:

On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 12:57:58 PM UTC-4, Doug Miller
wrote:
wrote in

:

With an even number of switches, you will always have an even
number of switches in a certain position with the lights off.
Either four down, two down, or four up.

This is untrue.

Want proof? Set it up so that the lights are off when all four
switches are down.

Now turn one of the switches upside down. The lights are still
off, but now there are three switches down, and one up.

So do you wander through the house flipping switches over in
electrical boxes on a daily basis?

Do try to pay attention here. The *only* purpose of that statement was to point out your error.

If he wires it up so that all four are down and the lights are
off, and LEAVES THEM ALONE, then the lights will be off with the
switches in three states:

1. Four down.
2. Two down.
3. Four up.

Yes, of course -- but that's not what you said at first. You said
"with an even number of switches, you will always have an even
number of switches in a certain position with the lights off" --
and that just is not true. It's quite possible to have three up
and one down, with the lights off.

On Jun 19, 12:26*pm, Robert Macy wrote:
On Jun 19, 9:16*am, Metspitzer wrote:

...snip...

https://www.google.com/search?q=Ptou...8&aq=t&rls=org...

Get one of these

Thanks, will be useful for labeling all the house TV coax, cat-5, and
security system cabling! Security system alone is daunting with 8
cameras and 20+ individual lines. Today is easy, but working a month
from now is not so easy - can't remember what is what.

For the light switches that still leaves three problems.
1. Doesn't look very elegant.
2. How to name them and still know what the labels mean
3. This is a bit more difficult to overcome, adhesives don't stick
well, or long, here. Could seal with clear coat of something, but now
we're talking the first time the switch panels get cleaned, ALL that
comes off, single wipe.

Why not use a special color for the switches you are concerned about,
or always make them the left-hand most switch in a bank of adjacent
switches. Unless you are developing Alzheimers, you are making a big
deal out of what most of us do on a routine basis many times a day.

On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:36:07 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 10:08:56 AM UTC-4, wrote:

On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 3:35:16 PM UTC-4, wrote:

In other words, if you run down the hall and flip all four switches to the down position, the lights will always end up OFF.



I never saw him saying anything even close to that. And

I can't imagine that it would make much sense. He said he

had 4 switches controlling a hallway light. Why on earth

would you need to run down the hall and check each switch?

All you need do is look if the light is on or off and then

hit the one switch located where you are exiting the hall.



Obviously you weren't reading carefully because that's EXACTLY what he said.


Then you should be able to provide the excerpt where he says EXACTLY that. Funny thing. You haven't.

And assuming it's true, what good does it do again?
If you only look at one or two switches, you still
don't know that the light is on or off. Doug tried
to make that point to you as well. So, you
have to walk around to check at least 3 switches. He's
so concerned, he'd probably check all 4. Does that
make any sense as opposed to just looking at the
hallway light to see if it's on or off? I've yet
to see a 3 way, 4 way, hallway light where whether
the light was on or off was not easily determinable
from each switch. That's kind of the whole purpose,
so that you can turn the light for that area on
or off from the various areas it serves.



Nobody's checking each switch. He just wants the "home position" to be all four switches DOWN, and light OFF. It's a form of OCD.

Thanks for the diagnosis. You've confirmed that what he's
trying to do makes no sense.






With an even number of switches, you will always have an even number of switches in a certain position with the lights off. Either four down, two down, or four up.



Which of course means you can't do what he wants to do.



Yes, he can. All he wants is, "All four switches DOWN, lights OFF."







What you keep harping on and on about is "All four switches MUST be down for the lights to be OFF." That is not what he wants.

Seems I'm not the only one that interpreted it that way.






Clearly he was able to achieve it because he replied and stated such. All it required was swapping the wires on the first switch.

I hope he's happy now. When leaving the hallway, he can
either go check 3 switches to make sure they are down and
the light is off. Me, I'd just look at the light as I'm
exiting the hallway. Good grief!

On Thursday, June 20, 2013 10:49:16 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:36:07 PM UTC-4, wrote:

On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 10:08:56 AM UTC-4, wrote:



On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 3:35:16 PM UTC-4, wrote:



In other words, if you run down the hall and flip all four switches to the down position, the lights will always end up OFF.







I never saw him saying anything even close to that. And



I can't imagine that it would make much sense. He said he



had 4 switches controlling a hallway light. Why on earth



would you need to run down the hall and check each switch?



All you need do is look if the light is on or off and then



hit the one switch located where you are exiting the hall.







Obviously you weren't reading carefully because that's EXACTLY what he said.





Then you should be able to provide the excerpt where he says EXACTLY that. Funny thing. You haven't.



And assuming it's true, what good does it do again?

If you only look at one or two switches, you still

don't know that the light is on or off. Doug tried

to make that point to you as well. So, you

have to walk around to check at least 3 switches. He's

so concerned, he'd probably check all 4. Does that

make any sense as opposed to just looking at the

hallway light to see if it's on or off? I've yet

to see a 3 way, 4 way, hallway light where whether

the light was on or off was not easily determinable

from each switch. That's kind of the whole purpose,

so that you can turn the light for that area on

or off from the various areas it serves.







Nobody's checking each switch. He just wants the "home position" to be all four switches DOWN, and light OFF. It's a form of OCD.



Thanks for the diagnosis. You've confirmed that what he's

trying to do makes no sense.













With an even number of switches, you will always have an even number of switches in a certain position with the lights off. Either four down, two down, or four up.







Which of course means you can't do what he wants to do.







Yes, he can. All he wants is, "All four switches DOWN, lights OFF."















What you keep harping on and on about is "All four switches MUST be down for the lights to be OFF." That is not what he wants.



Seems I'm not the only one that interpreted it that way.













Clearly he was able to achieve it because he replied and stated such. All it required was swapping the wires on the first switch.



I hope he's happy now. When leaving the hallway, he can

either go check 3 switches to make sure they are down and

the light is off. Me, I'd just look at the light as I'm

exiting the hallway. Good grief!

Yes, we all agree, what he wants makes no sense. But what he wants is for the light to be off when ALL the switches are down.

jamesgang wrote in
:

Yes, we all agree, what he wants makes no sense. But what he
wants is for the light to be off when ALL the switches are down.

That's not difficult. All he needs to do is flip all the switches down, and then look at the light:
-- if the light is off, he's finished.
-- if the light is on, remove a faceplace and turn any one of the four switches upside down.

On Jun 20, 10:54*am, Doug Miller
wrote:
jamesgang wrote :

Yes, we all agree, what he wants makes no sense. *But what he
wants is for the light to be off when ALL the switches are down.

That's not difficult. All he needs to do is flip all the switches down, and then look at the light:
-- if the light is off, he's finished.
-- if the light is on, remove a faceplace and turn any one of the four switches upside down.

Again, I understand your lack of sympathy. When there's a single
switch in the panel at the ends of a hall; UP/DOWN makes NO
difference. However, I've got over 20 light panels containing racks of
up to 5 switches per panel! As I said, if light switches can be made
to be all down when off; it's easy to tell which light switch
activated the light. But, when you have a rack of switches in arbitray
positions and all your lights are out but one...

Quoting from one of my replies to another:
"From all the replies there's not been much sympathy for the
confusion
3,4,5-way switches can cause. I agree, if there's a single switch
controlling the light set, not a biggie, don't care about up or down
position, but when you have light switch panels containing 4 and
sometimes 5 switches it can be a bit daunting when you're half
asleep. and don't want to exercise every frigging light in the room
trying to find the right one."

And again, turning a switch over is not a viable option. The wiring is
often too short, the boxes are FILLED with wiring, and the wiring
itself is NOT very flexible. This may have been 12 Awg wiring, will
have to check. So turning a switch over puts the GND wire at the top
and distorts everything so much that the switch never lies flat again
and cosmetically looks terrible after the cover plate is replaced.

On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 12:01:05 -0700 (PDT), Robert Macy
wrote:

On Jun 20, 10:54*am, Doug Miller
wrote:
jamesgang wrote :

Yes, we all agree, what he wants makes no sense. *But what he
wants is for the light to be off when ALL the switches are down.

That's not difficult. All he needs to do is flip all the switches down, and then look at the light:
-- if the light is off, he's finished.
-- if the light is on, remove a faceplace and turn any one of the four switches upside down.

Again, I understand your lack of sympathy. When there's a single
switch in the panel at the ends of a hall; UP/DOWN makes NO
difference. However, I've got over 20 light panels containing racks of
up to 5 switches per panel! As I said, if light switches can be made
to be all down when off; it's easy to tell which light switch
activated the light. But, when you have a rack of switches in arbitray
positions and all your lights are out but one...

Quoting from one of my replies to another:
"From all the replies there's not been much sympathy for the
confusion
3,4,5-way switches can cause. I agree, if there's a single switch
controlling the light set, not a biggie, don't care about up or down
position, but when you have light switch panels containing 4 and
sometimes 5 switches it can be a bit daunting when you're half
asleep. and don't want to exercise every frigging light in the room
trying to find the right one."

And again, turning a switch over is not a viable option. The wiring is
often too short, the boxes are FILLED with wiring, and the wiring
itself is NOT very flexible. This may have been 12 Awg wiring, will
have to check. So turning a switch over puts the GND wire at the top
and distorts everything so much that the switch never lies flat again
and cosmetically looks terrible after the cover plate is replaced.

You can accomplish the same thing Doug suggests by swapping the
travelers at one switch. A 3-way switch will have one screw that has
a different marking than the other two. Swap the two wires on the
terminals that have the same markings.

Robert Macy wrote in news:d35c507e-2439-4719-9411-
:

On Jun 20, 10:54*am, Doug Miller
wrote:
jamesgang wrote innews:d7de7a5e-5053-4536-a165-43
:

Yes, we all agree, what he wants makes no sense. *But what he
wants is for the light to be off when ALL the switches are down.

That's not difficult. All he needs to do is flip all the switches down, a
nd then look at the light:
-- if the light is off, he's finished.
-- if the light is on, remove a faceplace and turn any one of the four sw
itches upside down.

Again, I understand your lack of sympathy. When there's a single
switch in the panel at the ends of a hall; UP/DOWN makes NO
difference. However, I've got over 20 light panels containing racks of
up to 5 switches per panel! As I said, if light switches can be made
to be all down when off; it's easy to tell which light switch
activated the light. But, when you have a rack of switches in arbitray
positions and all your lights are out but one...

First -- why do you care which switch activated the light? When one light is controlled from
four different switches, any one of the four can turn it on -- and any one of the four can turn it
off, too. What possibile difference could it make, to know which switch turned it on? You can
turn it off from any of the other three. You don't have to turn it off using the same switch that
turned it on.

Second -- you're wrong about it being "easy to tell" anyway. Suppose you have four
switches controlling the same light; suppose further that you've succeeded in configuring
this so that the light is off when all four are down. If three of the four are *up*, which one turned
it on? For that matter, even if only *one* of them is up you *still * don't know which one turned
the light on most recently: flip switch 1 up, light goes on; flip switch 2 up, light goes off; flip
switch 1 *down*, light goes on. Switch 2 is up, but switch *1* turned the light on.

In article
,
Robert Macy wrote:

As I said, if light switches can be made
to be all down when off; it's easy to tell which light switch
activated the light. But, when you have a rack of switches in arbitray
positions and all your lights are out but one...

Robert-

I missed the earlier comments, but I see a point of confusion.

Do you want any one switch to be able to turn off the light if a
different switch turned it on? That requires a string of switches, with
the end switches in a SPDT configuration. Any intermediate switches
would be in a DPDT configuration. (There may be some 4 terminal
switches intended for this function.) As mentioned, you could swap two
wires at any one of the switches to give you "All Down Equals OFF".

But that would be of little value if you want to know which one switch
was responsible for leaving the light on. For that, you would simply
connect all SPST switches in parallel. All switches in the up position
would need to be turned off for the light to go off. Then you would not
have "N-Way" switches where one of N switches could turn off a light
another switch turned on.

Fred

Fred McKenzie wrote in news:fmmck-CB580A.22112020062013@
5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com:

In article
,
Robert Macy wrote:

As I said, if light switches can be made
to be all down when off; it's easy to tell which light switch
activated the light. But, when you have a rack of switches in arbitray
positions and all your lights are out but one...

Robert-

I missed the earlier comments, but I see a point of confusion.

You're missing what Robert's *really* confused about... see below.

Do you want any one switch to be able to turn off the light if a
different switch turned it on? That requires a string of switches, with
the end switches in a SPDT configuration. Any intermediate switches
would be in a DPDT configuration. (There may be some 4 terminal
switches intended for this function.) As mentioned, you could swap two
wires at any one of the switches to give you "All Down Equals OFF".

But that would be of little value if you want to know which one switch
was responsible for leaving the light on.

Knowing which switch is responsible for leaving the light on is of no value to begin with. If the
light can be turned on OR OFF from any of multiple switches, WHO CARES which switch
turned it on? It. Does. Not. Matter.

For that, you would simply
connect all SPST switches in parallel. All switches in the up position
would need to be turned off for the light to go off. Then you would not
have "N-Way" switches where one of N switches could turn off a light
another switch turned on.

.... thus completely defeating the purpose of having multiple switches.

On Friday, June 21, 2013 7:13:02 AM UTC-4, Doug Miller wrote:
Fred McKenzie wrote in news:fmmck-CB580A.22112020062013@

5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com:



In article

,

Robert Macy wrote:



As I said, if light switches can be made

to be all down when off; it's easy to tell which light switch

activated the light. But, when you have a rack of switches in arbitray

positions and all your lights are out but one...



Robert-



I missed the earlier comments, but I see a point of confusion.



You're missing what Robert's *really* confused about... see below.



Do you want any one switch to be able to turn off the light if a

different switch turned it on? That requires a string of switches, with

the end switches in a SPDT configuration. Any intermediate switches

would be in a DPDT configuration. (There may be some 4 terminal

switches intended for this function.) As mentioned, you could swap two

wires at any one of the switches to give you "All Down Equals OFF".



But that would be of little value if you want to know which one switch

was responsible for leaving the light on.



Knowing which switch is responsible for leaving the light on is of no value to begin with. If the

light can be turned on OR OFF from any of multiple switches, WHO CARES which switch

turned it on? It. Does. Not. Matter.



For that, you would simply

connect all SPST switches in parallel. All switches in the up position

would need to be turned off for the light to go off. Then you would not

have "N-Way" switches where one of N switches could turn off a light

another switch turned on.



... thus completely defeating the purpose of having multiple switches.

Heh, I'm with you on this one Doug. I don't see the point to the
whole exercise. But there are others here like Dennis, that think
we shouldn't be asking the question about "why" he wants it, what
purpose it serves, just tell him how to do it.

He started off with:

"Plus, (original installer) paid
no attention to having all of the individual multiple switches end up
in any proper position when the hallway light is off, so want to
change. Swapping these two switches in their physical location in the
box is no problem the wiring appears to be long enough, although the
cabling comes down through the inlet holes in the wrong places. but
still reaches.

Big problem is the best way to change the switching action of the
multiple control switch. "

Which implies that there is an expectation of what the "proper
position is for 3-way, 4-way, 5-way switches should be to each other?
No electrician even considers this, because the light can be
on with some switches up, some down and no one that I know
cares. You just look at the light. If Robert rewires it so that
the light is off with all 4 down, then if you're standing at one
switch and the light is off, all you know is that the one
corresponding switch is also down. You still don't know what
position the other two switches are in. So, AFAIK, you would have to go
check one of those as well. Or you could just look at the light.
In every case I've seen, it's easier to look at the light for
a hallway, then check at least two switches....

If this really is an OCD thing, like Dennis says, that's fine, and
he can get all 4 down with the light off. It's just that if it
really solves something that we're missing, it would be nice to
know what that is. Like you, if someone wants to set about fiddling
with something that is work and seems to serve no purpose, I try
to understand the real objective, so that we're not just providing
steps in some process that doesn't solve anything.

On Thursday, June 20, 2013 12:31:28 PM UTC-7, Metspitzer wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 12:01:05 -0700 (PDT), Robert Macy wrote: On Jun 20, 10:54*am, Doug Miller wrote: jamesgang wrote : Yes, we all agree, what he wants makes no sense. *But what he wants is for the light to be off when ALL the switches are down. That's not difficult. All he needs to do is flip all the switches down, and then look at the light: -- if the light is off, he's finished. -- if the light is on, remove a faceplace and turn any one of the four switches upside down. Again, I understand your lack of sympathy. When there's a single switch in the panel at the ends of a hall; UP/DOWN makes NO difference. However, I've got over 20 light panels containing racks of up to 5 switches per panel! As I said, if light switches can be made to be all down when off; it's easy to tell which light switch activated the light. But, when you have a rack of switches in arbitray positions and all your lights are out but one... Quoting from one of my replies to another: "From all the replies there's not been much sympathy for the confusion 3,4,5-way switches can cause. I agree, if there's a single switch controlling the light set, not a biggie, don't care about up or down position, but when you have light switch panels containing 4 and sometimes 5 switches it can be a bit daunting when you're half asleep. and don't want to exercise every frigging light in the room trying to find the right one." And again, turning a switch over is not a viable option. The wiring is often too short, the boxes are FILLED with wiring, and the wiring itself is NOT very flexible. This may have been 12 Awg wiring, will have to check. So turning a switch over puts the GND wire at the top and distorts everything so much that the switch never lies flat again and cosmetically looks terrible after the cover plate is replaced. You can accomplish the same thing Doug suggests by swapping the travelers at one switch. A 3-way switch will have one screw that has a different marking than the other two. Swap the two wires on the terminals that have the same markings.

Thank you. I didn't see any such markings, but on the next set will look for them!

On Thursday, June 20, 2013 7:11:20 PM UTC-7, Fred McKenzie wrote:
In article , Robert Macy wrote: As I said, if light switches can be made to be all down when off; it's easy to tell which light switch activated the light. But, when you have a rack of switches in arbitray positions and all your lights are out but one... Robert- I missed the earlier comments, but I see a point of confusion. Do you want any one switch to be able to turn off the light if a different switch turned it on? That requires a string of switches, with the end switches in a SPDT configuration. Any intermediate switches would be in a DPDT configuration. (There may be some 4 terminal switches intended for this function.) As mentioned, you could swap two wires at any one of the switches to give you "All Down Equals OFF". But that would be of little value if you want to know which one switch was responsible for leaving the light on. For that, you would simply connect all SPST switches in parallel. All switches in the up position would need to be turned off for the light to go off. Then you would not have "N-Way" switches where one of N switches could turn off a light another switch turned on. Fred

Fred, can't understand the source for this confusion. I want any switch to be able to turn ON/OFF the lights as before. It's just that I need to be able to 'set' them all up at least once in their lifetime so that late at night it's easier to figure out which switch turned on the light. Hopefully somebody read my replies and can see how it can get out of hand when you have MANY, up to 5 switches in a single row, as to figure it out easily. like second nature, oh that switch is up therefore that's the switch to turn it back off. don't have to think about it. You have no idea what it's like to be confronted with five switches all set to arbitrary positions to quickly shut the one you want off - without turning on one you don't want.

On Friday, June 21, 2013 7:25:03 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, June 21, 2013 7:13:02 AM UTC-4, Doug Miller wrote: Fred McKenzie wrote in news:fmmck-CB580A.22112020062013@ 5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com: In article , Robert Macy wrote: As I said, if light switches can be made to be all down when off; it's easy to tell which light switch activated the light. But, when you have a rack of switches in arbitray positions and all your lights are out but one... Robert- I missed the earlier comments, but I see a point of confusion. You're missing what Robert's *really* confused about... see below. Do you want any one switch to be able to turn off the light if a different switch turned it on? That requires a string of switches, with the end switches in a SPDT configuration. Any intermediate switches would be in a DPDT configuration. (There may be some 4 terminal switches intended for this function.) As mentioned, you could swap two wires at any one of the switches to give you "All Down Equals OFF". But that would be of little value if you want to know which one switch was responsible for leaving the light on. Knowing which switch is responsible for leaving the light on is of no value to begin with. If the light can be turned on OR OFF from any of multiple switches, WHO CARES which switch turned it on? It. Does. Not.. Matter. For that, you would simply connect all SPST switches in parallel. All switches in the up position would need to be turned off for the light to go off. Then you would not have "N-Way" switches where one of N switches could turn off a light another switch turned on. ... thus completely defeating the purpose of having multiple switches. Heh, I'm with you on this one Doug. I don't see the point to the whole exercise. But there are others here like Dennis, that think we shouldn't be asking the question about "why" he wants it, what purpose it serves, just tell him how to do it. He started off with: "Plus, (original installer) paid no attention to having all of the individual multiple switches end up in any proper position when the hallway light is off, so want to change. Swapping these two switches in their physical location in the box is no problem the wiring appears to be long enough, although the cabling comes down through the inlet holes in the wrong places. but still reaches. Big problem is the best way to change the switching action of the multiple control switch. " Which implies that there is an expectation of what the "proper position is for 3-way, 4-way, 5-way switches should be to each other? No electrician even considers this, because the light can be on with some switches up, some down and no one that I know cares. You just look at the light. If Robert rewires it so that the light is off with all 4 down, then if you're standing at one switch and the light is off, all you know is that the one corresponding switch is also down. You still don't know what position the other two switches are in. So, AFAIK, you would have to go check one of those as well. Or you could just look at the light. In every case I've seen, it's easier to look at the light for a hallway, then check at least two switches.... If this really is an OCD thing, like Dennis says, that's fine, and he can get all 4 down with the light off. It's just that if it really solves something that we're missing, it would be nice to know what that is. Like you, if someone wants to set about fiddling with something that is work and seems to serve no purpose, I try to understand the real objective, so that we're not just providing steps in some process that doesn't solve anything.

....
I don't know why it's so difficult to understand WHY I'd like the switches to be at least once in their lives setting ALL in the proper position. You evidently don't have a house with a lot of lighting controls and multiple switch plates. I have agreed in previous posts that *if* this were a single light switch plate at four different locations to control an overhead light; no biggie. I don't care WHAT position they're in, because THAT light switch obviously controls THAT light, done. But when you have racks and racks of multi-controller switches running ?? around your bedroom; it would be nice to have the switches at least be 'settable' to a mnemonic configuration, where OFF is down, then when turn one on it's obvious which light switch to turn off to get back to ALL lights off. Else, you're stuck out there in the 30 by 50 ft room trying to remember exactly which one in the rack of 5 is the one to shut off! Results, you wake up and have to 'think' about the light switches. Don't want that, don't want to have to completely wake up, rather scan the switches and think, oh that's the one and OFF it goes - done and can go back to sleep.

I'm not even going to get into the problem of explaining the switches to a guest in the house! Or, I could say, "Yeah, feel free to play with the switches until you get the right one." A guest unfamiliar with the switch setup only has to look at the rack and notice which one is up to turn off a light.

On Friday, June 21, 2013 4:13:02 AM UTC-7, Doug Miller wrote:
...snip...
Knowing which switch is responsible for leaving the light on is of no value to begin with. If the light can be turned on OR OFF from any of multiple switches, WHO CARES which switch turned it on? It. Does. Not. Matter.

WRONG! Yes, it does matter. see other replies.

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 18:56:00 -0700 (PDT), Robert Macy
wrote:

Ok Ok I know this is simple but it's irritating me beyond belief.

Leviton light switches.

In a dual box next to an outside door there are two light switches.
One is the single control for a porch light, the other is a one of
four switches that turn on/off the hall way lights.

One other suggestion that may help you if you want to change the
location of the switches in the box would be to use stranded wire as a
jumper wire. If the wire connected to the switch goes to a wirenut,
replace that short wire with stranded wire.

To be able to splice stranded wire to solid wire, a little trick is to
twist all the solid wire together first. Then, when you add the
stranded piece, make sure the stranded wire is sticking up just a
little farther than the solid, so the wirenut grabs the strands of
copper just before it bites into the solid.

You also need a special type switch so that the stranded wire goes
behind a pressure plate instead of trying to twist it around a screw.

They also sell a stranded wire in green that comes with a screw on one
end and a terminal lug on the other. If there is a screw hole in the
box you can just screw the bonding wire directly to the box and attach
the switch screw directly to the green. (You need to make sure the
bundle of bare wires is bonded to the box)

Take pictures of what you have before you change anything. Mark
everything. A gang of 4 switches is going to be pretty confusing
unless you know where every cable in the box goes.

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 14:27:09 -0400, Metspitzer
wrote:

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 18:56:00 -0700 (PDT), Robert Macy
wrote:

Ok Ok I know this is simple but it's irritating me beyond belief.

Leviton light switches.

In a dual box next to an outside door there are two light switches.
One is the single control for a porch light, the other is a one of
four switches that turn on/off the hall way lights.

One other suggestion that may help you if you want to change the
location of the switches in the box would be to use stranded wire as a
jumper wire. If the wire connected to the switch goes to a wirenut,
replace that short wire with stranded wire.

To be able to splice stranded wire to solid wire, a little trick is to
twist all the solid wire together first. Then, when you add the
stranded piece, make sure the stranded wire is sticking up just a
little farther than the solid, so the wirenut grabs the strands of
copper just before it bites into the solid.

You also need a special type switch so that the stranded wire goes
behind a pressure plate instead of trying to twist it around a screw.

They also sell a stranded wire in green that comes with a screw on one
end and a terminal lug on the other. If there is a screw hole in the
box you can just screw the bonding wire directly to the box and attach
the switch screw directly to the green. (You need to make sure the
bundle of bare wires is bonded to the box)

The green bonding wire is probably not going to work for you. I am
used to working at hospitals where the boxes are metal. Your house
will probably not have metal boxes.

Take pictures of what you have before you change anything. Mark
everything. A gang of 4 switches is going to be pretty confusing
unless you know where every cable in the box goes.

On 6/21/2013 12:35 PM, Robert Macy wrote:
....

I don't know why it's so difficult to understand WHY I'd like the
switches to be at least once in their lives setting ALL in the proper
position. ...
... But when you have racks and racks of multi-controller
switches running ?? around your bedroom; it would be nice to have the
switches at least be 'settable' to a mnemonic configuration, where OFF
is down, then when turn one on it's obvious which light switch to turn
off to get back to ALL lights off....

But, as soon as one of these is switched from another location somewhere
else it screws it up anyway, so there's really no point--they'll be at
odd positions in the other panel(s), anyway.

Labels would seem to be the think if you really have so many you can't
recall which one is what...

The most there is in this house is one set of four at the outside door
but they're installed in a logical order from top to
bottom--yard,porch,entry,dining. Consequently it's no issue to know
which to hit; even visitors figure it out pretty quickly w/o formal
training.

It would seem like such an arrangement should be possible to at least
ameliorate the problem if not totally solve it. OTOH, I'd probably just
simplify and eliminate the switches if were so annoying as it sounds as
if were...

--

Okay.

If I'm understanding correctly, he wants to be able to tell if a circuit is on or off by looking at the switch.

The standard convention for switches is up for ON, down for OFF, but this doesn't work for multiple control switches.

So, why not solve the problem with a pilot light? A small indicator light by each switch would glow when that circuit has power. Or when it doesn't, either way.

I've seen this done for refrigeration equipment, maybe for boilers, I think a couple of other applications. If you have a freezer on a switch you like to know nobody turned it off.

The advantage of this is he could see the switch panel in the dark and know without turning anything on.

On 6/21/2013 2:50 PM, TimR wrote:
....

So, why not solve the problem with a pilot light? A small indicator
light by each switch would glow when that circuit has power. Or when it
doesn't, either way.

....

The advantage of this is he could see the switch panel in the dark
and know without turning anything on.

Yeah, and w/ the number he's talking about it'll look like Christmas...

--

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 22:08:49 -0400, Metspitzer
wrote:

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 18:56:00 -0700 (PDT), Robert Macy
wrote:

Ok Ok I know this is simple but it's irritating me beyond belief.

Leviton light switches.

In a dual box next to an outside door there are two light switches.
One is the single control for a porch light, the other is a one of
four switches that turn on/off the hall way lights.

Of course the installer put the hallway light switch adjacent to the
door opening and the porch light switch way on the inside. Plus, paid
no attention to having all of the individual multiple switches end up
in any proper position when the hallway light is off, so want to
change. Swapping these two switches in their physical location in the
box is no problem the wiring appears to be long enough, although the
cabling comes down through the inlet holes in the wrong places. but
still reaches.

I never used any of these, but they make them in green, white and
black.
http://www.idealindustries.ca/produc..._grounding.php

Big problem is the best way to change the switching action of the
multiple control switch. Went to google, not much help there. as
usual. Did find that 4 wire means 3 switches, not four. and nothing
for 5-wire and found an interesting description of how a 'control'
switch is in the box that supplies wiring up to the fixture. That may
be this box, but doubt it, because this switch has four leads.

However *if* this is the cable that goes up to the light fixtures; why
there would be a RED and a BLACK going to the fixtures when all I need
is the BLACK power going up there. So, thought I'd ask.

Ignoring GND wiring that's all done correctly. There is a cable with
RED, BLACK, and WHITE, call it CABLE A. Another cable, call it CABLE B
has RED, BLACK, and WHITE. As expected the WHITE is simply bypassing
everything with a wire nut. BLACK A goes to IN at the top of the
switch. BLACK B goes to OUT at the top of the switch. RED A goes to IN
close to bottom of switch and RED B goes to OUT close to bottom of
switch.

What is the best way to rewire the switch to get the inverse from what
it is now and the 'proper' position?

Before you do anything, take pictures of how it is now.

If what you have is 3 way or 4 way switches, sometimes the switch will
be up when the light is off. I think that is what you are asking.
Sorry I quit reading about half way down.

On Friday, June 21, 2013 1:35:46 PM UTC-4, Robert Macy wrote:
On Friday, June 21, 2013 7:25:03 AM UTC-7, wrote:

On Friday, June 21, 2013 7:13:02 AM UTC-4, Doug Miller wrote: Fred McKenzie wrote in news:fmmck-CB580A.22112020062013@ 5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com: In article , Robert Macy wrote: As I said, if light switches can be made to be all down when off; it's easy to tell which light switch activated the light. But, when you have a rack of switches in arbitray positions and all your lights are out but one... Robert- I missed the earlier comments, but I see a point of confusion. You're missing what Robert's *really* confused about... see below. Do you want any one switch to be able to turn off the light if a different switch turned it on? That requires a string of switches, with the end switches in a SPDT configuration. Any intermediate switches would be in a DPDT configuration. (There may be some 4 terminal switches intended for this function.) As mentioned, you could swap two wires at any one of the switches to give you "All Down Equals OFF". But that would be of little value if you want to know which one switch was responsible for leaving the light on.. Knowing which switch is responsible for leaving the light on is of no value to begin with. If the light can be turned on OR OFF from any of multiple switches, WHO CARES which switch turned it on? It. Does. Not. Matter. For that, you would simply connect all SPST switches in parallel. All switches in the up position would need to be turned off for the light to go off. Then you would not have "N-Way" switches where one of N switches could turn off a light another switch turned on. ... thus completely defeating the purpose of having multiple switches. Heh, I'm with you on this one Doug. I don't see the point to the whole exercise. But there are others here like Dennis, that think we shouldn't be asking the question about "why" he wants it, what purpose it serves, just tell him how to do it. He started off with: "Plus, (original installer) paid no attention to having all of the individual multiple switches end up in any proper position when the hallway light is off, so want to change. Swapping these two switches in their physical location in the box is no problem the wiring appears to be long enough, although the cabling comes down through the inlet holes in the wrong places. but still reaches. Big problem is the best way to change the switching action of the multiple control switch. " Which implies that there is an expectation of what the "proper position is for 3-way, 4-way, 5-way switches should be to each other? No electrician even considers this, because the light can be on with some switches up, some down and no one that I know cares. You just look at the light. If Robert rewires it so that the light is off with all 4 down, then if you're standing at one switch and the light is off, all you know is that the one corresponding switch is also down. You still don't know what position the other two switches are in. So, AFAIK, you would have to go check one of those as well. Or you could just look at the light. In every case I've seen, it's easier to look at the light for a hallway, then check at least two switches.... If this really is an OCD thing, like Dennis says, that's fine, and he can get all 4 down with the light off. It's just that if it really solves something that we're missing, it would be nice to know what that is. Like you, if someone wants to set about fiddling with something that is work and seems to serve no purpose, I try to understand the real objective, so that we're not just providing steps in some process that doesn't solve anything.



...

I don't know why it's so difficult to understand WHY I'd like the switches to be at least once in their lives setting ALL in the proper position.

It's difficult because I don't see what that accomplishes. I think a lot
of folks here don't understand it either. The one or two that do, just
accept it as some kind of OCD thing.


You evidently don't have a house with a lot of lighting controls and multiple switch plates.

I have a house that has several switch plates that have
3 or 4 switches where some of the switches are 3 way. I
have one that is 4 way. And don't have a problem. The switches
that are 3 or 4 way control lights that are visible from
where the switches are. So, the position of the switch is
irrelevant to me.


I have agreed in previous posts that *if* this were a single light switch plate at four different locations to control an overhead light; no biggie. I don't care WHAT position they're in, because THAT light switch obviously controls THAT light, done. But when you have racks and racks of multi-controller switches running ?? around your bedroom; it would be nice to have the switches at least be 'settable' to a mnemonic configuration, where OFF is down, then when turn one on it's obvious which light switch to turn off to get back to ALL lights off.

That would be nice, but as has been explained several
times, it doesn't work that way. You have 4 switches on a
5-way circuit that control one light. You've rewired
or turned switches upside down so that the light is off
when all 4 switches are down. Let's call the switches
A, B, C, D. A is the one near you. You look at it and
see that it's down. That means there is a 50% chance the
light is off, because you don't know the position of the
other 3 switches. If you check switch B and it's also
down, then there is still a 50% chance the light is off,
because you don't know the position of C and D. If you
check switch C and it too is down, then you know the
light is off.

That's how I see it working. If I missed something, let
me know what it is.



Else, you're stuck out there in the 30 by 50 ft room trying to remember exactly which one in the rack of 5 is the one to shut off!

Yeah, that's a valid problem, if you can't remember which switch
does what and they are not marked. Let's say the third switch
is the one for the
light you want to turn off. How does what you did, rearranging
the other switches on the 5-way circuit solve that? Let's call
that switch A. Unless
you can not only see switch A in front of you, but also 2 of
the other switches on that same circuit, you still don't know
if the light is on or off. So whether the third switch, ie
switch A is up or down doesn't determine whether the light is
on or off. You need to know the position of two more switches.




Results, you wake up and have to 'think' about the light switches. Don't want that, don't want to have to completely wake up, rather scan the switches and think, oh that's the one and OFF it goes - done and can go back to sleep.


But it doesn't work that way. You've fixed it so that
when all four switches are down, light is out, right?

Case 1
Light out
A - down
B - down
C - down
D - down

Now Case 2
light on

A up
B down
C down
D down


You see A is up light is on. Just like you want, so you
can move it down to turn off the light.

Now Case 3

A down
B up
C down
D down

Now what? The light is on and A is down. How
do you know A is the switch there among the
others on the switchplate to turn off?








I'm not even going to get into the problem of explaining the switches to a guest in the house! Or, I could say, "Yeah, feel free to play with the switches until you get the right one." A guest unfamiliar with the switch setup only has to look at the rack and notice which one is up to turn off a light.

Per the above, it doesn't work that way. I
would think you would have realized that by now.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't
think so. Which is why some of us were questioning
what was the ultimate objective. Dennis came to the
conclusion that you just wanted all four of those
5 way switches to be down because of OCD and that you
should go ahead and do it. Others, like Doug and I
thought you must have some rational objective. From
what you just described, I don't see how flipping,
re-wiring, whatever achieves it. A couple of labels
stuck on the switchplate would identify which swithc
does what though.

On Friday, June 21, 2013 3:50:23 PM UTC-4, TimR wrote:
Okay.



If I'm understanding correctly, he wants to be able to tell if a circuit is on or off by looking at the switch.



The standard convention for switches is up for ON, down for OFF, but this doesn't work for multiple control switches.

Welcome to the club.... There are two views here. Most of us are
in your camp. Even those in the other camp, Dennis mostly, recognize
what you say. You can set up a N way switch system fo
the light is off with all the switches down. That is one state. You
can do that. But it's also obviously off with other combination, so,
like you, I think we all don't see it solving anything. I don'
think Dennis thinks it solves anything other than providing that
one all down position to solve some kind of OCD thing.







So, why not solve the problem with a pilot light? A small indicator light by each switch would glow when that circuit has power. Or when it doesn't, either way.



I've seen this done for refrigeration equipment, maybe for boilers, I think a couple of other applications. If you have a freezer on a switch you like to know nobody turned it off.



The advantage of this is he could see the switch panel in the dark and know without turning anything on.

"Robert Macy" wrote in message
...
Fred, can't understand the source for this confusion. I want any switch to
be able to turn ON/OFF the lights as before. It's just that I need to be
able to 'set' them all up at least once in their lifetime so that late at
night it's easier to figure out which switch turned on the light.
Hopefully somebody read my replies and can see how it can get out of hand
when you have MANY, up to 5 switches in a single row, as to figure it out
easily. like second nature, oh that switch is up therefore that's the
switch to turn it back off. don't have to think about it. You have no idea
what it's like to be confronted with five switches all set to arbitrary
positions to quickly shut the one you want off - without turning on one
you don't want.

I see and understand what you want.

Now you have to understand that it is not possiable to get you what you
want.

That is not in a simple way. You may be able to go to either a computer
(PLC) type controler or a bunch of relays to do that, but it will require a
lot of money and major rewiring.

In article ,
" wrote:

I don'
think Dennis thinks it solves anything other than providing that
one all down position to solve some kind of OCD thing.

I believe Robert has the answer he was looking for by now - reverse
connection of two wires.

Someone once said, "I have CDO. CDO is like OCD, except it is in
alphabetical order as it should be!"

That was when I realized I had it too.

Fred

On 6/21/2013 4:31 PM, Fred McKenzie wrote:
In ,
wrote:

I don'
think Dennis thinks it solves anything other than providing that
one all down position to solve some kind of OCD thing.

I believe Robert has the answer he was looking for by now - reverse
connection of two wires.
....

That only solves the problem as long as none of the other switches
change _their_ position--as soon as any one of them is switched, he'll
have the same issue.

So, unless he no longer ever uses any of the others after they're all
put in some reference position, switching a traveler doesn't solve the
problem, either. Equivalently and less work, he can put them where he
wants them in the room in question then go turn off whatever is on at
one of the other locations--accomplishes just as much.

--

On Friday, June 21, 2013 6:33:56 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
On 6/21/2013 4:31 PM, Fred McKenzie wrote:

In ,

wrote:



I don'

think Dennis thinks it solves anything other than providing that

one all down position to solve some kind of OCD thing.



I believe Robert has the answer he was looking for by now - reverse

connection of two wires.

...



That only solves the problem as long as none of the other switches

change _their_ position--as soon as any one of them is switched, he'll

have the same issue.




So, unless he no longer ever uses any of the others after they're all

put in some reference position, switching a traveler doesn't solve the

problem, either.


That's exactly how I see it too.....

On 6/21/2013 7:06 PM, wrote:
On Friday, June 21, 2013 6:33:56 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
On 6/21/2013 4:31 PM, Fred McKenzie wrote:

In ,

wrote:

....

I believe Robert has the answer he was looking for by now - reverse
connection of two wires.

...

That only solves the problem as long as none of the other switches
change _their_ position--...
...unless he no longer ever uses any of the others ...
...switching a traveler doesn't solve the problem, either.


That's exactly how I see it too.....

'Cuz that's how it is...

As somebody else noted, the only way he can accomplish the goal is to
use a bunch of logic or a wireless controller or somesuch--it just is
simply not possible w/ conventional house wiring w/ multiway switches
unless the others on the circuit in question aren't changed from their
positions when the target one is as desired (there are combinations of
the others' positions that also leave the one unchanged, of course, by
switching them in pairs, for example, but not in general).

--

Robert Macy wrote in
:

...
I don't know why it's so difficult to understand WHY I'd like
the switches to be at least once in their lives setting ALL in
the proper position. You evidently don't have a house with a lot
of lighting controls and multiple switch plates. I have agreed
in previous posts that *if* this were a single light switch
plate at four different locations to control an overhead light;
no biggie. I don't care WHAT position they're in, because THAT
light switch obviously controls THAT light, done. But when you
have racks and racks of multi-controller switches running ??
around your bedroom; it would be nice to have the switches at
least be 'settable' to a mnemonic configuration, where OFF is
down, then when turn one on it's obvious which light switch to
turn off to get back to ALL lights off.

And I don't know why it's so difficult for you to understand that:
(1) if one light is controlled by more than two switches, it is IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE
from the position of ONE of the switches, which of the remaining switches turned the light on
or off, and
(2) It doesn't MATTER which of the switches turned it on or off, you can use ANY of the
switches to turn it off or on again.

Else, you're stuck out there in the 30 by 50 ft room trying to
remember exactly which one in the rack of 5 is the one to shut
off! Results, you wake up and have to 'think' about the light
switches.

Nonsense. No 'thinking' required -- which appears to be a good thing, actually. Flip the first
switch in the rack of 5 -- did that make the light that I want to go out, go out, or did it turn
something else on instead? If it extinguished the light you wanted, fine, you're done.
Otherwise, flip the same switch again to make what you just turned on, go off, then repeat the
process for the next switch.

Don't want that, don't want to have to completely wake
up, rather scan the switches and think, oh that's the one and OFF
it goes - done and can go back to sleep.

So label the switches on each faceplate. That way, you'll at least know which switch
controls which light.

I'm not even going to get into the problem of explaining the
switches to a guest in the house!

So label the switches on each faceplate. That way, your guests will know which switch
controls which light, too.

Or, I could say, "Yeah, feel
free to play with the switches until you get the right one."

In contrast to the plans you have in mind, that would actually work.

A
guest unfamiliar with the switch setup only has to look at the
rack and notice which one is up to turn off a light.

False.

Robert Macy wrote in news:70da9162-cf8f-48c8-8f27-
:

On Friday, June 21, 2013 4:13:02 AM UTC-7, Doug Miller wrote:
...snip...
Knowing which switch is responsible for leaving the light on is of no value to begin with. If the
light can be turned on OR OFF from any of multiple switches, WHO CARES which switch turned
it on? It. Does. Not. Matter.

WRONG! Yes, it does matter. see other replies.

OK, fine, explain why it matters -- why you [think you] need to turn a light off using the same
switch that turned it on.

Make sure your explanation takes into account the fact that, if a light is controlled from multiple
locations, it can be turned either on OR off by ANY of the switches.

Robert Macy wrote in
:

Fred, can't understand the source for this confusion. I want any
switch to be able to turn ON/OFF the lights as before. It's just
that I need to be able to 'set' them all up at least once in
their lifetime so that late at night it's easier to figure out
which switch turned on the light.

(1) You CAN'T figure this out by looking at only one of the switches. It simply is not possible.
(2) If the light can be turned on by any of the switches, it can also be turned off by any of the
switches -- which means it does not matter which one turned it on. You can turn it off from ANY
of them, not just the one that turned it on.

On Saturday, June 22, 2013 9:23:06 AM UTC-4, Doug Miller wrote:
Robert Macy wrote in

:



Fred, can't understand the source for this confusion. I want any

switch to be able to turn ON/OFF the lights as before. It's just

that I need to be able to 'set' them all up at least once in

their lifetime so that late at night it's easier to figure out

which switch turned on the light.



(1) You CAN'T figure this out by looking at only one of the switches. It simply is not possible.

(2) If the light can be turned on by any of the switches, it can also be turned off by any of the

switches -- which means it does not matter which one turned it on. You can turn it off from ANY

of them, not just the one that turned it on.

This whole thing is amazing, isn't it? At one point, Dennis had me
half convinced that Robert knows how these switches work, but that
for some OCD reason, he just wants then arranged so that one possible
way for the lights to be off is for all of the switches to be down.
Like if all switches are down at every location, then he knows
everything is off without any further checking. There is actually
a usefullness to that. If, for example, you were leaving for a
trip you could just visually look at all the switches at every wall
plate involved. If they are all down, then everything is off.

But, from everything he's now saying, it sure looks like he
thinks he can just tell from the one switch plate which switch
controls the light because if the light is on, the switch must
be up. Of course it doesn't work that way. I think that was
what we were all questioning, before doing this re-arranging,
he should understand the very limited effect he's getting.

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 07:33:45 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Saturday, June 22, 2013 9:23:06 AM UTC-4, Doug Miller wrote:
Robert Macy wrote in

:



Fred, can't understand the source for this confusion. I want any

switch to be able to turn ON/OFF the lights as before. It's just

that I need to be able to 'set' them all up at least once in

their lifetime so that late at night it's easier to figure out

which switch turned on the light.



(1) You CAN'T figure this out by looking at only one of the switches. It simply is not possible.

(2) If the light can be turned on by any of the switches, it can also be turned off by any of the

switches -- which means it does not matter which one turned it on. You can turn it off from ANY

of them, not just the one that turned it on.

This whole thing is amazing, isn't it? At one point, Dennis had me
half convinced that Robert knows how these switches work, but that
for some OCD reason, he just wants then arranged so that one possible
way for the lights to be off is for all of the switches to be down.
Like if all switches are down at every location, then he knows
everything is off without any further checking. There is actually
a usefullness to that. If, for example, you were leaving for a
trip you could just visually look at all the switches at every wall
plate involved. If they are all down, then everything is off.

But, from everything he's now saying, it sure looks like he
thinks he can just tell from the one switch plate which switch
controls the light because if the light is on, the switch must
be up. Of course it doesn't work that way. I think that was
what we were all questioning, before doing this re-arranging,
he should understand the very limited effect he's getting.

This thread has made me convinced there is at least some use to
flipping 3-way switches. I am going to try it.

The house I live in now, I moved into when I was 12. I have since
inherited it from my parents as they are both dead. My sister and I
had a shared bathroom. On the door going into the bathroom from my
bedroom there is a 3-way switch for an overhead light and a single
pole switch for the medicine cabinet.

At the other door coming from my sister's bedroom there is only a
3-way switch for the overhead. With both lights off and both switches
in the down position on my side of the bathroom, the switch in my
sister's bedroom is off in the up position.

So for some 40 years now, the switch on my side of the door seems to
be in a constant state of one switch up and one switch down when both
lights in the bathroom are off. Although I have never asked her, it
seemed to me that she was intentionally causing the light switch to be
down in her room when the light is off.

I am going to flip the position of the switch on her side and see it
that changes how the order of switches ends up on my side of the
bathroom. My niece (her daughter) currently using her bedroom today.
My old bedroom is not being used, but guests still enter that bathroom
from my old bedroom side.

On 6/22/2013 12:07 PM, Metspitzer wrote:
....

... from my
bedroom there is a 3-way switch for an overhead light and a single
pole switch for the medicine cabinet.

At the other door coming ... there is only a
3-way switch for the overhead. With both lights off and both switches
in the down position on my side of the bathroom, the switch in my
sister's bedroom is off in the up position.

So for some 40 years now, the switch on my side of the door seems to
be in a constant state of one switch up and one switch down when both
lights in the bathroom are off. ...

I am going to flip the position of the switch on her side and see it
that changes how the order of switches ends up on my side of the
bathroom....

For the case of only two 3-ways, sure, because there are only the two
cases. It will, however, still be the case that the two can be in
opposite positions on your side 'cuz after the flip the light will be
off when both are up as well as both down.

But, when more than two locations are on a circuit it is simply not
possible to have fixed orientation and allow the other switches to be
used individually moving any will change the direction sense of the
subject one.

There's a similar situation in the house here but it's never bugged me
enough to do anything about it--the basement has one long room that's
half the width and full length of the house that has the lights in two
banks and there are two doors. Obviously there are two switches at each
door. So, one pair is always in synch and one pair is always out of
synch when lights are on/off. I like to keep the pair at the middle
door in synch 'cuz that's the way I go in/out when heading to/from the
change room to outside and I always turn both on/off every time. The
wife is oblivious and almost always will get those switched every time
she is in/out. (The _really_ annoying thing is she has a penchant for
leaving one in the in-between state where one then has to go to the
other wall plate and turn it either on/off to make the circuit function
at all ).

--

--

On 6/24/2013 2:05 PM, khc wrote:
....

I'm confused. You describe a room with two doors and then you refer
to a "middle door."

OK, not, perhaps as clear as could have been--one door is at one end of
the room and the other is towards the middle of the room. It (the 2nd
door) is the one I was referring to but "middle" was referring to
location in general position along length of room rather than being in
middle of a group of doors.

I think that I understand that your room has two groups of lights.
Some of these lights are wired together all on one circuit and so turn
on and off together. The remainder of the lights are wired together
all on a second circuit and so turn on and off together. The two
groups of lights are completely independent of each other.

Further, the room has two doors and four light switches. Each door
has two light switches. A switch at each of the two doors works
together with a switch at the other door to control one of the groups
of lights. The other two switches (one at each door) work together to
control the second group of lights.

Thus, one of the switches at each of the doors turns one of the groups
of lights on and off. The remaining switch at each of the doors turns
the other group of lights on and off. It is possible to turn a group
of lights on at one door and off at the other door.

Yes

Does your wife come in (and turn lights on) at one door then go out
(and turn lights off) at the other door?

Will you please say more about the "in between" state of the light
switches where you have to go to the "other light plate" make things
work?

On occasion she manages to flip one of the switches into a no-man's land
of be in between -- it's broken the contact so the light went out but
didn't actually go completely to the other position. Hence, it's open
between both sets of contacts. In that case, and if it's the one at the
other location from where one is, then ya' gotsta' go and flip that one
to one position or the other...some switches are difficult to get to
stay in a position like that, some less difficult.

--

On 6/24/2013 6:16 PM, pilgrim wrote:
....

I'm sure that you're aware that the "no man's land" switch is broken
and needs to be replaced.
....

No, it's not...it is just one which has a design in which there is if
one doesn't push it past half will stay on TDC. A brand new one of the
type will do the same. It's not being changed 'cuz it matches the
rest...and I'm sorta' AR that way about symmetry.

--

Robert:

Imagine this diagram with the middle "Four way switch" missing so that the top yellow terminal on the left switch connects to the top yellow terminal on the right switch and the bottom yellow terminals on both switches are connected together too.



That is the wiring you have when you have two separate "three way switches" controlling the same light. And, as you can see, no ONE switch determines whether the light is on or off. Both switch toggles have to be in the up position, or both in the down position, for the light to be on. So, fliping EITHER switch toggle turns the light off, and flipping it again, or flipping the other switch toggle, turns it back on again. So, with two "three way switches", both switches have two different "ON" positions instead of an ON and an OFF position like a normal toggle switch. And, whether or not the light is ON or OFF depends on the position of BOTH switches.

Now, if you want a third switch to control that same light, you still need both three way switches, but you also need something called a "4 way switch" shown in the middle of that diagram.

If we number the contacts starting with #1 in the top left corner of the 4 way switch and going clockwise, when the toggle of a 4 way switch is in one position, it connects contacts 1 and 2 together and 3 and 4 together. If you flip the toggle to the other position, it connects contacts 1 and 3 together and 2 and 4 together. That way, regardless of what position the two three way switches are in, flipping that middle 4 way switch will turn the light on, or turn it off.

In fact, of you wanted MORE than three switches, all of which would turn the light on or off, you'd simply keep adding 4 way switches between the two three way switches. That way, no matter what position the two three way switches were in, flipping any of the 4 way switches between them would turn the light on or turn it off.

So, it seems to me that you SHOULD be able to do what you're wanting by:

1. Inspecting each switch that controls that light to determine which are your two three way switches, and which are the 4 way switches.

2. Checking each of the intermediate 4 way switches to find out which toggle position results in terminals 1 and 2 being connected and terminals 3 and 4 being connected together. You want each intermediate 4 way switch to connect 1-2 and 3-4 when the toggle is in the down position.

3. Now, just turn EITHER one of the two three way switches on the end upside down. That way, when it's toggle is in the down position, the light will be off, and flipping the toggle of ANY other switch will turn the light ON.

Now, the wiring can get pretty hairy because the power won't necessarily come into the electrical box at one end of the room. The power could come in at the light's electrical box, or at the electrical box of any of the switches.

But, as long as you understand the principle involved here which is to set up all your switches so that the power goes through all the top terminals when the toggles of the two three way switches are up, and through all the bottom terminals when the toggles of the two three way switches are down (and you may have to turn some 4 way switches upside down to ensure they're all oriented the same). In that situation, with the toggles of both 3 way switches on the end in the down position, the light will be ON. By turning either three way switch upside down, having the toggle in the down position will interrupt voltage getting to the lamp, so that with one three way switch upside down, ALL toggles in the down position means the light is OFF, and flipping ANY switch turns the light ON.

Hope this helps.

Maybe draw the terminals of 4 switches (two three way switches on the end and two 4 way switches between them) and connect the terminals with lines to show where the electricity will flow, and you should see how the above plan will work. Or, at least, it seems to me, how it should work to accomplish what you want.

On 6/25/2013 3:26 AM, nestork wrote:
....

3. Now, just turn EITHER one of the two three way switches on the end
upside down. That way, when it's toggle is in the down position, the
light will be off, and flipping the toggle of ANY other switch will turn
the light ON.

....

set up all your switches so that the power goes through all the top
terminals when the toggles of the two three way switches are up, and
through all the bottom terminals when the toggles of the two three way
switches are down (and you may have to turn some 4 way switches upside
down to ensure they're all oriented the same). In that situation, with
the toggles of both 3 way switches on the end in the down position, the
light will be ON. By turning either three way switch upside down,
having the toggle in the down position will interrupt voltage getting to
the lamp, so that with one three way switch upside down, ALL toggles in
the down position means the light is OFF, and flipping ANY switch turns
the light ON.

Hope this helps.
....

It doesn't, really...

You also have to add the condition that he also never uses the other
switches than the particular panel location in question to control the
light as would be normally done--for example, use one near an entry door
to turn on as entering and another near the exit door to turn off as
leaving. As soon as that is done, he's now got a case where one's up
and one's down and the light's off again. As the pattern ensues of
more-or-less random movement between locations, the states again become
also, more or less random as to which is up and which is down when the
light is off.

It's just not possible to have it wired conventionally no matter what
the initial configuration is w/o adding very heavy constraints on usage
and retain the possibility that turning any one switch in the down
position turns off an on light--the one closest by at the time may
already be 'down'.

--

On 06/26/2013 09:32 AM, dpb wrote:
On 6/25/2013 3:26 AM, nestork wrote:
...

3. Now, just turn EITHER one of the two three way switches on the end
upside down. That way, when it's toggle is in the down position, the
light will be off, and flipping the toggle of ANY other switch will turn
the light ON.

...

set up all your switches so that the power goes through all the top
terminals when the toggles of the two three way switches are up, and
through all the bottom terminals when the toggles of the two three way
switches are down (and you may have to turn some 4 way switches upside
down to ensure they're all oriented the same). In that situation, with
the toggles of both 3 way switches on the end in the down position, the
light will be ON. By turning either three way switch upside down,
having the toggle in the down position will interrupt voltage getting to
the lamp, so that with one three way switch upside down, ALL toggles in
the down position means the light is OFF, and flipping ANY switch turns
the light ON.

Hope this helps.
...

It doesn't, really...

You also have to add the condition that he also never uses the other
switches than the particular panel location in question to control the
light as would be normally done--for example, use one near an entry door
to turn on as entering and another near the exit door to turn off as
leaving. As soon as that is done, he's now got a case where one's up
and one's down and the light's off again. As the pattern ensues of
more-or-less random movement between locations, the states again become
also, more or less random as to which is up and which is down when the
light is off.

It's just not possible to have it wired conventionally no matter what
the initial configuration is w/o adding very heavy constraints on usage
and retain the possibility that turning any one switch in the down
position turns off an on light--the one closest by at the time may
already be 'down'.

--

Just came across this thread...

I remember switching the travelers on the 3-way switch in a friend's
condo's bathroom (there's a door from the bedroom hallway as well as
from the main entrance as there's only one bathroom) so that it would be
possible for both switches to be down when the lights are off. (of
course, it's also possible for both switches to be *up*, and I had to
explain that to her...)

I actually get it. I (and my friend) must have some light form of OCD.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On 6/26/2013 9:21 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 06/26/2013 09:32 AM, dpb wrote:
....

You also have to add the condition that he also never uses the other
switches than the particular panel location in question to control the
light as would be normally done--for example, use one near an entry door
to turn on as entering and another near the exit door to turn off as
leaving. As soon as that is done, he's now got a case where one's up
and one's down and the light's off again. As the pattern ensues of
more-or-less random movement between locations, the states again become
also, more or less random as to which is up and which is down when the
light is off.

It's just not possible to have it wired conventionally no matter what
the initial configuration is w/o adding very heavy constraints on usage
and retain the possibility that turning any one switch in the down
position turns off an on light--the one closest by at the time may
already be 'down'.

--

Just came across this thread...

I remember switching the travelers on the 3-way switch in a friend's
condo's bathroom (there's a door from the bedroom hallway as well as
from the main entrance as there's only one bathroom) so that it would be
possible for both switches to be down when the lights are off. (of
course, it's also possible for both switches to be *up*, and I had to
explain that to her...)

I actually get it. I (and my friend) must have some light form of OCD.

Actually, the case above starts out w/ all down so when the second turns
the light off the case is that now there are two up in that room and the
rest are down. So, "off" is always going to be in pairs, but those
pairs are distributed semi-randomly owing to usage and so after a period
of time the state of any given on is indeterminate as is its control
action when changing state...the point still being that it takes severe
constraints on usage that make the point of having multiple switch
locations essentially moot to achieve the goal of always just turning
"off" a switch having the action of turning off the light.

--