Informing owner of using copper clad aluminum

Status
Not open for further replies.
Given the issue with needing CU/AL wirenuts (that can't be reused, so once you remove one for, say, troubleshooting you need to use a new one) and AFAIK all of them have to goo inside. This is enough of a deal breaker for me. Plus the issue of #10 wire on most devices will need pigtails.
 
Oh, and box fill too as mentioned and extra labor do to larger size. When you consider all the issues one has to wonder what the real savings are. Guess it needs a realistic total cost study, but I'm skeptical of the cost benefit.
 
texie said:
Oh, and box fill too as mentioned and extra labor do to larger size. When you consider all the issues one has to wonder what the real savings are. Guess it needs a realistic total cost study, but I'm skeptical of the cost benefit.
Click to expand...
That's what I say. Especially for a one-man operation.

If you were doing dorm housing with a bunch of cheap labor then it might be worth it

Otherwise I think a guy will burn $1,200 worth of time trying to save $1,000 on wire
 
kwired said:
you will need some additional connectors and 12 AWG pigtails to take up more room in the box.
Click to expand...
Sorry. There your test question.
The fill for device is based on the largest conductors attached to it.
Pig tale #12 cu.
The pig tales themselves don't count.
 
Tulsa Electrician said:
Sorry. There your test question.
The fill for device is based on the largest conductors attached to it.
Pig tale #12 cu.
The pig tales themselves don't count.
Click to expand...

I don’t think the comment made by @kwired ; was about the NEC boxfill calculation. Just the practical aspect of cramming more stuff in the box.
 
Just to jump back to the original question for a moment, unless you're going to call copper-clad aluminum wire an experimental product, I see no more duty to report the choice to a customer than of any other product.
 
That's where I digress. Common products and procedures need not be disclosed. But, unusual products and procedures should be disclosed.
 
tthh said:
That's where I digress. Common products and procedures need not be disclosed. But, unusual products and procedures should be disclosed.
Click to expand...
If it's unusual enough that it should be brought up, then it might not be ready to be used yet.

At least not for my customers. After all, that's my name on the company logo.


Logo+.jpg
 
This just seems like a horrible idea. Aluminum and copper are wAy apart on the galvanic series. Corrosion will be an issue when the aluminum ears the copper. I’m fine with all aluminum or aluminum coated steel (ACSR) but except in true alloys such as NiBrAl I see nothing but trouble with copper clad aluminum. Aluminum is fine for wiring as long as you use fittings rated for it and use electrical alloy grades. Utilities run aluminum almost exclusively.
 
AC\DC said:
I want to wire a house in this. Would you inform owner.
Click to expand...
If I were to use such a product I would inform the client, California has a lot of its older homes wired in copper clad which I believe was aluminum wire coated in copper, not the best product I've come across. Also many Insurance companies in California frown on covering homes with aluminum based branch circuit conductors. Certainly not good for household resale. I'd stay away from it .. its old technology.
 
I'm wondering how you would bring it up without triggering concerns.

If it's perfectly safe, then why would it bear specific mentioning?

"It's cheaper than the copper equivalent." But, at what perceived risk?
 
paulengr said:
This just seems like a horrible idea. Aluminum and copper are wAy apart on the galvanic series. Corrosion will be an issue when the aluminum ears the copper. I’m fine with all aluminum or aluminum coated steel (ACSR) but except in true alloys such as NiBrAl I see nothing but trouble with copper clad aluminum. Aluminum is fine for wiring as long as you use fittings rated for it and use electrical alloy grades. Utilities run aluminum almost exclusively.
Click to expand...
That is not an issue with copper-clad aluminum. The bonding between the aluminum and copper is at the molecular level and there is no possible corrosion between the two metals. Corrosion between two metals that are apart on the galvanic series requires the presence of some type of electrolyte. The entrance of an electrolyte between the copper and aluminum of a copper-clad aluminum conductor is not possible.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
That is not an issue with copper-clad aluminum. The bonding between the aluminum and copper is at the molecular level and there is no possible corrosion between the two metals. Corrosion between two metals that are apart on the galvanic series requires the presence of some type of electrolyte. The entrance of an electrolyte between the copper and aluminum of a copper-clad aluminum conductor is not possible.
Click to expand...
Yes, and history backs that up as CCA was was fairly common back in the day without reported issue.
 
My first question would be will an insurance company by off on it.
The first home inspector to write it up and an home insurance company may balk.
Then there the inspectors that may say hey you have #10 on a 20 amp breaker not knowing what there dealing with.
Case in point on here we have read where an inspect has ask an electrician to correct.
How would I Know what type untill it is removed with a flush panel. NM is not marked on the conductor it's self.
Then would have #12 on a 15 amp breaker.
That would a night mare working in that area using CC.

I can see where some education would be needed. Maybe talk with insp dept and make sure there up to speed with a new install cover install methods and materials. Be proactive. Just like we or I did with mc AP.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top