Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
"Backstabbed" wiring: bad rap?
I'm here to say that the conventional wisdom that one gets here--that
"backstabbed" wiring is bad, evil, and always leads to failure--may not be correct. [To the perplexed, "backstabbed" means that instead of using screw terminals to connect wires to devices such as outlets and switches, the stripped (solid) wire is pushed into a connector that grabs the wire inside the device. Very commonly used "in the field".] The opinion one reads here most often is that this is an inferior wiring method that must always be suspected when there are electrical problems, that it should be avoided and that it should be corrected if found. I'm not sure that's correct. First of all, it is an approved, UL/CSA tested, and, most importantly, code-approved (US building code) wiring method. If it was as all-fired bad as folks here claim, why would it still be allowed? After all, the building codes tend to err on the side of caution. My own experience, as limited as it might be, has not shown backstabbed connections to be the source of any trouble. I recently worked on a house built in the 1960s in which all devices were backstabbed. I was called to add a circuit, not to correct any problems. There was no current problem with any device that I could see, nor was there any history of any such problems. I'd like to see some more evidence for the badness of backstabbed connections. Everything I read here is either based on anecdotal evidence, or just speculation and personal preference. I will say that I personally don't like backstabbed connections; as tempting as they are (a lot faster than stripping/bending/screwing/crimping using screw connections), I prefer the "old-school" method. But I do think they've gotten an unfairly bad rap. Furthermore, I refrain from automatically correcting them (replacing backstabbed connections with screwed ones) when I see them, on the theory of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", and I suggest this to others. Especially newbies and DIYers; I think it's bad advice to automatically suspect backstabbed connections as the source of a fault, and to imply that they should all be ripped out and redone. Let the brawling commence. -- Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism |
#2
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
"Backstabbed" wiring: bad rap?
David Nebenzahl wrote:
First of all, it is an approved, UL/CSA tested, and, most importantly, code-approved (US building code) wiring method. If it was as all-fired bad as folks here claim, why would it still be allowed? After all, the building codes tend to err on the side of caution. They are allowed by the NEC because they are listed by UL. UL used allow #12 wire in backstabs. Not anymore. Apparently their original standard was flawed. (How about the #12 backstabs in use?) Seems like several failures come up here in this rather limited forum each year. IMHO they have minimal contact area, minimal clamping pressure, and in slightly adverse environments are subject to chemical deterioration. You will probably have no problem with backstabs. You also probably won't need the pressure relief valve on your water heater. I don't see any reason to take the chance. -- bud-- |
#3
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
"Backstabbed" wiring: bad rap?
|
#4
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
"Backstabbed" wiring: bad rap?
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message .com... I'm here to say that the conventional wisdom that one gets here--that "backstabbed" wiring is bad, evil, and always leads to failure--may not be correct. [To the perplexed, "backstabbed" means that instead of using screw terminals to connect wires to devices such as outlets and switches, the stripped (solid) wire is pushed into a connector that grabs the wire inside the device. Very commonly used "in the field".] The opinion one reads here most often is that this is an inferior wiring method that must always be suspected when there are electrical problems, that it should be avoided and that it should be corrected if found. I'm not sure that's correct. First of all, it is an approved, UL/CSA tested, and, most importantly, code-approved (US building code) wiring method. If it was as all-fired bad as folks here claim, why would it still be allowed? After all, the building codes tend to err on the side of caution. My own experience, as limited as it might be, has not shown backstabbed connections to be the source of any trouble. I recently worked on a house built in the 1960s in which all devices were backstabbed. I was called to add a circuit, not to correct any problems. There was no current problem with any device that I could see, nor was there any history of any such problems. I'd like to see some more evidence for the badness of backstabbed connections. Everything I read here is either based on anecdotal evidence, or just speculation and personal preference. I will say that I personally don't like backstabbed connections; as tempting as they are (a lot faster than stripping/bending/screwing/crimping using screw connections), I prefer the "old-school" method. But I do think they've gotten an unfairly bad rap. Furthermore, I refrain from automatically correcting them (replacing backstabbed connections with screwed ones) when I see them, on the theory of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", and I suggest this to others. Especially newbies and DIYers; I think it's bad advice to automatically suspect backstabbed connections as the source of a fault, and to imply that they should all be ripped out and redone. Let the brawling commence. -- Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism Turning a wire on a screw provides more surface area and more pressure on the connection. An installer can see how well the connection is made, unlike the blind connection of a backstab. I personally have used backstabs thousands of times without any issues. I have the experience to feel when the conductor is not fitting correctly in the blind clamp and needs to be redone. The bulk of my business is electrical repair, and a large number of open circuit problems turn out to be backstabbed outlets. I think some manufacturers make better backstab connections than others, as there have been times when I unscrew an outlet and pull it out of the box, leaving four wires, unattached in the box |
#5
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
"Backstabbed" wiring: bad rap?
So, all the people who have had bad backstap experiences,
we're all just random chance, and not evidence of a problem? Scuse me while I go barf. -- Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .. "David Nebenzahl" wrote in message .com... I'm here to say that the conventional wisdom that one gets here--that "backstabbed" wiring is bad, evil, and always leads to failure--may not be correct. [To the perplexed, "backstabbed" means that instead of using screw terminals to connect wires to devices such as outlets and switches, the stripped (solid) wire is pushed into a connector that grabs the wire inside the device. Very commonly used "in the field".] The opinion one reads here most often is that this is an inferior wiring method that must always be suspected when there are electrical problems, that it should be avoided and that it should be corrected if found. I'm not sure that's correct. First of all, it is an approved, UL/CSA tested, and, most importantly, code-approved (US building code) wiring method. If it was as all-fired bad as folks here claim, why would it still be allowed? After all, the building codes tend to err on the side of caution. My own experience, as limited as it might be, has not shown backstabbed connections to be the source of any trouble. I recently worked on a house built in the 1960s in which all devices were backstabbed. I was called to add a circuit, not to correct any problems. There was no current problem with any device that I could see, nor was there any history of any such problems. I'd like to see some more evidence for the badness of backstabbed connections. Everything I read here is either based on anecdotal evidence, or just speculation and personal preference. I will say that I personally don't like backstabbed connections; as tempting as they are (a lot faster than stripping/bending/screwing/crimping using screw connections), I prefer the "old-school" method. But I do think they've gotten an unfairly bad rap. Furthermore, I refrain from automatically correcting them (replacing backstabbed connections with screwed ones) when I see them, on the theory of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", and I suggest this to others. Especially newbies and DIYers; I think it's bad advice to automatically suspect backstabbed connections as the source of a fault, and to imply that they should all be ripped out and redone. Let the brawling commence. -- Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism |
#6
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
"Backstabbed" wiring: bad rap?
I've seen several problems with backstab sockets, but few or
none with wrap around the screw types. -- Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .. "albee" wrote in message ... Solely anecdotal, but seems like quite a coincidence that I've had problems with them staying connected, particularly in receptacles that received frequent use (not taking out and working on, simply plugging and unplugging of appliances). As a previous respondent said, if done correctly and not disturbed... But if "anecdotally", merely using the receptacle a lot in the manner intended is enough to cause such disturbance, well, then it's not functioning as intended. Now, I don't have non-backstabbed ones with which to compare them, but I can't fathom that a non-backstabbed receptacle would have done the same. My amateur and anecdotal .02 worth. |
#7
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
"Backstabbed" wiring: bad rap?
"bud--" wrote in message
.. . They are allowed by the NEC because they are listed by UL. UL used allow #12 wire in backstabs. Not anymore. Apparently their original standard was flawed. (How about the #12 backstabs in use?) The practical point is that (in many jurisdictions) the Fire Safety Code is the only part of the Building Code that is retroactive, i.e. when the FSC is updated (some) property owners may be obligated to retrofit (some) structures or fittings so that they comply with the current code. (I do not know the American system, viz. whether part or any of the NEC is also in the Fire Safety Code. But codes are periodically revised, so code authorities may require this in future.) -- Don Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) |
#8
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
"Backstabbed" wiring: bad rap?
David Nebenzahl wrote: I'm here to say that the conventional wisdom that one gets here--that "backstabbed" wiring is bad, evil, and always leads to failure--may not be correct. [To the perplexed, "backstabbed" means that instead of using screw terminals to connect wires to devices such as outlets and switches, the stripped (solid) wire is pushed into a connector that grabs the wire inside the device. Very commonly used "in the field".] The opinion one reads here most often is that this is an inferior wiring method that must always be suspected when there are electrical problems, that it should be avoided and that it should be corrected if found. I'm not sure that's correct. First of all, it is an approved, UL/CSA tested, and, most importantly, code-approved (US building code) wiring method. If it was as all-fired bad as folks here claim, why would it still be allowed? After all, the building codes tend to err on the side of caution. My own experience, as limited as it might be, has not shown backstabbed connections to be the source of any trouble. I recently worked on a house built in the 1960s in which all devices were backstabbed. I was called to add a circuit, not to correct any problems. There was no current problem with any device that I could see, nor was there any history of any such problems. I'd like to see some more evidence for the badness of backstabbed connections. Everything I read here is either based on anecdotal evidence, or just speculation and personal preference. I will say that I personally don't like backstabbed connections; as tempting as they are (a lot faster than stripping/bending/screwing/crimping using screw connections), I prefer the "old-school" method. But I do think they've gotten an unfairly bad rap. Furthermore, I refrain from automatically correcting them (replacing backstabbed connections with screwed ones) when I see them, on the theory of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", and I suggest this to others. Especially newbies and DIYers; I think it's bad advice to automatically suspect backstabbed connections as the source of a fault, and to imply that they should all be ripped out and redone. Let the brawling commence. -- Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism I've seen a number of problem push-wire / back-stabbed devices personally, and they represent a sizable percentage of the number of problem devices I've dealt with. I have a house that happily has all 20A circuits with 12ga copper wire (other than the larger dedicated circuits of course), and has many 12ga push-wire connections that are no longer allowed. I've not had specific failures of these connections as the devices seem to be of reasonable quality, however where I have had opportunity to replace these devices for other reasons (adding GFCIs or changing to Decora style devices) I have seen evidence of less than optimum push-wire connections, i.e. discolored area at the connection point from heating. The devices I have used for replacement have generally been the "spec grade" variety and have had the much better clamp type back-wire connections. These back-wire connections allow the same convenience of inserting the stripped wire in a hole without the need to wrap around a screw, but instead of relying on a feeble spring connection the wire is captured between full size metal plates that clamp around it with screw pressure, not a spring. These back-wire devices also work nicely in my shop where I have stranded wire pulled through conduit. Stranded wire doesn't work well wrapped around screw terminals and not at all with the push-wire type devices. |
#9
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
"Backstabbed" wiring: bad rap?
On 8/14/2009 6:05 PM Pete C. spake thus:
The devices I have used for replacement have generally been the "spec grade" variety and have had the much better clamp type back-wire connections. These back-wire connections allow the same convenience of inserting the stripped wire in a hole without the need to wrap around a screw, but instead of relying on a feeble spring connection the wire is captured between full size metal plates that clamp around it with screw pressure, not a spring. You're talking about the kind of back-wire connections found on GFCI outlets, right? To me, that's the best of both worlds: the convenience and speed of back-wiring plus the positive connection offered by a screw clamp. I think I'll start using those outlets instead of the el cheapo Home Despot ones. These back-wire devices also work nicely in my shop where I have stranded wire pulled through conduit. Stranded wire doesn't work well wrapped around screw terminals and not at all with the push-wire type devices. Being able to use stranded wire is definitely a plus. -- Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism |
#10
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
"Backstabbed" wiring: bad rap?
On 8/14/2009 6:18 PM David Nebenzahl spake thus:
You're talking about the kind of back-wire connections found on GFCI outlets, right? To me, that's the best of both worlds: the convenience and speed of back-wiring plus the positive connection offered by a screw clamp. I think I'll start using those outlets instead of the el cheapo Home Despot ones. Follow-up to my own reply: Do those "spec-grade" outlets come in non-Decora style? I generally don't like Decora outlets when installing in older houses. -- Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism |
#11
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
"Backstabbed" wiring: bad rap?
David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 8/14/2009 6:18 PM David Nebenzahl spake thus: You're talking about the kind of back-wire connections found on GFCI outlets, right? To me, that's the best of both worlds: the convenience and speed of back-wiring plus the positive connection offered by a screw clamp. I think I'll start using those outlets instead of the el cheapo Home Despot ones. Follow-up to my own reply: Do those "spec-grade" outlets come in non-Decora style? I generally don't like Decora outlets when installing in older houses. You can get "spec grade" outlets in the traditional style (I have several boxes of them waiting for upstairs renovations) but not all of them have back wire clamp type connections. nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel |
#12
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
"Backstabbed" wiring: bad rap?
Nate Nagel wrote: David Nebenzahl wrote: On 8/14/2009 6:18 PM David Nebenzahl spake thus: You're talking about the kind of back-wire connections found on GFCI outlets, right? To me, that's the best of both worlds: the convenience and speed of back-wiring plus the positive connection offered by a screw clamp. I think I'll start using those outlets instead of the el cheapo Home Despot ones. Follow-up to my own reply: Do those "spec-grade" outlets come in non-Decora style? I generally don't like Decora outlets when installing in older houses. You can get "spec grade" outlets in the traditional style (I have several boxes of them waiting for upstairs renovations) but not all of them have back wire clamp type connections. Yes, also I've yet to see a non Decora style GFCI, so for that you'd have to resort to a horribly overpriced GFCI breaker to avoid the Decora style, or else hide the Decora GFCI in a cabinet or similar and use non Decora receptacles downstream. |
#13
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
"Backstabbed" wiring: bad rap?
On Aug 14, 2:51 pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
First of all, it is an approved, UL/CSA tested, and, most importantly, code-approved (US building code) wiring method. If it was as all-fired bad as folks here claim, why would it still be allowed? After all, the building codes tend to err on the side of caution. However, all kinds of unreliable crap is UL listed. A UL listing is a pretty good indication that something probably won't kill you or burn down your house, but says nothing at all about whether it will function properly. Building codes put a little more emphasis on function, but are also updated fairly regularly because things that were once required are finally proven to be bad ideas. |
#14
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
"Backstabbed" wiring: bad rap?
"Doug Miller" wrote in message news:h64imf$bt1
stuff snipped I'd like to see some more evidence for the badness of backstabbed connections. Everything I read here is either based on anecdotal evidence, or just speculation and personal preference. I'd consider the de-listing of AWG 12 conductors to be sufficient evidence. I've had two backstab failures, one near a disposal where the switch was mounted on an outside wall and another on an inside wallswitch. I think the thermal expansion/contraction plus the disposal vibration did the first one in. Not sure why the second one failed. It's an indisputable fact, though, that there's much more connection area in a screwed down wire than there is with a pinch and grab kind of connector. If the grabber is hard enough to bite into the copper to make a connection, it's most likely strong enough to bite through it *eventually* if helped by vibration, thermal forces and even the simple repeated toggling of the connected switch. Once arcing starts, no matter how small, corrosion and failure are likely to follow. More connection area in the screw connections means less of a chance of arcing or pulling loose. Also, it's very much harder to see a bad back stab than it is to see a wire not completely under a screw. I'd agree that the delisted AWG 12 is a strong hint that anecdotal evidence has added up to backstabbing being a bad idea, both with people and electrical devices. BW |
#15
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
"Backstabbed" wiring: bad rap?
In article , David Nebenzahl wrote:
I'm here to say that the conventional wisdom that one gets here--that "backstabbed" wiring is bad, evil, and always leads to failure--may not be correct. [To the perplexed, "backstabbed" means that instead of using screw terminals to connect wires to devices such as outlets and switches, the stripped (solid) wire is pushed into a connector that grabs the wire inside the device. Very commonly used "in the field".] The opinion one reads here most often is that this is an inferior wiring method that must always be suspected when there are electrical problems, that it should be avoided and that it should be corrected if found. I'm not sure that's correct. First of all, it is an approved, UL/CSA tested, and, most importantly, code-approved (US building code) wiring method. If it was as all-fired bad as folks here claim, why would it still be allowed? After all, the building codes tend to err on the side of caution. Note that it is no longer approved for anything except AWG 14 conductors. Code once permitted the use of AWG 12 conductors in backstabbed connections, as it once permitted aluminum conductors in branch circuits and various other practices and materials that have proven in experience to be less safe than originally believed. My own experience, as limited as it might be, has not shown backstabbed connections to be the source of any trouble. I recently worked on a house built in the 1960s in which all devices were backstabbed. I was called to add a circuit, not to correct any problems. There was no current problem with any device that I could see, nor was there any history of any such problems. If installed properly _and not disturbed_ it's unlikely they'll have much problem. OTOH, if a backstabbed receptacle or switch is removed for any reason, simply the act of moving the device can loosen the connections enough to cause trouble. I'd like to see some more evidence for the badness of backstabbed connections. Everything I read here is either based on anecdotal evidence, or just speculation and personal preference. I'd consider the de-listing of AWG 12 conductors to be sufficient evidence. |
#16
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
"Backstabbed" wiring: bad rap?
Why take the risk? Is the extra two minutes required to pig-tail the ends
and screw them down too much? |
#17
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
"Backstabbed" wiring: bad rap?
On Aug 14, 2:51*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
I'm here to say that the conventional wisdom that one gets here--that "backstabbed" wiring is bad, evil, and always leads to failure--may not be correct. [To the perplexed, "backstabbed" means that instead of using screw terminals to connect wires to devices such as outlets and switches, the stripped (solid) wire is pushed into a connector that grabs the wire inside the device. Very commonly used "in the field".] The opinion one reads here most often is that this is an inferior wiring method that must always be suspected when there are electrical problems, that it should be avoided and that it should be corrected if found. I'm not sure that's correct. First of all, it is an approved, UL/CSA tested, and, most importantly, code-approved (US building code) wiring method. If it was as all-fired bad as folks here claim, why would it still be allowed? After all, the building codes tend to err on the side of caution. My own experience, as limited as it might be, has not shown backstabbed connections to be the source of any trouble. I recently worked on a house built in the 1960s in which all devices were backstabbed. I was called to add a circuit, not to correct any problems. There was no current problem with any device that I could see, nor was there any history of any such problems. I'd like to see some more evidence for the badness of backstabbed connections. Everything I read here is either based on anecdotal evidence, or just speculation and personal preference. I will say that I personally don't like backstabbed connections; as tempting as they are (a lot faster than stripping/bending/screwing/crimping using screw connections), I prefer the "old-school" method. But I do think they've gotten an unfairly bad rap. Furthermore, I refrain from automatically correcting them (replacing backstabbed connections with screwed ones) when I see them, on the theory of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", and I suggest this to others. Especially newbies and DIYers; I think it's bad advice to automatically suspect backstabbed connections as the source of a fault, and to imply that they should all be ripped out and redone. Let the brawling commence. -- Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism Obviously you have never paid $300 for an electrician to find a bad one or have the power in you livingroom go out when you have guest coming over because of one. As far as I am concerned these things were BROKE the day they were made. After my experience and expense with them I made the decision to replace all the outlets and switches in my home. When I started performing the replacements many of the wires pulled out of the back of the switches and outlets when I was pulling them out of the box. Most of the wires only required a firm tug to pull them from the device and only a few actually required me to press the release. |
#18
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
"Backstabbed" wiring: bad rap?
"JIMMIE" wrote in message ... On Aug 14, 2:51 pm, David Nebenzahl wrote: I'm here to say that the conventional wisdom that one gets here--that "backstabbed" wiring is bad, evil, and always leads to failure--may not be correct. [To the perplexed, "backstabbed" means that instead of using screw terminals to connect wires to devices such as outlets and switches, the stripped (solid) wire is pushed into a connector that grabs the wire inside the device. Very commonly used "in the field".] The opinion one reads here most often is that this is an inferior wiring method that must always be suspected when there are electrical problems, that it should be avoided and that it should be corrected if found. I'm not sure that's correct. First of all, it is an approved, UL/CSA tested, and, most importantly, code-approved (US building code) wiring method. If it was as all-fired bad as folks here claim, why would it still be allowed? After all, the building codes tend to err on the side of caution. My own experience, as limited as it might be, has not shown backstabbed connections to be the source of any trouble. I recently worked on a house built in the 1960s in which all devices were backstabbed. I was called to add a circuit, not to correct any problems. There was no current problem with any device that I could see, nor was there any history of any such problems. I'd like to see some more evidence for the badness of backstabbed connections. Everything I read here is either based on anecdotal evidence, or just speculation and personal preference. I will say that I personally don't like backstabbed connections; as tempting as they are (a lot faster than stripping/bending/screwing/crimping using screw connections), I prefer the "old-school" method. But I do think they've gotten an unfairly bad rap. Furthermore, I refrain from automatically correcting them (replacing backstabbed connections with screwed ones) when I see them, on the theory of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", and I suggest this to others. Especially newbies and DIYers; I think it's bad advice to automatically suspect backstabbed connections as the source of a fault, and to imply that they should all be ripped out and redone. Let the brawling commence. -- Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism Obviously you have never paid $300 for an electrician to find a bad one or have the power in you livingroom go out when you have guest coming over because of one. As far as I am concerned these things were BROKE the day they were made. After my experience and expense with them I made the decision to replace all the outlets and switches in my home. When I started performing the replacements many of the wires pulled out of the back of the switches and outlets when I was pulling them out of the box. Most of the wires only required a firm tug to pull them from the device and only a few actually required me to press the release. Out of curiosity, do you know who the manufacturer was? |
#19
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
"Backstabbed" wiring: bad rap?
One advantage of a backstabbed connection is that if the end of the
conductor is carefully trimmed, none of the conductor is actually exposed inside the box. That can reduce the chance of a short, especially in a metal box or where a bare grounding conductor is present. This would be a particular advantage if screw terminals were not present at all (uncommon these days). Screw terminals can be dangerous too if they are over tightened or under tightened, or if the conductor is poorly trimmed. "David Nebenzahl" wrote in message .com... I'm here to say that the conventional wisdom that one gets here--that "backstabbed" wiring is bad, evil, and always leads to failure--may not be correct. [To the perplexed, "backstabbed" means that instead of using screw terminals to connect wires to devices such as outlets and switches, the stripped (solid) wire is pushed into a connector that grabs the wire inside the device. Very commonly used "in the field".] The opinion one reads here most often is that this is an inferior wiring method that must always be suspected when there are electrical problems, that it should be avoided and that it should be corrected if found. I'm not sure that's correct. First of all, it is an approved, UL/CSA tested, and, most importantly, code-approved (US building code) wiring method. If it was as all-fired bad as folks here claim, why would it still be allowed? After all, the building codes tend to err on the side of caution. My own experience, as limited as it might be, has not shown backstabbed connections to be the source of any trouble. I recently worked on a house built in the 1960s in which all devices were backstabbed. I was called to add a circuit, not to correct any problems. There was no current problem with any device that I could see, nor was there any history of any such problems. I'd like to see some more evidence for the badness of backstabbed connections. Everything I read here is either based on anecdotal evidence, or just speculation and personal preference. I will say that I personally don't like backstabbed connections; as tempting as they are (a lot faster than stripping/bending/screwing/crimping using screw connections), I prefer the "old-school" method. But I do think they've gotten an unfairly bad rap. Furthermore, I refrain from automatically correcting them (replacing backstabbed connections with screwed ones) when I see them, on the theory of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", and I suggest this to others. Especially newbies and DIYers; I think it's bad advice to automatically suspect backstabbed connections as the source of a fault, and to imply that they should all be ripped out and redone. Let the brawling commence. -- Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism |
#20
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
"Backstabbed" wiring: bad rap?
On Aug 15, 11:23*am, "RBM" wrote:
"JIMMIE" wrote in message ... On Aug 14, 2:51 pm, David Nebenzahl wrote: I'm here to say that the conventional wisdom that one gets here--that "backstabbed" wiring is bad, evil, and always leads to failure--may not be correct. [To the perplexed, "backstabbed" means that instead of using screw terminals to connect wires to devices such as outlets and switches, the stripped (solid) wire is pushed into a connector that grabs the wire inside the device. Very commonly used "in the field".] The opinion one reads here most often is that this is an inferior wiring method that must always be suspected when there are electrical problems, that it should be avoided and that it should be corrected if found. I'm not sure that's correct. First of all, it is an approved, UL/CSA tested, and, most importantly, code-approved (US building code) wiring method. If it was as all-fired bad as folks here claim, why would it still be allowed? After all, the building codes tend to err on the side of caution. My own experience, as limited as it might be, has not shown backstabbed connections to be the source of any trouble. I recently worked on a house built in the 1960s in which all devices were backstabbed. I was called to add a circuit, not to correct any problems. There was no current problem with any device that I could see, nor was there any history of any such problems. I'd like to see some more evidence for the badness of backstabbed connections. Everything I read here is either based on anecdotal evidence, or just speculation and personal preference. I will say that I personally don't like backstabbed connections; as tempting as they are (a lot faster than stripping/bending/screwing/crimping using screw connections), I prefer the "old-school" method. But I do think they've gotten an unfairly bad rap. Furthermore, I refrain from automatically correcting them (replacing backstabbed connections with screwed ones) when I see them, on the theory of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", and I suggest this to others. Especially newbies and DIYers; I think it's bad advice to automatically suspect backstabbed connections as the source of a fault, and to imply that they should all be ripped out and redone. Let the brawling commence. -- Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism Obviously you have never paid $300 for an electrician to find a bad one or have the power in you living room go out when you have guest coming over because of one. As far as I am concerned these things were BROKE the day they were made. After my experience and expense with them I made the decision to replace all the outlets and switches in my home. When I started performing the replacements many of the wires pulled out of the back of the switches and outlets when I was pulling them out of the box. Most of the wires only required a firm tug to pull them from the device and only a few actually required me to press the release. Out of curiosity, do you know who the manufacturer was?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Back stabbers just an inherently poorer design. But as wth aluminum wiring; not every installation will give trouble etc. Again as with Al wiring; not every incorrect replacement (by say a homeowner who doesn't know any better) using a 'Copper Only' light switch will give trouble or overheat. Have seen them 'discovered' often with the exclamation "Hey this switch/outlet isn't Al compatible. Wonder how long that's been there?". Although it never actually caught fire in that particular usage; same with back stabbers. There must be very small wire contact areas in most back stabbers? Another typical situation being if/when someone was 'finishing their own basement area'. And maybe hitched up extra copper wiring and receptacles etc. bought from a local hardware outlet. On the basis of my uncle showed me how to do it! And; "Hey Madge. Into XYZ store, pick me up a half dozen duplex outlets will ya! Them ivory ones; OK?". I think have seen back-stab outlets that also had screws on the side and 99% certain, doing work mainly for self, would have used the screws. With relatively low wattage loads on duplex outlets in many living areas ) typically a few lamps maybe a domestic TV or 'stereo' there presumably would be less chance of problems with back stabbers anyway? Anywhere there can be 'heavy' wattage loads, and/or frequent unplugging etc. such as kitchen outlets, around work benches always best to use high quality duplex and other outlets. Recently replaced two well used outlets under work bench that were first installed in the late 1970s. One of them was cracked; don't know how, but glad we found it! Also when not in use 'all' tool power is turned off in work shop by one main individually fused 115/230 volt switch. Also found, to my surprise a single very old style duplex outlet that must have added for a small tube radio (about 30 watts) on a small high shelf also off the main workshop feed. Not a backstabber but so old as to have a weird pattern cover plate. Looks like the whole thing, metal box and all, might have come out of an old farmhouse or barn! |
#21
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
"Backstabbed" wiring: bad rap?
just wrap a turn of electrical tape around the recep in a tight box
nate Andrew M. Saucci, Jr. wrote: One advantage of a backstabbed connection is that if the end of the conductor is carefully trimmed, none of the conductor is actually exposed inside the box. That can reduce the chance of a short, especially in a metal box or where a bare grounding conductor is present. This would be a particular advantage if screw terminals were not present at all (uncommon these days). Screw terminals can be dangerous too if they are over tightened or under tightened, or if the conductor is poorly trimmed. "David Nebenzahl" wrote in message .com... I'm here to say that the conventional wisdom that one gets here--that "backstabbed" wiring is bad, evil, and always leads to failure--may not be correct. [To the perplexed, "backstabbed" means that instead of using screw terminals to connect wires to devices such as outlets and switches, the stripped (solid) wire is pushed into a connector that grabs the wire inside the device. Very commonly used "in the field".] The opinion one reads here most often is that this is an inferior wiring method that must always be suspected when there are electrical problems, that it should be avoided and that it should be corrected if found. I'm not sure that's correct. First of all, it is an approved, UL/CSA tested, and, most importantly, code-approved (US building code) wiring method. If it was as all-fired bad as folks here claim, why would it still be allowed? After all, the building codes tend to err on the side of caution. My own experience, as limited as it might be, has not shown backstabbed connections to be the source of any trouble. I recently worked on a house built in the 1960s in which all devices were backstabbed. I was called to add a circuit, not to correct any problems. There was no current problem with any device that I could see, nor was there any history of any such problems. I'd like to see some more evidence for the badness of backstabbed connections. Everything I read here is either based on anecdotal evidence, or just speculation and personal preference. I will say that I personally don't like backstabbed connections; as tempting as they are (a lot faster than stripping/bending/screwing/crimping using screw connections), I prefer the "old-school" method. But I do think they've gotten an unfairly bad rap. Furthermore, I refrain from automatically correcting them (replacing backstabbed connections with screwed ones) when I see them, on the theory of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", and I suggest this to others. Especially newbies and DIYers; I think it's bad advice to automatically suspect backstabbed connections as the source of a fault, and to imply that they should all be ripped out and redone. Let the brawling commence. -- Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel |
#22
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
"Backstabbed" wiring: bad rap?
"stan" wrote in message ... On Aug 15, 11:23 am, "RBM" wrote: "JIMMIE" wrote in message ... On Aug 14, 2:51 pm, David Nebenzahl wrote: I'm here to say that the conventional wisdom that one gets here--that "backstabbed" wiring is bad, evil, and always leads to failure--may not be correct. [To the perplexed, "backstabbed" means that instead of using screw terminals to connect wires to devices such as outlets and switches, the stripped (solid) wire is pushed into a connector that grabs the wire inside the device. Very commonly used "in the field".] The opinion one reads here most often is that this is an inferior wiring method that must always be suspected when there are electrical problems, that it should be avoided and that it should be corrected if found. I'm not sure that's correct. First of all, it is an approved, UL/CSA tested, and, most importantly, code-approved (US building code) wiring method. If it was as all-fired bad as folks here claim, why would it still be allowed? After all, the building codes tend to err on the side of caution. My own experience, as limited as it might be, has not shown backstabbed connections to be the source of any trouble. I recently worked on a house built in the 1960s in which all devices were backstabbed. I was called to add a circuit, not to correct any problems. There was no current problem with any device that I could see, nor was there any history of any such problems. I'd like to see some more evidence for the badness of backstabbed connections. Everything I read here is either based on anecdotal evidence, or just speculation and personal preference. I will say that I personally don't like backstabbed connections; as tempting as they are (a lot faster than stripping/bending/screwing/crimping using screw connections), I prefer the "old-school" method. But I do think they've gotten an unfairly bad rap. Furthermore, I refrain from automatically correcting them (replacing backstabbed connections with screwed ones) when I see them, on the theory of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", and I suggest this to others. Especially newbies and DIYers; I think it's bad advice to automatically suspect backstabbed connections as the source of a fault, and to imply that they should all be ripped out and redone. Let the brawling commence. -- Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism Obviously you have never paid $300 for an electrician to find a bad one or have the power in you living room go out when you have guest coming over because of one. As far as I am concerned these things were BROKE the day they were made. After my experience and expense with them I made the decision to replace all the outlets and switches in my home. When I started performing the replacements many of the wires pulled out of the back of the switches and outlets when I was pulling them out of the box. Most of the wires only required a firm tug to pull them from the device and only a few actually required me to press the release. Out of curiosity, do you know who the manufacturer was?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Back stabbers just an inherently poorer design. But as wth aluminum wiring; not every installation will give trouble etc. Again as with Al wiring; not every incorrect replacement (by say a homeowner who doesn't know any better) using a 'Copper Only' light switch will give trouble or overheat. Have seen them 'discovered' often with the exclamation "Hey this switch/outlet isn't Al compatible. Wonder how long that's been there?". Although it never actually caught fire in that particular usage; same with back stabbers. There must be very small wire contact areas in most back stabbers? Another typical situation being if/when someone was 'finishing their own basement area'. And maybe hitched up extra copper wiring and receptacles etc. bought from a local hardware outlet. On the basis of my uncle showed me how to do it! And; "Hey Madge. Into XYZ store, pick me up a half dozen duplex outlets will ya! Them ivory ones; OK?". I think have seen back-stab outlets that also had screws on the side and 99% certain, doing work mainly for self, would have used the screws. With relatively low wattage loads on duplex outlets in many living areas ) typically a few lamps maybe a domestic TV or 'stereo' there presumably would be less chance of problems with back stabbers anyway? Anywhere there can be 'heavy' wattage loads, and/or frequent unplugging etc. such as kitchen outlets, around work benches always best to use high quality duplex and other outlets. Recently replaced two well used outlets under work bench that were first installed in the late 1970s. One of them was cracked; don't know how, but glad we found it! Also when not in use 'all' tool power is turned off in work shop by one main individually fused 115/230 volt switch. Also found, to my surprise a single very old style duplex outlet that must have added for a small tube radio (about 30 watts) on a small high shelf also off the main workshop feed. Not a backstabber but so old as to have a weird pattern cover plate. Looks like the whole thing, metal box and all, might have come out of an old farmhouse or barn! OK, but do you have any particular manufacturer that has given you these problems? |
#23
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
"Backstabbed" wiring: bad rap?
"Perry Aynum" wrote in message
... Why take the risk? Is the extra two minutes required to pig-tail the ends and screw them down too much? I agree. Why take the risk? But have you ever see a klutzy newbie try to bend a wire loop or screw down a solid copper wire? I'd say fully half the rank newbie work is not fully under the screw or formed into the proper curve and is destined to work loose. I'd say that reason and the "time is money" contracting rule is why backstabbing got started. Never on my own work, not after trying to trace that damn intermittent in the backstabbed disposal switch, but I can see why some contractors do it. I think it's one of the things that separates the pros from the tyros. Just like lining up the two screws on a switch faceplate so they are in the same orientation. (-: I grew up next door to an old-world craftsman of an electrician who helped wire the NYC subway system. His work is still in use today. Quality work lasts. But I digress. A much more critical newbie error is to cut into the wire while stripping it which is a risk for either sort of connection method, screw or backstab. Ah, for a nickle for every time I've seen or accidentally done that myself! Newbies and wire nuts don't mix well, either. Stripped end of wires too long, too short, wrong size nut, wrong mix of wires, twist not twisted enough. There's no end to sad tales with wire nuts in the hands of the inexperienced. My favorite is three wires under one nut with a virtually untwisted center wire that pulls right out on the first tug. I am much more concerned with bad wire nutting than with backstabbing. -- Bobby G. |
#24
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
"Backstabbed" wiring: bad rap?
"JIMMIE" wrote in message news:505bc2e9-
stuff snipped When I started performing the replacements many of the wires pulled out of the back of the switches and outlets when I was pulling them out of the box. Most of the wires only required a firm tug to pull them from the device and only a few actually required me to press the release. Easy to believe. If they were made offshore, there's no way to tell whether someone dumped the metallurgical equivalent of melamine into the metal they used to make the springs that clip the wire in. Metal can change properties over time with corrosion and stresses of various kinds. A loss of springiness is easy to imagine. As I recall the bum switch I had was the same. The backstabbed wires came out without pressing in the release. That CAN'T be good! -- Bobby G. |
#25
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
"Backstabbed" wiring: bad rap?
On Aug 15, 6:01*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Perry Aynum" wrote in message ... Why take the risk? *Is the extra two minutes required to pig-tail the ends and screw them down too much? I agree. *Why take the risk? *But have you ever see a klutzy newbie try to bend a wire loop or screw down a solid copper wire? *I'd say fully half the rank newbie work is not fully under the screw or formed into the proper curve and is destined to work loose. *I'd say that reason and the "time is money" contracting rule is why backstabbing got started. Never on my own work, not after trying to trace that damn intermittent in the backstabbed disposal switch, but I can see why some contractors do it.. I think it's one of the things that separates the pros from the tyros. *Just like lining up the two screws on a switch faceplate so they are in the same orientation. *(-: *I grew up next door to an old-world craftsman of an electrician who helped wire the NYC subway system. *His work is still in use today. *Quality work lasts. *But I digress. A much more critical newbie error is to cut into the wire while stripping it which is a risk for either sort of connection method, screw or backstab. Ah, for a nickle for every time I've seen or accidentally done that myself! Newbies and wire nuts don't mix well, either. *Stripped end of *wires too long, *too short, wrong size nut, wrong mix of wires, twist not twisted enough. *There's no end to sad tales with wire nuts in the hands of the inexperienced. *My favorite is three wires under one nut with a virtually untwisted center wire that pulls right out on the first tug. *I am much more concerned with bad wire nutting than with backstabbing. -- Bobby G. I found problems with wire nuts also in my lighting. On several ovehead light the wires just pulled out of the nuts when I pulled them down for inspection. I also found 6 lights, two in the bathrooms and four outside that did not have J boxes They were just screwed to the wall withe the wirenuts tucked inside the wall. None of the light fixtures were grounded. I later heard that the electrician only did the electrical rough-in. The unskilled labour installed the lights and outlets. Jimmie |
#26
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
"Backstabbed" wiring: bad rap?
On 8/15/2009 3:01 PM Robert Green spake thus:
A much more critical newbie error is to cut into the wire while stripping it which is a risk for either sort of connection method, screw or backstab. Ah, for a nickle for every time I've seen or accidentally done that myself! Since you mention it, this is certainly a potential source of frustration to anyone doing wiring, newbie or not. I bought myself a really nice automatic wire stripper--the kind that strips the wire in one squeeze, made by GB (Gardner Bender). Very well-made tool, very useful. Except that it doesn't always strip the wire correctly. I actually returned the first one I bought because of this problem, but it seems to be due to inconsistencies in actual wire diameters between cables that are nominally identical (#12, for example). So sometimes it strips perfectly, but other times I have to go to the next-smaller set of teeth, which can nick the wire if you're not careful. When this tool works correctly it's an absolute pleasure to use: put the wire into the right set of teeth, squeeze, and the insulation is ejected like a shell casing. -- Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism |
#27
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
"Backstabbed" wiring: bad rap?
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 17:11:02 -0700 (PDT), JIMMIE
wrote: I found problems with wire nuts also in my lighting. On several ovehead light the wires just pulled out of the nuts when I pulled them down for inspection. I also found 6 lights, two in the bathrooms and four outside that did not have J boxes They were just screwed to the wall withe the wirenuts tucked inside the wall. None of the light fixtures were grounded. I later heard that the electrician only did the electrical rough-in. The unskilled labour installed the lights and outlets. They should send people to jail for such shoddy work. |
#28
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
"Backstabbed" wiring: bad rap?
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com... On 8/15/2009 3:01 PM Robert Green spake thus: stuff snipped I bought myself a really nice automatic wire stripper--the kind that strips the wire in one squeeze, made by GB (Gardner Bender). Very well-made tool, very useful. Except that it doesn't always strip the wire correctly. I actually returned the first one I bought because of this problem, but it seems to be due to inconsistencies in actual wire diameters between cables that are nominally identical (#12, for example). So sometimes it strips perfectly, but other times I have to go to the next-smaller set of teeth, which can nick the wire if you're not careful. I had a cable stripper that was set perfectly to strip RG6QS for the compression connectors I use. It was perfect but a buddy spun it backwards, the blades popped out and all the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put it back together. A good cable stripper is a very helpful tool, indeed, and can save tedious hours of hand work on a big job. I bought a pair of Klein Romex strippers that cut it like butter and removes the outer wrap and the inner insulation on both conductors in one operation. Works great when new, not sure how it will work after wiring up a house and the blades get duller. As you point out, though, not every roll of wire is created equally or exactly to spec so I check every new roll to see if it's nicking the wire. I replaced all the switches in my house with X-10 remotely controlled ones and far too many of the switch wires broke right where the insulation had been stripped and the wire nicked. One wire broke off so short I had to pull the box and gouge out the plaster to repair it. Of course that meant redoing the attendant plastering and painting. Yuck. -- Bobby G. |
#29
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
"Backstabbed" wiring: bad rap?
"JIMMIE" wrote in message news:c85f6246-
stuff snipped Newbies and wire nuts don't mix well, either. Stripped end of wires too long, too short, wrong size nut, wrong mix of wires, twist not twisted enough. There's no end to sad tales with wire nuts in the hands of the inexperienced. My favorite is three wires under one nut with a virtually untwisted center wire that pulls right out on the first tug. I am much more concerned with bad wire nutting than with backstabbing. -- Bobby G. I found problems with wire nuts also in my lighting. On several ovehead light the wires just pulled out of the nuts when I pulled them down for inspection. I also found 6 lights, two in the bathrooms and four outside that did not have J boxes They were just screwed to the wall withe the wirenuts tucked inside the wall. None of the light fixtures were grounded. I later heard that the electrician only did the electrical rough-in. The unskilled labour installed the lights and outlets. The same crew must have wired my house! -- Bobby G. |
#30
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
"Backstabbed" wiring: bad rap?
Larry The Snake Guy wrote:
On Aug 14, 2:51 pm, David Nebenzahl wrote: First of all, it is an approved, UL/CSA tested, and, most importantly, code-approved (US building code) wiring method. If it was as all-fired bad as folks here claim, why would it still be allowed? After all, the building codes tend to err on the side of caution. However, all kinds of unreliable crap is UL listed. A UL listing is a pretty good indication that something probably won't kill you or burn down your house, but says nothing at all about whether it will function properly. By coincidence I have the UL standard [15 years old] for "Snap Switches". For AC-only switches (which is what are commonly used) the switch must pass all the following at rated voltage: - 10,000 operations at rated current - 10,000 operations at rated current and power factor around 0.8 - 10,000 operations at rated current controlling incandescent loads [high inrush current] - 100 operations at 4.8x rated current and power factor around 0.5 IMHO this is testing for whether the switch will "function properly". My recollection is receptacle tests are similarly rigorous and include plugging and unplugging and operating for a periods at significantly above rated current. I think most of us would be very unhappy if fuses or circuit breakers that are UL listed did not "function properly". For devices like TVs, it is not possible (or desirable) for UL to determine if the device is actually useful. The test is whether the device will "kill you or burn down your house". Standards may not be perfect. They weren't for #12 backstabs, old technology #12 and #10 aluminum wire, or devices originally used with that wire. And standards for GFCIs have changed quite a bit. IMHO standards are not adequate for #14 backstabs - maybe if they were limited to #20 wire or smaller.... Building codes put a little more emphasis on function, but are also updated fairly regularly because things that were once required are finally proven to be bad ideas. The NEC has very few equipment construction requirements and I can't think of any performance requirements. The 'prime directive' is that "equipment required or permitted by this Code shall be acceptable only if approved". "Approved" is "acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction." The NEC generally has only a few rather general guidelines on what should be acceptable. "Authorities" generally accept equipment that is "listed" or "labeled", but it is up to the "authorities". The NEC did not eliminate #12 backstabs or change requirements for #12 and #10 aluminum wiring. -- bud-- |
#31
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
"Backstabbed" wiring: bad rap?
Robert Green wrote:
Newbies and wire nuts don't mix well, either. Stripped end of wires too long, too short, wrong size nut, wrong mix of wires, twist not twisted enough. There's no end to sad tales with wire nuts in the hands of the inexperienced. My favorite is three wires under one nut with a virtually untwisted center wire that pulls right out on the first tug. I am much more concerned with bad wire nutting than with backstabbing. -- Bobby G. The connection would probably have been strong if all three wires had been virtually untwisted. When John Blomstrand filed to patent the wire nut in 1950, that was his intent. If wires are straight and solid and of equal gage with even ends, I suppose the threads of a wire nut should engage every wire in a bundle of as many as six, mashing them together with no wiggle room. Thirty years ago it was apparently common for electricians to use wire nuts badly, twisting wires together clockwise before twisting on the connector clockwise, then hoping tape would hold everything in place. I've redone many. I love wire nuts even for conductors of dissimilar gages and stranded conductors, each of which may make it trickier to use wire nuts. Nearly 40 years ago, I installed a fairing on my motorcycle, which entailed splicing splicing the six stranded conductors of the fairing's wiring harness to six stranded conductors on my motorcycle. I used wire nuts. I've ridden more than 100,000 miles since then and never parked indoors, and those connections have never needed attention. Pruning shrubs five years ago, I snipped the cord of my expensive headphones. The copper strands were too fine to solder, so I taped the three conductors with masking tape and used a wire nut to apply pressure and provide mechanical strength. Those phones still work fine. |
#32
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
"Backstabbed" wiring: bad rap?
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com I'm here to say that the conventional wisdom that one gets here--that "backstabbed" wiring is bad, evil, and always leads to failure--may not be correct. Agreed, but that doesn't make them preferable. They're used to save money, mostly by electricianls. The opinion one reads here most often is that this is an inferior wiring method that must always be suspected when there are electrical problems, that it should be avoided and that it should be corrected if found. I'm not sure that's correct. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Backtabs are not a ticket to charing more money for fixing what ain't broke. First of all, it is an approved, UL/CSA tested, and, most importantly, code-approved (US building code) wiring method. If it was as all-fired bad as folks here claim, why would it still be allowed? After all, the building codes tend to err on the side of caution. All irrelevent: Those are safety standards and the only thing they test for is that they meet their specs, won't create a shock hazard or a fire hazard. They could care less if they stopped working and sometign opened 3 hours after installation. As long as there's no safety hazard, they will be passed. Let the brawling commence. It's a pretty stupid person that posts something only to see the outcomes of a few who will bit on the troll bait. Twayne` |
#33
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
"Backstabbed" wiring: bad rap?
In article ,
"Twayne" wrote: It's a pretty stupid person that posts something only to see the outcomes of a few who will bit on the troll bait. So how would you characterize those who bit? |
#34
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
"Backstabbed" wiring: bad rap?
On 8/16/2009 10:25 AM Twayne spake thus:
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message .com Let the brawling commence. It's a pretty stupid person that posts something only to see the outcomes of a few who will bit on the troll bait. Would you have felt differently if I had put a smiley face after that statement? Hint: I don't do smiley faces. -- Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism |
#35
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
"Backstabbed" wiring: bad rap?
bud-- wrote: Larry The Snake Guy wrote: On Aug 14, 2:51 pm, David Nebenzahl wrote: First of all, it is an approved, UL/CSA tested, and, most importantly, code-approved (US building code) wiring method. If it was as all-fired bad as folks here claim, why would it still be allowed? After all, the building codes tend to err on the side of caution. However, all kinds of unreliable crap is UL listed. A UL listing is a pretty good indication that something probably won't kill you or burn down your house, but says nothing at all about whether it will function properly. By coincidence I have the UL standard [15 years old] for "Snap Switches". For AC-only switches (which is what are commonly used) the switch must pass all the following at rated voltage: - 10,000 operations at rated current - 10,000 operations at rated current and power factor around 0.8 - 10,000 operations at rated current controlling incandescent loads [high inrush current] - 100 operations at 4.8x rated current and power factor around 0.5 IMHO this is testing for whether the switch will "function properly". My recollection is receptacle tests are similarly rigorous and include plugging and unplugging and operating for a periods at significantly above rated current. I think most of us would be very unhappy if fuses or circuit breakers that are UL listed did not "function properly". For devices like TVs, it is not possible (or desirable) for UL to determine if the device is actually useful. The test is whether the device will "kill you or burn down your house". Standards may not be perfect. They weren't for #12 backstabs, old technology #12 and #10 aluminum wire, or devices originally used with that wire. And standards for GFCIs have changed quite a bit. IMHO standards are not adequate for #14 backstabs - maybe if they were limited to #20 wire or smaller.... Building codes put a little more emphasis on function, but are also updated fairly regularly because things that were once required are finally proven to be bad ideas. The NEC has very few equipment construction requirements and I can't think of any performance requirements. The 'prime directive' is that "equipment required or permitted by this Code shall be acceptable only if approved". "Approved" is "acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction." The NEC generally has only a few rather general guidelines on what should be acceptable. "Authorities" generally accept equipment that is "listed" or "labeled", but it is up to the "authorities". The NEC did not eliminate #12 backstabs or change requirements for #12 and #10 aluminum wiring. -- bud-- The standard you quote may or may not test whether the device will "function properly" as you did not include the pass / fail standards. If the fail standard is "fire" and the pass standard is "no fire", then the switch could well stop functioning "properly" well under the cycle count limit and still pass the test. |
#36
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
"Backstabbed" wiring: bad rap?
Pete C. wrote:
bud-- wrote: Larry The Snake Guy wrote: On Aug 14, 2:51 pm, David Nebenzahl wrote: First of all, it is an approved, UL/CSA tested, and, most importantly, code-approved (US building code) wiring method. If it was as all-fired bad as folks here claim, why would it still be allowed? After all, the building codes tend to err on the side of caution. However, all kinds of unreliable crap is UL listed. A UL listing is a pretty good indication that something probably won't kill you or burn down your house, but says nothing at all about whether it will function properly. By coincidence I have the UL standard [15 years old] for "Snap Switches". For AC-only switches (which is what are commonly used) the switch must pass all the following at rated voltage: - 10,000 operations at rated current - 10,000 operations at rated current and power factor around 0.8 - 10,000 operations at rated current controlling incandescent loads [high inrush current] - 100 operations at 4.8x rated current and power factor around 0.5 IMHO this is testing for whether the switch will "function properly". My recollection is receptacle tests are similarly rigorous and include plugging and unplugging and operating for a periods at significantly above rated current. I think most of us would be very unhappy if fuses or circuit breakers that are UL listed did not "function properly". For devices like TVs, it is not possible (or desirable) for UL to determine if the device is actually useful. The test is whether the device will "kill you or burn down your house". Standards may not be perfect. They weren't for #12 backstabs, old technology #12 and #10 aluminum wire, or devices originally used with that wire. And standards for GFCIs have changed quite a bit. IMHO standards are not adequate for #14 backstabs - maybe if they were limited to #20 wire or smaller.... Building codes put a little more emphasis on function, but are also updated fairly regularly because things that were once required are finally proven to be bad ideas. The NEC has very few equipment construction requirements and I can't think of any performance requirements. The 'prime directive' is that "equipment required or permitted by this Code shall be acceptable only if approved". "Approved" is "acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction." The NEC generally has only a few rather general guidelines on what should be acceptable. "Authorities" generally accept equipment that is "listed" or "labeled", but it is up to the "authorities". The NEC did not eliminate #12 backstabs or change requirements for #12 and #10 aluminum wiring. -- bud-- The standard you quote may or may not test whether the device will "function properly" as you did not include the pass / fail standards. If the fail standard is "fire" and the pass standard is "no fire", then the switch could well stop functioning "properly" well under the cycle count limit and still pass the test. The "pass standard", _as I stated_, is that "the switch must pass all the following". The switch must still work after over 30,000 operations. And that is only part of the standard. UL standards, as they apply to wiring components (switches, receptacles, fuses, circuit breakers, panels, wire, motor starters, wire nuts, ...), is that those products will "function properly", not just that they will fail safely. For some other equipment, like TVs and industrial control panels, it is not practical or desirable to test if the device functions as intended, and the test is that it fails safely. That may involve using "listed" or "recognized" component parts that are tested to "function properly" as above. -- bud-- |
#37
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
"Backstabbed" wiring: bad rap?
bud-- wrote: Pete C. wrote: bud-- wrote: Larry The Snake Guy wrote: On Aug 14, 2:51 pm, David Nebenzahl wrote: First of all, it is an approved, UL/CSA tested, and, most importantly, code-approved (US building code) wiring method. If it was as all-fired bad as folks here claim, why would it still be allowed? After all, the building codes tend to err on the side of caution. However, all kinds of unreliable crap is UL listed. A UL listing is a pretty good indication that something probably won't kill you or burn down your house, but says nothing at all about whether it will function properly. By coincidence I have the UL standard [15 years old] for "Snap Switches". For AC-only switches (which is what are commonly used) the switch must pass all the following at rated voltage: - 10,000 operations at rated current - 10,000 operations at rated current and power factor around 0.8 - 10,000 operations at rated current controlling incandescent loads [high inrush current] - 100 operations at 4.8x rated current and power factor around 0.5 IMHO this is testing for whether the switch will "function properly". My recollection is receptacle tests are similarly rigorous and include plugging and unplugging and operating for a periods at significantly above rated current. I think most of us would be very unhappy if fuses or circuit breakers that are UL listed did not "function properly". For devices like TVs, it is not possible (or desirable) for UL to determine if the device is actually useful. The test is whether the device will "kill you or burn down your house". Standards may not be perfect. They weren't for #12 backstabs, old technology #12 and #10 aluminum wire, or devices originally used with that wire. And standards for GFCIs have changed quite a bit. IMHO standards are not adequate for #14 backstabs - maybe if they were limited to #20 wire or smaller.... Building codes put a little more emphasis on function, but are also updated fairly regularly because things that were once required are finally proven to be bad ideas. The NEC has very few equipment construction requirements and I can't think of any performance requirements. The 'prime directive' is that "equipment required or permitted by this Code shall be acceptable only if approved". "Approved" is "acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction." The NEC generally has only a few rather general guidelines on what should be acceptable. "Authorities" generally accept equipment that is "listed" or "labeled", but it is up to the "authorities". The NEC did not eliminate #12 backstabs or change requirements for #12 and #10 aluminum wiring. -- bud-- The standard you quote may or may not test whether the device will "function properly" as you did not include the pass / fail standards. If the fail standard is "fire" and the pass standard is "no fire", then the switch could well stop functioning "properly" well under the cycle count limit and still pass the test. The "pass standard", _as I stated_, is that "the switch must pass all the following". The switch must still work after over 30,000 operations. And that is only part of the standard. What you stated, did not include pass criteria as *I stated*. UL standards, as they apply to wiring components (switches, receptacles, fuses, circuit breakers, panels, wire, motor starters, wire nuts, ...), is that those products will "function properly", not just that they will fail safely. You say that, but you did not post the actual UL test pass criteria. For some other equipment, like TVs and industrial control panels, it is not practical or desirable to test if the device functions as intended, and the test is that it fails safely. That may involve using "listed" or "recognized" component parts that are tested to "function properly" as above. All UL tests that I'm aware of test only for safety, not durability, reliability, or functionality. If the device does not cause a hazardous condition that might result in an insurance claim (note it is *Underwriters* Laboratories, not *Consumers* Laboratories), it passes. |
#38
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
"Backstabbed" wiring: bad rap?
Pete C. wrote:
bud-- wrote: Pete C. wrote: bud-- wrote: Larry The Snake Guy wrote: On Aug 14, 2:51 pm, David Nebenzahl wrote: First of all, it is an approved, UL/CSA tested, and, most importantly, code-approved (US building code) wiring method. If it was as all-fired bad as folks here claim, why would it still be allowed? After all, the building codes tend to err on the side of caution. However, all kinds of unreliable crap is UL listed. A UL listing is a pretty good indication that something probably won't kill you or burn down your house, but says nothing at all about whether it will function properly. By coincidence I have the UL standard [15 years old] for "Snap Switches". For AC-only switches (which is what are commonly used) the switch must pass all the following at rated voltage: - 10,000 operations at rated current - 10,000 operations at rated current and power factor around 0.8 - 10,000 operations at rated current controlling incandescent loads [high inrush current] - 100 operations at 4.8x rated current and power factor around 0.5 IMHO this is testing for whether the switch will "function properly". My recollection is receptacle tests are similarly rigorous and include plugging and unplugging and operating for a periods at significantly above rated current. I think most of us would be very unhappy if fuses or circuit breakers that are UL listed did not "function properly". For devices like TVs, it is not possible (or desirable) for UL to determine if the device is actually useful. The test is whether the device will "kill you or burn down your house". Standards may not be perfect. They weren't for #12 backstabs, old technology #12 and #10 aluminum wire, or devices originally used with that wire. And standards for GFCIs have changed quite a bit. IMHO standards are not adequate for #14 backstabs - maybe if they were limited to #20 wire or smaller.... Building codes put a little more emphasis on function, but are also updated fairly regularly because things that were once required are finally proven to be bad ideas. The NEC has very few equipment construction requirements and I can't think of any performance requirements. The 'prime directive' is that "equipment required or permitted by this Code shall be acceptable only if approved". "Approved" is "acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction." The NEC generally has only a few rather general guidelines on what should be acceptable. "Authorities" generally accept equipment that is "listed" or "labeled", but it is up to the "authorities". The NEC did not eliminate #12 backstabs or change requirements for #12 and #10 aluminum wiring. -- bud-- The standard you quote may or may not test whether the device will "function properly" as you did not include the pass / fail standards. If the fail standard is "fire" and the pass standard is "no fire", then the switch could well stop functioning "properly" well under the cycle count limit and still pass the test. The "pass standard", _as I stated_, is that "the switch must pass all the following". The switch must still work after over 30,000 operations. And that is only part of the standard. What you stated, did not include pass criteria as *I stated*. My original post said "the switch must pass all the following at rated voltage". I quoted a portion of that in my last post. With minimal reading ability anyone should be able to determine the UL test requires a switch to survive over 30,000 operations at rated voltage and at least rated current. UL standards, as they apply to wiring components (switches, receptacles, fuses, circuit breakers, panels, wire, motor starters, wire nuts, ...), is that those products will "function properly", not just that they will fail safely. You say that, but you did not post the actual UL test pass criteria. With minimal reading ability anyone should be able to determine switches need to pass all of the following: - 10,000 operations at rated current - 10,000 operations at rated current and power factor around 0.8 - 10,000 operations at rated current controlling incandescent loads [high inrush current] - 100 operations at 4.8x rated current and power factor around 0.5 That is what my original post said and the requirements were taken from the UL standard. For some other equipment, like TVs and industrial control panels, it is not practical or desirable to test if the device functions as intended, and the test is that it fails safely. That may involve using "listed" or "recognized" component parts that are tested to "function properly" as above. All UL tests that I'm aware of test only for safety, not durability, reliability, or functionality. If the device does not cause a hazardous condition that might result in an insurance claim (note it is *Underwriters* Laboratories, not *Consumers* Laboratories), it passes. Then you are apparently not aware of a lot of UL tests. -- bud-- |
#39
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
"Backstabbed" wiring: bad rap?
wrote in message
... On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 00:53:45 -0400, "Robert Green" wrote: I had a cable stripper that was set perfectly to strip RG6QS for the compression connectors I use. It was perfect but a buddy spun it backwards, the blades popped out and all the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put it back together. If that is the stack of metal plates with a couple razor blades in it, there should be a tool included to set the blade depth. It is a metal rod with fly cuts at the proper depth. Clamp it in the stripper, set the blades to just touch the rod and tighten up the screws holding the stack together.. If only it went back together and stayed together. Once it threw the blades, it didn't go back together worth a damn. It's very possible that some tiny wire springs popped out when it "barfed its blades." I've not be able to find a similar, three-bladed replacement but I keep looking. ); Thanks for your input. -- Bobby G. |
#40
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
"Backstabbed" wiring: bad rap?
"E Z Peaces" wrote in message
... Robert Green wrote: Newbies and wire nuts don't mix well, either. Stripped end of wires too long, too short, wrong size nut, wrong mix of wires, twist not twisted enough. There's no end to sad tales with wire nuts in the hands of the inexperienced. My favorite is three wires under one nut with a virtually untwisted center wire that pulls right out on the first tug. I am much more concerned with bad wire nutting than with backstabbing. -- Bobby G. The connection would probably have been strong if all three wires had been virtually untwisted. When John Blomstrand filed to patent the wire nut in 1950, that was his intent. If wires are straight and solid and of equal gage with even ends, I suppose the threads of a wire nut should engage every wire in a bundle of as many as six, mashing them together with no wiggle room. Thirty years ago it was apparently common for electricians to use wire nuts badly, twisting wires together clockwise before twisting on the connector clockwise, then hoping tape would hold everything in place. I've redone many. Me too. It's amazing how many bad ones I've come across where the twisting was bad or they didn't even use close to the right sized wire nut. My favorites, for 110VAC work, have little metal springs inside the nut. I prefer them without the metal inside for low voltage wiring, especially when I am not sure I am looking at the final configuration. I love wire nuts even for conductors of dissimilar gages and stranded conductors, each of which may make it trickier to use wire nuts. Nearly 40 years ago, I installed a fairing on my motorcycle, which entailed splicing splicing the six stranded conductors of the fairing's wiring harness to six stranded conductors on my motorcycle. I used wire nuts. I've ridden more than 100,000 miles since then and never parked indoors, and those connections have never needed attention. There's no doubt they can be done well in the hands of an experienced user. The problem is that in the hands of a beginner, they are usually not well done, and in my experience, bad wire nutting has caused many more problems than backstabbing. Bad nutting is also a lot harder to detect than someone failing to get most of the wire under a screw. Pruning shrubs five years ago, I snipped the cord of my expensive headphones. The copper strands were too fine to solder, so I taped the three conductors with masking tape and used a wire nut to apply pressure and provide mechanical strength. Those phones still work fine. Hmm, I have a similar pair in the junk drawer that's also unsolderable. I think I might give your approach a try. -- Bobby G. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|