CW wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Doug Houseman wrote:

...

solder helps with the movement of DC power thru the wires. It actually
can hinder the movement of AC since AC moves on the surface of the wire.
...

DC also moves on surface of the wire because the free electrons
all reside on the surface of a conductor. Solder can help by making
that surface continuous all around the circuit.

Not at all. To see this, one only has to look at AC skin depth. As frequency
decreases, skin depth increases. At 60Hz, skin depth is approximately 1/3",
deeper than common wiring is in diameter.

Are we not discussing different aspects of the phenomenon?
Isn't skin depth the distance below the surface of the conductor
at which the electric field strength drops to some fraction of
what it is at the surface of the conductor?

That is not the location of the free electrons that carry the
current. They stay on the surface.


DC cannot 'jump' across a gap unless it arcs. AC can, which is
why 'blocking' capacitors prevent DC from flowing around an
AC circuit.

AC does not pass through a properly functioning capacitor. Current charges
and discharges the plates, giving the appearance of electrons passing
through the gap but at no time do they do so.

Agreed that the electrons per se do not jump across the capacitor.
But if you have alternating current on one side of the capacitor
you will also have alternating current on the other side. In that
(non?)sense the AC jumps across, though the actual electrons
do not.

--

FF

Backpedaling I see.

wrote in message
oups.com...

CW wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Doug Houseman wrote:

...

solder helps with the movement of DC power thru the wires. It
actually
can hinder the movement of AC since AC moves on the surface of the
wire.
...

DC also moves on surface of the wire because the free electrons
all reside on the surface of a conductor. Solder can help by making
that surface continuous all around the circuit.

Not at all. To see this, one only has to look at AC skin depth. As
frequency
decreases, skin depth increases. At 60Hz, skin depth is approximately
1/3",
deeper than common wiring is in diameter.

Are we not discussing different aspects of the phenomenon?
Isn't skin depth the distance below the surface of the conductor
at which the electric field strength drops to some fraction of
what it is at the surface of the conductor?

That is not the location of the free electrons that carry the
current. They stay on the surface.


DC cannot 'jump' across a gap unless it arcs. AC can, which is
why 'blocking' capacitors prevent DC from flowing around an
AC circuit.

AC does not pass through a properly functioning capacitor. Current
charges
and discharges the plates, giving the appearance of electrons passing
through the gap but at no time do they do so.

Agreed that the electrons per se do not jump across the capacitor.
But if you have alternating current on one side of the capacitor
you will also have alternating current on the other side. In that
(non?)sense the AC jumps across, though the actual electrons
do not.

--

FF

CW wrote:
Backpedaling I see.

wrote in message
oups.com...

CW wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Doug Houseman wrote:

...

solder helps with the movement of DC power thru the wires. It
actually
can hinder the movement of AC since AC moves on the surface of the
wire.
...

DC also moves on surface of the wire because the free electrons
all reside on the surface of a conductor. Solder can help by making
that surface continuous all around the circuit.

Not at all. To see this, one only has to look at AC skin depth. As
frequency
decreases, skin depth increases. At 60Hz, skin depth is approximately
1/3",
deeper than common wiring is in diameter.

Are we not discussing different aspects of the phenomenon?
Isn't skin depth the distance below the surface of the conductor
at which the electric field strength drops to some fraction of
what it is at the surface of the conductor?

That is not the location of the free electrons that carry the
current. They stay on the surface.


DC cannot 'jump' across a gap unless it arcs. AC can, which is
why 'blocking' capacitors prevent DC from flowing around an
AC circuit.

AC does not pass through a properly functioning capacitor. Current
charges
and discharges the plates, giving the appearance of electrons passing
through the gap but at no time do they do so.

Agreed that the electrons per se do not jump across the capacitor.
But if you have alternating current on one side of the capacitor
you will also have alternating current on the other side. In that
(non?)sense the AC jumps across, though the actual electrons
do not.


No, I am not.

You, however, seem to be unclear on the concept of skin depth.

Skin depth is a measure of the depth to which the electric field
penetrates the material. It is not, as you seem to believe, the
depth at which the current flows.

IOW, you're wrong.


--

FF

In article .com, wrote:

You, however, seem to be unclear on the concept of skin depth.

Skin depth is a measure of the depth to which the electric field
penetrates the material. It is not, as you seem to believe, the
depth at which the current flows.

Speaking of unclear on the concept... an electric field is simply a field in
which work is done on an electric charge -- IOW, where current flows.

IOW, you're wrong.

You might want to grab yourself a high school physics text and [re]acquaint
yourself with a few concepts before you so glibly assure CW that he's
mistaken. First, it's *static* charge that resides on the surface of a
conductor, *not* electric current. Second, the cloud of free electrons in a
metal extends throughout it, rather than being confined to the surface.

Finally, you might want to ask yourself why the NEC-permitted ampacity of
conductors below about 4/0 is [roughly] proportional to their cross-sectional
area, not their diameter.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com
, wrote:

You, however, seem to be unclear on the concept of skin depth.

Skin depth is a measure of the depth to which the electric field
penetrates the material. It is not, as you seem to believe, the
depth at which the current flows.

Speaking of unclear on the concept... an electric field is simply a field in
which work is done on an electric charge -- IOW, where current flows.

In a force field the potential to do work is present, whether work
is actually being done or not. Surely you'll agree that the electric
field extends beyond the wire into the surrounding air where no
current flows.

You do not need current to have an electric field. Light is
an example. The skin depth for light is real small.


IOW, you're wrong.

You might want to grab yourself a high school physics text and [re]acquaint

Wikipedia has good articles on the subject.

yourself with a few concepts before you so glibly assure CW that he's
mistaken. First, it's *static* charge that resides on the surface of a
conductor, *not* electric current. Second, the cloud of free electrons in a
metal extends throughout it, rather than being confined to the surface.

OK, you got me there.

I wasn't familiar with the relationship between skin depth and
current density. The current density at the center of #12 wire
is almost 90% of that at the surface, right?

Last night I was thinking about this and remembered the
Hall effect. That would not be possible without current
passing through the conductor, rather than along the surface.

NOW, Mr CW can see me backpedaling.


Finally, you might want to ask yourself why the NEC-permitted ampacity of
conductors below about 4/0 is [roughly] proportional to their cross-sectional
area, not their diameter.

The NEC tables make assumptions about heat-dissipation
to the environment and 4/0 down to #8 conductors are
typically multi-standed, both of which complicate the issue.

If we look at the DC resistances vs cross sectional areas
for #10 and smaller in the table he

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_wire_gauge

We see that the resistance is inversely proportionate to the
the cross sectional area, confirming your point. In that
same range the NEC permitted ampacity goes up on a per/
cross-sectional area basis as the wire size goes down,
evidently because the larger surface to volume ratio
dissipates heat better.

How about closing an AC circuit through a capacitor?
Would you agree that the AC 'passes' through the capacitor
even though the electrons do not?

BTW, other than the description at the top of the page,
I don't see any difference between NEC 310-19 and
NEC 310-18 he
http://www.houwire.com/products/tech...cle310_18.html
http://www.houwire.com/products/tech...cle310_19.html

Are those pages correct?

--

FF

On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 14:08:24 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article .com, wrote:

You, however, seem to be unclear on the concept of skin depth.

Skin depth is a measure of the depth to which the electric field
penetrates the material. It is not, as you seem to believe, the
depth at which the current flows.

Speaking of unclear on the concept... an electric field is simply a field in
which work is done on an electric charge -- IOW, where current flows.

Take a good look at a circuit board trace, if skin effect was a major
problem most would behave similar to Windows 3.0

Mark
(sixoneeight) = 618

OP: Can improper wiring cause a fire.

Yes.

Next?

I do feel a bit vindicated watching these last 120+ posts about moot
points, discussed by a group of full-time arguers, most of those don't
have a clue.
Now prior to my last run in with a few of these mental giants, I would
have taken pleasure in throwing a few bones to these gnarly pups just
to see them flip out all over each-other. Chasing tails, drooling,
panting, refusing to roll over and LOTS of yapping.

Did anyone see that wicked chropractical move they did on Hussein's
neck? I don't know why they bumped him off, he would have made a great
commentator on FOX news.

*singing*
"Lord loves a hanging
that's why he gave us necks"

(Ren & Stimpy)

love,

r

On 30 Dec 2006 21:02:11 -0800, "Robatoy" wrote:

OP: Can improper wiring cause a fire.

Yes.

Did that a long time ago
(sixoneeight) = 618

In article . com, wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com
, wrote:

You, however, seem to be unclear on the concept of skin depth.

Skin depth is a measure of the depth to which the electric field
penetrates the material. It is not, as you seem to believe, the
depth at which the current flows.

Speaking of unclear on the concept... an electric field is simply a field in
which work is done on an electric charge -- IOW, where current flows.

In a force field the potential to do work is present, whether work
is actually being done or not. Surely you'll agree that the electric
field extends beyond the wire into the surrounding air where no
current flows.

Yeah, I'll go along with that.

You do not need current to have an electric field. Light is
an example. The skin depth for light is real small.



IOW, you're wrong.

You might want to grab yourself a high school physics text and [re]acquaint

Wikipedia has good articles on the subject.

yourself with a few concepts before you so glibly assure CW that he's
mistaken. First, it's *static* charge that resides on the surface of a
conductor, *not* electric current. Second, the cloud of free electrons in a
metal extends throughout it, rather than being confined to the surface.

OK, you got me there.

I wasn't familiar with the relationship between skin depth and
current density. The current density at the center of #12 wire
is almost 90% of that at the surface, right?

I haven't run the numbers, but that sounds about right, maybe on the low side,
even.
[snip]
How about closing an AC circuit through a capacitor?
Would you agree that the AC 'passes' through the capacitor
even though the electrons do not?

In a sense, anyway -- but I think we're splitting hairs. Certainly if you
apply an alternating current to one side of a capacitor, you get an
alternating current out of the other side too.

BTW, other than the description at the top of the page,
I don't see any difference between NEC 310-19 and
NEC 310-18 he
http://www.houwire.com/products/tech...cle310_18.html
http://www.houwire.com/products/tech...cle310_19.html

Are those pages correct?

I didn't check every entry, but the first one appears to be correct. The
second one is definitely *not* correct: they have erroneously reproduced
310.18 under the heading of 310.19. The two tables are in fact substantially
different.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 16:28:12 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

How about closing an AC circuit through a capacitor?
Would you agree that the AC 'passes' through the capacitor
even though the electrons do not?

In a sense, anyway -- but I think we're splitting hairs. Certainly if you
apply an alternating current to one side of a capacitor, you get an
alternating current out of the other side too.

The hair splitting is in how the phenomenon is described or measured,
and it's easily confused by the base terms. In other words, the base
term is "Alternating Current" which should describe voltage of a
certain frequency.

In the capacitor scenario, the confusion arises because we tend to
think of DC and its "flow of electrons." Obviously that flow must come
to a stop at an open circuit, i.e. the capacitor. However, in AC,
where the electrons only move a relatively short distance (and
depending on frequency) before switching direction, the "effect" of
electron flow is seen as being across the capacitor.

That "flow" is measured as current, which leads to the precept that AC
flows through a capacitor and DC is blocked by it. In truth, however,
although you can measure the current flow, and work is actually done,
the electrons don't actually cross the capacitor.

--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 04:30:41 -0600, "Henry St.Pierre"
wrote:

Also note that the amount of electricity that can flow through a system
is controlled by the amount of resistance on the circuit, with the most
basic factor controlling resistance being the size of the wire. If we
shrink the wire two things happen; first, less power gets through, and
second, the wire heats up at that point.

You wrote this? This is really a 'dumbed down' start. I stopped reading
after the above. I'm sure you are experienced with electricity and
understand home wiring very well, but your explanation of it needs work.
No offense meant.
Hank

I have no idea what I was trying to say there. I think I just mashed a
couple thoughts together. Like I said, this was done quickly.
Actually, the basic point there has to be something about smaller wire
getting hotter for a given load, which would relate to the small size
of the connector in the stab-in connection, which is what gets hot
under load. As a matter of fact, the use of stab-in connectors is
either banned or strongly discouraged in many areas now.

Re-reading that article there are a couple places I need to clean up.
--
"We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

Since this over milked subject won't die a natural death, I finally had to
throw some gasoline on the fire.
---So:---
(1) "Also note that the amount of electricity that can flow....."
Electricity having two attributes i.e.; Voltage and Current I shall assume
you're referring to Current in this context?

(2) "with the most basic factor controlling resistance is the size of the
wire." I shall agree if we ignore the type of material the wire is made of
such as lead, copper, silver, gold, tungsten, aluminum, etc-ad-inifinitum.
Just ask the toaster manufacturers !

(3) Are we now going to add surface current flow to our consideration of
wire sizes to power our tools? And do we ignore the mechanical strength
solder adds to a joint? Further, very few, in fact none of my stationary
power tools run on DC, so I shall conclude that is "safe" to delete surface
current comparisons of AC vs DC from this highly over technical evaluation
of what started out as a simple.... Yes/No question?

But at least the Engineering theorists sure had fun with it didn't they?
Not a lot of practicality here for application in the home shop , but a lot
of smoke got blown and a lot of chest got beaten on!

Don Dando


"Tim Douglass" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 04:30:41 -0600, "Henry St.Pierre"
wrote:

Also note that the amount of electricity that can flow through a system
is controlled by the amount of resistance on the circuit, with the most
basic factor controlling resistance being the size of the wire. If we
shrink the wire two things happen; first, less power gets through, and
second, the wire heats up at that point.

You wrote this? This is really a 'dumbed down' start. I stopped reading
after the above. I'm sure you are experienced with electricity and
understand home wiring very well, but your explanation of it needs work.
No offense meant.
Hank

I have no idea what I was trying to say there. I think I just mashed a
couple thoughts together. Like I said, this was done quickly.
Actually, the basic point there has to be something about smaller wire
getting hotter for a given load, which would relate to the small size
of the connector in the stab-in connection, which is what gets hot
under load. As a matter of fact, the use of stab-in connectors is
either banned or strongly discouraged in many areas now.

Re-reading that article there are a couple places I need to clean up.
--
"We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh,
and bring something to kill"

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

Markem (sixoneeight) wrote:
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:42:00 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

Properly installed aluminum wiring is not hazardous.

Given that most home owners do not know that it also must be
maintained over "properly installed". ...

Could you summarize some of the maintenance issues?

Does anything need inspection and/or replacement more often
than copper wire?

--

FF

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 12:49:12 -0700, wrote
(in article .com):


Markem (sixoneeight) wrote:
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:42:00 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

Properly installed aluminum wiring is not hazardous.

Given that most home owners do not know that it also must be
maintained over "properly installed". ...

Could you summarize some of the maintenance issues?

Does anything need inspection and/or replacement more often
than copper wire?



Check connection tightness perodically. The wide thermal expansion properties
makes Al wire tend to work itself loose after awhile. Also be ware of any
connecting devices (wire nuts, screw lugs, etc.) that are not specifically
rated for Al wire.

Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 12:49:12 -0700, wrote
(in article .com):


Markem (sixoneeight) wrote:
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:42:00 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

Properly installed aluminum wiring is not hazardous.

Given that most home owners do not know that it also must be
maintained over "properly installed". ...

Could you summarize some of the maintenance issues?

Does anything need inspection and/or replacement more often
than copper wire?



Check connection tightness perodically. The wide thermal expansion properties
makes Al wire tend to work itself loose after awhile. Also be ware of any
connecting devices (wire nuts, screw lugs, etc.) that are not specifically
rated for Al wire.

That's kind of hard to do when the connections are inside of the
wall, right?

--

FF

writes:

Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 12:49:12 -0700, wrote
(in article .com):


Markem (sixoneeight) wrote:
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:42:00 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

Properly installed aluminum wiring is not hazardous.

Given that most home owners do not know that it also must be
maintained over "properly installed". ...

Could you summarize some of the maintenance issues?

Does anything need inspection and/or replacement more often
than copper wire?



Check connection tightness perodically. The wide thermal expansion properties
makes Al wire tend to work itself loose after awhile. Also be ware of any
connecting devices (wire nuts, screw lugs, etc.) that are not specifically
rated for Al wire.

That's kind of hard to do when the connections are inside of the
wall, right?

NEC forbids connections that cannot be easily accessed. In this case, one must
pull the device and torque the connections to the correct value for Al Wire.

Of course, the device itself must be rated for AL or AL/CU.

scott

wrote:

That's kind of hard to do when the connections are inside of the
wall, right?

You are in over your head sunshine, give it up.

Lew

In article .com, wrote:
Bruce wrote:
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:42:00 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

Properly installed aluminum wiring is not hazardous.
[...]
Check connection tightness perodically.
[...]
That's kind of hard to do when the connections are inside of the
wall, right?

That, in and of itself, is sufficient to exclude the installation from the
category of "properly installed" wiring, whether aluminum or copper. The NEC
requires all junctions to be readily accessible.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com, wrote:
Bruce wrote:
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:42:00 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

Properly installed aluminum wiring is not hazardous.
[...]
Check connection tightness perodically.
[...]
That's kind of hard to do when the connections are inside of the
wall, right?

That, in and of itself, is sufficient to exclude the installation from the
category of "properly installed" wiring, whether aluminum or copper. The NEC
requires all junctions to be readily accessible.


Aha, so is removing the cover plate and then removing the
switch or outlet from the box is readily accessible, tearing
out the wall is where the line is drawn.

I sure wish those boxes were bigger, or at least DEEPER.
I recently replaced a ground -fault breaker in a bathroom
and it was a PIA.

I'm willing to bet that the number of homes that get that
inspection ever, let alone periodically, is about nil.

In an earlier article (not sure if its part of this thread or an
earlier discussion, someone suggested that for copper
wire it was better to terminate it on the screw, rather
than using the clamp. I assume he was referring to
switches and outlets. I find that to be well-nigh
impossible with #12. Is it acceptable to use crimped
lugs, with two lugs on the same screw? Or is there
really no problem with what Leviton calls 'back' connections?

I emailed Houston Wire to tell them about the error
in their webpages. Thanks for checking.

--

FF

wrote:

Aha, so is removing the cover plate and then removing the
switch or outlet from the box is readily accessible, tearing
out the wall is where the line is drawn.

Yep.

I sure wish those boxes were bigger, or at least DEEPER.
I recently replaced a ground -fault breaker in a bathroom
and it was a PIA.

You can get deeper/bigger boxes, but they cost a lot more--far out of
proportion to the size increase.

Chris

In article om, wrote:
Aha, so is removing the cover plate and then removing the
switch or outlet from the box is readily accessible,

Absolutely.

tearing out the wall is where the line is drawn.

Something to the effect of "without removing or damaging the structure or
finish of the building" is where the line is drawn. Tearing out the wall would
fall under that heading, but so would removing a piece of molding.

I sure wish those boxes were bigger, or at least DEEPER.
I recently replaced a ground -fault breaker in a bathroom
and it was a PIA.

I assume you mean a GFCI *outlet*... Deeper boxes do exist, and they're
frequently used in new construction, particularly where GFCIs are required.

I'm willing to bet that the number of homes that get that
inspection ever, let alone periodically, is about nil.

I won't take that bet. :-)

In an earlier article (not sure if its part of this thread or an
earlier discussion, someone suggested that for copper
wire it was better to terminate it on the screw, rather
than using the clamp.

True. It's *much* more secure.

Note that for aluminum wire, the clamp isn't even an option: you *must* use
the screw.

I assume he was referring to
switches and outlets. I find that to be well-nigh
impossible with #12.

Why? It's not that hard to bend a hook on the end of a #12 copper wire. Grab
it with the tip of a needlenose pliers and twist. Or use an electrician's
stripper-crimper tool (e.g. Gardner-Bender GS-70) -- most have a hole about
1/8" in diameter in one of the jaws, specifically for making such hooks. Stick
the wire through the hole, twist the tool 180 degrees, and voila! a perfect
hook.

Is it acceptable to use crimped
lugs, with two lugs on the same screw?

Yes, if the lugs are rated for 120V *and* the device is rated for two lugs. Of
course, you could use one wire in a lug as a pigtail, and wire-nut it to as
many other wires as needed.

Or is there
really no problem with what Leviton calls 'back' connections?

Yes, there really is a problem -- they're not nearly as secure as originally
believed. In fact, they're no longer listed for use with 14ga wire
specifically because of that. They don't always grab 12ga as tightly as they
should. Better to avoid them altogether, and just use the screws.

I emailed Houston Wire to tell them about the error
in their webpages. Thanks for checking.

No prob.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article om, wrote:
....

I assume you mean a GFCI *outlet*... Deeper boxes do exist, and they're
frequently used in new construction, particularly where GFCIs are required.


....
wire it was better to terminate it on the screw, rather
than using the clamp.

True. It's *much* more secure.

Note that for aluminum wire, the clamp isn't even an option: you *must* use
the screw.

But (and I am asking this mostly for the lurkers) surely only with
a proper (rated for aluminum) terminator on the wire. You are NOT
allowed to use bare aluminum wire under a brass screw, that is
a sure fire (no pun intended) recipe for disaster, right?


... Grab
it with the tip of a needlenose pliers and twist. Or use an electrician's
stripper-crimper tool (e.g. Gardner-Bender GS-70) -- most have a hole about
1/8" in diameter in one of the jaws, specifically for making such hooks. Stick
the wire through the hole, twist the tool 180 degrees, and voila! a perfect
hook.

OK that'd work but then the heads of the screws would stand
proud and the fixture would not fit back in the box. The GFCI
(thank you) protects two 'downstream' circuits. Looks like
one of those larger boxes is called for. And for a fumble
fingers like myself, lugs.


Is it acceptable to use crimped
lugs, with two lugs on the same screw?

Yes, if the lugs are rated for 120V *and* the device is rated for two lugs. Of
course, you could use one wire in a lug as a pigtail, and wire-nut it to as
many other wires as needed.

When I rewire my home, which is currently a *******
mix of romex and knob and tube, I intend, wherever possible,
to avoid both 'pass through' and splices behind the outlets,
feeding them from separate junction boxes in the attic or
crawlspace.

It is downright scary to discover that turning the lights on in
my dining room causes an (unused) upstairs bedroom outlet
to become hot to the touch.

But, as Mr Hodgett so diplomatically suggests, I've a lot
to learn first.

--

FF

In article .com, wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:
In article om,
wrote:
....

I assume you mean a GFCI *outlet*... Deeper boxes do exist, and they're
frequently used in new construction, particularly where GFCIs are required.


....
wire it was better to terminate it on the screw, rather
than using the clamp.

True. It's *much* more secure.

Note that for aluminum wire, the clamp isn't even an option: you *must* use
the screw.

But (and I am asking this mostly for the lurkers) surely only with
a proper (rated for aluminum) terminator on the wire. You are NOT
allowed to use bare aluminum wire under a brass screw, that is
a sure fire (no pun intended) recipe for disaster, right?

Bare aluminum wire can be attached to any screw terminal that is rated for
aluminum wire. What that consists of specifically, I don't know. I don't seem
to have any CO/ALR-rated devices around; all my spares look to be Cu-only.

... Grab
it with the tip of a needlenose pliers and twist. Or use an electrician's
stripper-crimper tool (e.g. Gardner-Bender GS-70) -- most have a hole about
1/8" in diameter in one of the jaws, specifically for making such hooks. Stick
the wire through the hole, twist the tool 180 degrees, and voila! a perfect
hook.

OK that'd work but then the heads of the screws would stand
proud

Well, yes -- by the thickness of the wire. Big deal.

and the fixture would not fit back in the box.

Of course it will; what are you talking about? Electricians do this all the
time. A standard receptacle box is 2" wide, and a 120V receptacle with wires
attached to screw terminals on each side is only about 1 3/8" outside
dimension from screw head to screw head.

The GFCI
(thank you) protects two 'downstream' circuits.

No, it doesn't.

Quite possibly it does protect two downstream *outlets*. g

Looks like
one of those larger boxes is called for. And for a fumble
fingers like myself, lugs.

Just attach the wires to the screw terminals. It's easier and neater.
[...]

When I rewire my home, which is currently a *******
mix of romex and knob and tube, I intend, wherever possible,
to avoid both 'pass through' and splices behind the outlets,
feeding them from separate junction boxes in the attic or
crawlspace.

Do yourself a favor and get a book or two on residential wiring from the
library or from the Borg before you start.

It is downright scary to discover that turning the lights on in
my dining room causes an (unused) upstairs bedroom outlet
to become hot to the touch.

I think I'd replace that outlet today -- and install the new one with
pigtails.

But, as Mr Hodgett so diplomatically suggests, I've a lot
to learn first.

It appears he may be right -- but it's not rocket science, either. You can
learn nearly everything you need to know by reading, and by asking questions
of those who know what they're doing. If you've ever followed other threads on
the Wreck dealing with electrical wiring, you probably have a sense of whose
advice you can trust[*], whose you should take with a grain of salt, and
whose you should disregard altogether.
[*] I'd place LRod in that category, and, if I might be so immodest, myself.
(I'm sure there are others here, too, and I don't mean to offend anyone
whom I have inadvertently failed to mention.) People that LRod and I have
disagreed with (or made sport of!) over electrical issues probably belong in
one of the latter two categories.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com, wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:
In article om,
wrote:
....

OK that'd work but then the heads of the screws would stand
proud

Well, yes -- by the thickness of the wire. Big deal.

and the fixture would not fit back in the box.

Of course it will; what are you talking about?

Maybe the wrong box was used.

...
The GFCI
(thank you) protects two 'downstream' circuits.

No, it doesn't.

Quite possibly it does protect two downstream *outlets*. g

Light switches and lighting fixtures. It is unlikely that
someone will leave the switch on and stick their finger
in the socket while changing the light bulb while taking
a shower but why take chances. ;-)


Do yourself a favor and get a book or two on residential wiring from the
library or from the Borg before you start.

Guaranteed. I'll also have to take a test to do it legally
in my county. From what I've seen of the existing wiring,
either the test is less than thorough or a lot wiring
has been done illegally. I lived in an apartment that
had light switches wired in series (not either/or, series)
and a breaker panel that dangled from one screw.
Plus the painters didn't bother masking off the outlets,
they just painted over them so I had to dig the paint
out before plugging anything in.

...
But, as Mr Hodgett so diplomatically suggests, I've a lot
to learn first.

It appears he may be right -- but it's not rocket science, either.

If it were rocket science, it'd be easier.

....

[*] I'd place LRod in that category, and, if I might be so immodest, myself.
...

Damn straight, that's why I asked you.

--

FF

On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 18:17:28 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article om, wrote:

Or is there
really no problem with what Leviton calls 'back' connections?

Yes, there really is a problem -- they're not nearly as secure as originally
believed. In fact, they're no longer listed for use with 14ga wire
specifically because of that. They don't always grab 12ga as tightly as they
should. Better to avoid them altogether, and just use the screws.

It's probably a good idea to differentiate between "backstab" and
"backclamp" connections and receptacles. I think we're all in
agreement that the "backstab" (stick the wire in the hole and walk
away) method has proven to be horrid. While doing my remodel, I
believe I've successfully replaced every single one that was
originally installed in my house (and contractor grade, too--ugh).

Cooper (and probably Leviton, too) currently makes a model of
receptacle that is "backclamp" which means there is a movable bar
under the screws with access holes from the back. You can either put a
loop under the screw, as is being discussed, or you can stick the wire
in the hole behind the bar and tighten the screw which clamps the wire
under the bar. Electrically AND mechanically, it's virtually identical
to the loop-under-the-screw method.

Also, as to making loops, Klein has several models of their
screwdrivers which have a little pin that protrudes about 3/8" from
the handle, adjacent (by about 5/32") and parallel to the blade. Its
function is to turn a loop on the end of a piece of wire. Much better
than the pliers as one doesn't have to pick up and lay down a separate
tool--you're going to use the screwdrive in the next step (although
you probably used the pliers in the previous step, so it may be a
wash).

Thanks, Doug, for the endorsement in your other post. I'm humbled. And
I assert that you needn't be immodest--so far as I'm concerned you're
about the most trustworthy electrical poster here.


--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.

LRod wrote:

It's probably a good idea to differentiate between "backstab" and
"backclamp" connections and receptacles. I think we're all in
agreement that the "backstab" (stick the wire in the hole and walk
away) method has proven to be horrid. While doing my remodel, I
believe I've successfully replaced every single one that was
originally installed in my house (and contractor grade, too--ugh).

Way back when I was involved with wiring devices, Leviton was the king
of residential devices or as is was known the strip & stuff line.

Hubbell was king of the high end devices.

You want high end devices, look for 5262 with is an industrial device,
5252 which is a commercial grade or if money is no object 8300 which
is hospital grade.

Probably won't find any of them at a DIY center.

Lew


Either are back/side wired

LRod wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 18:17:28 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article om, wrote:

Or is there
really no problem with what Leviton calls 'back' connections?

Yes, there really is a problem -- they're not nearly as secure as originally
believed. In fact, they're no longer listed for use with 14ga wire
specifically because of that. They don't always grab 12ga as tightly as they
should. Better to avoid them altogether, and just use the screws.

It's probably a good idea to differentiate between "backstab" and
"backclamp" connections and receptacles. I think we're all in
agreement that the "backstab" (stick the wire in the hole and walk
away) method has proven to be horrid. ...
Cooper (and probably Leviton, too) currently makes a model of
receptacle that is "backclamp" which means there is a movable bar
under the screws with access holes from the back. You can either put a
loop under the screw, as is being discussed, or you can stick the wire
in the hole behind the bar and tighten the screw which clamps the wire
under the bar. Electrically AND mechanically, it's virtually identical
to the loop-under-the-screw method.

Yes, that describes exactly the Leviton GFCI outlet I put in.
There are two holes for each screw so that two wires can
be 'backclamped' to each, one on each side of the screw.
The back has a guide for how far to strip the insulation.

I don't think Ive ever seen the 'backstab' type, I'll watch out
and avoid them.

Thanks, I feel better about it now.

--

FF

In article , duckecho@gmail-dot-com wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 18:17:28 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article om,
wrote:

Or is there
really no problem with what Leviton calls 'back' connections?

Yes, there really is a problem -- they're not nearly as secure as originally
believed. In fact, they're no longer listed for use with 14ga wire
specifically because of that. They don't always grab 12ga as tightly as they
should. Better to avoid them altogether, and just use the screws.

It's probably a good idea to differentiate between "backstab" and
"backclamp" connections and receptacles. I think we're all in
agreement that the "backstab" (stick the wire in the hole and walk
away) method has proven to be horrid. While doing my remodel, I
believe I've successfully replaced every single one that was
originally installed in my house (and contractor grade, too--ugh).

Cooper (and probably Leviton, too) currently makes a model of
receptacle that is "backclamp" which means there is a movable bar
under the screws with access holes from the back. You can either put a
loop under the screw, as is being discussed, or you can stick the wire
in the hole behind the bar and tighten the screw which clamps the wire
under the bar. Electrically AND mechanically, it's virtually identical
to the loop-under-the-screw method.

Good point -- I was thinking, obviously, only of the backstab connections. The
backclamp type are indeed quite solid, and I don't hesitate to use them.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

wrote in message
ps.com...



Aha, so is removing the cover plate and then removing the
switch or outlet from the box is readily accessible, tearing
out the wall is where the line is drawn.

Sorry - don't understand what you're trying to say with the above.


I sure wish those boxes were bigger, or at least DEEPER.
I recently replaced a ground -fault breaker in a bathroom
and it was a PIA.

That's a problem with existing wiring. It's common to find old wiring that
used shallower boxes and in fact those boxes do not meet code for upgrades
to today's devices. Every box has a capacity rating and every element - the
wire, the device have displacements. If you can't stuff the GFCI into the
box you simply have the wrong box, not a problem with the size of the GFCI.
It does become necessary to replace those old shallow boxes with proper
sized boxes. So in short - you're right, it's a PIA, but the relief comes
from a new box.


I'm willing to bet that the number of homes that get that
inspection ever, let alone periodically, is about nil.

I'd suggest that more wiring gets inspected than you might think. Agreed
that a lot of homeowner rework and add-on work does not get inspected, but
more new work in existing structures does indeed get inspected than you'd
guess.


In an earlier article (not sure if its part of this thread or an
earlier discussion, someone suggested that for copper
wire it was better to terminate it on the screw, rather
than using the clamp. I assume he was referring to
switches and outlets. I find that to be well-nigh
impossible with #12. Is it acceptable to use crimped
lugs, with two lugs on the same screw? Or is there
really no problem with what Leviton calls 'back' connections?

#12 terminates on the screws just fine. Strip it back, pre-curl the bare
wire, slide it around the screw and give it a squeeze with the needle nose
and tighten the screw. It's done every day and it's no big deal. It's not
even a little deal.

That said, a lot of GFCI outlets now come with a clamp on the back and
screws on the side. You can wire to the screw as you would a standard
outlet, or you can stab the wire into the back and tighten that same screw
to clamp down the wire. This is not the same as the old, cheap back
stabbers that have been discussed here. This is a real mechanical clamp
that holds.


--

-Mike-

).

Way back when I was involved with wiring devices, Leviton was the king
of residential devices or as is was known the strip & stuff line.

Hubbell was king of the high end devices.

You want high end devices, look for 5262 with is an industrial device,
5252 which is a commercial grade or if money is no object 8300 which
is hospital grade.

Probably won't find any of them at a DIY center.

The "spec grade" outlets are available at HD and their ilk. Cost is a couple
bucks each versus the $0.50 for the cheap junk.

Some brands (Eagle IIRC), has the back clamp capability in the spec grade.

The nice thing is that the device manufactures have produced most of the
styles in the spec grade so you don't have to stay with Hubble brown if you
want a decent outlet.


Lew


Either are back/side wired