# Romex to a switch, white wire only supply?



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Okay, firstly, it is 200.7(C)(1) & (2) 

Art. 200.7(C)(1) basically states that the white wire must be identified when using it as a ungrounded conductor. Hence-- 240 volt run with NM cable.

(C)(2) actually states that the white wire must be used as the supply and not the return from the switch. 

These 2 articles are different. I am not sure what you want to know but I see them as necessary. (1) without (2) would allow the white as a return.


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

Dennis Alwon said:


> (1) without (2) would allow the white as a return.


I agree.


----------



## EBFD6 (Aug 17, 2008)

I agree with with Dennis also.

(1) says that in any situation which you use the white conductor of a cable for an ungrounded conductor you have to re-identify it

(2) adds on to what (1) says, and clarifies that in a switch loop, not only do you need to re-identify the white conductor, but you also must use it for the feed(constant hot).

I am not really sure what the OP's point is here, this section of code seems pretty clear.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

I prefer the old days when re-identification wasn't required.


----------



## nolabama (Oct 3, 2007)

480sparky said:


> I prefer the old days when re-identification wasn't required.


How long ago was that?


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

nolabama said:


> How long ago was that?


 
It was changed in the 1999 to require re-identification.


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

480sparky said:


> I prefer the old days when re-identification wasn't required.


 
I agree.. if you can't figure out what the colors mean, then you have no business inside the switch box in the first place.


----------



## rdr (Oct 25, 2009)

Down on white back on black.....hmmm.....only heard that about 3897049283805623480239503485078234678268937623 times.....:whistling2:

:thumbup:


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

rdr said:


> Down on white back on black.....hmmm.....only heard that about 3897049283805623480239503485078234678268937623 times.....:whistling2:
> 
> :thumbup:


 
I must be a total hack. I've only heard it 3897049283805623480239503485078234678268937527 times.



Black4Truck said:


> I agree.. if you can't figure out what the colors mean, then you have no business inside the switch box in the first place.


Yet another saga in the dummying down of the Codebook.


----------



## rdr (Oct 25, 2009)

480sparky said:


> I must be a total hack. I've only heard it 3897049283805623480239503485078234678268937527 times.


We're both hacks. Apparently we haven't heard it enough.


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

480sparky said:


> I prefer the old days when re-identification wasn't required.



It still is not required ..................................... here.


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

480sparky said:


> Yet another saga in the dummying down of the Codebook.


I am talking about THIS.. some people should stay out of electrical boxes


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

Black4Truck said:


> I am talking about THIS.. some people should stay out of electrical boxes


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

Bob Badger said:


> It still is not required ..................................... here.


Bob.. does the AHJ send out a list of NEC articles that they choose to ignore?

It would be a real PIA to find out all this info on your own.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Bob Badger said:


> It still is not required ..................................... here.


 
Your NECs must look like Swiss Cheese when the AHJ treats it like a smorgasboard...... picking and choosing what they like and discarding what they don't like.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Black4Truck said:


> I am talking about THIS.. some people should stay out of electrical boxes


That actually has no bearing on the topic..... it does not show why or why not the NEC requires the white wire to feed a switch. At shows the total ignorance of the installer who does not recognize a 3-way switch. (So when did Peter D install that?)


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

> Your NECs must look like Swiss Cheese when the AHJ treats it like a smorgasboard


No, my NEC looks just like anyones. (Other than all the highlighter marks that tell me to check the MA amendments)



Black4Truck said:


> Bob.. does the AHJ send out a list of NEC articles that they choose to ignore?


Mass. is a small state they just call each electrician on the phone and let us know.



> It would be a real PIA to find out all this info on your own.



The real deal is I buy an NEC book locally and all the MA amendments are in the front. (Between 60 and 70 changes)


http://www.mass.gov/Eeops/docs/dfs/osfm/cmr/cmr_secured/527012.pdf


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

480sparky said:


> That actually has no bearing on the topic.....
> (So when did Peter D install that?)


TOOL.. did things change at the stroke of midnight for 2010 that a TOPIC ever means anything around here :blink:

Peter does not do 3 - way switches.. strictly a single pole man :laughing:


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

Bob Badger said:


>


:laughing::laughing:


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

I've always been of the frame of mind that if any AHJ adopts the NEC, then amends it 'down' (ie, making a section or article less stringent), then it should be their obligation to submit a proposal in the next Code cycle documenting their stance to show the CMPs the way(s) of their error(s).

In other words, Bob's AHJ should write to CMP and say, "Yea, well, what do you guys know!?"


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Black4Truck said:


> TOOL.. did things change at the stroke of midnight for 2010 that a TOPIC ever means anything around here :blink:
> 
> Peter does not do 3 - way switches.. strictly a single pole man :laughing:


In truth, I should have known Peter could not have done that switch. I see #14 NM there. Peter only works with Cat5 and zip cord.


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

480sparky said:


> I've always been of the frame of mind that if any AHJ adopts the NEC, then amends it 'down' (ie, making a section or article less stringent), then it should be their obligation to submit a proposal in the next Code cycle documenting their stance to show the CMPs the way(s) of their error(s).
> 
> In other words, Bob's AHJ should write to CMP and say, "Yea, well, what do you guys know!?"


Yeah .... well ......... we all have opinions.:laughing:

I don't see that MA has any obligation to accept the NEC as is or to fix the NEC for the rest of you.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Bob Badger said:


> Yeah .... well ......... we all have opinions.:laughing:
> 
> I don't see that MA has any obligation to accept the NEC as is or to fix the NEC for the rest of you.


But that seems to be exacly what they're doing by dummying it down every three years.

What I'm saying is that if your local AHJ seems to think they know more about something, they should inform the CMP involved about their ignorance.


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

Bob Badger said:


> Yeah .... well ......... we all have opinions.:laughing:


I would hope that includes the topic of sod over PVC boxes :whistling2:


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

480sparky said:


> But that seems to be exactly what they're doing by dummying it down every three years.
> 
> What I'm saying is that if your local AHJ seems to think they know more about something, they should inform the CMP involved about their ignorance.


If you look at the MA amendments you will find the majority of the changes are really no changes.

What do I mean?

I mean when the NEC all of a sudden decided the white on a switch leg needs to be re identified MA said 'Hang on a second, this has been working fine for years without re-identifying the white, we are not going to start now.'

So while NFPA CMP is busy making the NEC 'safer for morons' MA says professionals know a white on a switch is likely a hot.

So basically MA will not just blindly accept the CMPs changes that do not include rock solid substantiation.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Bob Badger said:


> If you look at the MA amendments you will find the majority of the changes are really no changes.
> 
> What do I mean?
> 
> ...


So CMP5 just got a wild hair up their collective butts and just adopted the change for shîts and giggles?

Without having access to the '99 ROPs and ROCs, I can't say why CMP5 changed it. But just because a local AHJ says different doesn't automatically mean they're right or wrong.


----------



## nolabama (Oct 3, 2007)

My code book









I like the changes every year:laughing:


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

nolabama said:


> My code book
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What we need is _NFPA70 for Hacks_ and _NFPA70 for Rats_.


----------



## Mr. Sparkle (Jan 27, 2009)

480sparky said:


> What we need is _NFPA70 for Hacks_ and _NFPA70 for Rats_.


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

480sparky said:


> So CMP5 just got a wild hair up their collective butts and just adopted the change for shîts and giggles?
> 
> Without having access to the '99 ROPs and ROCs, I can't say why CMP5 changed it. But just because a local AHJ says different doesn't automatically mean they're right or wrong.



Now you are just being an argumentative tool ........ just another day. :whistling2:

Just a few posts ago you seemed to indicate it was a poor change.



480sparky said:


> I prefer the old days when re-identification wasn't required.


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

Bob Badger said:


> Now you are just being an argumentative tool ........ just another day. :whistling2:


In all fairness to TOOL, I wonder what *you* will be like in (20) years :whistling2:


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

Black4Truck said:


> In all fairness to TOOL, I wonder what *you* will be like in (20) years :whistling2:


OUCH!! 












:laughing:


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

Bob Badger said:


> OUCH!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


:thumbup:


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

Bob Badger said:


> OUCH!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Those 2 must work for the company that I work for.


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

The truth is always so much funnier and often results in painful self realization. :laughing:


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Bob Badger said:


> Now you are just being an argumentative tool ........ just another day. :whistling2:
> 
> Just a few posts ago you seemed to indicate it was a poor change.


Apparently you just can't make the distinction. Here, let me help you:

Apple: I don't see the need for the change. Anyone trained in the trade will know what a wire hooked to a switch would be.

Orange: If an AHJ sees fit to make the NEC less stringent in adopting it, I feel it is their duty to make such a proposal to that effect.


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

480sparky said:


> Apparently you just can't make the distinction. Here, let me help you:
> 
> Apple: I don't see the need for the change. Anyone trained in the trade will know what a wire hooked to a switch would be.
> 
> Orange: *If an AHJ sees fit to make the NEC less stringent in adopting it, I feel it is their duty to make such a proposal to that effect.*



MA has a motorcycle helmet law, RI does not, RI law is less stringent. Does RI have a duty to try to get MA to become less stringent?


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Bob Badger said:


> MA has a motorcycle helmet law, RI does not, RI law is less stringent. Does RI have a duty to try to get MA to become less stringent?


 
Speaking of smoking a fatty, have you been lighting up?

RI has no jurisdiction in MA, so you supposed analogy is totally useless.


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

480sparky said:


> Speaking of smoking a fatty, have you been lighting up?


Do you like Iowa corn? :laughing:



> RI has no jurisdiction in MA, *so you supposed analogy is totally useless.*


If you say so it must be true.

Rock on.


----------

