Me too. It's amazing how many bad ones I've come across where the twisting was bad or they didn't even use close to the right sized wire nut. My favorites, for 110VAC work, have little metal springs inside the nut. I prefer them without the metal inside for low voltage wiring, especially when I am not sure I am looking at the final configuration.
There's no doubt they can be done well in the hands of an experienced user. The problem is that in the hands of a beginner, they are usually not well done, and in my experience, bad wire nutting has caused many more problems than backstabbing. Bad nutting is also a lot harder to detect than someone failing to get most of the wire under a screw.
Hmm, I have a similar pair in the junk drawer that's also unsolderable. I think I might give your approach a try.
In my experience, electrical tape loses its stickiness long before any other component in an electrical installation would otherwise fail or need to be replaced. I don't have lots of faith in electrical tape for any long-term role of importance and try to avoid using it for anything other than holding a cable onto a snake.
There are wire nuts and wing nuts and various designs in between. The important feature is the design of the spring. The wire nut had a round wire spring more suitable for stranded wire and the wing nut had a square wire spring wound with the edges out so it would cut into solid conductors making a better connection. The designs have morphed over the years with manufactures claiming suitability for both stranded and solid wires. I always look in the cavity of the connector before using it to see how it's made and/or if the darn spring is even there or corroded. Some of the wire/wing nuts have expansion room inside for the spring to expand which can make a better connection. I've grown fond of the newer push in connectors which I've had very good luck with.
On 8/19/2009 10:41 PM The Daring Dufas spake thus:
(or the real URL,
formatting link
Interesting. One thing, though: it looks as if there's no way to pull the wire out once it's in. Is that the case? If so, then these may be great connectors to use when one is sure that one's work will never need to be redone.
Again, that is incomplete criteria as it does not clearly specify the pass / fail criteria. It is entirely possible for a device to be cycled that many times, with the rated voltage and current applied and fail in a way that presents no fire or shock hazard. and pass a safety test.
And again, anyone with minimal reading ability can see that what you quoted is not a complete test specification and does not include the pass / fail criteria.
I've seen a number of them and none had anything to do with non safety durability. A product could be a piece of crap and fail, as long as the failure mode did not create a hazard that could lead to an insurance claim.
The pass criteria, as I have said several times, is the switch survives over 30,000 specified operations at rated voltage and at least rated current and is functional at the end of the tests. The switch is not allowed to fail during the 30,000 tests. A switch must "function properly" to survive over 30,000 operations.
What more do you want? From the information given I could construct tests for the 30,000 operations. You want the exact language from UL? Maybe you could look at your copy of UL30. The switch is not allowed to fail during the 30,000 tests. There are other additional specs, but a switch must "function properly" to survive over 30,000 operations. The test is not just about "failing safely".
THE PASS CRITERIA, AS I HAVE SAID SEVERAL TIMES ALREADY, IS THE SWITCH SURVIVES OVER 30,000 SPECIFIED OPERATIONS AT RATED VOLTAGE AND AT LEAST RATED CURRENT AND IS FUNCTIONAL AT THE END OF THE TESTS.
Did it come through that time?
As have said several times, a switch must survive all 30,000 specified operations and be functional at the end to be UL listed. A piece of crap is not likely to survive 30,000 operations and remain functional.
Or do you think a piece of crap can survive 30,000 operations and remain functional?
What UL standards have you read?
Do you really think the electrical industry would allow, for example, fuses and circuit breakers to open at random current levels, and only be required to "fail safely"? That would be ridiculous. I have not read the standard but I have seen references to required clearing times at 120% and 200% of rated current rating. They certainly are tested at their rated available fault current. I expect a lot more from fuses and circuit breakers than that they just "fail safely".
You really have a reading comprehension issue. Again, what you have quotes is not a complete test specification as would be used by any reputable testing laboratory as it does not contain clearly defined pass / fail criteria.
Your diversion into circuit breakers doesn't help your case at all since a circuit breakers are allowed to "soft fail" and trip at lower than their rated current.
You have not explained how surviving 30,000 specified operations and remaining functional is not a pass criteria.
Every manufacturer current-time trip curve shows an acceptable band. I have no doubt UL specifies a similar band (ie max and min acceptable clearing time at 200% of rated current). Tripping at too low a current is also not permitted. You really think the electrical industry would allow fuses/breakers to open at too low a current?
I've watched this argument devolve here for a while now. Although I don't know what exactly UL uses for their test criteria, I find it very hard to believe that they would approve devices that only "fail safely" but that do not function properly at that point of failure (i.e., breakers that trip at significantly lower current than rated, switches that no longer switch, etc.).
I think the burden of proof in this case is on *you*.
The burden of proof is on the person falsely claiming to be posting a UL test standard. No reputable testing laboratory would attempt to test to an incomplete test specification such as what mr bud has posted.
Remember was chartered to do product testing for the insurance industry, not consumers. Insurers do not care at all about the quality, functionality or value of a product, only if the product presents a safety hazard that could lead to an insurance claim.
Circuit breakers are designed to and allowed to trip at a lower point as they wear from multiple trips or age. They are not allowed to trip at a higher than specified level. A "weak" breaker is a common failure and does not present any safety hazard so it is not of any concert to insurance underwriters nor to their testing lab.
My original point was that, contrary to what had been stated, UL tests for some products do establish whether a device will "function properly". IMHO remaining functional after over 30,000 operations at or above rated voltage and current demonstrates that.
I would have no trouble designing tests for the 30,100 operations which I took from UL20. I would also have no problem determining if a switch passed those tests. (The standard has additional details on these tests and additional requirements.)
Pete has not said why he couldn't figure out the tests or whether a switch passed. (But that was not my intent anyway. I don't care if Pete can't figure out how to make the tests.) Pete is welcome to look at his copy and say what UL20 requires. I eagerly wait.
The foregone conclusion results in denying the evidence?
Whatever the origin of UL it is, frankly, laughable to think that the electrical industry would allow the present UL to list products used in the electric power industry that have not been tested to "function properly". Like for instance fuses, circuit breakers, motor starters, switches, receptacles, GFCIs, AFCIs, ....
From the UL "white book": "UL and its subsidiaries operate facilities throughout the world for the testing, certification and quality assessment of products, systems and services." Note "quality assessment".
Take a particular category, fuses. A fuse could itself fail safely (or operate but out of time spec) and still allow great damage, including fire and explosion, downstream. It could also be the difference between an electrician walking away from an event and severe injury or death from arc flash. (I believe even insurers might be interested in that.)
Cite.
Still missing - the UL standards you have read that had nothing "to do with non safety durability".
Also missing - the "proof" David asked for. My source is UL20.
Some/most of them have a "slot" that will accept a very small flat blade screwdriver. Push in the screwdrive and they release the wire.
Apparently the industry has solved the safety and reliability with the "backstabing" outlets. Also there are connectors that use the same "technology." They make them in a variety of "sizes" for wires sizes and the number of conductors to be joined. They are "UL" approved so I guess they are 'gud enuf.' I used the connectors in my attic and so far the house hasn't burned down. But even the manufacturer says that they have more resistance than your typical twisting wirenut connection. I guess, however, it's within the range of acceptability.
BTW: "They" have finally made an "approved" splice for romex so that you don't have to use a junction box when you can't "stretch" a cable when you move a ceiling outlet or whatever. I pick up one on speculation but haven't used it.
BZZZIT, wrong item, you're describing the outlets, I was describing the Ideal brand connectors. I have some other connectors that have a little lever you flip up to insert/release each wire.
It's approved today - but don't count on it being approved 5 years from now. It was developed for the "mobile home" market - and that's where it belongs (10 year lifespan, perhaps?)
HomeOwnersHub website 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.