220 Volt Plugs

Page 3 of 6  


What testing method is used by the CPSC? Who designed the test procedure, and how was it derived? Was an electrical engineer involved?
The answer, the test method does not adhere to any published or approved testing method or specification, and no electrical engineer is involved with the testing, according to all the information I have been able to find. Kinda says something about their conclusions.
Not to say I have any faith in the Ideal Purple wire nuts - but no less than the faith I have in the CPSC.
The UL and CSA testing labs test to a standard, which is determined by electrical engi eers, and the methods are designed by and monitored by qualified electrical engineers. Do they always get it right??? Nope. But I think they have more than a fleeting chance of hitting the mark - being they know what the mark is, what it means, etc etc etc.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/6/2013 3:01 PM, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

The testing was at Wright-Malta Corp and was run by a PE.
He wrote a report with recommendations that has been revised a couple times http://www.kinginnovation.com/pdfs/ReducingFire070706.pdf
There were many thousands of connections under long-term testing.
In addition to expansion, a major problem with aluminum wire is surface oxidation. A thin oxide layer rapidly forms, and it is an insulator. In a wire nut connection there may be little actual contact between the wires because of the oxide. Most of the contact may wind up being the metal spring in the wire nut, with a couple turns carrying the current. The spring is not intended to carry the current, and at relatively high current through the connection the spring can get red hot (probably what is happening in fig 1 in the report).
The glowing spring will not trip an AFCI because there is no arc.
The author recommends, in general, applying antioxide paste, abrading the surface to remove the oxide, and making the connection with enough antioxide paste to protect the wire.
(The last instructions I saw for lugs on large aluminum wire were to wirebrush the wire and apply antioxide paste. A utility lineman said they were supposed to wire brush aluminum wire used in mid-span splices in their wire.)
The report has a couple pages on Ideal 65 wire nuts. They have an antioxide paste, but that does not fix problems with oxide already on the wire. Based on information provided I would not use them.
Alumiconn connectors were not in the original testing (they did not exist then) and initial results have been added to the report. They look like the best way to splice Al-Al or Al-Cu. Alumiconn uses set screws, and likely deforms the wire which can break through an oxide layer. Deforming the wire is likely why connections on large aluminum wire do not have the same problems as 15 and 20A branch circuits.
The new aluminum wire is harder, and not likely to "extrude" in heat-cycling at a connection.

Details of testing are not included. There are some details by way of what testing was not done on the Ideal 65 wirenuts.
One of the complaints that came out of the testing was that the UL tests used the revised aluminum wire for tests of other components. Most of the wire actually in use is the original wire. The CPSC asked UL to revise their tests and UL didn't.
The CPSC appears to have been headed for a recall of aluminum wire, which would have been enormously expensive. In the inevitable law suit the court ruled that aluminum wiring was not a consumer product and not under the purview of the CPSC. (This may have been part of the reason the CPSC dropped an investigation of FPE breakers. They had some initial testing done which was not reassuring.)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The only problem with all of this hype is the millions of aluminum wired houses that are still there showing no problems. (before CO AL-r and paste).
I always believed this was a workmanship problem as much as an aluminum problem. Copper is just more forgiving of sloppy installation.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 12:37:43 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

product - particularly the revised wire. Properly installed WITH proper wiring devices (co-alr) it is as good as copper.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/7/2013 3:49 PM, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

About 1965 copper prices went up and aluminum wire started to be used for 15 and 20A branch circuits. UL CU/AL rated devices appear to have come out in the late 60s because of problems. There were still problems and about 1971 UL removed the listing for aluminum wire, devices and wire nuts. New UL standards came out about 1972, with a new aluminum alloy and CO-ALR devices. Use died out about 1973.
UL responded to problems that went far beyond workmanship. Steel screws in older devices were a particular problem.

Actual tests have shown that connections made according to manufacturers instructions can fail.
The vast majority of 15/20A aluminum branch circuits in the US use "old technology" wire. UL tests of CO-ALR devices and wire nuts are made with the "new technology" wire, which is not the bulk of what is installed here. And the "new technology" wire has the same oxide problem that the old wire has.
(The older CU/AL devices, and those from before that which are not specifically rated for aluminum are certainly also around.)
I have not seen instructions for devices that include abrading the wire and using paste.
I doubt Ideal 65 instructions include abrading the wire, or twisting (another recommendation based on testing). Ideal 65 appears to be rated only Al-Cu now. They do not have Al-Al combinations.
The CPSC previously recommended only pigtailing with COPALUM splices (which I think you commented on). They now also recommend AlumiConn splices, which are easily installed.
Aluminum branch circuits can be safe. But they have a lot more potential for failure than copper.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

did - took longer for CSA to approve the stuff than it took UL - so in Canada there is a LOT less OT than NT aluminum wiring. My dad was an electrician, and he only installed a very small amount of the OT aluminum - and he hated the stuff. The NT aluminum was "like working with copper, but thicker" - #12 bent about like #14 copper, but took up more space.. He never stripped aluminum wire 'till he was ready to make the connections - while in the insulation it didn't oxidize - and he was always carefull not to nick the conductor - but unlike the OT wire you COULD bend it twice. Make an eye, straighten it, and make the eye again, without snapping the wire. The OT stuff was like working with iron wire.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Depends on your definition of "harder" The new wire is less stiff, and less likely to crack when bent.

There is actually more of the "revised" wire in use (at least in Canada) than the "original" wire.

Used "as" a "consumer product" aluminum wiring is a lot more dangerous than when used, as designed, as a professionally installed product. Same with the ideal 65 wirenut. (not impressed with the wirenut in any event, but "properly installed" they have never failed under testing.) Proper installation involves disruption of the oxide layer and sealing with the antioxide paste. If not properly installed, and then disturbed (by moving the wires to replace the outlet or switch) failure is pretty well guaranteed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 10:06:10 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"

never a connection problem. Had a couple non-co/alr outlets overheat - but not at the wiring connection. Just cheap-ass low-buck outlets that got a lot of use.
Just switched everything over to co-alr over the last 2 months. Pricy little buggers, but a lot simpler than pigtailing which just stuffs the box.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

YOu never know about the wiring problems. In the area I lived in there were 14 houses built arund the same time in 1965 and very similar to each other. Two of them caught on fire. One several years before we moved in and one about 10 years after we moved in.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 15:50:52 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"

devices available specifically for aluminum in 1965 - not to mention most electricians had never worked with the stuff and didn't have a clue about the possible problems. By the late '60s and early seventies, the better wire came on stream, and in the mid seventies CO-ALR devices were developed and listed for use with both copper and aluminum wiring. The cu-al devices were a stopgap measure that were never actually tested and listed for Aluminum wiring, and in many cases were IDENTICAL to the cu-only devices except for the marking. CO-ALR became REQUIRED by the end of the seventies, and when properly installed on the second generation wire are perfectly safe. A lot safer than pigtailing with Ideal Purple twist connectors - and about the same price but less labour than pigtailing with AlumiConn connectors. Both are much less expensive than the AMP connectors, which are virtually impossible to get installed in most of Canada and the USA today. Special tool, leased from AMP for very high price to electricians who spent lots of money to be trained and certified in their application, and generally wanted to cover the training costs on every job. - didn't go very far....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/03/2013 06:35 PM, Pete C. wrote:

No, it's still not compliant because you used 14/2 between the range recep and the new recep. By code it should be a minimum 8AWG.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nate Nagel wrote:

An extension cord is not required to have the Ampacity of the circuit it's plugged into. The receptacle at the end of the extension cord is not a 50A receptacle.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

receptacle to an 8 guage wire.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/04/2013 03:05 PM, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

that's correct, it would also need to be a 50A receptacle. You actually *could* connect a 15A recep to 8AWG wire though - but only if the circuit were protected by a 15A breaker. You couldn't physically do it though, you'd have to pigtail the 8AWG to 12AWG or 14AWG in the box.
You might even want to do this in certain circumstances, e.g. wanting to provide a receptacle in a very far away outbuilding but not wanting to pay for another service, panel, meter, etc.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

it that way in the real world though. Heck, even a 2 circuit disconnect NEW is cheap enough to run the heavy wire to the disconnect, properly protected for the 15 or 20 amp circuit you want to connect to it, making a code compliant installation. Run the cable off a double 30 amp breaker or fuse block in the main panel to protect the cable, and then fuse or breaker the disconnect for the POU load..
Other than a "lug" connector it is pretty difficult to make a good connection between a 8AWG and a 14 AWG connector. Dad used to use Burndy connectors for that. (split copper bolt and nut) KS15 or ks17/ks17-3 wrapped with tape when he needed to connect widely disparate wires. ALso work good to extend service wires when installing a new panel where the old wire is too short. (different sizes for different cables, of course)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Oh, good grief. How many times must you be told that "code" has nothing to say about appliances. Learn to read.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, November 3, 2013 6:35:56 PM UTC-5, Pete C. wrote:

No but there can be requirements as to the max allowed breaker size. Take a central air conditioning unit. Look at the install instructions and/or rating plate on the unit and it will typically spec both a min breaker size and maximum, like min 30A, max 50A. If that is part of the manufacturers install instructions I believe it would be a code violation to use a breaker exceeding 50A, no matter what size wire you use.
Also, I don't think it's kosher to change the cord and plug on any listed appliance to accomodate being able to be plugged into a higher amp receptacle. I think that is the point gfre was making with his citation of the code.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/3/2013 5:35 PM, Pete C. wrote:

A #18 cord on a 20A circuit can carry enough current to trip a breaker on a fault, and is not likely to be damaged by the fault current (if the supply breaker trips). That is why #18 wire is allowed.
A #18 cord on a 50A circuit will get 6x the heat from a fault if the breaker trips as fast (and it won't trip as fast).
The size of the wire goes up as the circuit capacity increases.

UL regulations cover the air conditioner cordset and plug that are allowed.
UL will not allow a 50A plug on your 15A air conditioner. If you replace the plug with a 50A one the air conditioner is no longer UL listed.
If you read the instructions for the air conditioner it will, in all probability, give you the maximum rating for the circuit the air conditioner can be connected to. (May also be on the label on the air conditioner.) For a 15A air condtioner that will not be 50A.
UL sizes the cord and internal components based on the circuit amp capacity. If the air conditioner was intended for a 50A circuit it would not have the cord that is installed on a 15A air conditioner.

It is a violation of the UL listing. The air conditioner is no longer UL listed.
That means it is a code violation. 240.5 Protection of flexible cords... "(1) Supply Cord of a Listed Appliance.... Where flexible cord... is approved for and used with a specific listed appliance..., it shall be considered to be protected when applied within the appliance... listing requirements."
UL and the NEC work together.
The branch circuit device also protects the air conditioner.

Irrelevant.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I strongly suggest to you to study Ohms Law before you start recommending powers hookups


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

Don't confuse overload protection with overcurrent protection. A fault will trip a breaker with smaller wire than is safe for a load. This assumes you are dealing with a known load that has an acceptable ampacity on the wire
Fixture wires are regulated in the NEC article 402.5(2)
(2) Fixture Wire. Fixture wire shall be permitted to be tapped to the branch-circuit conductor of a branch circuit in accordance with the following: (1)     20-ampere circuits — 18 AWG, up to 15 m (50 ft) of run length (2)     20-ampere circuits — 16 AWG, up to 30 m (100 ft) of run length (3)     20-ampere circuits — 14 AWG and larger (4)     30-ampere circuits — 14 AWG and larger
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.