Can I get a single light switch with a neon light??

[dummer]

Ok..... Ding ding, end of round one!

Thanks to all who have offered (useful and meaningful) advice.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I wish you would stop being so childish. You know jolly well which question I was talking about.

One of us is losing the plot.

Here's a hint:

It isn't I.

This was my original question:

If one uses Lin and Lout for the SP switching, all one has to do is add a link between Nout and Lin to get the desired ‘reverse neon’ functionality (assuming neon is connected between Lout and Nout).

And what's the current path for the neon then?

This was your answer:

If one uses Lin and Lout for the SP switching, all one has to do is add a link between Nout and Lin to get the desired ‘reverse neon’ functionality (assuming neon is connected between Lout and Nout).

And what's the current path for the neon then?

When switch (and light) is off ....

L feed > Lout terminal > neon > Nout terminal > link > Lin terminal > load > neutral

(had I been giving 'full instructions', I would have indicated that the L feed has to go to Lout) There could, of course, possibly be issues if the lamp were something more complicated than an incandescent one, but that would have been discussed had the OP been interested in the idea.

Kind Regards, John

And this was my reply to your reply:

There could, of course, possibly be issues if the lamp were something more complicated than an incandescent one

So please tell me which of your posts I failed to respond to.

 

[JohnW2]

And this was my reply to your reply:

There could, of course, possibly be issues if the lamp were something more complicated than an incandescent one

So please tell me which of your posts I failed to respond to.

I don't really know why I bother to play this game, since you know full well what I'm saying. It wasn't a whole post that you failed to respond to - it was my reply to your question about current path for the neon (in my message to which your above was a partial response).

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

FGS - I am not playing a game and I really do not have a clue what you're saying.

I have not failed to respond to/reply to/answer/whatever-term-you-care-to-use-to any of your posts.

Surely you haven't been doing all this because I didn't explicitly say anything in response to the highlighted parts of your answer?

Are you now expecting people to reply to absolutely everything you write, or face complaints?

 

[JohnW2]

FGS - I am not playing a game and I really do not have a clue what you're saying. I have not failed to respond to/reply to/answer/whatever-term-you-care-to-use-to any of your posts.

You'll have to try to work it out for yourself then - since I'm clearly not capable of explaining to you.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I have worked it out for myself.

For some unaccountable reason you think I haven't replied to you when you answered a question of mine.

The evidence of my own eyes tells me that you are incorrect.

That you cannot explain why you think I didn't reply doesn't come as a great surprise.

 

[JohnW2]

(You slipped this in after I replied)

Surely you haven't been doing all this because I didn't explicitly say anything in response to the highlighted parts of your answer.

There you go, so it wasn't true that you "didn't have a clue as to what I was saying". Quite easy, really, wasn't it?

Are you now expecting people to reply to absolutely everything you write, or face complaints? ...

Not at all, but I suppose I'm going to have to spell this out for you, even though I really wanted to spare you that. When you asked "And what's the current path for the neon then?" you obviously thought that you had 'caught me out' in some way, but when I gave a valid answer you in no way acknowledged that I had explained the path satisfactorily (hence indicating that your 'challenge' was unfounded). One can only speculate as to why you felt it appropriate to remain silent about that.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I have worked it out for myself. ... For some unaccountable reason you think I haven't replied to you when you answered a question of mine. ... The evidence of my own eyes tells me that you are incorrect. ... That you cannot explain why you think I didn't reply doesn't come as a great surprise.

Please see the post that I was typing when you posted this.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

(You slipped this in after I replied)

Surely you haven't been doing all this because I didn't explicitly say anything in response to the highlighted parts of your answer.

There you go, so it wasn't true that you "didn't have a clue as to what I was saying". Quite easy, really, wasn't it?

No - it wasn't.

It beggars belief that you are seriously expecting people to reply to absolutely everything you write or face complaints.

Not at all, but I suppose I'm going to have to spell this out for you, even though I really wanted to spare you that.

Spare me what?

Spare me the spectacle you are now making of yourself?

When you asked "And what's the current path for the neon then?" you obviously thought that you had 'caught me out' in some way,

No - I wanted you to describe the current path in your solution.

but when I gave a valid answer you in no way acknowledged that I had explained the path satisfactorily (hence indicating that your 'challenge' was unfounded). One can only speculate as to why you felt it appropriate to remain silent about that.

I didn't remain silent about it.

I replied here:

There could, of course, possibly be issues if the lamp were something more complicated than an incandescent one

And when you pressed me on what you clearly considered to be an inadequate reply, I answered that too:

... but quite possibly not - and, in any event, it's exactly the same potential issue as would exist with the 'neon surrounds' that others were suggesting (and, even if there were 'an issue', quite probably not one that a capacitor across the lamp wouldn't cure).

So you implement a solution which causes a problem and then have to do yet more things to cure the problem you have created.

Do I take it from your silence on the matter that, those potential issues apart, you are content with the current path for the neon which I indicated?

That issue apart, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?

But still you wouldn't let it go.

So you will get what I have finally worked out is your wish, namely that I reply to every part of your original answer to my original question.

If one uses Lin and Lout for the SP switching, all one has to do is add a link between Nout and Lin to get the desired ‘reverse neon’ functionality (assuming neon is connected between Lout and Nout).

And what's the current path for the neon then?

When switch (and light) is off ....

L feed > Lout terminal > neon > Nout terminal > link > Lin terminal > load > neutral

John - given the number of times you have seen people come here complaining about lights flashing, or being on dimly when they should be off, I am gobsmacked that you would suggest creating a current path through the light when it is supposed to be off.

(had I been giving 'full instructions', I would have indicated that the L feed has to go to Lout)

I beg your indulgence - I really cannot think of anything to say to that.

There could, of course, possibly be issues if the lamp were something more complicated than an incandescent one

You don't say...

but that would have been discussed had the OP been interested in the idea.

Since you'd given him full instructions on how to create a leaky path through his lamp when off how do you know that he wouldn't just go off and do it?

How do you know that someone else might not read your idea and go off and do it?

---------------------------------------------------------------


Happy now?

 

[JohnW2]

Happy now?

I was never unhappy. Never assume.

Kind Regards, John