I've just come across this statement in a user manual for a small inverter
product:
"Do not use aluminum. It has about 1/3 more resistance than copper cable of the
same size, and it is difficult to make good,
low-resistance connections to aluminum wire"
I think both statements are wrong. Scien
As was done in Canada in the early 1970s, and proved to be a major pain to
any home owner since then.
The original connection oxidized easily, creating hot spots and eventually
fires. Took a special pigtail to fix this, and home owners were advised to
either replace all wiring or be on the lookout
ELECTRIC.COM]
> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 11:50 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] aluminum vs copper wiring
>
> I've just come across this statement in a user
manual for a
> small inverter product:
>
> "Do not use aluminum. It has ab
:35 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] aluminum vs copper wiring
The coefficients of expansion are sufficiently different between aluminum
and traditional wiring devices that connections would go loose over time,
yielding a resistive connection and fire.
The outer surface
@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] aluminum vs copper wiring
I've just come across this statement in a user manual for a small inverter
product:
"Do not use aluminum. It has about 1/3 more resistance than copper cable of
the same size, and it is difficult to make good,
low-resistance c
[mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 3:35 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] aluminum vs copper wiring
The coefficients of expansion are sufficiently different between aluminum and
traditional wiring devices that connections would go loose over time, yielding
hone: (256) 650-5261
> From: Richard Nute
> Reply-To:
> Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 15:34:56 -0800
> To:
> Subject: Re: [PSES] aluminum vs copper wiring
>
> The coefficients of expansion are sufficiently
> different between aluminum and traditional wiring
> devices
mid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: 12 December 2016 19:50
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [Marketing Mail] Re: [PSES] aluminum vs copper wiring
I've just come across this statement in a user manual for a small inverter
product:
"Do not use aluminum. It has about 1/3 mo
Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 9:38 PM
To: John Woodgate ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] aluminum vs copper wiring
I surprised it would have ever been 'code compliant' for building w
connections.
-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 4:45 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] aluminum vs copper wiring
Many people think it was a mistake to introduce it for low-current cables.
Big cables that use
mon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England
>
> Sylvae in aeternum manent.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 9:38 PM
> To: John Woodgate ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
ternet.com]
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 6:45 PM
To: Ralph McDiarmid ;
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] aluminum vs copper wiring
Even 1.5 is a bit optimistic. Data in BS 7671 on voltage drop gives values
around 1.7 for the ratio, for the metals in the metallurgical conditions
act
: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] aluminum vs copper wiring
The CPSC has more details on residential issues and repairs for aluminum wiring.
https://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/118856/516.pdf
Ted Eckert
Microsoft Corporation
The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect t
13 matches
Mail list logo
