[gslenk]

Bit of a hypothetical situation that got me curious... Beside the obvious answer of "use x/3 wire" which method is better/correct if two x/2 wires had to be used?

The conventional approach:
Run x/2 from the switch box (where power is sourced) to the receptacle box, then run a switch leg back to the switch box, and snap the hot side tab on the receptacle. Re-label the switch leg white wire as black/hot.

An alternate approach:
Split the source in the switch box to a constant feed, and a switched feed, run both to each side of the receptacle, snap both the neutral (Should the neutrals be separated?) and hot tabs.

Somehow, the alternate approach "looks better", but is there a real reason that it is not? I'm thinking it would have something to do with the double neutrals.

 

[brric]

Deleted

 

[seharper]

The "alternate" totally works, although I agree - it's bizarre.

The "conventional", I think, is more logical to "the next guy"... that hot+neutral pair on the left is just passing through, and it's obvious one shouldn't tap it. But it has 2 problems.

Trivial: Exchange white and black because white must be always-hot (200.7(C) if it isn't neutral).

Non-trivial: It's a switch loop without a neutral, so violates 404.2(C). You can't poach the neutral that passes thru, because the smart switch's current flow would be circular/imbalanced.

 

[gslenk]

I guess once upon a time, "conventional" was actually conventional when/if switches didn't require neutral. I've run into that convention a few times when removing old aluminum wire, and replacing with a proper 14/3 copper runs.