Aluminum big wire anti oxidant

CPSC is not a Nationally Recognized Testing Lab

formatting link
(in fact it is a political organization) so what they say has nothing to do with what the NEC requires. U/L could not reproduce their findings. CO/ALr devices and the Ideal 65 wirenut are still listed and still legal to use ... by "qualified" people.

Reply to
gfretwell
Loading thread data ...

According to AZ Nomad :

That's what they thought 30 years ago. And 20. In other words, we've been here before -)

The burnt out connections were to Cu/Al (and possibly some CO/ALR) rated devices....

The reality is that while Al is perfectly safe (at least with CO/ALR devices done as per specification), it is considerably less forgiving of sloppy workmanship.

Reply to
Chris Lewis

According to :

The main reason being is that sloppy workmanship is not something that can be code-specified away. I don't have a problem with Al _properly_ done. I've just seen too much done wrong.

Reply to
Chris Lewis

The difference is that copper was 1/10th the cost of aluminum 30 years ago. And 1/5th the cost of aluminum twenty years ago.

Nowadays, copper is 2-3 times the cost of aluminum.

Reply to
AZ Nomad

Well said. That is the problem most of the time. It should be pointed out that the Alcan folks say that in testing aluminum performs better in the common aluminum lug than copper. That is why wire in the larger sizes has not been as much of an issue. Once you get away from binding screw connections the aluminum lug is the standard connecting device (Bolt in lugs, bus bars, lugs on big breakers and multi port splicing devices)

Reply to
gfretwell

So what? And the testing was not done by the CPSC, it was done by a testing lab for the CPSC. Testing for failures does not require an NRTL. The questions were real world experience which UL tests on aluminum may or may not be adequate to reveal. .

. I have seen nothing about UL rebutting the tests done for the CPSC. .

. Particularly in light of extensive actual testing of aluminum connections, I see no reason to not believe the test results - aluminum connections [15 & 20A] made to manufacturers recommendations can fail because of oxide.

The testing specifically found that Ideal 65 wire nuts were not any better than many other wire nuts that had antioxide paste added.

And the CPSC requested the UL tests, such as on CO/ALR devices, be made with the old technology aluminum wire that has expansion problems instead of the new alloy. The majority of aluminum wiring out there is old technology. The tests were not changed.

Based on the extensive testing, the professional engineer involved with the test has written recommendations ranging from minimal up:

formatting link

Reply to
bud--

It has been a while since I looked at this report, it is about 25 years old but it looked more anecdotal with data from accidents than lab testing. That is how most CPSC reports are generated. .

Purple wirenuts and CO/ALr devices are LISTED. That means they have been tesrted under controlled conditions with a standard testing regimine, not anecdotal data.

Inspect-NY is a home inspector site and their main objective is to beat down the selling price of a house.

Reply to
gfretwell

I guess I should boil it into a simple question. Should I go open the panel box, and dump generous ammounts of noalox on the aluminum connections?

Reply to
Stormin Mormon

Should I go squirt a bunch of noalox on the connections at the church camp, in the disconnect box, near the water front?

Reply to
Stormin Mormon

Should I go squirt a bunch of noalox on the connections at the church camp, in the disconnect box, near the water front?

Reply to
Stormin Mormon

Should I go squirt a bunch of noalox on the connections at the church camp, in the disconnect box, near the water front?

Reply to
Stormin Mormon

Should I go squirt a bunch of noalox on the connections at the church camp, in the disconnect box, near the water front?

Reply to
Stormin Mormon

Should I go squirt a bunch of noalox on the connections at the church camp, in the disconnect box, near the water front?

Reply to
Stormin Mormon

Should I go squirt a bunch of noalox on the connections at the church camp, in the disconnect box, near the water front?

Reply to
Stormin Mormon

Should I go squirt a bunch of noalox on the connections at the church camp, in the disconnect box, near the water front?

Reply to
Stormin Mormon

Should I go squirt a bunch of noalox on the connections at the church camp, in the disconnect box, near the water front?

Reply to
Stormin Mormon

If you don't remove the conductors and wirebrush them, along with cleaning out the lug, you are wasting your time. You are probably wasting your time with the NoAlox anyway. The time would be better spent properly torquing the lugs.

Reply to
gfretwell

I thought Mormons didn't get drunk and post to usenet?

Reply to
salty

According to AZ Nomad :

Nope. Aluminum was cheaper than copper 34 years ago (when I wired my grandfather's cottage)[+].

Aluminum wire for residential circuits became common in the early-mid

70's for the very reason it was cheaper than copper _then_. They sure and hell wouldn't have used it _then_, and we wouldn't be going on about the hazards of Al _now_, if it was 5-10x copper pricing back then.

Al pricing is primarily determined by electricity costs. Whereas copper is more heavily influenced by supply/demand of the ore, which is getting somewhat harder to come by.

If you go here and compare both copper and aluminum, you'll see that both copper and aluminum have had more-or-less the same fluctuations in price over the past 15 years. Copper a teensy bit steeper. But both have approximately doubled over the past 15.

[+] Supplier: "Do you want aluminum or copper?" Me: "What's the difference?" Supplier: "Al is a bit cheaper, copper is a bit easier to work with" Me: "Grandpa, copper please?" GP: "Okay...." 40 years later, thank heavens.
Reply to
Chris Lewis

According to Chris Lewis :

Whoops, sorry, left out the links:

formatting link
?c=Aluminum

Reply to
Chris Lewis

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.