Ceiling fixture wiring question

[bud--]

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

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

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

[gfretwell]

I agree there is at least one legal way to wire 3 and 4 way loops that you can not make comply to this rule. (IE. fed from the center) You missed your chance to write a proposal for the 2011 to fix it (Nov

7 as I recall) Look at the ROP when it comes out and see if there is a proposal you can modify with a comment, assuming this is not already pointed out.

[alarman]

I stand corrected, and admit that I wasn't aware of the NEC change.

[gfretwell]

No problem. I agree the "code churn" caused by a 3 year cycle creates unnecessary confusion. I really think they should go with a 10 year cycle and get it right before they print it.

[alarman]

Makes me wonder what else I don't know...old dogs/new tricks.

[gfretwell]

There is a whole industry that has come up around telling you and the states will actually enforce it if you want to work in the industry. I think it is a scam on several different levels.

[DerbyDad03]

Be careful what you wish for.

I know you said "get it right before they print it" but we all know that no matter how well intentioned they (and we) are, it is not going to be perfect - ever. Things change, new ideas come up, old believes are proved to be wrong.

What do you think would be worse - the code churn caused by a 3 year cycle or living with whatever is wrong with the current code for 10 years.

[gfretwell]

There is actually a way to fix glitches between xycles in the Technical Action Committee and the states or smaller AHJs are free to write addenda to the code. Florida adopts the code by law but they got around by that by adding a rule about bonding steel studs in the building code. We would certainly be better served if these codes were left to settle a bit between cycles so we don't have changes to changes to changes. Perhaps they might even wait until a product actually exists before they mandate it;'s use.

[Red Green]

DerbyDad03 wrote in news: [e-mail]:

Can I get summa dat pie too? Oops! Wrong newsgroup :-)

[bud--]

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

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

The law of unintended consequences.

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

[gfretwell]

If it is just fine tuning language and not actually introducing a new rule, you can affect code in the comment phase.