Why neutral at other switch?

[JohnW2]

Yes by 80's it was very common, I recall reading a letter in a 'Practical Householder' which I purchased occasionally (less than half a dozen total) after I started looking for my first house about 1978 ...

Fair enough. Thinking back, I suppose one of the issues for me personally is that I have very rarely had much contact with relatively 'new' electrical installations, so the ones I will have seen from 80s to the end of the century (roughly when I became aware of the 'conversion method) will nearly all have been installed long before 1980, and therefore much less likely to use the 'conversion method'. Mind you, that doesn't explain why I did not (like you did) read about it.

The reply was probably the first time I'd seen 'conversion method' documented although I don't recall it having that name then, in fact I'll stick my neck out and say I don't remember the title being used until using this forum.

I think it was given that name when I first heard about it, and I suppose it makes some sense.

Annoyingly I cleared them out with a load of old Radcom, PE & PW magazines only about 5 years ago.

It's very frustrating when that happens, and is one of the reasons why (although I must address it soon!!) I have very large, and very dusty, piles of all three of those magazines in dusty corners of my house (and still get the first one monthly!).

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

SS if you've been working in this environment since 80's there is a slim chance something from 50's may have been reconfigured in later works by someone who doesn't know/understand conventional.

Yes, from 1983. I did consider that possibility.

 

[Johnmdc]

Same here. I wonder when it first started to be used (or, indeed, when it was 'first described' and started being taught and appearing in books)?

It's certainly only 'relatively recently' (probably no more than 20 years ago) that I personally even heard of it - and I recall that 'first time', when I had top do a fir bit of 'scribbling on a fag packet' to convince myself that it would/could actually work!

Kind Regards, John

I was taught the "conversion method" in college in 1983 and that is what we were told it was called.
We were also taught the "conventional method" with feed at one switch and load at other switch with 2 strappers between them.

 

[JohnW2]

I was taught the "conversion method" in college in 1983 and that is what we were told it was called. .... We were also taught the "conventional method" with feed at one switch and load at other switch with 2 strappers between them.

That's certainly how the terminology is usually used although, as I've said, it was long after 1983 that I became aware of the "conversion method" (under any name).

When you were taught about "the conversion method" in 1983, were you being told that it was only/primarily used for 'conversion', or was it being proposed as a method that should be used for new circuits/installations?

Kind Regards, John

 

[Johnmdc]

We were told it was how you would make an existing one way switch circuit into a two way switch circuit. But also new circuits could be wired that way too.

 

[JohnW2]

We were told it was how you would make an existing one way switch circuit into a two way switch circuit. But also new circuits could be wired that way too.

Fair enough - so 'primarily' for 'conversion', but also suitable for new circuits.

Did they actually teach/advise you which method you should use for new circuits?

Kind Regards, John

 

[Johnmdc]

It's that long ago I can't remember.

 

[JohnW2]

It's that long ago I can't remember.

Fair enough.

If you think that 1983 was "that long ago", you must be a youngster

Kind Regards, John