Ilsco IPC Taps

Status
Not open for further replies.
kwired said:
Not familiar with these connectors, do they by chance make any that are IPC on one port but not the other?

Otherwise isn't a main concept of using them is to lessen potential contact with live conductors, which means it wouldn't be a big deal to strip a grounded conductor to terminate it?
Click to expand...

How you handle your own grounded conductor is not the issue in question. The issue is how you handle the tap to the existing grounded conductor that lacks insulation, when you planned on using the insulation connector for the neutral as you planned for the ungrounded conductors.

My recommendation if using these on the insulated existing service conductors, is to avoid them for the bare neutral, and use a 3-port insulated tap connector instead (commonly called a Polaris connector). One port to intercept the existing conductor, a second port to reconnect it to its original destination, and a 3rd port for your tap.

The purpose of using these insulation piercing connectors connectors, is so that you can leave the feeder conductors connected to the terminals of their existing destination, and provide a connection to the insulation. These are analogous in concept to saddle valves in plumbing (something I recommend against ever using, and many state plumbing codes prohibit). But the electrical counterparts of insulation piercing connectors, do not suffer form the same issues, and the NEC and UL listing should make them legal to use in theory.
 
Carultch said:
One thing to keep in mind when using insulation piercing connectors, is that they are only listed to be used on insulated wires. One situation to consider, is insulated ungrounded service conductors, with a bare neutral service conductor. The neutral has a double standard on whether it can be bare or not, depending on the side of the service disconnect. Perhaps an SEU or SER cable is used for the service conductors, which has a bare neutral.

It would be OK to use the IPC on the two line conductors, but you'd need a different kind of connector for terminating your neutral to the bare neutral of the service conductors.
Click to expand...
How you handle your own grounded conductor is not the issue in question. The issue is how you handle the tap to the existing grounded conductor that lacks insulation, when you planned on using the insulation connector for the neutral as you planned for the ungrounded conductors.
Click to expand...
My recommendation if using these on the insulated existing service conductors, is to avoid them for the bare neutral, and use a 3-port insulated tap connector instead (commonly called a Polaris connector). One port to intercept the existing conductor, a second port to reconnect it to its original destination, and a 3rd port for your tap.
Click to expand...
The purpose of using these insulation piercing connectors connectors, is so that you can leave the feeder conductors connected to the terminals of their existing destination, and provide a connection to the insulation. These are analogous in concept to saddle valves in plumbing (something I recommend against ever using, and many state plumbing codes prohibit). But the electrical counterparts of insulation piercing connectors, do not suffer form the same issues, and the NEC and UL listing should make them legal to use in theory.
Click to expand...


I’ll have to look to be sure, but I’m thinking some can be used on bare conductors
 
Last edited:
Carultch said:
One thing to keep in mind when using insulation piercing connectors, is that they are only listed to be used on insulated wires. One situation to consider, is insulated ungrounded service conductors, with a bare neutral service conductor. The neutral has a double standard on whether it can be bare or not, depending on the side of the service disconnect. Perhaps an SEU or SER cable is used for the service conductors, which has a bare neutral.

It would be OK to use the IPC on the two line conductors, but you'd need a different kind of connector for terminating your neutral to the bare neutral of the service conductors.
Click to expand...

 
Carultch said:
The purpose of using these insulation piercing connectors connectors, is so that you can leave the feeder conductors connected to the terminals of their existing destination, and provide a connection to the insulation.
Click to expand...
I'm under the impression that the main reason for using them is to connect to energized conductors.
 
Hv&Lv said:
Click to expand...

Looks like it is make/model specific on whether you can use these on bare wires, so you'd need to keep a close eye on your product part numbers to get it correct, if you are depending on this product availability.

Here's an example of one that doesn't permit using it on bare wires:

LarryFine said:
I'm under the impression that the main reason for using them is to connect to energized conductors.
Click to expand...

The datasheet I provided approves the use of connecting them to energized feeder conductors, as long as the tap conductor is not energized. This may be a make/model specific feature as well, and may not necessarily be something you can do with all products of this kind.
 
Carultch said:
Looks like it is make/model specific on whether you can use these on bare wires, so you'd need to keep a close eye on your product part numbers to get it correct, if you are depending on this product availability.

Here's an example of one that doesn't permit using it on bare wires:
Click to expand...

Check out the fourth bullet point from the bottom on the link.
Certain sizes of those are suitable for bare wire..;)
 
Hv&Lv said:
Check out the fourth bullet point from the bottom on the link.
Certain sizes of those are suitable for bare wire..;)
Click to expand...
It appears to only be the ones that are marked "Not UL", that allow use on bare wire. All the rest, either have the single star or double star, that doesn't allow for use on bare wire. Am I understanding this correctly?

If product approval is generally based on a UL listing, I don't see why you would even expect to be allowed to use a product specifying a lack of this listing in the first place.
 
Carultch said:
Looks like it is make/model specific on whether you can use these on bare wires, so you'd need to keep a close eye on your product part numbers to get it correct, if you are depending on this product availability.

Here's an example of one that doesn't permit using it on bare wires:



The datasheet I provided approves the use of connecting them to energized feeder conductors, as long as the tap conductor is not energized. This may be a make/model specific feature as well, and may not necessarily be something you can do with all products of this kind.
Click to expand...
Do you by chance mean do not connect while "under load"?
 
kwired said:
Do you by chance mean do not connect while "under load"?
Click to expand...
Energized, and under load, do not necessarily mean the same thing. All circuits under load are energized, but not all energized circuits are under load.

Energized means either voltage, current, or both, are present in the circuit. Under load means that the circuit is carrying current.

The reason this is significant, is that a component such as a touch-safe fuse holder, is not permitted to be opened under load. But these fuse holders are permitted to be opened, when another means of disconnecting it, is shut off first, and it is part of an open circuit that is voltage-energized. Opening the fuse holder under load, will generate an arc, that the fuse holder cannot quench. But opening it under a static situation of voltage without current, is no issue.

From I understand when reading that datasheet, it is OK to connect the connector to an energized feeder circuit, as long as the tap circuit is initially not energized. I would recommend de-energizing both before installing the connector, if at all possible.
 
Carultch said:
It appears to only be the ones that are marked "Not UL", that allow use on bare wire. All the rest, either have the single star or double star, that doesn't allow for use on bare wire. Am I understanding this correctly?

If product approval is generally based on a UL listing, I don't see why you would even expect to be allowed to use a product specifying a lack of this listing in the first place.
Click to expand...

What I don’t understand is where it says “4 sizes are approved for use with bare wire…” but then says “(Not UL)” on the item number…
so my question is, approved by who, and for what? 🤔
 
Hv&Lv said:
What I don’t understand is where it says “4 sizes are approved for use with bare wire…” but then says “(Not UL)” on the item number…
so my question is, approved by who, and for what? 🤔
Click to expand...
That's my question as well. The datasheet gives you the run-around on this issue, with no clarity on what the intended application is, if it isn't UL listed. Either you have an AHJ who approves it, despite the lack of a UL listing, or the utility uses these connectors where their work isn't governed by the NEC/AHJ.
 
Carultch said:
That's my question as well. The datasheet gives you the run-around on this issue, with no clarity on what the intended application is, if it isn't UL listed. Either you have an AHJ who approves it, despite the lack of a UL listing, or the utility uses these connectors where their work isn't governed by the NEC/AHJ.
Click to expand...
The only place we use them is CT metering for the voltage wires.
Not an NEC issue..

They are used quite often (improperly I might add) in panels for Solar connections that I see.
 
ggunn said:
Why do you say "improperly"?
Click to expand...
Installed on bends.
Generally speaking, service wire in a house panel isn’t going to have a straight section long enough or enough room to install these, along with the CTs and everything else I see in them.
Now if the panel is big enough, I’m all for them. But I see them installed in bends more often than not.
 
Hv&Lv said:
Installed on bends.
Generally speaking, service wire in a house panel isn’t going to have a straight section long enough or enough room to install these, along with the CTs and everything else I see in them.
Now if the panel is big enough, I’m all for them. But I see them installed in bends more often than not.
Click to expand...

Ok, so your use of the word "improperly" refers to the mechanics of installing them, that is common for installers to get incorrect. Rather than whether or not the application is a proper use of the product in the first place.
 
Carultch said:
Ok, so your use of the word "improperly" refers to the mechanics of installing them, that is common for installers to get incorrect. Rather than whether or not the application is a proper use of the product in the first place.
Click to expand...
I love them for the application, and as stated earlier for the application we use them for also.
It’s one of the devices that installers fail to read the directions before installing them.
 
BradPV said:
I have an inspector that is not passing installations that are using the IPC's and is telling us he is waiting on updated safety instructions from the manufacturer. I have not found any information that there is an issue or any new instructions forthcoming. Has anyone else gotten this message or heard of an issue with these connectors?
Click to expand...
We had to stop using them years ago due to the lack of being service rated. Ilsco GTA 250-250 with Ilsco GTC-250 is what I mostly use now. They are way safer, too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top