Aluminum Wiring- NACHI Article

Perhaps you could provide a more substantive reply than that.

I believe Nick is debating this straightforwardly, as is Paul.

Nothing Paul said requires debate.

Nick is butt hurt(or Kenton is) for being called out on misleading article neither of them was qualified to write.

Ok, you have nothing substantive to add.

Paul did and nick is playing his usual games.

Michael Larson makes some very detailed, specific technical suggestions to improve the article and provides the exact text that should be replaced regarding aluminum alloy. His very detailed, specific technical improvements to the text include qualified aluminum industry references and are as follows:

,

,

,

LOL! Uh, thanks Michael. We’ll get your technical edits reviewed by our subject matter experts and have the article updated soon. I’m sure our readers have learned a lot about aluminum alloy because of your posts. Thanks again Michael. :smiley:

Can anyone else delineate any specific text that should be replaced? We’re happy to look at it to see how you would rewrite any part of the article.

Lets look at this line.

“Although properly maintained aluminum wiring is acceptable, aluminum will generally become defective faster than copper due to certain qualities inherent in the metal.”

It’s incorrect to say that aluminum becomes “defective”.

If that’s true then you’re saying the entire length of branch wiring will become defective, when of course it’s all about the connections/terminations.

When I find solid strand AL I tell the client that the wiring itself is acceptable and that it does not have to be removed. I then tell them that a licensed electrician should examine the connections/terminations to make sure they are properly retrofitted.

Next time find a qualified person to write the material.

You could not do better than Paul

Michael writes:

He works for the Aluminum Association and so suffers a conflict of interest on this issue.

Thomas writes:

Is there an inherent problem with the connections/terminations? Or does the inherent properties of the aluminum alloy itself merely become apparent at the point of the connections/terminations?

That’s the question.

I say it is the latter. And if you say the former, then why wouldn’t connections/terminations be just as big of an issue with copper wire, and why did the industry change the aluminum alloy itself?

An expert is an expert nicky, You and Kenton are not.

I believe that the electrical industry failed to understand and deal with the properties of AL as it differed from CU, when AL was first introduced.
That was clearly a failure on their part.
And probably a failure on the part of testing labs as well, since they ok’d its use I assume.
And of course down to the electricians installing it, few of whom were probably aware of how to work with AL.

This happens from time to time as building materials are introduced.
Polybutylene gets developed and installed in millions of homes and then they find out the issue with it.
CSST same deal.

Anyway, I think I’m done with the debate but I think it’s been a useful one!

It was fun.

FIRST …I do not work for the Aluminum Association. I work for Encore Wire and we make both AL and CU products. In fact, we make more money on the sale of CU products than AL products…yet I support AL…so I am the ULTIMATE unbiased expert.

FACT- I represent the Aluminum Association and the Copper Development Association on totally different Code Making Panels for the development of the National Electrical Code.

SO…since the market it made up of AL and CU Conductors…I can EXPERTLY tell you the difference in each of the products and as a Master Electrician for over 28 years…and in the industry as a whole for 30 years I think I am slightly more qualified to speak on the subject.

Just Sayin !

quotes messed up.

Paul what I wrote was

I will gladly answer that for you…and with a retort of sorts…

  1. It is an issue with CU if the terminations are not torqued properly. Every device has a specific torque requirement under the products listings. Failure to do so properly can result in issues no matter what the conductor type is. In the case of AL conductors of the Alloy 1350 series, it has poor ductile properties and high on tensile properties so at the terminations it would not flex will with the expanding and contracting thermal dynamics of the termination. Also, since at the same time the industry switched to “steel” screws and it had even less thermal dynamic properties…which ended in a bad mix…

  2. Basically in your statement of why the industry changed shows clearly you have not researched the reason which is not a good supporting reference for an article you and ken are clearly not educated enough int he subject to write and simply jumping on the HATE bandwagon.

Fact, The industry turned to using AA 1350 simply as a knee jerk reaction to a shortage of CU during WW2 era. They figured since AA 1350 was being used in the utility industry (for it’s tensile strength properties) that it would be fine for the building wire industry and guess what…they were wrong!

The issues were most certainly the terminations for the majority of the issues. The lack of understanding of how to torque properly, which is still misunderstood. IN fact, in 1972 UL mandated the use of 8000 series AL conductors and to no longer permit 1350 series AL for building wiring. This move happens slow since it took until the 1984 for the NEC to make the change. We know things move slowly when it comes to development of the NEC so it takes time. However, the good news was manufacturers had to change their production to comply with UL so the market was cleaning itself up prior to the NEC acceptance.

Yes, the older AL conductors should be evaluated, the branch circuit conductor sizes that are smaller than 8 AWG. However, they are not a death sentence by any means. The Aluminum Association Checklist I helped produce is a good reference document…and it should be used.

There are ways to make a home wired prior to 1972 in AL wiring safer without a doubt. Now, as for insurance companies that look negative on AL wiring all I can say is…hey it is there rules so report as deemed fit.

ALSO…what PISSES me off the MOST is the statement that I would have a conflict of interest. Mr. Gromicko has offended my good nature of always being fair. I have over the years given of my time and effort…FREE OF CHARGE to anyone who has every needed my assistance via phone, email, text message or on this forum and never once have tried to sway anyone against anything other than what the NEC actually says…I don’t care if you use CU or AL…but know the facts before you make up misinformation you may or may not have obtained from a WIKI search of a google “fact” finding exposition.

and to my HATERS…you know I have also taken your calls and answered your questions also over the many years I have been here…and quite frankly when it comes to electrical issues I help anyone who needs it…but to assume I would be in conflict over the FACTS…is absurd!:roll:

No worries brother…I just popped in for a few moments and will be heading out yet again. Just rubs my gills when someone states I would have a conflict issue on something that is purely factual.

I have the least conflict of interest as an expert witness in things like this…we make both so unless someone begins to make electrical wires out of silver or gold and puts them on the market for building wire…and I try to get them to stick to AL or CU…then I hardly have a “conflict of interest”…

Nick represents MANY associations…and founded many. Why would any of this supporting statements about the CMI Program other association like the emails I get about home inspector insurance be a conflict of interest…again we don’t care if you buy AL or CU…we just want the FACTS!

Take care Paul and know many of us appreciate your help and thoughts.

FYI - From your own industry

I am pleased that the links you referenced are neither anything I wrote nor anything published on InterNACHI’s website.

Anyway… Post #37.

And if you think aluminum is as good as copper… wire your house with it.

The power companies have millions of miles of aluminum conductors in use. New homes are safely wired with aluminum conductors in the proper sizes everyday.

I report the existence, supply a link in the report to CPSC Publication 516, recommend Licensed Electrician further evaluate, and let the client decide if they wanna risk it for the rest of their lives. Anything more than that is being presumptuous. Few electricians bring in a vacuum truck to remove all of the blown in insulation in the attic to locate all junction boxes that have been added and buried through the years. They go to the main panel, and to the outlets (outlets meaning all connected devices) and that is it. Failure to remove all AL branch wiring is almost assuredly leaving at least a few potentially unsafe connections un addressed. If you aren’t going to “maintain” them all, why maintain any? Replacing all the AL wire assures that no unsafe connections remain. Recommending replacing it opens you to ridicule as seen all too often. Saying its okay to not replace it opens you to serious liability.
I am an electrician, 25 years as an industrial electrician (so far). If I was the installer of the solid AL branch circuit wiring, I’d be fine with it because I do things right, its how I’m wired, but I would never move into a house built in 1970 that has it unless I could be absolutely certain I found every single j-box, which is probably not really very feasible.

This is just my 2 cents, I know this is more about the article accuracy that about how to report on it, and I don’t mean to start another debate, but a lot of people are reading this thread and I felt it necessary to address this particular tidbit for their sake.