Service Drop Cable

wrote:


I suppose that is why they invented anyi-oxidants huh? Have you seen the Ideal 65 wirenut?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

A lot of information on aluminum wiring has been collected at http://www.inspect-ny.com/aluminum.htm which also includes web links. Information below is derived from this site. The best of the links is http://www.inspect-ny.com/aluminum/alreduce.htm which is based on information derived from extensive tests at the Wright-Malta Corp.
IDEAL #65 TWISTER The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), reacting to fires caused by aluminum wiring connections, contracted with Wright-Malta Corp., an independent test laboratory, to do extensive testing. Some of this testing was done on the Ideal #65 Twister wire-nut. This wire nut appears to be a standard Ideal wire nut with antioxide paste inside. The testing found that the Ideal #65 was not better than other wire-nuts that were not listed for aluminum wire. (Information at http://www.inspect-ny.com/aluminum/alreduce.htm topic "D"). In addition to failing, the Ideal plastic shell and included antioxide paste burned. (There is a multipage slide show of a presentation to the CPSC from the Wright-Malta lab at: http://www.inspect-ny.com/aluminum/piclib02.htm This includes pictures of the Ideal #65 burning.) As a result of the laboratory tests, the CPSC requested that UL change its test procedures to be more realistic. Ideal told the CPSC that "the Ideal #65 was not intended for use for [pigtailing retrofit], but only for such applications as connecting lighting fixtures and ceiling fans. Ideal committed to CPSC to change its advertising and instructional information accordingly, but did not follow through on that commitment."
WIRE-NUTS ON ALUMINUM WIRE The Wright-Malta Corp. tests found that because of surface oxide, there is poor initial wire-to-wire contact to aluminum wire(s). The steel spring in the wire-nut cuts through the oxide and makes contact, so initally about 60% of the current flows through the spring. Over time and use, the contact between the wires may be reduced, sometimes to zero. The contact from aluminum to spring may also be reduced so only a small part of the spring is carrying the current. However steel is not a good conductor. Tests found a 2 volt drop across the wire nut through the spring at 17 amps. This is only about 0.1 ohm resistance, but it is a 34 watt heater. At this current level the spring is red hot. In other tests, the spring is red hot at 12 amps. This destroys the insulation on the wires and the wire nut and can start a fire.
THE NEW ALUMINUM ALLOY WIRE HAS THE SAME OXIDE PROBLEM AS THE OLD WIRE.
The only fix recommended by the CPSC is the COPALUM compression sleeve that makes a cold weld to the wires.
Note that http://www.inspect-ny.com/aluminum/alreduce.htm topic "C" and "A", gives a detailed procedure for using wire-nuts with aluminum wire. A critical part is applying antioxide paste to the stripped wire then abrading the wire to remove the oxide. Know anyone who does that, huh?
Bud--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have seen (and purchased but not yet use) those "poke in" connectors. I don't even know if they are rated for Al. But you seem to be saying that the ONLY way to go for the "little stuff" is a hard crimp! Screws just aren't "gud enuf."
Should we start to worry about the "big stuff" used for electric stoves or from the meter to the service panel?
EMWTK
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John Gilmer wrote:

(I don't know what the "poke in conectors" are.)
The only method recommended by the Consumer Product Safety Commission is the COPALUM high pressure crimp system. The crimps replace all wire nuts and a copper wire is pigtailed out at devices. They specifically advise against using wire nuts. (But see paper below for a wire-nut use.)
Wire nuts, as well as connections to devices, have caused problems including fires. My understanding is the new alloy and CO/ALR devices solve the expansion problem but have the same oxide problems. Wire nuts with the new alloy should have the same oxide problem as before.
The best information I have seen is at http://www.inspect-ny.com/aluminum/alreduce.htm which is a paper based on information derived from extensive tests at the Wright-Malta Corp. for the CPSC. I covers a WIDE RANGE OF OPTIONS.
Anyone with an interest in aluminum wire 15 and 20 amp branch circuits you should look at the paper.
Paper highlights: - information on the options to reduce aluminum wiring risk - information on COPALUM crimp connections (mentioned above) - DETAILED PROCEDURE TO USE WIRE-NUTS WITH ALUMINUM WIRE to pigtail a copper wire or to replace existing wire-nuts, including brands to use - description of how wire-nuts fail; existing wire-nuts should be replaced - discussion of problems with Ideal #65 wire-nuts (the only UL listed wire-nut for aluminum) - how to install Ideal #65 wire-nuts, if necessary - detailed procedure to connect aluminum wire to (CO/ALR) switches and receptacles - procedure to connect aluminum wire to circuit breakers - if not making the changes above, what to do with existing system - wiring installed after about 1971 with the new wire is more reliable (if installed correctly) at device connections, but it has essentially the same oxide problems as the old wire; this is particularly a problem at wire-nuts; the information above is applicable to the new wire - also other very useful information.

I havn't heard of problems with service size and larger aluminum wire. The connection clamps have a large area and the procedures to use are well known to electricians.
Stove size stuff I havn't heard of problems. I would use Al listed split bolts over wire-nuts and devices must be listed for aluiminum - along with antioxide paste. The device connection clamps are a lot better than the binding screws used on switches and receptacles. Are circuit breakers listed for aluminum wire? Could split bolt a copper pigtail. And I would think strongly about applying paste and then abrading the wire as described in the paper.
Bud--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I don't know where you would even buy 12 or 10 ga aluminium. It is a moot point.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Bear in mind this is a "home inspector" site <insert home inspector joke here> It is not an opinion of any nationally recognized testing lab. Home inspectors live on FUD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Perhaps you could talk about the errors you found at the link above insead of presumed problems with home inspectors which may or may not include the inspector running the base web site.
As I clearly said in my last post, the information at the link above is the result of extensive experiments done by the Wright-Malta Corp. under contract from the CPSC. Or are they both suspect also. Papers on this subject, from the Wright-Malta employee (who is not a home inspector) that wrote the paper in the link above have been given at IEEE conferences and appeared in IEEE Transactions. Based on the tests at Wright-Malta, the CPSC requested UL change their standard for testing aluminum rated wire-nuts.
From your other post - "it is a moot point"? 2 million homes are wired with old technology aluminum wire from about 1965 to 1973. You may find it hard to believe, but failed connections in those wiring systems have caused fires and killed people. Because of these problems, UL removed its listing on aluminum wire and devices in 1971. UL chaged its standards and started listing devices which are marked CO/ALR and the wire alloy was changed.
Aluminum branch circuit wiring continues to be a hazard. The link above gives a number of options for handling the wiring in those homes.
Your apparent disregard of science-based information indicates you may have a bright future in the Bush administration.
Bud--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Bud this thread was about NEW installations not something during Watergate.
I was referring to the aa8000 alloy
It should be noted that most of the problems with the older wiring was sloppy installation or homeowner intervention. That is witnessed by the number that DIDN'T have any problems in the last 3 decades,
BTW these are the Nationally Recognized Testing Labs (NFPA and OSHA)
MET Laboratories, Inc. (MET) 800-638-6057 914 West Patapsco Avenue Baltimore, Maryland 21230
Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc. (ITSNA) (formerly ETL, Inchcape) 800-345-3851 3933 U.S. Route 11 Cortland, New York 13045
Communication Certification Laboratory, Inc. (CCL) 801-972-6146 1940 West Alexander Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84119
Canadian Standards Association (CSA) (also known as CSA International) 416-747-4000 178 Rexdale Boulevard Etobicoke (Toronto), Ontario M9W 1R3 Canada
SGS U. S. Testing Company, Inc. (SGSUS) (formerly U.S. Testing/California Division) 973-575-5252 291 Fairfield Avenue Fairfield, New Jersey 07004 Email: rich snipped-for-privacy@sgsgroup.com
Southwest Research Institute (SWRI) 210-684-5111 6220 Culebra Road Post Office Drawer 28510 San Antonio, Texas 78228
Wyle Laboratories, Inc. (WL) 256-837-4411 7800 Highway 20 West P.O. Box 077777 Huntsville, Alabama 35807 Email: snipped-for-privacy@hnt.wylelabs.com
Entela, Inc. (ENT) 800-888-3787 3033 Madison, S.E. Grand Rapids, Michigan 49548
Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) 847-272-8800 333 Pfingsten Road Northbrook, Illinois 60062
FM Global Technologies LLC (FM) (also known as FM Approvals and formerly Factory Mutual Research Corporation) 781-762-4300 1151 Boston-Providence Turnpike P.O. Box 9102 Norwood, Massachusetts 02062
TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc. (TUV) 203-426-0888 12 Commerce Road Newtown, Connecticut 06470
Electrical Reliability Services, Inc. (ERS) (also known as eti Conformity Services and formerly Electro-Test, Inc. (ETI)) 925-328-3400 3470 Fostoria Way, Suite A San Ramon, California 94583 Email: snipped-for-privacy@eticonformity.com
Applied Research Laboratories, Inc. (ARL) 305-624-4800 5371 NW 161st Street Miami, Florida 33014
National Technical Systems, Inc. (NTS) 978-263-2933 1146 Massachusetts Avenue Boxborough, Massachusetts 01719 Email: snipped-for-privacy@ntscorp.com
NSF International (NSF) 800-673-6275 789 Dixboro Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105 Email: snipped-for-privacy@nsf.org
Curtis-Straus LLC (CSL) 978-486-8880 527 Great Road Littleton, Massachusetts 01460 Email: snipped-for-privacy@curtis-straus.com
TUV Product Services GmbH (TUVPSG) 49-89-5008-4335 Ridlerstrasse 65, D-80339 Munich, Germany
TUV America, Inc. (TUVAM) 978-739-7000 5 Cherry Hill Drive Danvers, Massachusetts 01923
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

The National Fire Protection Association, in the NEC Digest, Spring 2004, repeated CPSC findings on aluminum wire: "In 1974, the CPSC determined that hazards associated with aluminum wire systems present "an unreasonable risk of injury or death" and later filed suit against more than two dozen manufacturers of aluminum wire and devices used in these systems. "According to a report published by the CPSC, homes wired with aluminum wire manufactured before 1972 ("old technology" aluminum wire) are 55 times more likely to have one or more connections reach Fire Hazard Conditions than is a home wired with copper." The NFPA, as you probably know, creates the National Electrical Code. In 2004 they, along with the CPSC, seem to still feel that aluminum wiring poses a risk. From alreduce.htm: "The aluminum-wired connections that fail tend to progressively deteriorate at a slow rate, and after many years can reach very high temperature while still remaining electrically functional in the circuits."
One of the most significant findings of Wright-Malta was that aluminum wire connections made in accordance with industry standards and manufacturer recomendations can fail, possibly resulting in a fire. That is why the CPSC moved to regulate the industry. "Sloppy installation" is not required. And "sloppy installation" as a cause remains at the level of opinion unless you have an investigative source.

I have doubts the NFPA recognizes this list. From the 2003 NEC Style Manual: "Use of the terms "Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory" or "NRTL" shall be avoided. .... [It] is an OSHA program for the accreditation of laboratories that test products for the workplace and is not to be applied generally in the NEC."
I have no idea what the relevance of the list of laboratories unless it is to show that Wright-Malta isn't on it. But the list is of labs is those recognized by OSHA to qualify a product as meeting a standard - for electrical products it is typically a UL standard. That is not what Wright-Malta was doing.
Incidentally, the longer story of of the CPSC involvement is that it was alarmed by fires from aluminum wiring systems (including deaths) contracted with Wright-Malta to make tests. Wright-Malta wound up doing extensive tests of aluminum connections (extensive: "in 1982, there were approximately 7,500 aluminum and aluminum-copper connections on long-term test, plus (for comparison purposes) a substantial number of copper-wired connections.") My understanding is that the CPSC recommended a recall of aluminum wire. In the obvious court case that resulted, the court ruled aluminum systems were not "consumer products" and thus the CPSC did not have perview.
The CPSC must have considered the Wright-Malta test data to be extensive enough and have enough validity to initiate an action against the industry and withstand the court case that would obviously result.
The paper at the web page contested before, http://www.inspect-ny.com/aluminum/alreduce.htm is based on the Wright-Malta test data extended to practical fixes for existing wiring. From section 1H of the paper (which is about the new alloy wire you are fond of): "[The new] alloy aluminum wire may have lower probability of overheating at the binding head screw connections. There is little improvement in the probability of overheating in other types of terminations, however. In particular, the alloy aluminum conductors show high failure rates in tests with twist-on connectors [aka wire-nuts]. "The alloy wires have improved mechanical properties but may have essentially the same electrically-insulating oxide surface film. As with the "old technology" ("EC" grade) aluminum wire...."
The point about wire nuts and oxides is the one I made in my original post.
Bud--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I guess that is why you are supposed to torque the fitting to specs. That assures a gas tight connection. Since most lugs these days are an aluminum alloy and aluminum wire actually tests better than copper in one of them, some of this hysteria is misplaced.
Read the topic title, this is NOT about 10ga and smaller wire. You would ber hard pressed to buy some, even if that was what we were talking about.
I know folks love to cite the NY-Inspect site, but I have to bear in mind that is the same city that banned Romex for any application until very recently so some of this may be IBEW mantra.,
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

My original post was in response to your post which, talking about the "newer alloy", said: "Used with CO/ALr devices it would probably be OK but nobody will actually try it. .... Old legends die hard tho." That is 15 and 20 amp branch circuits on 10 ga and smaller wire.
All subsequent posts by you, have been about 15 and 20 amp branch circuits.
> I know folks love to cite the NY-Inspect site, but I have to bear in

I have repeatedly pointed out that the paper at: http://www.inspect-ny.com/aluminum/alreduce.htm is based on extensive tests at Wright-Malta and was written by a PhD Professional Engineer from Malta.
You have said it was "a 'home inspector' site <insert home inspector joke here>" when the paper was not written by a home inspector. And now you tie it to New York City and the IBEW, both of which have absolutely no relevance.
You have at no point challenged the CPSC view of aluminum wiring, Wright-Malta test results or the contents of the paper. I be happy to communicate on one of these topics. Others are pointless.
And I am more convinced that your disregard of science-based information indicates you may have a bright future in the Bush administration.
Bud--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bud-- wrote:

Bullshit. He said the post was about NEW construction. He said it (discussion of 15/20A aluminum wiring in new construction) is a moot point. He said the thread is not about 15/20 ga wiring. Either you can't understand what was posted or you are looking for an argument. Please take your contentious posting eleswhere.
Ed

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
ehsjr wrote:

(At the same time as the "moot point" post there was a simultaneous "a 'home inspector' site <insert home inspector joke here>" post to which I responded.)
I've read back through the thread, and as far as I can see all my responses directly follow from what [ snipped-for-privacy@aol.com] said. Did I miss something?
I particularly object to discrediting a Professional Engineer-author by associating him with an unrelated home inspector - "<insert home inspector joke here>" (and later New York City and the IBEW). Some of my posts after that were overwritten.
Bud--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I am sorry if I offended you. I have just had bad experiences with home inspectors and when asked they say they are not code inspectors so I have to question "what standard do they use"? It is particularly suspicious when the only "answer" is a single product with limited acces to installers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

and I stand by that. Then the topic got switched to the "run for your lives, I think I saw an aluminum wire" rant you get from people who don't know the difference between tinned copper and aluminum. I agreed there was a early failutre rate of wire that was installed in the 70s but there is plenty of evidence to show that the problems were caused by bad workmanship and homeowner intervention as much as a bad product. The statistics they toss around are from the late 70s and 80s. I am always skeptical of any mantra that ends up with one and one only solution, particularly when it is a tightly licensed and controlled commercial product like the Copalum. Starts making me wonder if that obscure lab was getting a taste of the sales. I agree a person with aluminum should be extra vigilent about unusal electrical symptoms but actually going in and screwing with something that is working may be more dangerous than leaving it alone.
That still has nothing to do with installing aa8000 wire and COALr devices!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not busting on anyone really, if it comes across as such sorry. Reread what he said about selling it to people. You do not sell service drops to people at HD!
I just reread his 2/3. At first I thought he mentioned two hots and a bare ground. I know see that he had it right.
My gripe is the term "probably". The term probably and any mention of cabling under 12/2 should not be in the same sentence. Actually probably and any current flowing cable should not be in the same sentence.
Not something to guess at, and is something to leave for a person in the know, or licensed.
Chris
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If by the Code you mean the NEC, then you are wrong. Utilities don't follow the NEC when sizing service drops. 2/3 means #2 aluminum, 3 conductors. That would be the "norm" for short service drops for 200 amp services. If the service gets a little long, then 1/0 aluminum would be used.
Keep in mind that you cannot compare the conductor ampacity ratings in the NEC with those used by utilities. Overhead service drops by utilities are governed by the NESC not the NEC.
Charles Perry P.E.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Chris wrote:

I discoverd the ground screws and ground clips I bought there are not UL listed (Halex brand) - it is a NEC code violation to use them.
Bud--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Is that the same brand as the 29cent 15amp outlets?
Could never figure out how they can sell something so cheap. Obviously they are cheap outlets, but who in the world can even make cheap ones that cheap?
I can only assume that they are "loss leaders".
--
Chris

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 08:02:47 GMT, Anthony Guzzi

The service drop (the overhead conductor) might be #2 but as Mr Perry says, that is the utility string wire in free air under the NESC. As soon as you get to the service point where they splice to the service ENTRANCE cables at the service head the minimum size is 2/0 copper or 4/0 alumiinum. An underground service lateral will use the larger wire since it is not "free air". That is for a dwelling only. If this is any other occupancy you would use 3/0 copper or 250Kcmil aluminum
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.