alumicon vs. box fill?

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

electricbass

Member
Why would you have to count a alumicon in a box fill calculation if you don't a wirenut? I can't find any proof that you do, but I have a electrical inspector telling me you do, but they haven't showed me how or where to find it. This could be very costly for the customer if I can't proof it. Thanks.
 
electricbass said:
Why would you have to count a alumicon in a box fill calculation if you don't a wirenut? I can't find any proof that you do, but I have a electrical inspector telling me you do, but they haven't showed me how or where to find it. This could be very costly for the customer if I can't proof it. Thanks.
Click to expand...
I cant help you with a code section but I would call the manufacturer about this one they will go out of thier way to help you more than anyone else. I have spoken with them on the phone and they are great they will help you. I hate small aluminum conductors. Not even worth the liability involved.
 
Last edited:
electricbass said:
I have a electrical inspector telling me you do
Click to expand...

The inspector should be able to show you the NEC reference for his judgment.

Be polite, but do ask.

The AlumiConn is considered by UL to be a wire connector,
along the lines of the "wire-nut".
Wire-nuts are not counted as devices,
so the AlumiConn should not be counted, either.

Hope this forum is helpful.
 
Article 314 has yet to directly address this issue so IMO the inspector is incorrect. Until the NEC classifies an alumicon as something that would require additional conductor reductions in a box he can't enforce it.
 
chris kennedy said:
What is an alumicon?
Click to expand...

This is a wire connector, with a base of some alloy, shaped like a square block with three tubular holes and three set screws, suitable for use in connecting copper and aluminum wire, with the clamping accomplished with three set screws.

Also it is pre-greased with silicon anti_oxidant to control aluminum oxidation.

In a residential size, you would insert maybe two aluminum wires and a copper wire, each wire going into one of three tubes bored into the base, and then secure each wire by the set screw for each tube.

(The manufacturer properly advises to abrade the aluminum wire
before insertion)

The attachment is like using a receptical with screw clamps.

A picture is worth 576 words.
 
Last edited:
Here you go. It definitely takes up a lot of space in the box but so does a big blue and it does not have to be counted.

AlumiConn.jpg
 
glene77is said:
This is a wire connector, with a base of some alloy, shaped like a square block with three tubular holes and three set screws, suitable for use in connecting copper and aluminum wire, with the clamping accomplished with three set screws.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a piece of busbar to me.
 
Does anyone think that we'll see a required conductor allowance for these things in the future? If a $.29 SP switch and a GFCI receptacle both require a 2 conductor deduction anything is possible. :rolleyes:
 
I'm still amazed your inspector even checked for box fill. IMO your inspector
is wrong,but I have to hand it to him for realizing box fill is a very common
violation of the NEC.
 
infinity said:
Does anyone think that we'll see a required conductor allowance for these things in the future? If a $.29 SP switch and a GFCI receptacle both require a 2 conductor deduction anything is possible. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I really hope not. But I don't put anything past the CMP's. They, like us,
seem to have a lot of time on their hands to nit pick every possible
aspect that could be possibly be wrong with any electrical install.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top