Aluminum big wire anti oxidant

[Stormin Mormon]

I don't have the authority to pull the meter. So, it's either schlock on some grey goop, or leave it alone.

[Stormin Mormon]

Thanks, I'm glad you think that.

[bud--]

. If you are talking about the CPSC, anecdotal reports probably generated concern and there were probably preliminary tests to get an idea of risk. But *as I stated several times*, the CPSC contracted with a lab to do *extensive tests* on aluminum connections. That involved *many thousands* of connections. It was not anecdotal. I know of no equivalent testing.

The CPSC apparently was headed for forcing a recall of aluminum wire. The CPSC is certainly smart enough to know they need major test results to back up a recall. (Apparently an aluminum company sued and the court ruled that wire and devices are not ?consumer products? and not under the purview of the CPSC. That, of course, makes no judgement on whether a recall would be justified.) .

. The CPSC relied on extensive lab tests, not anecdotal information.

[Why do UL tests use new technology wire when most of the installed base is old technology with the expansion problem.] .

.

1. Did you use a Ouija board to determine the ?main objective? of the ?home inspector site??

1. From a Mike Holt newsletter: ?This website contains extensive information for consumers and building professionals regarding aluminum electrical wiring in residential properties. The contents are the result of study of this topic and represent the opinion of the author. Actual documents, authoritative research, and government resources about aluminum wiring are here. This is the most extensive and authoritative Internet information source for aluminum wiring and related hazards.

?The Hazard Aluminum wiring, used in some homes from the mid 1960's to the early

1970's, is a potential fire hazard. According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, fires and even deaths have been reported to have been caused by this hazard. Problems due to expansion can cause overheating at connections between the wire and devices (switches and outlets) or at splices. CPSC research shows that "homes wired with aluminum wire manufactured before 1972 are 55 times more likely to have one or more connections reach "Fire Hazard Conditions" than are homes wired with copper. "Post 1972" aluminum wire is also a concern. Introduction of the aluminum wire "alloys" in 1972 time frame did not solve most of the connection failure problems. Aluminum wiring is still permitted and used for certain applications, including residential service entrance wiring and single-purpose higher amperage circuits such as 240V air conditioning or electric range circuits.

?Click here for the rest of the story:

1. From Mike Holt (on FPE breakers): ?Mike Holt's Comment: The failure rates for these circuit breakers are significant, see the CPSC study. For Additional information about this problem, visit the excellent website managed by Daniel Friedman
2. The CPSC actions were based on *extensive testing*. The paper I referred to - the only reference to inspect-ny - was written by a

*professional engineer* . The paper was revised in 2007. You have provided no counter to the information in the paper or reason to believe the research was invalid.

1. I can only hope the ?home inspector site? never publishes the papers of Newton, Maxwell or Einstein.

[gfretwell]

Do you have a reference to that suit, this is the forst time I have heard that story but this thing has taken on a life of it's own.

At any rate you have demonstrated why this is a "political" organization. If purple wirenuts and FPE panels are really such a danger, a "safety" organization would have recalled them.

I really don't care right now and you can win but the next time this comes up I will find out who was sitting on the house commerce comittee when this "study" happened and where they take their bribes ... err "political contributions". I bet whoever owned AMP was high on the list (now Tyco)

[bud--]

1 =============== From a NFPA - NEC digest, spring 2004 (apparently no longer online):

?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.?

2 ================ "In the mid-1970s, the CPSC began distributing information concerning the potential hazards of aluminum wiring. It also was working to seek relief for people with homes wired with aluminum. This resulted in a 1976 lawsuit filed by Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation against the CPSC, ending in 1979 with a federal appeals court ruling that deemed electrical distribution items not to be consumer products.

"Since the CPSC has jurisdiction over consumer products, the area of electrical wiring falls outside of the CPSC?s boundaries. As a result of this ruling, the CPSC investigations into the potential hazards associated with aluminum wiring ceased and efforts to change testing standards or to remove certain products from the UL listing lost their steam."

This is a commercial site selling aluminum repair services and should be evaluated critically. The information is consistent with that from other sources.

================ Also see (3) below. .

. Ideal 65 wire nuts are just investigated by a UL standard that may be inadequate. For example it does not use the 'old technology' wire that is most prevalent in 15 & 20A branch circuits. The CPSC requested UL revise its testing methods. The CPSC couldn't recall them, if it wanted to, for reasons in (3) below.

FPE panels are in a different classes. From the CPSC statement when the investigation was closed: "The Commission investigation into Federal Pacific Electric (FPE) circuit breakers began in June, 1980, when Reliance Electric Co., a subsidiary of Exxon Corporation and the parent to FPE, reported to the Commission that many FPE circuit breakers did not fully comply with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL) requirements. Commission testing confirmed that these breakers fail under certain UL calibration test requirements."

FPE falsified information sent to UL, and the limited testing done for the CPSC showed disturbing failures.

As with the testing of aluminum connections, the tests of FPE breakers was contracted to a private lab. The following comments are from a professional engineer involved (relevant to both aluminum and FPE):

3 ================= "In early 1983, CPSC closed its investigation of FPE breakers, and issued a press release to that effect. The Commission's press release indicates that it was 'unable at this time to link these failures to the development of a hazardous situation,' that 'The Commission staff believes that it currently has insufficient data to accept or refute Reliance's position,' and that they did not have the money to develop the required data.

"Two important events had occurred prior to the Commission's vote that no doubt influenced their decision. In 1981, President Reagan took office. The political climate under the new administration was very much pro-industry, and CPSC was on the chopping block from a budget standpoint. The Commission did not have - and was not likely to get - the funds required for a protracted technical and legal battle with FPE/Reliance.

"Equally important as background is that, in early 1982, CPSC lost a major battle in court on another electrical product - aluminum wiring. Kaiser Aluminum had challenged CPSC's jurisdiction over house wiring, claiming that it was not a consumer product. After a seesaw series of court decisions and appeals, Kaiser ultimately prevailed. Irrespective of any demonstrated hazard, the final ruling was that CPSC did not have jurisdiction unless it could prove that a substantial percentage of new home buyers contracted directly with the electricians for the installation of the wiring. That is generally not the case. It is much more common to have the electrician working under contract to the builder or general contractor. After spending a significant portion of their energy and budget on that project over a period of about eight years, CPSC had to abandon their case on aluminum wiring hazards due to that ruling.

"In terms of the contractual relationships in home construction, the service entrance panel is analogous to the aluminum wiring. The Kaiser appeal could serve as a model for FPE. No matter what level of hazard CPSC might be able to demonstrate associated with the defective Stab-Lok® breakers, they had a high probability of losing if FPE chose to challenge their jurisdiction over the product. A precedent had been set in the aluminum wiring case."

========================= The CPSC didn?t have much choice in dropping the investigation of FPE. .

[gfretwell]

Where is the pile of tombstones? Where are the fires? Shouldn't most of the millions of aluminum wired homes have burned down by now? If you don't want an aluminum house don't buy one but spreading a 30 year old "boogie man" story is not constructive. Certainly amy story that ends with "this is the one and only product that will save you" (the CopAlum device) smacks of marketeering more than safety. Aluminum is not as tolerant of hack work and homeowners should leave it alone. They should also be vigilent of problems but that is true of any electrical system.

[bud--]

. Far as I know there is no data to show fires currently are, or are not, caused by aluminum branch circuits. And aluminum is just an increased risk, not a certain cause of fire.

If you have a home that is ?stable? and you add a high watt space heater in a new location you are stressing connections all the way back to the panel that may not have been subject to high current before. What is ?stable? now may not be in the future. .

. My original comment was that extensive research has shown ?properly made? connections can fail.

My only recommendation has been a paper based on extensive research. There are a wide range of recommendations down to only ?vigilance?.

IMHO much of the thread has concerned your denial that extensive valid research into aluminum connections was done for the CPSC. .

. I never referred to COPALUM. The paper I referenced has COPALUM as only one of the possible fixes. COPALUM is, based on research, the most reliable connection but is quite expensive. If I had aluminum wiring and was redoing connections I wouldn?t use it.

You might be interested that next best connection for splicing wires is the new ALUMICON connector. It uses screws which deform the wire.

------------------ In general I think you have very good answers to electrical questions. IMHO you get carried away with 'hot-button' issues on aluminum. .

[gfretwell]

I just don't have a knee jerk reaction to a 34 year old CPSC report and ignore the current opinion of NFPA and U/L.

[Stormin Mormon]

So, should I put some anti oxidant on the aluminum big wire?

[Stormin Mormon]

So, should I put some anti oxidant on the aluminum big wire?

[gfretwell]

\\ If you can't pull it out of the lug and clean it ... no.

[Stormin Mormon]

OK, that's the answer, then.

[stancomm]

Hello all, I like some of you am concerned about the aluminum issue. I swapped out a few worn receptacles and installed a couple of GFI outlets in the kitchen and bathroom... all on aluminum in a relative's house down in Delaware. I did the copper pigtail, twisted it well and ran on the wire nut. Seem to remember slopping some noalox on the joints before I nutted them. Now I read where I should've scrubbed the leads with a scrubby impregnated with the noalox so no oxidation would form between the time I scrubbed it and slopped on the goo. Apparently aluminum oxidizes that quickly. But now I'm reading that the twisting action, if done aggressively enough will penetrate the oxide... who to believe? One issue with the purple Ideal nuts is that they are no longer approved for long term pigtailing service... read the usage notes on a new package... the wording's changed, or so I've read. I'm trying to find the King Innovation "Alumicons" but nobody up here has them... looks like there wasn't too much aluminum used in these parts. I want to do this right... don't want my brother-in-law's attorney chatting with me about a huge foundation full of ashes.

Stan Posted from the Free Home Improvement Forum at

[Sac Dave]

I use this

[TimR]

Ever had a wire nut fail?

Be honest. We all have, at least once, and probably some we didn't know about.

Ever had a chocolate block fail? Probably there's some way to do it wrong, but it's vanishingly rare. I can't imagine using a wire nut ever again, now that I've seen a chocolate block. (dunno what the real name for this is.)

[dpb]

TimR wrote: ...

How can I honestly say "yes" if I didn't know about it?

Nor I, nor do I have the foggiest what you're trying to describe...

[metspitzer]

I have never seen any aluminum wiring in branch circuit wiring. I was surprised to learn it existed.

I would also be surprised to learn anyone knowledgeable enough to have concerns about splicing aluminum to copper would truly post it openly in a world wide forum.

[Tony Hwang]

Hmmm, I lived in my last house from '76(the year it was built) to '94. It has Al wiring. During that period I neve ran into electrical problem coming from Al wire. I was very vigilante about it. When Al wiring is done properly and does not get disturbed frequently, I think it's OK.

But then this is the story from a X-ray machine support engineer who was baffled for a system at a hospital. The system was always going out of focus generating lots of complaints from docs. using it. After burning many midnight oil, it was traced to main Al. power feed coming into the building. It was loose generating randome noise.

[Tony Hwang]

Is there a recorded case of house fire due to Al wiring? For 14 gauge Cu branch, 12 gauge Al wire was used using proper Al compatible parts.

[Eric]

They are talking building wiring, not circuit boards. chocolate blocks are for pcb's, telephone, or stuff like that not lighting & appliance circuits. Eric