jeffc43
Member
- Location
- North Port, Florida
What is the difference between Covered and Insulated Copper?
Covered Copper verses Insulated Copper
- Thread starter jeffc43
- Start date
- Status
Conductor, Covered. A conductor encased within material
of composition or thickness that is not recognized by this
Code as electrical insulation.
Conductor, Insulated. A conductor encased within material
of composition and thickness that is recognized by this
Code as electrical insulation.
The conductor that is used on motor winding and transformer winding considered covered or insulated?
As far as the NEC is concerned, neither... as those wires are not within its purview. The wire would have to be premises wiring before considered one or the other. If you did use that wire for premises wiring, it would be covered conductor.
kbsparky
Senior Member
- Location
- Delmarva, USA
Consider the structure of SE cable:
Covered wires would be the bare concentric conductor, under the outer sheath
Insulated wires would be the XHHW conductors within the cable assembly.
Here is a picture containing both types:
Covered wires would be the bare concentric conductor, under the outer sheath
Insulated wires would be the XHHW conductors within the cable assembly.
Here is a picture containing both types:
Quite simply, one is to protect the outside from the inside (insulated), the other is to protect the inside from the outside(covered).
In my day job, we use a lot of covered conductor for 25 kV installs. It isn't insulated for that voltage, but it will charge a squirell enough to make him leave without arcing over and knocking the line out. Also works well for tight rights of ways. I wouldn't grab a covered conductor barehanded.
An insulated conductor is just that, insulated. People grab insulated conductors frequently.
Actually, the NEC recognizes Type SE cable... so all the conductors are considered insulated... until the jacket is removed inside the terminal enclosure. And then they are just bare and insulated... no covered conductors.
Last edited:
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Are you sure?Actually, the NEC recognizes Type SE cable... so all the conductors are considered insulated... until the jacket is removed inside the terminal enclosure. And then they are just bare and insulated... no covered conductors.
As far as the "uninsulated" conductor not being a covered conductor, yes.
The definition states encased within material of composition or thickness that is not recognized by this Code as electrical insulation. TTBOMK, the uninsulated conductor of Type SE is a bare conductor, i.e. not encased in any material. And if we consider the entire cable assembly, the outer covering is recognized. 338.2 states "Type SE. Service-entrance cable having a flame-retardant, moisture-resistant covering."
Perhaps saying all conductors are considered insulated was in error... but riddle me this: What is being referred to in Table 400.4 Type Letter SE? I've searched the web for SE "cord" and "cable" other than the standard Type SE Service-Entrance Cable, and I can't find any.
Last edited:
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
The bare conductor in the SE cable assembly is "covered" by the outer jacket of the cable. Does "encased" mean that the covering can only be around a single conductor? I don't think so. The outer jacket is not recognized as a conductor insulator and it encases the bare conductor along with the insulated conductors.
As far as the SE cord, look here.
I agree.
I agree for the most part... but if we view the term 'encased' in the same context for both conductor, covered and conductor, insulated definitions (and I believe we should), I'm sure you can see that we can't have more than one conductor "encased" by an overall insulating jacket and still call each conductor insulated... :happyno::slaphead:
I didn't say the outer jacket is recognized as insulation... and the definitions do not directly stipulate insulation properties either. The definitions just say of a material and composition recognized by this Code (another fine example of the Code being indirect). The overall jacket of Type SE is recognized by Code, as 338.2 stipulates it must have a flame-retardant, moisture-resistant covering.
I ran across that document in my search. Consider the source. How is it any more authoritative than my statements? Additionally, Table 400.4 does not distinguish between cable and cord types. Can you find any physical cable or cord that is type SE which is not Article 338 Type SE cable?
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
I refer you to the defintion of covered that you posted in post #2.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
UL says Belden has a listing for SE flexible cords. I did not find a type SE cord on their site, but did not spend a lot of time looking. I also stopped looking in the UL database when I found that Belden has a listing for SE. I would expect that their are other companies that do too. I have never seen SE flexible cord, but that does not mean that it does not exist.
Got me there :slaphead:
I concede the bare conductors are covered. Debating seems pointless... but in the end, why do we continue to call them bare conductors???
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Yes, I don't see how a conductor can be both bare and covered
- Status