|
Home > Archive > Home Repair forum > July 2007 > 3-way switch
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| dexteroc 2007-07-26, 3:25 am |
| I replaced the 3-way light switches in my house with newer ones. I was
careful to put the wires in the corresponding connector on the new
switches but it is not working correctly. The two switches operate one
light.
With the old switches, I could turn on and off the light from either
wall plate which would give me 4 different combinations. On/Off from
each wall plate. Now with the new switches, one works On/Off but the
second won't work unless the first one is in a certain position. If it
is then the second switch will work On/Off.
It seems like one is trumping the power over the other one depending
on the On/Off position but it should work the same as before.
There is a Common wire which I plugged into the Common connector on
both switches.
There is a Red wire which I plugged into the top of both switches.
There is a Black wire which I plugged into the bottom of both
switches.
Does this sound right?
Thanks!
Paul
| |
| pheeh.zero@gmail.com 2007-07-26, 9:25 am |
|
dexteroc wrote:
> I replaced the 3-way light switches in my house with newer ones. I was
> careful to put the wires in the corresponding connector on the new
> switches but it is not working correctly. The two switches operate one
> light.
>
> With the old switches, I could turn on and off the light from either
> wall plate which would give me 4 different combinations. On/Off from
> each wall plate. Now with the new switches, one works On/Off but the
> second won't work unless the first one is in a certain position. If it
> is then the second switch will work On/Off.
>
> It seems like one is trumping the power over the other one depending
> on the On/Off position but it should work the same as before.
>
> There is a Common wire which I plugged into the Common connector on
> both switches.
> There is a Red wire which I plugged into the top of both switches.
> There is a Black wire which I plugged into the bottom of both
> switches.
>
> Does this sound right?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Paul
| |
| pheeh.zero@gmail.com 2007-07-26, 9:25 am |
|
pheeh.z...@gmail.com wrote:[color=darkred]
> dexteroc wrote:
The common comes in the 1st and out the 2nd. The other pair (like NO/
NC) feed back-and-forth.
The common that is always hot is the feed-the 2nd switch common goes
to the light.
| |
|
| Clearly you mistook either the common terminal location on the new switches,
or the old ones. Check them carefully again. You can't determine which is
common by it's physical position, comparing one switch to another. The
common terminal should be marked as such, or have a different color screw
than the other two. Some types of switches, like Leviton "Decora", it's very
misleading as to which is the common terminal
"dexteroc" <dexteroc@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185430781.587894.49020@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>I replaced the 3-way light switches in my house with newer ones. I was
> careful to put the wires in the corresponding connector on the new
> switches but it is not working correctly. The two switches operate one
> light.
>
> With the old switches, I could turn on and off the light from either
> wall plate which would give me 4 different combinations. On/Off from
> each wall plate. Now with the new switches, one works On/Off but the
> second won't work unless the first one is in a certain position. If it
> is then the second switch will work On/Off.
>
> It seems like one is trumping the power over the other one depending
> on the On/Off position but it should work the same as before.
>
> There is a Common wire which I plugged into the Common connector on
> both switches.
> There is a Red wire which I plugged into the top of both switches.
> There is a Black wire which I plugged into the bottom of both
> switches.
>
> Does this sound right?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Paul
>
| |
| Steve Barker 2007-07-26, 9:25 am |
| you got the common in the wrong spot on one of them.
--
Steve Barker
"dexteroc" <dexteroc@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185430781.587894.49020@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>I replaced the 3-way light switches in my house with newer ones. I was
> careful to put the wires in the corresponding connector on the new
> switches but it is not working correctly. The two switches operate one
> light.
>
> With the old switches, I could turn on and off the light from either
> wall plate which would give me 4 different combinations. On/Off from
> each wall plate. Now with the new switches, one works On/Off but the
> second won't work unless the first one is in a certain position. If it
> is then the second switch will work On/Off.
>
> It seems like one is trumping the power over the other one depending
> on the On/Off position but it should work the same as before.
>
> There is a Common wire which I plugged into the Common connector on
> both switches.
> There is a Red wire which I plugged into the top of both switches.
> There is a Black wire which I plugged into the bottom of both
> switches.
>
> Does this sound right?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Paul
>
| |
|
| On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:19:41 -0700, dexteroc <dexteroc@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>I replaced the 3-way light switches in my house with newer ones. I was
>careful to put the wires in the corresponding connector on the new
>switches but it is not working correctly. The two switches operate one
>light.
It sounds like you didn't, but you may have relied on the position on
the swtich to match the position on the new switch. Some are arranged
differently from others.
Another problem is that you say you plugged in the wires. It's better
to wrap the wires around the screws than relying on the plugging in to
work. You can use a little screwdriver in the hole next to the wire
to release the grip, to remove the wire.
OTOH, I'm guessing it might not be gripping even a little and that
would be the reason it's not working. In that case you might be able
to pull the bad wire out. If that works, you can wrap the wire around
the screw. If it starts to pull out but won't go all the way, you
will probably have made it make contact well enough to work after all.
Most people here will tell you that it's still best to removed all
back-stabbed wires, but they're not as lazy or lethargic as I am.
| |
|
| On Jul 26, 2:19 am, dexteroc <dexte...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I replaced the 3-way light switches in my house with newer ones. I was
> careful to put the wires in the corresponding connector on the new
> switches but it is not working correctly. The two switches operate one
> light.
>
Do all the lights have working bulbs?
If you mess up a 3way what commonly happens is one switch works and
the other doesn't.
| |
| dexteroc 2007-07-26, 5:25 pm |
| On Jul 26, 6:54 am, "Steve Barker" <ichasetra...@some.yahoo.com>
wrote:
> you got the common in the wrong spot on one of them.
>
> --
> Steve Barker
>From my reading, that sounded like the problem. How do I go about
fixing it? At this point I'm not sure which wire goes where. There is
no ground wire. there are two black wires and one red one. If I start
trying different combinations, will I start a fire?
I guess I will start with the switch that only works part of the time.
the other switch always works...
| |
|
| On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:56:01 -0000, dexteroc <dexteroc@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On Jul 26, 6:54 am, "Steve Barker" <ichasetra...@some.yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>fixing it? At this point I'm not sure which wire goes where. There is
>no ground wire. there are two black wires and one red one. If I start
>trying different combinations, will I start a fire?
>I guess I will start with the switch that only works part of the time.
>the other switch always works...
The easiest way is to turn the power off and take loose both switches.
Only one wire of the 6 will be hot when you turn the power back on.
(This is the switch leg feed)
Turn the power back off, and tie this wire to the screw terminal of
the
switch that is marked black. Connect the other two wires to the
remaining two screws.
Turn the power back on and check the 3 wires at the other switch box.
Two of these wires will be hot depending on the position of the other
switch. When you find these two, the wire that never energized when
you flipped the switch is the "return"
Turn the power back off and tie the "return" to the black colored
screw
of the switch. Then connect the other two wires to the other two
terminals on the switch.
| |
| pheeh.zero@gmail.com 2007-07-26, 8:25 pm |
| On Jul 26, 5:34 pm, Terry <Kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:56:01 -0000, dexteroc <dexte...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> The easiest way is to turn the power off and take loose both switches.
> Only one wire of the 6 will be hot when you turn the power back on.
> (This is the switch leg feed)
>
> Turn the power back off, and tie this wire to the screw terminal of
> the
> switch that is marked black. Connect the other two wires to the
> remaining two screws.
>
> Turn the power back on and check the 3 wires at the other switch box.
> Two of these wires will be hot depending on the position of the other
> switch. When you find these two, the wire that never energized when
> you flipped the switch is the "return"
>
> Turn the power back off and tie the "return" to the black colored
> screw
> of the switch. Then connect the other two wires to the other two
> terminals on the switch.
I like the 1st part, but I would assume the color of the hot wire that
was common on the 1st switch will be the same on the 2nd that feeds
the fixture.
| |
| John Grabowski 2007-07-26, 8:25 pm |
|
"dexteroc" <dexteroc@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185430781.587894.49020@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> I replaced the 3-way light switches in my house with newer ones. I was
> careful to put the wires in the corresponding connector on the new
> switches but it is not working correctly. The two switches operate one
> light.
>
> With the old switches, I could turn on and off the light from either
> wall plate which would give me 4 different combinations. On/Off from
> each wall plate. Now with the new switches, one works On/Off but the
> second won't work unless the first one is in a certain position. If it
> is then the second switch will work On/Off.
>
> It seems like one is trumping the power over the other one depending
> on the On/Off position but it should work the same as before.
>
> There is a Common wire which I plugged into the Common connector on
> both switches.
> There is a Red wire which I plugged into the top of both switches.
> There is a Black wire which I plugged into the bottom of both
> switches.
>
> Does this sound right?
No. You should have examined the old switches and removed the wires from
them and put the wires on the corresponding terminals on the new switches.
Now you need to identify the function of each of the wires. I explained how
this is done in this newsgroup several months ago as did others. Do a
Google search and you should get enough info to proceed.
| |
|
| Why assume anything. Terry's instructions are perfectly adequate to get it
right
<pheeh.zero@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185492540.502713.119620@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 26, 5:34 pm, Terry <Kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> I like the 1st part, but I would assume the color of the hot wire that
> was common on the 1st switch will be the same on the 2nd that feeds
> the fixture.
>
| |
| Doug Miller 2007-07-26, 8:25 pm |
| In article <1185492540.502713.119620@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, pheeh.zero@gmail.com wrote:
>On Jul 26, 5:34 pm, Terry <Kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>I like the 1st part, but I would assume the color of the hot wire that
>was common on the 1st switch will be the same on the 2nd that feeds
>the fixture.
>
Not necessarily a correct assumption. Terry's procedure is simple,
straightforward, and guaranteed to work as long as there's a ground available
in each box.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
| |
| pheeh.zero@gmail.com 2007-07-27, 9:25 am |
| On Jul 26, 6:55 pm, spamb...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <1185492540.502713.119...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, pheeh.z...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Not necessarily a correct assumption. Terry's procedure is simple,
> straightforward, and guaranteed to work as long as there's a ground available
> in each box.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Guaranteed to work! By whom...?
Logic only works when you think the same. Some people get stuck with
words...or going a wrong way. I was offering a thought to maybe make
it simpler.
| |
| Doug Miller 2007-07-27, 9:25 am |
| In article <1185533770.509522.228660@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, pheeh.zero@gmail.com wrote:
>On Jul 26, 6:55 pm, spamb...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
> pheeh.z...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>Guaranteed to work! By whom...?
I'll be happy to guarantee it. Correctly followed and applied, that procedure
will identify the correct wires every time, without fail.
>Logic only works when you think the same.
Logic works all the time, and it works the same way every time. But it's just
like any other tool: if you don't know how to use it, you can't make it work,
but that doesn't mean the tool is broken. :-)
>Some people get stuck with
>words...or going a wrong way. I was offering a thought to maybe make
>it simpler.
Trouble is, that's really only a little better than guessing. There simply
isn't any guarantee at all that the colors of the wires are the same at the
two switches. Or that the colors will be distinct -- ever seen a three-way
switch wired with two 14/2 cables instead of one 14/3? Which of the two black
wires (or the two white wires) is which?
Testing with a voltmeter, as Terry described, is quick, easy, and sure.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
| |
| pheeh.zero@gmail.com 2007-07-27, 1:25 pm |
| Example:
"Turn the power back on and check the 3 wires at the other switch
box.
Two of these wires will be hot depending on the position of the other
switch. When you find these two, the wire that never energized when
you flipped the switch is the "return" "
At face value this statement is not true. One wire at-a-time will be
hot...depending on the 1st switch position.(It sounds like 2 wires at
the same time)
It does depend on whether you have the same mind-set as the poster.
I understand what Terry is saying...and it IS logical to me.
Terry, I mean no disrespect.
| |
| Mark Lloyd 2007-07-27, 5:25 pm |
| On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:34:49 -0400, Terry <Kilowatt@charter.net>
wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:56:01 -0000, dexteroc <dexteroc@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>The easiest way is to turn the power off and take loose both switches.
>Only one wire of the 6 will be hot when you turn the power back on.
>(This is the switch leg feed)
>
>
>Turn the power back off, and tie this wire to the screw terminal of
>the
>switch that is marked black. Connect the other two wires to the
>remaining two screws.
>
>
>Turn the power back on and check the 3 wires at the other switch box.
>Two of these wires will be hot depending on the position of the other
>switch. When you find these two, the wire that never energized when
>you flipped the switch is the "return"
>
May be true. It depends on how the circuit is wired. I have one here
where that is not true, each box has:
1. hot
2. neutral
3. connected only to light
It's #3 that is connected to the common terminal of the switch.
>
>Turn the power back off and tie the "return" to the black colored
>screw
>of the switch. Then connect the other two wires to the other two
>terminals on the switch.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent
force for atheism ever conceived." -- Isaac Asimov
| |
| Doug Miller 2007-07-27, 5:25 pm |
| In article <1185556838.987798.93200@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, pheeh.zero@gmail.com wrote:
>Example:
>"Turn the power back on and check the 3 wires at the other switch
>box.
>Two of these wires will be hot depending on the position of the other
>switch. When you find these two, the wire that never energized when
>you flipped the switch is the "return" "
>
>At face value this statement is not true. One wire at-a-time will be
>hot...depending on the 1st switch position.(It sounds like 2 wires at
>the same time)
If that wasn't already clear from examining the many drawings of three-way
switch wiring available in books and online, it should become immediately
clear as soon as one begins the testing.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
| |
|
| On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:21:40 -0500, Mark Lloyd
<mlloyd@xmail.com10.invalid> wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:34:49 -0400, Terry <Kilowatt@charter.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>May be true. It depends on how the circuit is wired. I have one here
>where that is not true, each box has:
>
>1. hot
>2. neutral
>3. connected only to light
>
>It's #3 that is connected to the common terminal of the switch.
>
What neutral? We are talking about switches. He said he had two
working switches. He changed them and they are no longer working.
If they working originally, he has a hot and two travelers at one
switch, and a return and two travelers at the other switch.
| |
| Doug Miller 2007-07-27, 5:25 pm |
| In article <93hka3psr6e5tugig3eotcqf9vo3n0crju@4ax.com>, Mark Lloyd <mlloyd@xmail.com10.invalid> wrote:
>May be true. It depends on how the circuit is wired. I have one here
>where that is not true, each box has:
>
>1. hot
>2. neutral
>3. connected only to light
>
>It's #3 that is connected to the common terminal of the switch.
Post a diagram somewhere. That circuit's not wired the way you think it is.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
| |
|
| On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 19:40:20 GMT, spambait@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>In article <93hka3psr6e5tugig3eotcqf9vo3n0crju@4ax.com>, Mark Lloyd <mlloyd@xmail.com10.invalid> wrote:
>
>Post a diagram somewhere. That circuit's not wired the way you think it is.
I bet he is talking about that California 3-way again. That doesn't
count.
It would only confuse the OP. And me too. 
| |
|
| So, if you can't understand the words, or the logic, your solution is to
guess at wire colors?
<pheeh.zero@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185533770.509522.228660@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 26, 6:55 pm, spamb...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
> Guaranteed to work! By whom...?
> Logic only works when you think the same. Some people get stuck with
> words...or going a wrong way. I was offering a thought to maybe make
> it simpler.
>
| |
| Mark Lloyd 2007-07-27, 8:25 pm |
| On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 19:40:20 GMT, spambait@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>In article <93hka3psr6e5tugig3eotcqf9vo3n0crju@4ax.com>, Mark Lloyd <mlloyd@xmail.com10.invalid> wrote:
>
>Post a diagram somewhere. That circuit's not wired the way you think it is.
So how do I think it's wired?
I have examined the wiring at the fixture. There are two pieces of
Romex there. Only one wire from each is used.
I have posted diagrams of the wiring before, although you should be
able to figure it out from my previous post.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent
force for atheism ever conceived." -- Isaac Asimov
| |
| Mark Lloyd 2007-07-27, 8:25 pm |
| On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:51:18 -0400, Terry <Kilowatt@charter.net>
wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 19:40:20 GMT, spambait@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
>
>I bet he is talking about that California 3-way again. That doesn't
>count.
>
It's NOT a "California 3-way". That has all 3 switch terminals
connected together, this has only 2 (second diagram below). The light
is between the common terminals.
>It would only confuse the OP. And me too.
So, you'd like to assume there's only ONE way to wire 3-way switches?
Reality often doesn't cooperate with peoples preferences. It refuses
to simplify itself to comply with your wishes.
Here's 3 (don't forget to use a fixed font to view this)
switch#1 switch#2
o|----------------o|
(H) | |
-------o| o|--------light---\
|
o-----------------o |
(N) |
-------------------------------------------/
(H)
--------o|--------------------o
|
o|------light---------o|
(N) |
--------o---------------------o|
(H)
--------o|---------------------o
|
o|---------------------o|
|
o----------------------o|
|
(N) |
---------------------------light
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent
force for atheism ever conceived." -- Isaac Asimov
| |
| Doug Miller 2007-07-27, 8:25 pm |
| In article <5ovka39398efqtt1e7nihhjn3o3ttj479e@4ax.com>, Mark Lloyd <mlloyd@xmail.com10.invalid> wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 19:40:20 GMT, spambait@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
> <mlloyd@xmail.com10.invalid> wrote:
>
>So how do I think it's wired?
>
>I have examined the wiring at the fixture. There are two pieces of
>Romex there. Only one wire from each is used.
>
>I have posted diagrams of the wiring before, although you should be
>able to figure it out from my previous post.
Oh, are you talking about that "California Three-Way"? The circuit that's just
one big massive code violation?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
| |
| Mark Lloyd 2007-07-27, 8:25 pm |
| On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:40:27 -0400, Terry <Kilowatt@charter.net>
wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:21:40 -0500, Mark Lloyd
><mlloyd@xmail.com10.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>What neutral?
The one that is connected to each of the switches in the circuit I
have.
> We are talking about switches.
Yes.
> He said he had two
>working switches. He changed them and they are no longer working.
>
Doesn't say how they were wired.
>If they working originally, he has a hot and two travelers at one
>switch, and a return and two travelers at the other switch.
True IF they are wired in a certain way. How do you know that's how
they were wired?
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent
force for atheism ever conceived." -- Isaac Asimov
| |
| pheeh.zero@gmail.com 2007-07-27, 8:25 pm |
| On Jul 27, 4:22 pm, "RBM" <rbm2(remove this)@optonline.net> wrote:
> So, if you can't understand the words, or the logic, your solution is to
> guess at wire colors?
>
Are you asking? Don't you understand? Oh, maybe you wanted to use an
exclamation instead of a question mark!
| |
| Doug Miller 2007-07-27, 8:25 pm |
| In article <t60la3h76ap05f4g57u770ovg1d2lhvkrl@4ax.com>, Mark Lloyd <mlloyd@xmail.com10.invalid> wrote:
>So, you'd like to assume there's only ONE way to wire 3-way switches?
There are at least two that are Code-compliant, and probably a great many that
are not.
>
>Here's 3 (don't forget to use a fixed font to view this)
>
> switch#1 switch#2
> o|----------------o|
>(H) | |
>-------o| o|--------light---\
> |
> o-----------------o |
>(N) |
>-------------------------------------------/
That's one of the Code-compliant ones.
>
>
>(H)
>--------o|--------------------o
> |
> o|------light---------o|
>(N) |
>--------o---------------------o|
That one has at least two Code violations:
1) With the switches positioned as shown, the switch on the right is on the
neutral side of the lamp. Switches must always be on the hot side of the load
they control; current must flow from switch to switch to load to neutral,
never from switch to load to switch to neutral.
2) With the positions of the switches reversed, the lamp still illuminates,
but the polarity of the contacts in the lamp socket has been reversed. In one
of those configurations, the shell of the socket is hot and the tip is
neutral, also a Code violation.
>
>
>(H)
>--------o|---------------------o
> |
> o|---------------------o|
> |
> o----------------------o|
> |
>(N) |
>---------------------------light
That's the other Code-compliant one.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
| |
| Doug Miller 2007-07-27, 8:25 pm |
| In article <fp1la3tjtnq5tmdm9rusp9msdgoaaa93ss@4ax.com>, Mark Lloyd <mlloyd@xmail.com10.invalid> wrote:
>True IF they are wired in a certain way. How do you know that's how
>they were wired?
He seems to be operating under the same assumption I was -- that the circuit
in question is at least minimally Code-compliant.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
| |
| Doug Miller 2007-07-27, 8:25 pm |
| In article <fp1la3tjtnq5tmdm9rusp9msdgoaaa93ss@4ax.com>, Mark Lloyd <mlloyd@xmail.com10.invalid> wrote:
[color=darkred]
There are multiple Code violations in that setup.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
| |
|
| Your method is probably how the OP got in trouble in the first place. Stop
helping!!!
<pheeh.zero@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185581523.309053.214270@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 27, 4:22 pm, "RBM" <rbm2(remove this)@optonline.net> wrote:
> Are you asking? Don't you understand? Oh, maybe you wanted to use an
> exclamation instead of a question mark!
>
| |
|
| On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 19:00:24 -0500, Mark Lloyd
<mlloyd@xmail.com10.invalid> wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:51:18 -0400, Terry <Kilowatt@charter.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>It's NOT a "California 3-way". That has all 3 switch terminals
>connected together, this has only 2 (second diagram below). The light
>is between the common terminals.
>
>
>So, you'd like to assume there's only ONE way to wire 3-way switches?
>Reality often doesn't cooperate with peoples preferences. It refuses
>to simplify itself to comply with your wishes.
>
>Here's 3 (don't forget to use a fixed font to view this)
>
> switch#1 switch#2
> o|----------------o|
>(H) | |
>-------o| o|--------light---\
> |
> o-----------------o |
>(N) |
>-------------------------------------------/
>
>
>(H)
>--------o|--------------------o
> |
> o|------light---------o|
>(N) |
>--------o---------------------o|
>
>
>(H)
>--------o|---------------------o
> |
> o|---------------------o|
> |
> o----------------------o|
> |
>(N) |
>---------------------------light
We have rehashed this to death already. If it is not a California
3-way then it is switching the neutral. That is against the code.
I do understand that there is more than one way to skin a cat. I was
just trying to help the OP get his lights working again.
I have a hard time following ASCII drawings. Sorry
| |
|
|
"RBM" <rbm2(remove this)@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:r0wqi.234$ZO3.166@newsfe12.lga...
> Your method is probably how the OP got in trouble in the first place. Stop
> helping!!!
You call his crap help? :-)
| |
| pheeh.zero@gmail.com 2007-07-28, 9:25 am |
| On Jul 27, 7:24 pm, "RBM" <rbm2(remove this)@optonline.net> wrote:[color=darkred]
> Your method is probably how the OP got in trouble in the first place. Stop
> helping!!!
>
> <pheeh.z...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1185581523.309053.214270@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
Actually, my post was for someone like you...who gets on a tangent and
won't think any other way!
"He's guessing at a color! A color, he's guessing! Guessing! Can you
imagine guessing! How can he offer guessing! Guessing is not logical!
Why is he guessing?!
I'm glad I'm not guessing!"
I made my point...try sticking yours...!
| |
| Mark Lloyd 2007-07-28, 9:25 am |
| On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 00:16:45 GMT, spambait@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>In article <t60la3h76ap05f4g57u770ovg1d2lhvkrl@4ax.com>, Mark Lloyd <mlloyd@xmail.com10.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>There are at least two that are Code-compliant, and probably a great many that
>are not.
>
>That's one of the Code-compliant ones.
>
>That one has at least two Code violations:
>1) With the switches positioned as shown, the switch on the right is on the
>neutral side of the lamp. Switches must always be on the hot side of the load
>they control; current must flow from switch to switch to load to neutral,
>never from switch to load to switch to neutral.
>2) With the positions of the switches reversed, the lamp still illuminates,
>but the polarity of the contacts in the lamp socket has been reversed. In one
>of those configurations, the shell of the socket is hot and the tip is
>neutral, also a Code violation.
I know. My giving this example had nothing to do with code, but the
fact that such a circuit actually exists. Such circuits may be present
in other people's wiring too, so saying that only one of the 6 wires
will be hot, may be incorrect.
Do you think it's important enough to fix?
>
>That's the other Code-compliant one.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent
force for atheism ever conceived." -- Isaac Asimov
| |
| Mark Lloyd 2007-07-28, 1:25 pm |
| On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 20:34:36 -0400, Terry <Kilowatt@charter.net>
wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 19:00:24 -0500, Mark Lloyd
><mlloyd@xmail.com10.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>We have rehashed this to death already. If it is not a California
>3-way then it is switching the neutral. That is against the code.
>
Sounds like you're equating "against code" with "nonexistent". Of
course, that second way (which switches the neutral) is not
recommended for new construction. Did you think this was new
construction?
>I do understand that there is more than one way to skin a cat. I was
>just trying to help the OP get his lights working again.
>
How do you know how the OP's light is wired?
>I have a hard time following ASCII drawings. Sorry
The main problem is when proportional spacing makes a mess of it. You
avoid that mess by using a fixed-width font while drawing and while
reading.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent
force for atheism ever conceived." -- Isaac Asimov
| |
| Mark Lloyd 2007-07-28, 1:25 pm |
| On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 00:19:18 GMT, spambait@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>In article <fp1la3tjtnq5tmdm9rusp9msdgoaaa93ss@4ax.com>, Mark Lloyd <mlloyd@xmail.com10.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>There are multiple Code violations in that setup.
Was it in 1974, when this house was built? Anyway, someone did it that
way. I have one example of this "code violation". why couldn't there
be others?
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent
force for atheism ever conceived." -- Isaac Asimov
| |
| Doug Miller 2007-07-28, 1:25 pm |
| In article <9vjma3hdeccs5i1i9kll3jlftd13n5v0h3@4ax.com>, Mark Lloyd <mlloyd@xmail.com10.invalid> wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 00:16:45 GMT, spambait@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
> <mlloyd@xmail.com10.invalid> wrote:
>
>I know. My giving this example had nothing to do with code, but the
>fact that such a circuit actually exists. Such circuits may be present
>in other people's wiring too, so saying that only one of the 6 wires
>will be hot, may be incorrect.
>
>Do you think it's important enough to fix?
Yes.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
| |
| Doug Miller 2007-07-28, 1:25 pm |
| In article <uckma3tgv76q0ug754n3mc9rmgpna3h51n@4ax.com>, Mark Lloyd <mlloyd@xmail.com10.invalid> wrote:
>Sounds like you're equating "against code" with "nonexistent". Of
>course, that second way (which switches the neutral) is not
>recommended for new construction. Did you think this was new
>construction?
"Not recommended for new construction"???
Try "prohibited in all cases".
Whether it's new construction or not is irrelevant. Putting a switch on the
neutral side of a load is prohibited by Code, and AFAIK it always has been.
Likewise energizing the shell of a lampholder (which this circuit *also*
does).
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
| |
| Doug Miller 2007-07-28, 1:25 pm |
| In article <bpkma3d7546p54jkdl4bo5b73ck14dmj5m@4ax.com>, Mark Lloyd <mlloyd@xmail.com10.invalid> wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 00:19:18 GMT, spambait@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
> <mlloyd@xmail.com10.invalid> wrote:
>
>Was it in 1974, when this house was built?
Yes. AFAIK, Code has *never* allowed switching the neutral.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
| |
| Mark Lloyd 2007-07-28, 8:25 pm |
| On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 15:10:10 GMT, spambait@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>In article <9vjma3hdeccs5i1i9kll3jlftd13n5v0h3@4ax.com>, Mark Lloyd <mlloyd@xmail.com10.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>Yes.
OK. The connections are relatively short, so it may be possible to use
the existing pieces of Romex (14/2 with no ground) to pull new 14/3).
Hopefully it won't even require going into the attic (which gets
really hot here).
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent
force for atheism ever conceived." -- Isaac Asimov
| |
| Mark Lloyd 2007-07-28, 8:25 pm |
| On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 15:12:38 GMT, spambait@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>In article <uckma3tgv76q0ug754n3mc9rmgpna3h51n@4ax.com>, Mark Lloyd <mlloyd@xmail.com10.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>"Not recommended for new construction"???
>
>Try "prohibited in all cases".
>
>Whether it's new construction or not is irrelevant. Putting a switch on the
>neutral side of a load is prohibited by Code, and AFAIK it always has been.
>Likewise energizing the shell of a lampholder (which this circuit *also*
>does).
I suppose the electritian who wired that was trying to use the minimum
amount of wire (although he still used 2-conductor Romex when only one
wire is being used).
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent
force for atheism ever conceived." -- Isaac Asimov
| |
| Doug Miller 2007-07-29, 3:25 am |
| In article <htona31a4is0utkts70gfvqai13tion889@4ax.com>, Mark Lloyd <mlloyd@xmail.com10.invalid> wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 15:12:38 GMT, spambait@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
> <mlloyd@xmail.com10.invalid> wrote:
>
>I suppose the electritian who wired that was trying to use the minimum
>amount of wire (although he still used 2-conductor Romex when only one
>wire is being used).
Probably didn't have any 14/3 with him at the time. Easier to use two 14/2
cables -- but you can still wire a Code-compliant 3-way installation with two
14/2s. He was either stupid, lazy, or both.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
| |
| Mark Lloyd 2007-07-29, 1:25 pm |
| On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 03:40:13 GMT, spambait@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>In article <htona31a4is0utkts70gfvqai13tion889@4ax.com>, Mark Lloyd <mlloyd@xmail.com10.invalid> wrote:
>
>Probably didn't have any 14/3 with him at the time. Easier to use two 14/2
>cables -- but you can still wire a Code-compliant 3-way installation with two
>14/2s. He was either stupid, lazy, or both.
Yes. I don't know which since I didn't live around here at the time
this house built (and would have had no idea I was going to buy this
one anyway). Also, there is NO "/3" cable anywhere.
I did have the house inspected. The inspector missed that, although he
did look in the attic and saw a soldered and taped connection not in a
junction box (This connects to a receptacle for the garage door
opener). The tape is not the kind that comes off in a couple of years.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com
"Unlike biological evolution. 'intelligent design' is
not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has
no place in the curriculum of our nation's public
school classes." -- Ted Kennedy
| |
| Smitty Two 2007-07-29, 1:25 pm |
| In article <s6nha3h7btaauug090j275c5oe7rtnb7be@4ax.com>,
mm <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:19:41 -0700, dexteroc <dexteroc@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> It sounds like you didn't, but you may have relied on the position on
> the swtich to match the position on the new switch. Some are arranged
> differently from others.
>
> Another problem is that you say you plugged in the wires. It's better
> to wrap the wires around the screws than relying on the plugging in to
> work. You can use a little screwdriver in the hole next to the wire
> to release the grip, to remove the wire.
>
> OTOH, I'm guessing it might not be gripping even a little and that
> would be the reason it's not working. In that case you might be able
> to pull the bad wire out. If that works, you can wrap the wire around
> the screw. If it starts to pull out but won't go all the way, you
> will probably have made it make contact well enough to work after all.
> Most people here will tell you that it's still best to removed all
> back-stabbed wires, but they're not as lazy or lethargic as I am.
There *is* a third alternative for switches and outlets that I prefer.
It's a sort of hybrid: straight-in wire, with a screw-driven clamp. More
secure than the back stab and less difficult than the wire-wrap.
| |
|
| Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <uckma3tgv76q0ug754n3mc9rmgpna3h51n@4ax.com>, Mark Lloyd <mlloyd@xmail.com10.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> "Not recommended for new construction"???
>
> Try "prohibited in all cases".
>
> Whether it's new construction or not is irrelevant. Putting a switch on the
> neutral side of a load is prohibited by Code, and AFAIK it always has been.
> Likewise energizing the shell of a lampholder (which this circuit *also*
> does).
>
The one time I saw this connection it was with knob and tube (in a house
I lived in when I was a kid). Because it was K&T it would be very hard
to change.
I believe this circuit was never code compliant in the era of even early
forms of Romex. Real early day of K&T I am not certain - anyone know for
sure? (I don't think it ever was either.)
If a replacement switch is miswired, in one position it will connect hot
and neutral.
--
bud--
|
|
|
|
|