Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Service Drop Cable

So, "service entrance" is different from "service drop"?


Service drop is the utility overhead conductor. A service lateral
would be the utility side of an underground service.
They are also referred to service conductors.
Service ENTRANCE conductors are the customerr side of the "service
point" which is usually at the service head but it may be in the meter
base with an underground service.
 
C

Chris

Jan 1, 1970
0
Anthony Guzzi said:
I do know what 2/0 is.

So when an old timer comes in and says he wants "knot knot" (or however it
is spelled), you know were to send him? :)
At HD, it has a black coating. Maybe some of them have grey, but at all
of mine, it has been black. It really doesn't matter.

It seems to me that the coating on those is not sufficient insulation,
especially since they are not in a cable with other wires.
I am pretty sure on this side of the coast it is grey at HD. Might just be
a sourcing thing, as they are heavy and they might have local sources for
it.

I would agree as well. Unfortunately, I have to know a little about
everything, since if someone asks, I have to tell them something. In my
line of work, "I don't know" simply doesn't work.

I know what you mean. Some customers tie up the damn clerks for a 1/2 hour
asking them to design the whole circuit for them. All the while I am
sitting there waiting to get some wire off the rack. Another reason I do
not bother there.
 
P

PCK

Jan 1, 1970
0
Chris said:
Once again I am reminded why I do not use HD for electrical. :)

--
Chris

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a
soldier. If it is in ebonics, thank your Congressman.
pretty hard on the guy he has the right answers for the wrong reasons dont
ya think
better advice than alot in this newsgroup
 
C

Chris

Jan 1, 1970
0
PCK said:
pretty hard on the guy he has the right answers for the wrong reasons dont
ya think
better advice than alot in this newsgroup
True, and no offense to the guy. Just a lot of bad experiences with HD and
anything electrical.

I can at least give him an A for effort.
 
J

John Gilmer

Jan 1, 1970
0
Yes, that is exactly what I am referring to. Except that the conductors
are all stranded copper, and not aluminum. We don't sell ANY aluminum
wire.

Gad!

Why not? (I understand not selling, say, #6 and small Al wire. But why no
the BIG stuff?
 
A

Anthony Guzzi

Jan 1, 1970
0
John said:
wire.

Gad!

Why not? (I understand not selling, say, #6 and small Al wire. But why no
the BIG stuff?


I don't really know the exact reasons. However I thought that Aluminum
wire was not legal in the US.

It would be nice if we had the large ones in Al, those spools of copper
#2 weigh like 500 pounds!

I suspect one other reason might be that it would be easy for the
customers to become confused by the different types of wire, and choose
the wrong one.
 
I don't really know the exact reasons. However I thought that Aluminum
wire was not legal in the US.


The only aluminum wire that is not legal for branch circuits and
feeders in the US is the old 1350 alloy. The new AA8000 alloys are
perfectly legal, and safe although the bad reputation still exists.
 
A

Anthony Guzzi

Jan 1, 1970
0
The only aluminum wire that is not legal for branch circuits and
feeders in the US is the old 1350 alloy. The new AA8000 alloys are
perfectly legal, and safe although the bad reputation still exists.


Hmm, didn't know that. Ok, so is this 1350 alloy just a different
formulation of aluminum for the wire? The AA8000 being the newer
formulation and the 1350 being the fomulation used in the 50s, 60s or
70s or whatever?

For this new stuff, the AA8000, would you use the same gauge as you
would with copper in any situation? Or would you use one gauge thicker
than you would with copper?


I know what a branch circuit is, but what is a feeder?
 
Hmm, didn't know that. Ok, so is this 1350 alloy just a different
formulation of aluminum for the wire? The AA8000 being the newer
formulation and the 1350 being the fomulation used in the 50s, 60s or
70s or whatever?

For this new stuff, the AA8000, would you use the same gauge as you
would with copper in any situation? Or would you use one gauge thicker
than you would with copper?


I know what a branch circuit is, but what is a feeder?


You still have to follow the aluminum ampacity table, which is
generally one size larger but once you get to 70a (4ga copper) the
aluminum slips another size.

The old alloy was originally designed for overhead spans and breaks
pretty easily if it is bent sharply. The newer alloy is designed to be
harder to break from bending and the expansion characteristic is more
in tune with the screws used in Cu/Al terminals. Used with CO/ALr
devices it would probably be OK but nobody will actually try it. In
larger sizes, using set screw terminals it has really never had
problems. Since most lugs these days are an aluminum alloy it actually
has a better expansion characteristic.

Old legends die hard tho.
 
B

Bud--

Jan 1, 1970
0
The old alloy was originally designed for overhead spans and breaks
pretty easily if it is bent sharply. The newer alloy is designed to be
harder to break from bending and the expansion characteristic is more
in tune with the screws used in Cu/Al terminals. Used with CO/ALr
devices it would probably be OK but nobody will actually try it. In
larger sizes, using set screw terminals it has really never had
problems. Since most lugs these days are an aluminum alloy it actually
has a better expansion characteristic.
For 15 and 20A branch circuits, the current alloy aluminum expansion
characteristics may have been substanitally fixed. But it has the same
oxidization problem as the old aluminum wire. On small branch this would
produce the same safety problems in wire nuts, if nowhere else.

Bud--
 
For 15 and 20A branch circuits, the current alloy aluminum expansion
characteristics may have been substanitally fixed. But it has the same
oxidization problem as the old aluminum wire. On small branch this would
produce the same safety problems in wire nuts, if nowhere else.

Bud--

I suppose that is why they invented anyi-oxidants huh?
Have you seen the Ideal 65 wirenut?
 
B

Bud--

Jan 1, 1970
0
I suppose that is why they invented anyi-oxidants huh?
Have you seen the Ideal 65 wirenut?

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--
 
J

John Gilmer

Jan 1, 1970
0
THE NEW ALUMINUM ALLOY WIRE HAS THE SAME OXIDE PROBLEM AS THE OLD WIRE.
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
 
B

Bud--

Jan 1, 1970
0
John said:
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."
(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.
Should we start to worry about the "big stuff" used for electric stoves or
from the meter to the service panel?
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--
 
B

Bud--

Jan 1, 1970
0
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

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--
 
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--


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: [email protected]


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: [email protected]


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: [email protected]


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: [email protected]


NSF International (NSF)
800-673-6275
789 Dixboro Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
Email: [email protected]


Curtis-Straus LLC (CSL)
978-486-8880
527 Great Road
Littleton, Massachusetts 01460
Email: [email protected]


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
 
B

Bud--

Jan 1, 1970
0
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,
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.
BTW these are the Nationally Recognized Testing Labs
(NFPA and OSHA)


[list of laboratories]
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--
 
"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...."


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.,
 
Top