ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
Safety at heights?
by gfretwell - 04/22/24 10:36 AM
Old low volt E10 sockets - supplier or alternative
by gfretwell - 04/21/24 11:20 AM
Do we need grounding?
by gfretwell - 04/06/24 08:32 PM
UL 508A SPACING
by tortuga - 03/30/24 07:39 PM
Increasing demand factors in residential
by tortuga - 03/28/24 05:57 PM
New in the Gallery:
This is a new one
This is a new one
by timmp, September 24
Few pics I found
Few pics I found
by timmp, August 15
Who's Online Now
1 members (Scott35), 220 guests, and 11 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 4 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 214
E
Member
Alan, great chemical explination, one thing though, "oxidation" refers to ALL reactions where something loses an electron to another thing, even if it doesn't involve oxygen! this is a convention dating back to when these types of reactions were first really theorized about.

As to Trumpy's greasy connections, any non-polar substance will prevent oxidation reactions, for instance sodium, which will BURN in water (well, produce hydrogen and enough heat to ignite said hydrogen) can be stored in oil, and kept lustrous i.e. not corode, it doesn't have to have any "special" anti oxident properties, even plain graphite would work.



-Will

Stay up to Code with the Latest NEC:


>> 2023 NEC & Related Reference & Exam Prep
2023 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides

Pass Your Exam the FIRST TIME with the Latest NEC & Exam Prep

>> 2020 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides
 

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,803
Member
Will, just shows you never stop learning stuff. I must have dived hundreds of times into my inorganic chemistry textbooks, 'Partington' and 'Mellor' continuously over the last 45 years. And blow me down, there it was all the time hiding in a paragraph under reduction and oxidation! [ redox ].

Alan



Wood work but can't!
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,233
H
Member
I too can see where this gets confusing. I would ask the EC to provide me paper work from the wire manufacture stating that the "goo" is not needed, and I would pass the job. Now if the connector people still want the goo, then the job might fail under 110.3(B)Again, I think the manufactures should get together and work their problems out, then notify, UL, IAEI, and contractors as to the correct way to install their products.

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 399
A
Member
Aluminum wire manufacturers recommend goo but, don't require it because they don't make the connectors.
Connector manufacturers recommend it but don't require it because they don't make the wire.
Some connectors are supplied with goo in them because they were evaluated and listed that way.
The Code could be used to resolve the issue by making it a requirement.
Documenting the need fir the goo is a problem because when the terminal fails it leaves almost no evidence of the cause of failure.


Alan--
If it was easy, anyone could do it.
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3
T
New Member
as an inspector and a contractor I do not require it but I always use it. I am old enough to remember the nightmares
with AL conductors.

Page 4 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5