# co/alr receptacle backwiring question



## cavecom (May 22, 2011)

I took the Journeyman's test yesterday and this came up.

What type of wire is allowed to be backwired to a recptacle marked Co/Alr?
1. Copper
2. Aluminum
3. both
4. neither

I searched the code book(2002 NEC) for a definitive answer to no avail. I realize that using a receptacle that uses a spring type connection is a bad idea-but other backwiring methods that clamp the wire are available. I haven't seen a co/clr recptacle in the bins at the big box hardware stores that had anything but sidewiring. That doesn't mean there is no such animal. Because there is no specific rule disallowing the practice, I answered 3-both. What answer is correct?:confused1:


----------



## Service Call (Jul 9, 2011)

You're correct on the answer.


----------



## Service Call (Jul 9, 2011)

Service Call said:


> You're correct on the answer.


Wait, you took an exam yesterday with a 2002 code book?


----------



## guest (Feb 21, 2009)

Service Call said:


> Wait, you took an exam yesterday with a 2002 code book?


Not all areas are on the current Code Cycle. California just recently moved up to the 2008 NEC. It will probably be another 6-9 years before they get on 2011. :laughing:


----------



## bread tie (Jul 12, 2011)

*Back wired rec*

A lot of loose connections are found in back wired rec that use spring type holding force if or when they get loose they heat up and get looser a lot of times people plug electric heaters in them and they will give problems. This dosn`t answer your question and i hope not to offend.


----------



## thegoldenboy (Aug 15, 2010)

mxslick said:


> Not all areas are on the current Code Cycle. California just recently moved up to the 2008 NEC. It will probably be another 6-9 years before they get on 2011. :laughing:


I recently spoke to my former high school shop teacher/ night school teacher/ current city inspector and he said the exam I take may very well be based on what Code cycle I entered the trade in and not the '11. He knows a lot of that crap and is very heavily active in the education part of the trade, so I trust him to know what he's talking about.


----------



## cavecom (May 22, 2011)

Service Call said:


> Wait, you took an exam yesterday with a 2002 code book?


Memphis takes a bit longer to catch up to the rest of the country. I'm still not sure what answer they were looking for, just because it makes sense doesn't always mean you're right. Just out of curiosity, has any manufacturer made a co/alr receptacle that could be backwired? The only ones I've seen have sidewire connections. Or is this just the test makers trying to put a trick question in? There was another question that refered to a wiring diagram that had a few electrical values and the question asked for the _dimension_ of one of the unspecified parts of the curcuit in inches. The dimensions ranged from 18" to 24". There was no scale and this was a simple diagram of a curcuit- I had no idea what they were trying to get at, and assumed that the test was flawed- but I answered it just so that I had a one in four chance of getting it right. I'm thinking of asking for a review of the test to see if they put in a diagram that didn't belong there.


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

Since there are not presently, and never have been, any receptacles capable of being backwired that were also marked cu/alr, I think it's a moot point. However, if such a receptacle existed, it would necessarily be rated for backwiring with aluminium conductors.


----------



## frenchelectrican (Mar 15, 2007)

MDShunk said:


> Since there are not presently, and never have been, any receptacles capable of being backwired that were also marked cu/alr, I think it's a moot point. However, if such a receptacle existed, it would necessarily be rated for backwiring with aluminium conductors.


MD.,

If you are refering to the backstabbing with alum conductor then the answer is PAS ! { NOT } however backwiring I do not recall that part if they were rated for that size of alum conductors as far we know with larger receptale devices yeah.,, but run the mill duplex or commercal or spec grade .,, Nope I did not see it speced with direct alum connecton in backwired mode.

Merci,
Marc


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

frenchelectrican said:


> MD.,
> 
> If you are refering to the backstabbing with alum conductor then the answer is PAS ! { NOT } however backwiring I do not recall that part if they were rated for that size of alum conductors as far we know with larger receptale devices yeah.,, but run the mill duplex or commercal or spec grade .,, Nope I did not see it speced with direct alum connecton in backwired mode.
> 
> ...


I think you miss my point. There are not, and never have been, any receptacles capable of backwiring that have been rated for use with aluminium conductors. If such an animal even existed, no matter how unwise, it would be "legal" to backwire with aluminium conductors.


----------



## frenchelectrican (Mar 15, 2007)

MDShunk said:


> I think you miss my point. There are not, and never have been, any receptacles capable of backwiring that have been rated for use with aluminium conductors. If such an animal even existed, no matter how unwise, it would be "legal" to backwire with aluminium conductors.


Ok.,
Maybe I did misunderstood you on this part so therefore I did agree with you and I am aware with North Américaine verison do not have listing for alum backwire however our European verison there are only couple are listed but majorty of our 16 or 20 (24) amp power sockets { receptales } are NOT listed with alum conductors but couple 32 amp verison did have listed but that is very limited items most are listed for copper conductors only.

Merci,
Marc


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

Service Call said:


> Wait, you took an exam yesterday with a 2002 code book?


At one point Washington DC was almost 4 cycles behind. Washington DC is a very inefficient city, run by fools.


----------



## cavecom (May 22, 2011)

frenchelectrican said:


> MD.,
> 
> If you are refering to the backstabbing with alum conductor then the answer is PAS ! { NOT }


 
The term was definitly backwiring and not backstabbing. I'll go down to Code Enforcement on Monday and try to get an answer from them, although it's not really their test it's ICC's. They just administered the test. 
I'm in agreement with MDShunk, if it's listed for the use it should be legal even if it's backstabbed.
I did find something in the 2002 Handbook though...
Article 110.14 - Existing inventory
In the following types of devices, the terminals should not be directly connected to aluminum conductors but may be used with labeled copper or coppper clad conductors:
1.recptacles and snap switches marked "AL-CU"
2.receptacles and snap switches having no conductor marking
3.receptacles and snap switches that have back-wired terminals or screwless terminals of the push-in type

Now the handbook is not the codebook, but I could see someone reading #3 in two ways as it relates to aluminum wiring:
1. back-wired terminals should not be used
2. back-wired terminals of _the push-in _type should not be used


----------



## Shockdoc (Mar 4, 2010)

Never seen a Co/ALR receptacle that can be backstabed


----------

