Ilsco Kupler

[Tim Maxwell]

I ran across this connector today. My reaction is to refer to an electrician. It don't look to me like the #10 wire would be protected from overloading tapped into this main service wire. The wire then went to a panel with a 30 amp breaker for the pool equipment.

Has anyone seen one of these connectors and are they safe or not?

Thanks

Tim

Click to Enlarge

36.66 KB

[Marc]

In my locality, the AHJ would immediately pull the meter on a service entrance if he saw that extra #10 on that main breaker.

Marc

[Jim Katen]

I ran across this connector today. My reaction is to refer to an electrician. It don't look to me like the #10 wire would be protected from overloading tapped into this main service wire. The wire then went to a panel with a 30 amp breaker for the pool equipment.

Has anyone seen one of these connectors and are they safe or not?

Thanks

Tim

I'm not familiar with those taps, but I'm certain that they're not being used the way that the manufacturer intended.

- Jim Katen, Oregon

[Tim Maxwell]

The is another picture with the 30 amp box below. This was on the right side of the house and the pool equipment is at the rear.

I don't see how the wires from the connecting device to the breaker below would be protected from loading up with 150 amps.

I Googled Ilsco Kupler but only came up with sales info, not much in the way of technical at all. They have a UL listing but of course it can still be used the wrong way. It just looks like a fancy way of double tapping.

Click to Enlarge

41.67 KB

[Mark P]

http://www.theresourcestore.ca/proddeta ... sco-Kupler

That is interesting and as Jim said I'm sure it is wrong the way it is being used.

[Jack Davenport]

The question with this installation is not so much with the Ilsco Kupler

as it is with the overall installation.

Question # 1 - The Ilsco Kuplers - what wire range are they listed for ?

This information should be on the Kupler itself. Is this devcie rated to handle these size conductors - if so then the Ilsco devce itself is fine.

Question # 2 - Does this installation fall into the provisions for a "tap rule". Look into National Electrical Code ( NEC) article 240.21(B) (1).

This is the section that covers taps not over 10'.

I do believe that this meets all 4 requirements of the 10 foot tap rule.

If it does meet the provisions of 240.21(B)(1) AND The Ilsco device is listed for the conductors it's used on - then it's a perfectly legal installation.

[hausdok]

I don't see how the wires from the connecting device to the breaker below would be protected from loading up with 150 amps.

The wires are protected the same way that the SEC is protected against overload, with a breaker at the end.

Say you have a service with a 1/0 aluminum SEC between the meter and the panel. What protects the SEC and prevents you from overloading it with a 200 amp load? Answer: The main disconnect breaker that's rated for 125 amps at the end of that cable where it enters the panel. It's the same with that tap; the 30-amp breaker in that little enclosure below the meter prevents drawing more than a 30-amp load through that wire.

If the device is working exactly as it's intended and is listed for #10 wire in that little tap terminal, the only question is whether the tap is legal under the code. That may have already been answered above.

According to Mark's link, It's rated for up to 600 volts and up to 4/0 cable in the large opening and up to #6 wire in the small opening. The only curious thing is the explanation says "battery" cable, which has me thinking DC current; although I don't know what difference AC versus DC would make if it's rated for the voltage being used and properly sized for the wiring being used.

Of course, that's why I always get in trouble answering electrical questions, isn't it?

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[Chad Fabry]

PV systems are fully capable of producing over 300 Vdc depending on the string configuration of panels.

Many PV systems are for the needs of folks who are off the grid and therefore store their energy in battery banks. That connector could be used to pull power, or to wire remote charging connection for a generator.

The connector is just as dangerous in a DC PV system as it is in the panel in the pics. 308VDC will kill you just as dead as 308 VAC.

[Jeff Remas]

The question with this installation is not so much with the Ilsco Kupler

as it is with the overall installation.

Question # 1 - The Ilsco Kuplers - what wire range are they listed for ?

This information should be on the Kupler itself. Is this devcie rated to handle these size conductors - if so then the Ilsco devce itself is fine.

Question # 2 - Does this installation fall into the provisions for a "tap rule". Look into National Electrical Code ( NEC) article 240.21(B) (1).

This is the section that covers taps not over 10'.

I do believe that this meets all 4 requirements of the 10 foot tap rule.

If it does meet the provisions of 240.21(B)(1) AND The Ilsco device is listed for the conductors it's used on - then it's a perfectly legal installation.

I concur and the 2nd photo clarifies the situation better.

[Jack Davenport]

BE CAREFUL here !

Don't assume that the ilsco kuplers in the posted picture are the same ones referenced in that link.

Ilsco makes many many of those, in many many conductor size combinations. Thats why it is so important to note model numbers, makers, etc when you come across items that make you go HUMMMM.

[Tim Maxwell]

There were no other numbers to get other than whats on the endo of the devices. IPC 4/0 - #6, 4/0 - #4. Cu9AL 600V UL listed 453G

This one looked to be 4/0 and #10. Several photos and I don't have anything that looks like it would have been overheated or damaged.

The pool equipment all looked good, bonding, GFCI's, and all just a few years old.

[Richard Moore]

Here's a table of these "insulation piercing" connectors from the comapny site...

https://www.ilsco.com//ProductsDetail.a ... ehSA%3d%3d

If it's the second one down (it does look like fig 2) then it's rated for 600-volts, 4/0-4 AWG on the big side and for #6-14 for the small hole. I'm thinking the set-up might be OK. But it would have had me asking questions too!

[Jack Davenport]

Sounds like you have found an acceptable feeder tap.

It will make people go "what the ......" If they have never come across this before. Most feeder taps take place in industrial or commercial settings.

Good job getting all the required info and pictures!

[Tim Maxwell]

Thanks for the replies guys.

I'm in my 13th year and this is the first time to see this. Just reminded me of a double tap. It's been a weird week.

Yesterday I had a supply leak on a master tub faucet, with the actual leak area not visible. It would only leak when the faucet was turned on. jacuzzi type tub with two access points, still not visible.

Thanks again.

[Carson2006]

Probably not applicable for a feeder tap rule. It definately violates NEC Art. 215.3, Overcurrent Protection.

[Mr. Electric]

As noted above it appears to be a legal tap per NEC 240.21 B-1. This stuff does get complicated sometimes. There are several issues that are possible and I still recommend that an electrician (that knows his stuff) look at it.

I can't tell if a neutral is in the sealtite flex to the disconnect. One is required (even if the disconnect only serves a 240v load) see NEC 200.2.

The tap wires must be connected with a listed connector (it looks like it is), that is sized properly (is it?) for both wires it is connected too..

The name for this type connector is a coupletap.

Great points and discussion.

[Jack Davenport]

Probably not applicable for a feeder tap rule. It definately violates NEC Art. 215.3, Overcurrent Protection.

Article 215.3 tells us that Feeders shall be protected according to Part 1 of Article 240.

Looking into NEC article 240 Overcurrent Protection. Part 1

Specifically Article 240.4(E) Tap Conductors tells us that tap conductors shall be permitted to be protected aganist overcurrent in accordance to

1- 210.19(A0(3) & (A)(4) Ranges & Cooking aplliances -- N/A

2 -240.5 (B)(2) Fixture Wire --- N/A

3- 240.21 Location in Circuit - (Thats Us)

4- 368.17(B) Reduction in ampacity busways-- N/A

5 -368.17© Busway taps-- N/A

6- 430.53(D) Single motor taps-- N/A

So now article 215.3 tells us to go to part 1 of article 240.

Part 1 of article 240 we find 240.4(E).

In article 240.4(E) it tells us that we need to look at article 240.21.

Article 240.21 (1) Taps not over 10'.

Thats how we know that this is an ok tap.

The first rule of reading the NEC is - When you think you found the answer - Keep reading. You must reference all the article numbers that the code article mentions as it refers you to other areas of the code that are related.