Service Drop Cable

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

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,

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--

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.,

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 have repeatedly pointed out that the paper at:

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 " 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--

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

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!

(At the same time as the "moot point" post there was a simultaneous "a 'home inspector' site " 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 - "" (and later New York City and the IBEW). Some of my posts after that were overwritten.

Bud--

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.