The internals of a "real" intermediate switch are generally more complex and thus they are significantly more difficult/time consuming/expensive to produce than a basic SPDT switch. Hence using intermediate switches in place of SPDT switches would be less cost effective than using the easier to produce SPDT switches.
I've been away from this discussion for an hour or two, but it seems your question has really been asked.
Yes, but they need to use two two-way switches.
I'm not sure that I understand your point - are you perhaps saying that they could/should use two 'two-way'
especially when I found a box under a kitchen cupboard with several random accessories
No, that wouldn't work, would it? They have used two two-way switches (SPDT) to make one intermediate whereas one normal intermediate would do for all three options: one-way, two-way and intermediate.
That's not what I meant but surely that entails as much expense if not more than using ONE intermediate for all three types.
As I recently wrote, that is certainly, in many senses, the "simplest" approach - but given that the great majority of requirements are for one-way or two-way switches, it seems unlikely that it would be a very 'cost-effective' approach.I've been away from this thread for a week or two and things have moved a long way.
As to the cost issue, a new housing estate locally purchased pallets multiple of 1, 2 & 3 gang intermediates and used them for everything. It's been bloddy useful for later alterations
It could (with the additional 'safety measures' I mentioned), but I'm getting a bit lost ...
Who is this "they"?
IU think that we're all totally agreed about that - but are you making some additional point?
That's what I was saying.
Yes, you mentioned " two 'two-way' (SPST) switches" and I missed the error.
The people who have made such things as the OP's switch IF Bernard is correct, or the one in the Amazon link.
Yes, I missed my typo, too - no corrected. Apologies, and thanks for noticing - I obviously meant "SPDT".
Fair enough. I must say that I'd never seen or heard of such a way of 'improvising' an intermediate switch.
Nor I - not surprisingly because I still don't see the point of doing it.
Well, there would not be a potential 'bang' issue when used as an intermediate switch but obviously there might be if used, as you indicated you might have, as a DPDT switch.
There is no risk of a "big bang" in a lighting circuit using improvised intermediates ( 2 SPDT switches ) as the only access to Neutral is via the lamp. The switches cannot therefore create a short circuit between Live and Neutral.
Well, I can see a potential commercial 'point', given that the market for intermediate switches is presumably tiny compared with the market for 'two-way' ones. It is presumably simpler/cheaper just to throw two standard 'two-way' modules onto a faceplate and link their rockers that to explicitly manufacture 'intermediate modules', isn't it?
All agreed, and that was my point. I think that if they produce a product which has (or can have) "DPDT" functionality, then it should be safe to use in any "DPDT" application.
All agreed, but as I've just written to EFLI, I think that if anyone produces a product which has (or can have) "DPDT" functionality, then it should be safe to use in any "DPDT" application.
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
