Talk:Aluminum building wiring

message: October 2016
As a forensic engineer and inspector familiar with the issues associated with aluminum wiring for residential construction in North America I happened to come across this Article and decided to read it.
It Was a Mess!. Things seemed out of order (e.g. the discussion of wire types should have been one of the first headings), there were discussions of the same or related topics under different and/or multiple headings, some things should have had references to substantiate the content (e.g. that poor workmanship is one of the primary causes of problems), some statements were half-truths or completely wrong/unsubstantiated, and there were grammatical errors and typos throughout as just some examples.
Instead of just flagging the Article as being a total mess, I spent some time trying to clean it up without deleting significant content or the intent of the original writer if it was defensible/relevant, and attempted to reorganize it into somewhat of a more coherent article with additional references that were needed, along with some photos to illustrate topics.
:It also seems someone had put their own personal spin along with implied conclusions on the use of Ideal No. 65 twist-on wire connectors for pre-1970s aluminum wire repairs (which also included only partial quotes from 20+ year old CPSC documents, meeting notes and other one-sided references), and pushed the COPALUM connectors ... without including both sides of the sometimes controversial issue.  And pros/cons for the various pig-tailing options were not included (go figure). The article is NOT the place for personal spins/opinions or implied conclusions on issues - that are not defensible conclusions based on scientific methodology.  I have observed and investigated many things that have gone wrong, and most frequently it's human error (or poor workmanship) ... but that's just my personal experience and observations, or related to specific circumstances.  Opinions can be kicked around on a Talk page.
As a side note, the U.S. courts have ruled that the CPSC does not have jurisdiction over building wiring systems.  However, the CPSC research, documents and recommendations are still widely referenced.  Also, many of the reported field problems associated with pig-tailing repairs with Ideal twist on connectors are suspected to be DIY disasters where Harry C. Homeowner (C for Cheap) goes to the big box home improvement store and is handed a box of purple wire nuts by the local crossing guard to "fix" the problem himself (without the experience needed for proper repairs, and without both preparing and pre-twisting wires as specified by CPSC, and as recommended by Ideal for "old technology" aluminum wiring repairs).  Harry Homeowner can be his own worst enemy, which sometimes actually makes things worse.  I think the AlumiConn connectors will likely turn out to be the best repair option it they stand the test of time ... but Harry Homeowner can get them at the big box stores, and I will bet the family ranch he doesn't have the needed torque screwdriver, which is critical to have for a proper repair.
There ended up being some significant corrections or changes ...
*I changed the heading which read "Aluminum Conductor Material (ACM) wire" to just "Aluminum wire materials" since it was redundant and ACM is an older electrical code term (presently just "Conductor Material" in the NEC, which includes copper and aluminum conductors).  I added some info to offer both sides of the pigtail repair connector issue (without implied conclusions).
*I deleted references to what was reported to be said by a mfr. rep about the Ideal No. 65 at a CPSC meeting in 1995.  It's irrelevant to reference an understandably cautious comment by a mfr. representative at meeting for what was at that time a relatively new product for them, where they were the only ones making a UL listed Al/Cu twist-on connector with a potential high liability exposure (the US civil courts obliterate lack of diligence ... i.e. McDonalds coffee being a little too hot).
*I also changed the wording on the section which stated that CO/ALR devices should be used for repairing a home with older AL wiring since it's not substantiated.  I added a NEMA reference (as just referencing the entire NEC doesn't substantiate use of CO/ALR devices with AA-1350 wire as a partial/temporary repair).  I also added some pros/cons.
If someone who is also qualified/knowledgeable on the entire subject could proof read the article with the changes I made, that would be much appreciated (without spins or implied conclusions, which should be done elsewhere).  Also, there are probably some minor typos or grammatical errors I missed.
EagleRJO (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Article was a mess 

message: October 2016
I changed the title to "Aluminum building wiring", as that is what the article is about.  It's about the building "wiring" for houses, and not just about the "wire" (or more correctly "conductor") as it is also about the wiring methods, devices, and wiring repairs.  "Aluminum wire" could be used for many things including utility transmission and distribution systems discussed in other Wiki Articles (e.g. Overhead power line and Electric power distribution)
EagleRJO (talk) 04:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Title - "Aluminum wire"? 

message: apparently we are having a problem with vandalism from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/72.2.103.233
I am relatively inexperienced with wikipedia, so if someone knows how to report this or something, it would be appreciated.   Thanks, phd_jp  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phd jp (talk • contribs) 17:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: I was unable to find any evidence on Google that this is a copyright violation, which is often the case with long, unwikified articles. -- Kjkolb 21:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright

message: The comments regarding "elastic memory" are incorrect. Aluminum expands and contract, just as copper expands and contracts. If either metal is exposed to excessive pressure (especially at a high temperature) and the surrounding media contracts faster than the surrounded metal, then the metal will not be able to return to the original shape. That is true for all metals, and is a key factor when aluminum wire is incorrectly installed in a copper connector. I believe that is where the confusion comes from. If the statement "aluminum does not return to the same shape afterwards" were true, then you would have to believe that aluminum only expands and does not contract, which obviously contradicts everyday experience.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriskt (talk • contribs) 04:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elastic Memory 

message: I think at least some separation by country of ali wiring's current use & history is warranted, as much of the info here is quite wrong in the UK for example, where domestic ali wiring has been an absolute no-no for a long time, and its past history of use is also different.
Tabby (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed, the article is 100% USA-centric - wire sizes, history, and even reference to US insurance rules which differ by "state", without explaining what kind of state. Most likely not Australian.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.97.90 (talk) 14:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: US/UK

message: Aluminium cables is still in use for streetlamps, especially in the Europe and Russia. 90.191.190.76 (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ABC / AES / AMKA / APRX / AXKA / AXMR / AXPR 

message: There's still no mention of CCA, copper coated aluminium cable, which is an important part of ali electrical wire's history here in the UK, and presumably in various other countries too.
Tabby (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  CCA 

message: In the copy of the NEC I have here (2002 edition), table 310.16 has a footnote saying "See 240.4(D)", which in turn says you must not use overcurrent rated more tahn 15 Amperes for 14 AWG copper or 12 AWG aluminum.  You must use a larger aluminum wire for the same overcurrent rating of the circuit.  Has this been changed in the last 9 years? --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 12 AWG copper, sure.  But how do you get 20 amps out of a 12 AWG aluminum wire with an overcurrent device at 15 amperes? (Not too many 1970's houses left with aluminum wire to the receptacles.)  --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Say what?  I'm looking at table 310.16 (up to 3 conductors in cable), (2002 edition, we don't buy new code books for the US unless we have work there) and all the way down the page, for a given temperature rating of insulation (60 C), the aluminum wire has a lower rating:
* 14 AWG, 20 amps copper , no rating for aluminum
* 12 AWG, 25 amperes copper, 20 amperes aluminum
* 10 AWG, 30 A copper, 25 A Al
...
* 250 kcmil, 215 A Cu, 170 A Al
And so on. A copper wire in NEC rules (and CEC rules) is always smaller than an aluminum wire with the same rating. Your IP address doesn't come from Alcoa, does it? --Wtshymanski (talk)
So everyone agrees that 20 amps is the limit for 12AWG wire of any type. What is the disagreement here?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.250.27 (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

text:  No, that's not the case.  Aluminum conductors are required to be larger for the same current rating. Equivalently, the same size aluminum wire carries less current than a copper wire. Here's what Rule 240.4(D) says for maximum overcurrent size:
* 14 AWG - 15 amps copper, no rating for aluminum
* 12 AWG - 20 A Cu, 15 A for Al
* 10 AWG - 30 A Cu, 25 A for Al
The Canadian code is much simpler:  Table 2 says 15, 20, 30 A for copper and Table 4 says no rating, 15 A and 25 A for aluminum, with no asterisks. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: NEC ([[National Electrical Code]]) rules

message: Could we get a reliable source for aluminum wire on aircraft?  SO far Google Books is only turning up references to copper or silver-plated copper. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That says that one aircraft design is using aluminum, it doesn't say that all aircraft exclusively use aluminum. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Aircraft wire?

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Pretty much universal opposition mainly on the basis of WP:RETAIN.  — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Aluminum building wiring →  – Although the article primarily discusses United States, the topic is not inherently geo-specific and therefore should use standard IUPAC spelling. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

text: Support Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 26 March 2022