The inspector can simply ask to see the manufacturers instructions that say the switch can be installed this way (NEC 110.3(B)) and if it is "suitable" (NEC
110.3(A)(1)) There is also the old catch all, NEC 90-4 that allows the inspector a lot of latitude in what they accept if it isn't specifically addressed in the code. Certainly a homeowner can do damn near anything after the inspector leaves but he inspector does have a responsibility to see that the installation meets certain minimum safety requirements and that it follows industry practice while it is still on a permit.
No. It does not meet code. No way the inspector is superseding his authority to fail the thing when it has been modified from its intended use and from normal industry practice, and with unlisted products used in the modification, and in a manner not included in the manufacturer's instructions.
It's installed in a 120V circuit according to recommended practices. It's function should *not* be in the realm of the electrical inspector. What the hell does he know?
Latitude? There should be *no* latitude! Of course reading the inspection nonsense here about arc-fault breakers and fire alarms, it's no wonder we aren't all broke, or dead.
Fine. Leave the inspector to rule *BY THE BOOK*. He should have no other option. Wierd switches are simply weird. Would you have an installation with X10 switches failed because the inspector didn't understand them on his 10 minute inspection? Please. House wiring isn't rocket-surgery.
Let me repeat; it's a dumb way to wire things and I cannot understand why one would do it this way. I don't see why it should be illegal, immoral, or on down the line to an inspector getting his hackles raised. Inspectors don't make the rules.
So you're saying that the inspector is perfectly within his rights to make up the rules as he goes along? The switches *are* being used within their ratings and as designed. If the inspector doesn't understand the logic, well...
Understand, I'm not saying this is a good idea. Rather, I'm saying that an inspector has no business telling me how I use switches that are being used within their design parameters, even though it's unconventional. There *is* no safety issue here.
Yes, I've had an inspector that was a PITA. He cost me a couple of grand that he had *no* business forcing on me (again not electrical). Inspectors should go by the code, not their dreams of what the code should be.
The switches have a hole drilled through their toggles, and the tie is a nail, a paper clip, who knows - but it is not a listed product. The switches are NOT designed to have a hole drilled through their toggles or ganged in any other way, nor were they listed or tested for ganging.
They have NOT been tested in the suggested configuration to ensure that they do not create the invalid scenario of A connected to B and C connected to B simultaneously, due to one switching before the other: A B
-----0-0----- /
-----0 0----- C D
They also have not been tested for the mirror image of that - a connection from A to D simultaneous with a connection from C to D
The logic is this: the inspector understands that if he approves this, he does so without the backing of the manufacturer or any testing laboratory, or standard industry practice.
He understands that he is negligent in enforcing
110-3 (a) 1 (see FPN quoted below), 2 and 8 and
110 (b) if he allows this. He understands that he is failing to follow 90-7, which directs him to look for alterations or damage to listed devices. He understands that there is absolutely no need for the modification, since standard listed parts are available to provide the function achieved by the jury rigging.
After all of that, whether or not he understands the circuit logic is irrelevant. He has no valid reason to approve the installation, and numerous code reasons to fail it.
FPN: "Suitability of equipment use may be identified by a description marked on or provided with a product to identify the suitability of the product for a specific purpose, environment, or application. Suitability of equipment may be evidenced by listing or labeling."
Yes, I understand (your paragraph below) that you are not saying it's a good idea.
Why? Everything on the stitch side is at the same potential, or an open.
So what? Either the traveler is open or it's energized. ...and who cares if two are energized momentarily? There is no possibility of a short across the switch.
Again, who cares? The travelers aren't going anywhere. Even if you short them no magic smoke will be released. THere is *no* safety issue here.
Again, it's dumbness to the extreme, but you're going to have to try a *lot* harder to try to convince this engineer that there is a safety issue here. The only excuse I can see is that the inspectors shouldn't have that job (which I can accept, given they?re not paid enough to do it).
Nonsense! There is nothing on these switches that is beyond the manufacturer's specs. There is *no* possibility of shorting the hot/neutral/ground. ...at least no more than any other installation.
I disagree. Are you stating that a 4-way switch cannot be used as a 3-way? Come on! The switches are used in the live side. There is *no* possibility of anything "bad" happening.
Sure. He has reason because he's dumb. There is nothing inherent in the safety of such a lashup. If the inspector fails such nonsense (they won't even look), I'd like to see the justification. ...your cites don't do it for me, since these switches *are* designed for this function, even if the logic escapes the inspector.
These switches are designed for 120V lighting circuits. If I decide to do some strange switching, so be it. I've seen wired- ANDs (single-pole, multiple switches) too.
We understand that, then.
I *am* saying that such weird switching isn't dangerous in any way. The inspector should just get out of the way. Heavy-handed inspectors just piss me off! Safety is one thing. Rules for rules sake, are less than useful. e.g. the discussion about failing inspection for smoke detectors not on arc-fault breakers. DUMB, DUMB, DUMB!
This has really degraded to an exercise in silliness. To start with you are not saving money on materials and labor will be a lot more. Can you honestly say the CUSTOMER would stand for this ugly mess when there is a perfectly appropriate switch available? Even if the electrician could get the inspector to hold his nose and OK this, the field manager for the general contractor would insist you get the right part. If not, I wouldn't buy a house from them because I would expect there were other short cuts (and bribes for inspectors) taken in the construction.
Agreed, but the specifics aren't my point. The devices *are* used as designed, in perhaps an unusual circumstance, for
*whatever* reason. The reason (stupid, or not) should not be reviewed by inspectors.
Nope. But, the customer may want some funky switching. It shouldn't be up to the inspector to tell the owner what he wants. My issue is not about this particular screwy lashup. It's about dumb (and over-zealous) inspectors. I've been there, as a home owner.
That's not my issue. My issue is about the inspectors not following the rules, and enforcing *obviously* stupid rules (like arc-faults on smoke detectors, as has been reported here).
I wasn't trying to address it as a safety issue. I dismissed it from our discussion as a safety issue in my first post in the thread: "Whether you or I think it is safe or not is irrelevant."
The entire thrust of my posts was about inspecting the thing, and not once did I say the inspector should reject it because it was unsafe. I pointed out reasons that he/she would reject it with code references: suitability for use 110-3 (a) 1 FPN and
110-3 (a) 2 and 8; modification of the product 90-7; lack of manufacturer's instructions for using the product the way you suggest 110-3 (b)
No more trying - I can't convince you. Sorry to have wasted your time.
I understand that. My argument goes to the next level. How much power should bureaucrats have? They have way too much, IMO.
...and I disagree. The unit *is* used within its capability. There is no possibility of a short (as someone suggested).
No, you've been arguing a different issue. I believe the code, and inspectors by extension, should care only about safety. What they "like" should have no bearing on the issue.
But that is exactly the point. In order to prevent what you are talking about, the Code calls for listed devices installed in accordance with manufacturers instructions. This eliminates the need for inspectors to look into every internal detail of every wired device. They just look for the UL (or ETL) label, and how it is installed. If the inspector sees mechanical modifications that are obviously not a factory installation kit, he or she can rightfully suspect that there might also be electrical modifications or damage (ie. was the switch affected by the drilling operation?)
It is better for them to follow a consistent set of rules rather than individually evaluating every Rube Goldberg design that they find.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.