2/3 way switching to follow
- Thread starter SUNRAY
- Start date
Sponsored Links
As I said, to SUNRAY, if that's meant to be a generalisation, then what's wrong with this (per many/most of the circuits in my house)? ....
Kind Regards, John
JohnW2. I think the point is that the original wiring diagram cannot have an intermediate inserted, yet your diagram - which is significantly different, can and has.
In the original diagram, both switches have a permanent live.
Now supposing the second 2 way switch needed that permanent live to feed another light in another part of the house. If the wiring was altered to resemble something like your diagram, you would lose the permanent live that would be relied upon to serve another light somewhere else in the house.
In the original diagram, both switches have a permanent live.
Now supposing the second 2 way switch needed that permanent live to feed another light in another part of the house. If the wiring was altered to resemble something like your diagram, you would lose the permanent live that would be relied upon to serve another light somewhere else in the house.
Last edited:
In relation to the wiring method shown in the screen shot.
Sponsored Links
Indeed it is but they seem to show it terminated at the opposite end to the SL termination.
Indeed.
It seems that's the pattern, which I'd not come across before.
The 2 terminals closest together. The circuit is exactly like our 'Conversion method' except it's shown with L at one switch and SL at the other whereas our 'standard' is to have them both at the same switch.
I realise that, but I was responding to SUNRAY's statement ...
It seems that I misunderstood his intended meaning, because I thought (and still would think) that it was a general (and incorrect) statement about situations in which there was "the line feed at one switch and the SL taken from the other", rather than anything to do with the "original wiring diagram".
Kind Regards, John
I realise that now but, as I just wrote to sparkwright, it is not how I read your statement to which I responded - and, for what it's worth, even re-reading it now, it still seems to be saying what I originally thought it was saying
Anyway, apologies for any confusion.Kind Regards, John
JohnW2 method WAS THE STANDARD for many years and we still see it mentioned in this forum fairly regularly, such as these from last year:
https://www.diynot.com/diy/threads/garage-lighting-circuit-diagram.541319/#post-4579295
https://www.diynot.com/diy/threads/borrowed-neutral.537873/#post-4540917
Simplicity maybe?
Absolutely nothing wrong with that as long as done properly to minimise EMF radiation
To be honest, after decades of thinking that was the only way of doing it, it was not that many years ago that I discovered that there were other ('modern') ways of doing it. As I've said, most in my house use that 'traditional' method.
Kind Regards, John
As I said, that is easily achieved if one is using 3C+E. However, as I also said, some in my house are not done in a way that minimises theoretic EMF issues, although that has never presented me with any problems. If I'd been a 'HiFi guy', maybe I would think/talk differently!
Kind Regards, John
I was referring to the method you did a diagram of where an intermediate switch cannot be added, thinking about it I believe I have once seen this used.
Last edited:
My words too.
The first time I came across the conversion method I said "On dear me I wonder how this circuit works?"... Or was it more like "What the...?" It must have been one of those options.
As an AV guy who must have worked on hundreds of AFILS I know all about the problem
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links