On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 10:06:10 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:


"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
I opened the range socket, (power off). I loosened the
clamps that held the aluminum range wire, and loosed
the romex connector. Slipped the 14-2WG in through the
romex connector. Stripped the ends, put them in with
the aluminum wire. Ran the 14 to a box, which I screwed
to the baseboard. Or, more likely left the box loose on
the floor. This was 20 plus years ago, the details are
a bit faded in my memory. Plug the wall AC into the
outlet box. Put the cover back on the range socket,
plug the range back in.

I'm an outlaw. And a couple folks appreciated having AC
that killer hot summer. And you can't prove a thing.


Probably several code violations. The 14 wire on the 50A breaker for one.
Slipping and mixing the copper and aluminum wire is probably another one.
When dealing with the aluminum wire it is difficult enough to keep from
burning down a house. I lived in a house that had the aluminum wiring and I
did tighten the wires at the fuse box several times. A house down the
street that was built at the same time (aound 1965) did burn down and the
cause was stated to be wiring in and around the fuse box.

Been in my 40 year old house 32 years now - all aluminum wiring - and
never a connection problem. Had a couple non-co/alr outlets overheat -
but not at the wiring connection. Just cheap-ass low-buck outlets that
got a lot of use.

Just switched everything over to co-alr over the last 2 months. Pricy
little buggers, but a lot simpler than pigtailing which just stuffs
the box.

On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 11:46:46 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 10:06:10 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:


"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
I opened the range socket, (power off). I loosened the
clamps that held the aluminum range wire, and loosed
the romex connector. Slipped the 14-2WG in through the
romex connector. Stripped the ends, put them in with
the aluminum wire. Ran the 14 to a box, which I screwed
to the baseboard. Or, more likely left the box loose on
the floor. This was 20 plus years ago, the details are
a bit faded in my memory. Plug the wall AC into the
outlet box. Put the cover back on the range socket,
plug the range back in.

I'm an outlaw. And a couple folks appreciated having AC
that killer hot summer. And you can't prove a thing.


Probably several code violations. The 14 wire on the 50A breaker for one.
Slipping and mixing the copper and aluminum wire is probably another one.
When dealing with the aluminum wire it is difficult enough to keep from
burning down a house. I lived in a house that had the aluminum wiring and I
did tighten the wires at the fuse box several times. A house down the
street that was built at the same time (aound 1965) did burn down and the
cause was stated to be wiring in and around the fuse box.

Copper and aluminum isn't a problem as long as listed CU-AL
connections are used between. Aluminum caused all sorts of grief but
it was eventually sorted out. Some of the problems were labor quality
(AL is less forgiving) and others were metallurgy. AL us still widely
used for large appliances (clothes dryers and ranges) with very few
issues.


Hmmm,
My previous house built in the mid-70s during Cu hortage had all Al
wiring, never had any trouble and still the house is there(did not burn
down, LOL!) What?! is there any one whose knowledge is based on Google?
How did (s)he lived B4 the days of I'net? IMO, intelligence does not
come from Google.
Ant there is aluminum wiring, and there is aluminum wiring. The
early aluminum was hard and fragile. The later stuff is softer and
more ductile - and a lot tougher.

As for the connections - CU-AL USED to be the accepted standard. CU-AL
devices are no longer accepted. The new standard for aluminum wiring
devices is coalr or co-alr

wrote in message
...

burning down a house. I lived in a house that had the aluminum wiring and
I
did tighten the wires at the fuse box several times. A house down the
street that was built at the same time (aound 1965) did burn down and the
cause was stated to be wiring in and around the fuse box.

Been in my 40 year old house 32 years now - all aluminum wiring - and
never a connection problem. Had a couple non-co/alr outlets overheat -
but not at the wiring connection. Just cheap-ass low-buck outlets that
got a lot of use.


YOu never know about the wiring problems. In the area I lived in there were
14 houses built arund the same time in 1965 and very similar to each other.
Two of them caught on fire. One several years before we moved in and one
about 10 years after we moved in.

On 11/04/2013 03:05 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 09:17:59 -0500, Nate Nagel
wrote:

On 11/03/2013 06:35 PM, Pete C. wrote:

wrote:

On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 15:56:54 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


woodchucker wrote:

On 11/2/2013 12:26 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 11/2/2013 10:43 AM, wrote:

Have you seen air conditioners plugged into 50A circuits? I didn't
think so.

Yes, actually, I have. I did so, once. No, thinking about it, twice.
Would you like to hear the details?

I would.

Twenty or so years ago, I heard of apartment complex that was pitching
out a load of old 220 VAC air conditioners. I asked, and was given them.
Hauled a bunch, and stored them behind a friend's house. Find out these
don't sell very well. That summer was hot, and humid. A couple of the
LDS missionaries were really miserable in the heat. I tapped a wire off
their 50 amp range socket, to power the wall AC which I put in the
window. Ran a 14-2 WG wire from his range socket, and put the necessary
socket on the end of that. Did a similar thing for another friend, who
was not LDS. I'm sure it's not to code, but it did make for some more
comfortable people. These have long since been taken apart, and you
can't prove a thing!

Definetly not to code. That 14-2 wire is 15 amp, your 50amp range means
that the breaker would never trip.

--
Jeff

No different than the 18ga zip cord from your table lamp to the 15A
receptacle possibly on a 20A circuit - the breaker will never trip. The
circuit breaker in the panel is sized to protect the circuit wiring,
*not* the appliance that may be plugged into the receptacle.

Wrong! Code doesn't cover your "18ga zip cord"; beyond its scope. The
outlet is part of the "wiring". It *is* covered by the fire code.

If I put a 50A plug on the cordset to my A/C and plug it into that 50A
circuit it's entirely to code. The permanent wiring and receptacle are
appropriately protected by their 50A breaker, and the cordset to my A/C
is protected by it's internal circuit breaker. There is no code
requirement that an appliance must utilize the full Ampacity of the
circuit it's plugged into.


No, it's still not compliant because you used 14/2 between the range
recep and the new recep. By code it should be a minimum 8AWG.

nate
Except tou cannot legally (or practically) connect a 15 amp
receptacle to an 8 guage wire.


that's correct, it would also need to be a 50A receptacle. You actually
*could* connect a 15A recep to 8AWG wire though - but only if the
circuit were protected by a 15A breaker. You couldn't physically do it
though, you'd have to pigtail the 8AWG to 12AWG or 14AWG in the box.

You might even want to do this in certain circumstances, e.g. wanting to
provide a receptacle in a very far away outbuilding but not wanting to
pay for another service, panel, meter, etc.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 15:54:32 -0500, Nate Nagel
wrote:

On 11/04/2013 03:05 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 09:17:59 -0500, Nate Nagel
wrote:

On 11/03/2013 06:35 PM, Pete C. wrote:

wrote:

On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 15:56:54 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


woodchucker wrote:

On 11/2/2013 12:26 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 11/2/2013 10:43 AM, wrote:

Have you seen air conditioners plugged into 50A circuits? I didn't
think so.

Yes, actually, I have. I did so, once. No, thinking about it, twice.
Would you like to hear the details?

I would.

Twenty or so years ago, I heard of apartment complex that was pitching
out a load of old 220 VAC air conditioners. I asked, and was given them.
Hauled a bunch, and stored them behind a friend's house. Find out these
don't sell very well. That summer was hot, and humid. A couple of the
LDS missionaries were really miserable in the heat. I tapped a wire off
their 50 amp range socket, to power the wall AC which I put in the
window. Ran a 14-2 WG wire from his range socket, and put the necessary
socket on the end of that. Did a similar thing for another friend, who
was not LDS. I'm sure it's not to code, but it did make for some more
comfortable people. These have long since been taken apart, and you
can't prove a thing!

Definetly not to code. That 14-2 wire is 15 amp, your 50amp range means
that the breaker would never trip.

--
Jeff

No different than the 18ga zip cord from your table lamp to the 15A
receptacle possibly on a 20A circuit - the breaker will never trip. The
circuit breaker in the panel is sized to protect the circuit wiring,
*not* the appliance that may be plugged into the receptacle.

Wrong! Code doesn't cover your "18ga zip cord"; beyond its scope. The
outlet is part of the "wiring". It *is* covered by the fire code.

If I put a 50A plug on the cordset to my A/C and plug it into that 50A
circuit it's entirely to code. The permanent wiring and receptacle are
appropriately protected by their 50A breaker, and the cordset to my A/C
is protected by it's internal circuit breaker. There is no code
requirement that an appliance must utilize the full Ampacity of the
circuit it's plugged into.


No, it's still not compliant because you used 14/2 between the range
recep and the new recep. By code it should be a minimum 8AWG.

nate
Except tou cannot legally (or practically) connect a 15 amp
receptacle to an 8 guage wire.


that's correct, it would also need to be a 50A receptacle. You actually
*could* connect a 15A recep to 8AWG wire though - but only if the
circuit were protected by a 15A breaker. You couldn't physically do it
though, you'd have to pigtail the 8AWG to 12AWG or 14AWG in the box.

You might even want to do this in certain circumstances, e.g. wanting to
provide a receptacle in a very far away outbuilding but not wanting to
pay for another service, panel, meter, etc.

nate
Used panels and disconnects are so cheap it doesn't make sense to do
it that way in the real world though. Heck, even a 2 circuit
disconnect NEW is cheap enough to run the heavy wire to the
disconnect, properly protected for the 15 or 20 amp circuit you want
to connect to it, making a code compliant installation. Run the cable
off a double 30 amp breaker or fuse block in the main panel to protect
the cable, and then fuse or breaker the disconnect for the POU load..

Other than a "lug" connector it is pretty difficult to make a good
connection between a 8AWG and a 14 AWG connector. Dad used to use
Burndy connectors for that. (split copper bolt and nut) KS15 or
ks17/ks17-3 wrapped with tape when he needed to connect widely
disparate wires. ALso work good to extend service wires when
installing a new panel where the old wire is too short. (different
sizes for different cables, of course)

On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 15:50:52 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .

burning down a house. I lived in a house that had the aluminum wiring and
I
did tighten the wires at the fuse box several times. A house down the
street that was built at the same time (aound 1965) did burn down and the
cause was stated to be wiring in and around the fuse box.

Been in my 40 year old house 32 years now - all aluminum wiring - and
never a connection problem. Had a couple non-co/alr outlets overheat -
but not at the wiring connection. Just cheap-ass low-buck outlets that
got a lot of use.


YOu never know about the wiring problems. In the area I lived in there were
14 houses built arund the same time in 1965 and very similar to each other.
Two of them caught on fire. One several years before we moved in and one
about 10 years after we moved in.

1965 was the old hard fragile aluminum , and there were NO wiring
devices available specifically for aluminum in 1965 - not to mention
most electricians had never worked with the stuff and didn't have a
clue about the possible problems. By the late '60s and early
seventies, the better wire came on stream, and in the mid seventies
CO-ALR devices were developed and listed for use with both copper and
aluminum wiring. The cu-al devices were a stopgap measure that were
never actually tested and listed for Aluminum wiring, and in many
cases were IDENTICAL to the cu-only devices except for the marking.
CO-ALR became REQUIRED by the end of the seventies, and when properly
installed on the second generation wire are perfectly safe. A lot
safer than pigtailing with Ideal Purple twist connectors - and about
the same price but less labour than pigtailing with AlumiConn
connectors. Both are much less expensive than the AMP connectors,
which are virtually impossible to get installed in most of Canada and
the USA today. Special tool, leased from AMP for very high price to
electricians who spent lots of money to be trained and certified in
their application, and generally wanted to cover the training costs on
every job. - didn't go very far....

On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 10:30:17 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Monday, November 4, 2013 1:14:30 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 08:39:26 -0500, Stormin Mormon

wrote:



On 11/4/2013 8:21 AM, wrote:

I opened the range socket, (power off). I loosened the



clamps that held the aluminum range wire, and loosed



the romex connector. Slipped the 14-2WG in through the



romex connector. Stripped the ends, put them in with



the aluminum wire. Ran the 14 to a box, which I screwed



to the baseboard. Or, more likely left the box loose on



the floor. This was 20 plus years ago, the details are



a bit faded in my memory. Plug the wall AC into the



outlet box. Put the cover back on the range socket,



plug the range back in.







I'm an outlaw. And a couple folks appreciated having AC



that killer hot summer. And you can't prove a thing.







That's what I thought you meant. I think everyone here, including

you, agrees that is a code violation. Somehow this got morphed

into changing cords, going to a larger ampacity plug on the AC,

is code compliant or not.



Any way to convince your news reader to stop inserting

lines between my text?



No, he's just as pig-headed about using Google as you were about

top-posting.



You should be the last one to talk about anyone being "pig-headed".

So stop ****ing up the Usenet and dump that ****, Google.

Google, not being client based, offers me the option of using it
anywhere. But I'm sure that's beyond your pay grade.

It allows you to screw up everyone else, all the time. It's all about
you, right? You must be a lefty.

On Sunday, November 3, 2013 6:35:56 PM UTC-5, Pete C. wrote:
wrote:



On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 15:56:54 -0500, "Pete C."

wrote:





woodchucker wrote:



On 11/2/2013 12:26 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:

On 11/2/2013 10:43 AM, wrote:



Have you seen air conditioners plugged into 50A circuits? I didn't

think so.



Yes, actually, I have. I did so, once. No, thinking about it, twice.

Would you like to hear the details?



I would.



Twenty or so years ago, I heard of apartment complex that was pitching

out a load of old 220 VAC air conditioners. I asked, and was given them.

Hauled a bunch, and stored them behind a friend's house. Find out these

don't sell very well. That summer was hot, and humid. A couple of the

LDS missionaries were really miserable in the heat. I tapped a wire off

their 50 amp range socket, to power the wall AC which I put in the

window. Ran a 14-2 WG wire from his range socket, and put the necessary

socket on the end of that. Did a similar thing for another friend, who

was not LDS. I'm sure it's not to code, but it did make for some more

comfortable people. These have long since been taken apart, and you

can't prove a thing!



Definetly not to code. That 14-2 wire is 15 amp, your 50amp range means

that the breaker would never trip.



--

Jeff



No different than the 18ga zip cord from your table lamp to the 15A

receptacle possibly on a 20A circuit - the breaker will never trip. The

circuit breaker in the panel is sized to protect the circuit wiring,

*not* the appliance that may be plugged into the receptacle.



Wrong! Code doesn't cover your "18ga zip cord"; beyond its scope. The

outlet is part of the "wiring". It *is* covered by the fire code.



If I put a 50A plug on the cordset to my A/C and plug it into that 50A

circuit it's entirely to code. The permanent wiring and receptacle are

appropriately protected by their 50A breaker, and the cordset to my A/C

is protected by it's internal circuit breaker. There is no code

requirement that an appliance must utilize the full Ampacity of the

circuit it's plugged into.

No but there can be requirements as to the max allowed breaker size.
Take a central air conditioning unit. Look at the install instructions
and/or rating plate on the unit and it will typically spec both a
min breaker size and maximum, like min 30A, max 50A. If that
is part of the manufacturers install instructions I believe it would
be a code violation to use a breaker exceeding 50A, no matter
what size wire you use.

Also, I don't think it's kosher to change the cord and plug on
any listed appliance to accomodate being able to be plugged into
a higher amp receptacle. I think that is the point gfre was
making with his citation of the code.

On 11/3/2013 5:35 PM, Pete C. wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 15:56:54 -0500, "Pete
wrote:
woodchucker wrote:
On 11/2/2013 12:26 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:

Definetly not to code. That 14-2 wire is 15 amp, your 50amp range means
that the breaker would never trip.

--
Jeff

No different than the 18ga zip cord from your table lamp to the 15A
receptacle possibly on a 20A circuit - the breaker will never trip. The
circuit breaker in the panel is sized to protect the circuit wiring,
*not* the appliance that may be plugged into the receptacle.

Wrong! Code doesn't cover your "18ga zip cord"; beyond its scope. The
outlet is part of the "wiring". It *is* covered by the fire code.

A #18 cord on a 20A circuit can carry enough current to trip a breaker
on a fault, and is not likely to be damaged by the fault current (if the
supply breaker trips). That is why #18 wire is allowed.

A #18 cord on a 50A circuit will get 6x the heat from a fault if the
breaker trips as fast (and it won't trip as fast).

The size of the wire goes up as the circuit capacity increases.


If I put a 50A plug on the cordset to my A/C and plug it into that 50A
circuit it's entirely to code.

UL regulations cover the air conditioner cordset and plug that are allowed.

UL will not allow a 50A plug on your 15A air conditioner. If you replace
the plug with a 50A one the air conditioner is no longer UL listed.

If you read the instructions for the air conditioner it will, in all
probability, give you the maximum rating for the circuit the air
conditioner can be connected to. (May also be on the label on the air
conditioner.) For a 15A air condtioner that will not be 50A.

UL sizes the cord and internal components based on the circuit amp
capacity. If the air conditioner was intended for a 50A circuit it would
not have the cord that is installed on a 15A air conditioner.

The permanent wiring and receptacle are
appropriately protected by their 50A breaker, and the cordset to my A/C
is protected by it's internal circuit breaker.

It is a violation of the UL listing. The air conditioner is no longer UL
listed.

That means it is a code violation.
240.5 Protection of flexible cords...
"(1) Supply Cord of a Listed Appliance....
Where flexible cord... is approved for and used with a specific listed
appliance..., it shall be considered to be protected when applied within
the appliance... listing requirements."

UL and the NEC work together.

The branch circuit device also protects the air conditioner.

There is no code
requirement that an appliance must utilize the full Ampacity of the
circuit it's plugged into.

Irrelevant.

On 11/4/2013 12:22 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 10:06:10 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:

Probably several code violations. The 14 wire on the 50A breaker for one.
Slipping and mixing the copper and aluminum wire is probably another one.
When dealing with the aluminum wire it is difficult enough to keep from
burning down a house. I lived in a house that had the aluminum wiring and I
did tighten the wires at the fuse box several times. A house down the
street that was built at the same time (aound 1965) did burn down and the
cause was stated to be wiring in and around the fuse box.

Copper and aluminum isn't a problem as long as listed CU-AL
connections are used between.

Extensive testing of aluminum connections for the CPSC found that the
only listed wirenut for aluminum (Ideal 65) can fail even if installed
using the manufacturer's instructions.

Aluminum caused all sorts of grief but
it was eventually sorted out. Some of the problems were labor quality
(AL is less forgiving) and others were metallurgy. AL us still widely
used for large appliances (clothes dryers and ranges) with very few
issues.

Yes, the problems were only for 15 and 20A branch circuits.

On 11/3/2013 10:07 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 11/01/2013 11:05 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:


I don't see that as a problem either. Maybe in some devices that do not
have any internal protection it could. The devices plugged in should have
their own fuses/breakers for their own protection. The main breaker is to
protect the wiring.

The wiring and the receptacle. A 6-15 recep is not tested for or listed
for loads higher than 15A (maybe 20A for a safety factor) 50A is
definitely pushing it.


The garden variety 15A duplex receptacle we use is rated 20A for both
halves together and for 20A wire through. (It certainly will be used
that way when connected to a 20A circuit.)

A 20A receptacle on a 50A circuit is a code violation (210.21-B-3).
Should be apparent that doing the same thing bu changing to a 50A plug
is also a violation.

I strongly suggest to you to study Ohms Law before you start recommending
powers hookups


"bud--" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 11/3/2013 5:35 PM, Pete C. wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 15:56:54 -0500, "Pete
wrote:
woodchucker wrote:
On 11/2/2013 12:26 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:

Definetly not to code. That 14-2 wire is 15 amp, your 50amp range
means
that the breaker would never trip.

--
Jeff

No different than the 18ga zip cord from your table lamp to the 15A
receptacle possibly on a 20A circuit - the breaker will never trip. The
circuit breaker in the panel is sized to protect the circuit wiring,
*not* the appliance that may be plugged into the receptacle.

Wrong! Code doesn't cover your "18ga zip cord"; beyond its scope. The
outlet is part of the "wiring". It *is* covered by the fire code.

A #18 cord on a 20A circuit can carry enough current to trip a breaker on
a fault, and is not likely to be damaged by the fault current (if the
supply breaker trips). That is why #18 wire is allowed.

A #18 cord on a 50A circuit will get 6x the heat from a fault if the
breaker trips as fast (and it won't trip as fast).

The size of the wire goes up as the circuit capacity increases.


If I put a 50A plug on the cordset to my A/C and plug it into that 50A
circuit it's entirely to code.

UL regulations cover the air conditioner cordset and plug that are
allowed.

UL will not allow a 50A plug on your 15A air conditioner. If you replace
the plug with a 50A one the air conditioner is no longer UL listed.

If you read the instructions for the air conditioner it will, in all
probability, give you the maximum rating for the circuit the air
conditioner can be connected to. (May also be on the label on the air
conditioner.) For a 15A air condtioner that will not be 50A.

UL sizes the cord and internal components based on the circuit amp
capacity. If the air conditioner was intended for a 50A circuit it would
not have the cord that is installed on a 15A air conditioner.

The permanent wiring and receptacle are
appropriately protected by their 50A breaker, and the cordset to my A/C
is protected by it's internal circuit breaker.

It is a violation of the UL listing. The air conditioner is no longer UL
listed.

That means it is a code violation.
240.5 Protection of flexible cords...
"(1) Supply Cord of a Listed Appliance....
Where flexible cord... is approved for and used with a specific listed
appliance..., it shall be considered to be protected when applied within
the appliance... listing requirements."

UL and the NEC work together.

The branch circuit device also protects the air conditioner.

There is no code
requirement that an appliance must utilize the full Ampacity of the
circuit it's plugged into.

Irrelevant.

On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 12:42:14 -0600, bud-- wrote:

On 11/4/2013 12:22 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 10:06:10 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:

Probably several code violations. The 14 wire on the 50A breaker for one.
Slipping and mixing the copper and aluminum wire is probably another one.
When dealing with the aluminum wire it is difficult enough to keep from
burning down a house. I lived in a house that had the aluminum wiring and I
did tighten the wires at the fuse box several times. A house down the
street that was built at the same time (aound 1965) did burn down and the
cause was stated to be wiring in and around the fuse box.

Copper and aluminum isn't a problem as long as listed CU-AL
connections are used between.

Extensive testing of aluminum connections for the CPSC found that the
only listed wirenut for aluminum (Ideal 65) can fail even if installed
using the manufacturer's instructions.

Aluminum caused all sorts of grief but
it was eventually sorted out. Some of the problems were labor quality
(AL is less forgiving) and others were metallurgy. AL us still widely
used for large appliances (clothes dryers and ranges) with very few
issues.

Yes, the problems were only for 15 and 20A branch circuits.

Interesting information/question.
What testing method is used by the CPSC? Who designed the test
procedure, and how was it derived? Was an electrical engineer
involved?

The answer, the test method does not adhere to any published or
approved testing method or specification, and no electrical engineer
is involved with the testing, according to all the information I have
been able to find. Kinda says something about their conclusions.

Not to say I have any faith in the Ideal Purple wire nuts - but no
less than the faith I have in the CPSC.

The UL and CSA testing labs test to a standard, which is determined by
electrical engi eers, and the methods are designed by and monitored by
qualified electrical engineers. Do they always get it right??? Nope.
But I think they have more than a fleeting chance of hitting the mark
- being they know what the mark is, what it means, etc etc etc.

On 11/6/2013 3:01 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 12:42:14 -0600, wrote:

On 11/4/2013 12:22 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 10:06:10 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:

Probably several code violations. The 14 wire on the 50A breaker for one.
Slipping and mixing the copper and aluminum wire is probably another one.
When dealing with the aluminum wire it is difficult enough to keep from
burning down a house. I lived in a house that had the aluminum wiring and I
did tighten the wires at the fuse box several times. A house down the
street that was built at the same time (aound 1965) did burn down and the
cause was stated to be wiring in and around the fuse box.

Copper and aluminum isn't a problem as long as listed CU-AL
connections are used between.

Extensive testing of aluminum connections for the CPSC found that the
only listed wirenut for aluminum (Ideal 65) can fail even if installed
using the manufacturer's instructions.

Aluminum caused all sorts of grief but
it was eventually sorted out. Some of the problems were labor quality
(AL is less forgiving) and others were metallurgy. AL us still widely
used for large appliances (clothes dryers and ranges) with very few
issues.

Yes, the problems were only for 15 and 20A branch circuits.

Interesting information/question.
What testing method is used by the CPSC? Who designed the test
procedure, and how was it derived? Was an electrical engineer
involved?

The testing was at Wright-Malta Corp and was run by a PE.

He wrote a report with recommendations that has been revised a couple times
http://www.kinginnovation.com/pdfs/R...Fire070706.pdf

There were many thousands of connections under long-term testing.

In addition to expansion, a major problem with aluminum wire is surface
oxidation. A thin oxide layer rapidly forms, and it is an insulator. In
a wire nut connection there may be little actual contact between the
wires because of the oxide. Most of the contact may wind up being the
metal spring in the wire nut, with a couple turns carrying the current.
The spring is not intended to carry the current, and at relatively high
current through the connection the spring can get red hot (probably what
is happening in fig 1 in the report).

The glowing spring will not trip an AFCI because there is no arc.

The author recommends, in general, applying antioxide paste, abrading
the surface to remove the oxide, and making the connection with enough
antioxide paste to protect the wire.

(The last instructions I saw for lugs on large aluminum wire were to
wirebrush the wire and apply antioxide paste. A utility lineman said
they were supposed to wire brush aluminum wire used in mid-span splices
in their wire.)

The report has a couple pages on Ideal 65 wire nuts. They have an
antioxide paste, but that does not fix problems with oxide already on
the wire. Based on information provided I would not use them.

Alumiconn connectors were not in the original testing (they did not
exist then) and initial results have been added to the report. They look
like the best way to splice Al-Al or Al-Cu. Alumiconn uses set screws,
and likely deforms the wire which can break through an oxide layer.
Deforming the wire is likely why connections on large aluminum wire do
not have the same problems as 15 and 20A branch circuits.

The new aluminum wire is harder, and not likely to "extrude" in
heat-cycling at a connection.


The answer, the test method does not adhere to any published or
approved testing method or specification, and no electrical engineer
is involved with the testing, according to all the information I have
been able to find. Kinda says something about their conclusions.

Not to say I have any faith in the Ideal Purple wire nuts - but no
less than the faith I have in the CPSC.

The UL and CSA testing labs test to a standard, which is determined by
electrical engi eers, and the methods are designed by and monitored by
qualified electrical engineers. Do they always get it right??? Nope.
But I think they have more than a fleeting chance of hitting the mark
- being they know what the mark is, what it means, etc etc etc.

Details of testing are not included. There are some details by way of
what testing was not done on the Ideal 65 wirenuts.

One of the complaints that came out of the testing was that the UL tests
used the revised aluminum wire for tests of other components. Most of
the wire actually in use is the original wire. The CPSC asked UL to
revise their tests and UL didn't.

The CPSC appears to have been headed for a recall of aluminum wire,
which would have been enormously expensive. In the inevitable law suit
the court ruled that aluminum wiring was not a consumer product and not
under the purview of the CPSC. (This may have been part of the reason
the CPSC dropped an investigation of FPE breakers. They had some initial
testing done which was not reassuring.)

On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 10:53:28 -0600, bud-- wrote:

On 11/6/2013 3:01 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 12:42:14 -0600, wrote:

On 11/4/2013 12:22 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 10:06:10 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:

Probably several code violations. The 14 wire on the 50A breaker for one.
Slipping and mixing the copper and aluminum wire is probably another one.
When dealing with the aluminum wire it is difficult enough to keep from
burning down a house. I lived in a house that had the aluminum wiring and I
did tighten the wires at the fuse box several times. A house down the
street that was built at the same time (aound 1965) did burn down and the
cause was stated to be wiring in and around the fuse box.

Copper and aluminum isn't a problem as long as listed CU-AL
connections are used between.

Extensive testing of aluminum connections for the CPSC found that the
only listed wirenut for aluminum (Ideal 65) can fail even if installed
using the manufacturer's instructions.

Aluminum caused all sorts of grief but
it was eventually sorted out. Some of the problems were labor quality
(AL is less forgiving) and others were metallurgy. AL us still widely
used for large appliances (clothes dryers and ranges) with very few
issues.

Yes, the problems were only for 15 and 20A branch circuits.

Interesting information/question.
What testing method is used by the CPSC? Who designed the test
procedure, and how was it derived? Was an electrical engineer
involved?

The testing was at Wright-Malta Corp and was run by a PE.

He wrote a report with recommendations that has been revised a couple times
http://www.kinginnovation.com/pdfs/R...Fire070706.pdf

There were many thousands of connections under long-term testing.

In addition to expansion, a major problem with aluminum wire is surface
oxidation. A thin oxide layer rapidly forms, and it is an insulator. In
a wire nut connection there may be little actual contact between the
wires because of the oxide. Most of the contact may wind up being the
metal spring in the wire nut, with a couple turns carrying the current.
The spring is not intended to carry the current, and at relatively high
current through the connection the spring can get red hot (probably what
is happening in fig 1 in the report).

The glowing spring will not trip an AFCI because there is no arc.

The author recommends, in general, applying antioxide paste, abrading
the surface to remove the oxide, and making the connection with enough
antioxide paste to protect the wire.

(The last instructions I saw for lugs on large aluminum wire were to
wirebrush the wire and apply antioxide paste. A utility lineman said
they were supposed to wire brush aluminum wire used in mid-span splices
in their wire.)

The report has a couple pages on Ideal 65 wire nuts. They have an
antioxide paste, but that does not fix problems with oxide already on
the wire. Based on information provided I would not use them.

Alumiconn connectors were not in the original testing (they did not
exist then) and initial results have been added to the report. They look
like the best way to splice Al-Al or Al-Cu. Alumiconn uses set screws,
and likely deforms the wire which can break through an oxide layer.
Deforming the wire is likely why connections on large aluminum wire do
not have the same problems as 15 and 20A branch circuits.

The new aluminum wire is harder, and not likely to "extrude" in
heat-cycling at a connection.


Depends on your definition of "harder" The new wire is less stiff, and
less likely to crack when bent.

The answer, the test method does not adhere to any published or
approved testing method or specification, and no electrical engineer
is involved with the testing, according to all the information I have
been able to find. Kinda says something about their conclusions.

Not to say I have any faith in the Ideal Purple wire nuts - but no
less than the faith I have in the CPSC.

The UL and CSA testing labs test to a standard, which is determined by
electrical engi eers, and the methods are designed by and monitored by
qualified electrical engineers. Do they always get it right??? Nope.
But I think they have more than a fleeting chance of hitting the mark
- being they know what the mark is, what it means, etc etc etc.

Details of testing are not included. There are some details by way of
what testing was not done on the Ideal 65 wirenuts.

One of the complaints that came out of the testing was that the UL tests
used the revised aluminum wire for tests of other components. Most of
the wire actually in use is the original wire. The CPSC asked UL to
revise their tests and UL didn't.

There is actually more of the "revised" wire in use (at least in
Canada) than the "original" wire.

The CPSC appears to have been headed for a recall of aluminum wire,
which would have been enormously expensive. In the inevitable law suit
the court ruled that aluminum wiring was not a consumer product and not
under the purview of the CPSC. (This may have been part of the reason
the CPSC dropped an investigation of FPE breakers. They had some initial
testing done which was not reassuring.)

Used "as" a "consumer product" aluminum wiring is a lot more dangerous
than when used, as designed, as a professionally installed product.
Same with the ideal 65 wirenut. (not impressed with the wirenut in any
event, but "properly installed" they have never failed under testing.)
Proper installation involves disruption of the oxide layer and sealing
with the antioxide paste.
If not properly installed, and then disturbed (by moving the wires to
replace the outlet or switch) failure is pretty well guaranteed.

On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 12:37:43 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 10:53:28 -0600, bud-- wrote:

On 11/6/2013 3:01 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 12:42:14 -0600, wrote:

On 11/4/2013 12:22 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 10:06:10 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:

Probably several code violations. The 14 wire on the 50A breaker for one.
Slipping and mixing the copper and aluminum wire is probably another one.
When dealing with the aluminum wire it is difficult enough to keep from
burning down a house. I lived in a house that had the aluminum wiring and I
did tighten the wires at the fuse box several times. A house down the
street that was built at the same time (aound 1965) did burn down and the
cause was stated to be wiring in and around the fuse box.

Copper and aluminum isn't a problem as long as listed CU-AL
connections are used between.

Extensive testing of aluminum connections for the CPSC found that the
only listed wirenut for aluminum (Ideal 65) can fail even if installed
using the manufacturer's instructions.

Aluminum caused all sorts of grief but
it was eventually sorted out. Some of the problems were labor quality
(AL is less forgiving) and others were metallurgy. AL us still widely
used for large appliances (clothes dryers and ranges) with very few
issues.

Yes, the problems were only for 15 and 20A branch circuits.

Interesting information/question.
What testing method is used by the CPSC? Who designed the test
procedure, and how was it derived? Was an electrical engineer
involved?

The testing was at Wright-Malta Corp and was run by a PE.

He wrote a report with recommendations that has been revised a couple times
http://www.kinginnovation.com/pdfs/R...Fire070706.pdf

There were many thousands of connections under long-term testing.

In addition to expansion, a major problem with aluminum wire is surface
oxidation. A thin oxide layer rapidly forms, and it is an insulator. In
a wire nut connection there may be little actual contact between the
wires because of the oxide. Most of the contact may wind up being the
metal spring in the wire nut, with a couple turns carrying the current.
The spring is not intended to carry the current, and at relatively high
current through the connection the spring can get red hot (probably what
is happening in fig 1 in the report).

The glowing spring will not trip an AFCI because there is no arc.

The author recommends, in general, applying antioxide paste, abrading
the surface to remove the oxide, and making the connection with enough
antioxide paste to protect the wire.

(The last instructions I saw for lugs on large aluminum wire were to
wirebrush the wire and apply antioxide paste. A utility lineman said
they were supposed to wire brush aluminum wire used in mid-span splices
in their wire.)

The report has a couple pages on Ideal 65 wire nuts. They have an
antioxide paste, but that does not fix problems with oxide already on
the wire. Based on information provided I would not use them.

Alumiconn connectors were not in the original testing (they did not
exist then) and initial results have been added to the report. They look
like the best way to splice Al-Al or Al-Cu. Alumiconn uses set screws,
and likely deforms the wire which can break through an oxide layer.
Deforming the wire is likely why connections on large aluminum wire do
not have the same problems as 15 and 20A branch circuits.

The new aluminum wire is harder, and not likely to "extrude" in
heat-cycling at a connection.


The answer, the test method does not adhere to any published or
approved testing method or specification, and no electrical engineer
is involved with the testing, according to all the information I have
been able to find. Kinda says something about their conclusions.

Not to say I have any faith in the Ideal Purple wire nuts - but no
less than the faith I have in the CPSC.

The UL and CSA testing labs test to a standard, which is determined by
electrical engi eers, and the methods are designed by and monitored by
qualified electrical engineers. Do they always get it right??? Nope.
But I think they have more than a fleeting chance of hitting the mark
- being they know what the mark is, what it means, etc etc etc.

Details of testing are not included. There are some details by way of
what testing was not done on the Ideal 65 wirenuts.

One of the complaints that came out of the testing was that the UL tests
used the revised aluminum wire for tests of other components. Most of
the wire actually in use is the original wire. The CPSC asked UL to
revise their tests and UL didn't.

The CPSC appears to have been headed for a recall of aluminum wire,
which would have been enormously expensive. In the inevitable law suit
the court ruled that aluminum wiring was not a consumer product and not
under the purview of the CPSC. (This may have been part of the reason
the CPSC dropped an investigation of FPE breakers. They had some initial
testing done which was not reassuring.)

The only problem with all of this hype is the millions of aluminum
wired houses that are still there showing no problems.
(before CO AL-r and paste).

I always believed this was a workmanship problem as much as an
aluminum problem. Copper is just more forgiving of sloppy
installation.
100%. PROPERLY INSTALLED aluminum has proven to be a very reliable
product - particularly the revised wire. Properly installed WITH
proper wiring devices (co-alr) it is as good as copper.

On 11/7/2013 3:49 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 12:37:43 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 10:53:28 -0600, wrote:

On 11/6/2013 3:01 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 12:42:14 -0600, wrote:

On 11/4/2013 12:22 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 10:06:10 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:

Probably several code violations. The 14 wire on the 50A breaker for one.
Slipping and mixing the copper and aluminum wire is probably another one.
When dealing with the aluminum wire it is difficult enough to keep from
burning down a house. I lived in a house that had the aluminum wiring and I
did tighten the wires at the fuse box several times. A house down the
street that was built at the same time (aound 1965) did burn down and the
cause was stated to be wiring in and around the fuse box.

Copper and aluminum isn't a problem as long as listed CU-AL
connections are used between.

Extensive testing of aluminum connections for the CPSC found that the
only listed wirenut for aluminum (Ideal 65) can fail even if installed
using the manufacturer's instructions.

Aluminum caused all sorts of grief but
it was eventually sorted out. Some of the problems were labor quality
(AL is less forgiving) and others were metallurgy. AL us still widely
used for large appliances (clothes dryers and ranges) with very few
issues.

Yes, the problems were only for 15 and 20A branch circuits.

Interesting information/question.
What testing method is used by the CPSC? Who designed the test
procedure, and how was it derived? Was an electrical engineer
involved?

The testing was at Wright-Malta Corp and was run by a PE.

He wrote a report with recommendations that has been revised a couple times
http://www.kinginnovation.com/pdfs/R...Fire070706.pdf

There were many thousands of connections under long-term testing.

In addition to expansion, a major problem with aluminum wire is surface
oxidation. A thin oxide layer rapidly forms, and it is an insulator. In
a wire nut connection there may be little actual contact between the
wires because of the oxide. Most of the contact may wind up being the
metal spring in the wire nut, with a couple turns carrying the current.
The spring is not intended to carry the current, and at relatively high
current through the connection the spring can get red hot (probably what
is happening in fig 1 in the report).

The glowing spring will not trip an AFCI because there is no arc.

The author recommends, in general, applying antioxide paste, abrading
the surface to remove the oxide, and making the connection with enough
antioxide paste to protect the wire.

(The last instructions I saw for lugs on large aluminum wire were to
wirebrush the wire and apply antioxide paste. A utility lineman said
they were supposed to wire brush aluminum wire used in mid-span splices
in their wire.)

The report has a couple pages on Ideal 65 wire nuts. They have an
antioxide paste, but that does not fix problems with oxide already on
the wire. Based on information provided I would not use them.

Alumiconn connectors were not in the original testing (they did not
exist then) and initial results have been added to the report. They look
like the best way to splice Al-Al or Al-Cu. Alumiconn uses set screws,
and likely deforms the wire which can break through an oxide layer.
Deforming the wire is likely why connections on large aluminum wire do
not have the same problems as 15 and 20A branch circuits.

The new aluminum wire is harder, and not likely to "extrude" in
heat-cycling at a connection.


The answer, the test method does not adhere to any published or
approved testing method or specification, and no electrical engineer
is involved with the testing, according to all the information I have
been able to find. Kinda says something about their conclusions.

Not to say I have any faith in the Ideal Purple wire nuts - but no
less than the faith I have in the CPSC.

The UL and CSA testing labs test to a standard, which is determined by
electrical engi eers, and the methods are designed by and monitored by
qualified electrical engineers. Do they always get it right??? Nope.
But I think they have more than a fleeting chance of hitting the mark
- being they know what the mark is, what it means, etc etc etc.

Details of testing are not included. There are some details by way of
what testing was not done on the Ideal 65 wirenuts.

One of the complaints that came out of the testing was that the UL tests
used the revised aluminum wire for tests of other components. Most of
the wire actually in use is the original wire. The CPSC asked UL to
revise their tests and UL didn't.

The CPSC appears to have been headed for a recall of aluminum wire,
which would have been enormously expensive. In the inevitable law suit
the court ruled that aluminum wiring was not a consumer product and not
under the purview of the CPSC. (This may have been part of the reason
the CPSC dropped an investigation of FPE breakers. They had some initial
testing done which was not reassuring.)

The only problem with all of this hype is the millions of aluminum
wired houses that are still there showing no problems.
(before CO AL-r and paste).

I always believed this was a workmanship problem as much as an
aluminum problem. Copper is just more forgiving of sloppy
installation.

About 1965 copper prices went up and aluminum wire started to be used
for 15 and 20A branch circuits. UL CU/AL rated devices appear to have
come out in the late 60s because of problems. There were still problems
and about 1971 UL removed the listing for aluminum wire, devices and
wire nuts. New UL standards came out about 1972, with a new aluminum
alloy and CO-ALR devices. Use died out about 1973.

UL responded to problems that went far beyond workmanship. Steel screws
in older devices were a particular problem.

100%. PROPERLY INSTALLED aluminum has proven to be a very reliable
product - particularly the revised wire. Properly installed WITH
proper wiring devices (co-alr) it is as good as copper.

Actual tests have shown that connections made according to manufacturers
instructions can fail.

The vast majority of 15/20A aluminum branch circuits in the US use "old
technology" wire. UL tests of CO-ALR devices and wire nuts are made with
the "new technology" wire, which is not the bulk of what is installed
here. And the "new technology" wire has the same oxide problem that the
old wire has.

(The older CU/AL devices, and those from before that which are not
specifically rated for aluminum are certainly also around.)

I have not seen instructions for devices that include abrading the
wire and using paste.

I doubt Ideal 65 instructions include abrading the wire, or twisting
(another recommendation based on testing). Ideal 65 appears to be rated
only Al-Cu now. They do not have Al-Al combinations.

The CPSC previously recommended only pigtailing with COPALUM splices
(which I think you commented on). They now also recommend AlumiConn
splices, which are easily installed.

Aluminum branch circuits can be safe. But they have a lot more potential
for failure than copper.

On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 09:51:14 -0600, bud-- wrote:

On 11/7/2013 3:49 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 12:37:43 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 10:53:28 -0600, wrote:

On 11/6/2013 3:01 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 12:42:14 -0600, wrote:

On 11/4/2013 12:22 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 10:06:10 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:

Probably several code violations. The 14 wire on the 50A breaker for one.
Slipping and mixing the copper and aluminum wire is probably another one.
When dealing with the aluminum wire it is difficult enough to keep from
burning down a house. I lived in a house that had the aluminum wiring and I
did tighten the wires at the fuse box several times. A house down the
street that was built at the same time (aound 1965) did burn down and the
cause was stated to be wiring in and around the fuse box.

Copper and aluminum isn't a problem as long as listed CU-AL
connections are used between.

Extensive testing of aluminum connections for the CPSC found that the
only listed wirenut for aluminum (Ideal 65) can fail even if installed
using the manufacturer's instructions.

Aluminum caused all sorts of grief but
it was eventually sorted out. Some of the problems were labor quality
(AL is less forgiving) and others were metallurgy. AL us still widely
used for large appliances (clothes dryers and ranges) with very few
issues.

Yes, the problems were only for 15 and 20A branch circuits.

Interesting information/question.
What testing method is used by the CPSC? Who designed the test
procedure, and how was it derived? Was an electrical engineer
involved?

The testing was at Wright-Malta Corp and was run by a PE.

He wrote a report with recommendations that has been revised a couple times
http://www.kinginnovation.com/pdfs/R...Fire070706.pdf

There were many thousands of connections under long-term testing.

In addition to expansion, a major problem with aluminum wire is surface
oxidation. A thin oxide layer rapidly forms, and it is an insulator. In
a wire nut connection there may be little actual contact between the
wires because of the oxide. Most of the contact may wind up being the
metal spring in the wire nut, with a couple turns carrying the current.
The spring is not intended to carry the current, and at relatively high
current through the connection the spring can get red hot (probably what
is happening in fig 1 in the report).

The glowing spring will not trip an AFCI because there is no arc.

The author recommends, in general, applying antioxide paste, abrading
the surface to remove the oxide, and making the connection with enough
antioxide paste to protect the wire.

(The last instructions I saw for lugs on large aluminum wire were to
wirebrush the wire and apply antioxide paste. A utility lineman said
they were supposed to wire brush aluminum wire used in mid-span splices
in their wire.)

The report has a couple pages on Ideal 65 wire nuts. They have an
antioxide paste, but that does not fix problems with oxide already on
the wire. Based on information provided I would not use them.

Alumiconn connectors were not in the original testing (they did not
exist then) and initial results have been added to the report. They look
like the best way to splice Al-Al or Al-Cu. Alumiconn uses set screws,
and likely deforms the wire which can break through an oxide layer.
Deforming the wire is likely why connections on large aluminum wire do
not have the same problems as 15 and 20A branch circuits.

The new aluminum wire is harder, and not likely to "extrude" in
heat-cycling at a connection.


The answer, the test method does not adhere to any published or
approved testing method or specification, and no electrical engineer
is involved with the testing, according to all the information I have
been able to find. Kinda says something about their conclusions.

Not to say I have any faith in the Ideal Purple wire nuts - but no
less than the faith I have in the CPSC.

The UL and CSA testing labs test to a standard, which is determined by
electrical engi eers, and the methods are designed by and monitored by
qualified electrical engineers. Do they always get it right??? Nope.
But I think they have more than a fleeting chance of hitting the mark
- being they know what the mark is, what it means, etc etc etc.

Details of testing are not included. There are some details by way of
what testing was not done on the Ideal 65 wirenuts.

One of the complaints that came out of the testing was that the UL tests
used the revised aluminum wire for tests of other components. Most of
the wire actually in use is the original wire. The CPSC asked UL to
revise their tests and UL didn't.

The CPSC appears to have been headed for a recall of aluminum wire,
which would have been enormously expensive. In the inevitable law suit
the court ruled that aluminum wiring was not a consumer product and not
under the purview of the CPSC. (This may have been part of the reason
the CPSC dropped an investigation of FPE breakers. They had some initial
testing done which was not reassuring.)

The only problem with all of this hype is the millions of aluminum
wired houses that are still there showing no problems.
(before CO AL-r and paste).

I always believed this was a workmanship problem as much as an
aluminum problem. Copper is just more forgiving of sloppy
installation.

About 1965 copper prices went up and aluminum wire started to be used
for 15 and 20A branch circuits. UL CU/AL rated devices appear to have
come out in the late 60s because of problems. There were still problems
and about 1971 UL removed the listing for aluminum wire, devices and
wire nuts. New UL standards came out about 1972, with a new aluminum
alloy and CO-ALR devices. Use died out about 1973.

UL responded to problems that went far beyond workmanship. Steel screws
in older devices were a particular problem.

100%. PROPERLY INSTALLED aluminum has proven to be a very reliable
product - particularly the revised wire. Properly installed WITH
proper wiring devices (co-alr) it is as good as copper.

Actual tests have shown that connections made according to manufacturers
instructions can fail.

The vast majority of 15/20A aluminum branch circuits in the US use "old
technology" wire. UL tests of CO-ALR devices and wire nuts are made with
the "new technology" wire, which is not the bulk of what is installed
here. And the "new technology" wire has the same oxide problem that the
old wire has.

(The older CU/AL devices, and those from before that which are not
specifically rated for aluminum are certainly also around.)

I have not seen instructions for devices that include abrading the
wire and using paste.

I doubt Ideal 65 instructions include abrading the wire, or twisting
(another recommendation based on testing). Ideal 65 appears to be rated
only Al-Cu now. They do not have Al-Al combinations.

The CPSC previously recommended only pigtailing with COPALUM splices
(which I think you commented on). They now also recommend AlumiConn
splices, which are easily installed.

Aluminum branch circuits can be safe. But they have a lot more potential
for failure than copper.
Well, the USA definitely moved to aluminum a lot quicker than Canada
did - took longer for CSA to approve the stuff than it took UL - so in
Canada there is a LOT less OT than NT aluminum wiring. My dad was an
electrician, and he only installed a very small amount of the OT
aluminum - and he hated the stuff. The NT aluminum was "like working
with copper, but thicker" - #12 bent about like #14 copper, but took
up more space.. He never stripped aluminum wire 'till he was ready to
make the connections - while in the insulation it didn't oxidize - and
he was always carefull not to nick the conductor - but unlike the OT
wire you COULD bend it twice. Make an eye, straighten it, and make the
eye again, without snapping the wire. The OT stuff was like working
with iron wire.