Copper-clad aluminum cable passed off as legitimate

[pete_c]

Feb 28, 2011


We have reported several times recently about the growing prevalence of counterfeit cable in the North American market. Late last year Underwriters Laboratories instituted the requirement for holographic labels on boxes of cable that bear the UL logo. The Communications Cable and Connectivity Association has undertaken efforts to raise awareness of counterfeits in the market, as part of the association's effort to minimize the amount of counterfeit product that gets installed in networks.

While these efforts continue, counterfeit cable also continues to find its way into the hands of cabling contractors. Jim Hayes heads up VDV Works, a training and consulting company. Hayes also has been the longtime head of The Fiber Optic Association. On February 25, Hayes got ahold of a length of counterfeit cable that took even him, with his decades of experience in structured cabling, by surprise.

http://www.cablingin...le-exposed.html

UL issues warning about Cat 5e patch cables

Apr 9, 2012


Those in the habit of buying their Category 5e patch cords at Big Lots might want to be careful the next time they're shopping. In late March Underwriters Laboratories (UL) issued a public warning about the unauthorized use of its mark on Category 5e patch cables, as well as USB 2.0 cables, known to be sold at Big Lots.

The products are sold under the brand name TriQuest; the Cat 5e model number is 60-0102 and the USB 2.0 model number is 60-0302. UL reports that the manufacturer is Sela Products LLC.

The notice from UL explains that the products "bear an unauthorized UL Mark on the product packaging. The products have not been evaluated by UL to the applicable standard for safety and it is unknown if they comply with the UL safety requirements."

UL's notice also said that the Cat 5e patch cable first went into production in February 2010; there are no date codes on the packaging or product. UL says there are 95,120 units of the Cat 5e patch cable.

As the image at the bottom of this page shows, the front of the packaging bears the TriQuest brand name. The right side of the image shows the back of the product packaging, which includes the unauthorized mark - the encircled letters "UL" - on the bottom right portion of the package.

The USB 2.0 cable that is part of the same UL notice also bears the TriQuest brand name. UL says it first went into production in March 2010 and there are 124,300 units of it. The USB 2.0 cable, like the Cat 5e patch cable, does not include date codes on the product or packaging.

Sela Products did not immediately respond to our request for information.

http://www.cablingin...lCIMApril162012

 

[apostolakisl]

I'm wiring a new office myself soon and just noticed the CCA issue. As I read, I see some people give these dire warnings about cca cat5/6 wire and others saying it is bull and that it works exactly the same except perhaps at the longer distances.

I've even people say it is a terrible fire hazard. This statement really makes me call bull. I challenge somebody to find a single instance where a fire started from a data wire, even with poe.

I can definitely buy the argument that data integrity is lower on CCA, but I haven't seen anything from a real source with real testing equipment testing real wire in real applications, just a bunch of blow hards trying to peddle their wires.

 

[JimS]

Just was pricing bulk network cable the other day and figured out that the cheaper stuff on ebay is CCA. Had not given this any thought until then. There may or may not be issues with this for the average user - I doubt they will see any difference unless they are really pushing the limits. But rather than take a chance on cable that will be hard to rerun I will go the UL rated pure copper route.

 

[apostolakisl]

Just was pricing bulk network cable the other day and figured out that the cheaper stuff on ebay is CCA. Had not given this any thought until then. There may or may not be issues with this for the average user - I doubt they will see any difference unless they are really pushing the limits. But rather than take a chance on cable that will be hard to rerun I will go the UL rated pure copper route.

I did the exact same thing. Didn't even know about the cca thing until started looking at ebay last week. I have similar feelings. I need about 3000ft of cat6 and can get that in pure copper for about $150 more than cca. Compared to the cost and work of installation, that is nothing and figure to just pay it.

 

[apostolakisl]

CAT6 wire frequently is 23 gauge. Is there any issue with the punch down terminators or rj45 plugs when using 23 instead of 24? I would doubt it, but I don't want to have 3000ft of wire and find out I need different terminators.

 

[Del91574]

IDC is IDC connections, as long as they're designed for the proper cabling, either solid or stranded, that's where the difference(s) are in connectors.

Same goes for RJ-45's, some are designed for field cabling, others are for the satin cords.

 

[tmbrown97]

CAT6 wire frequently is 23 gauge. Is there any issue with the punch down terminators or rj45 plugs when using 23 instead of 24? I would doubt it, but I don't want to have 3000ft of wire and find out I need different terminators.

The connectors are made to accept a range of gauges - from 22-24 IIRC (totally from memory)... and as DEL mentioned, there are different ones for stranded vs. solid... That said, while I've noticed some differences when using the wrong ones (with cat 6 connectors and cat 5 wiring, it seems a little loose; vice versa, it's harder to push all the terminals in) - I've never had a single cable fail Fluke's certifications due to using the wrong connector or plug - for what it's worth.

 

[apostolakisl]

The connectors are made to accept a range of gauges - from 22-24 IIRC (totally from memory)... and as DEL mentioned, there are different ones for stranded vs. solid... That said, while I've noticed some differences when using the wrong ones (with cat 6 connectors and cat 5 wiring, it seems a little loose; vice versa, it's harder to push all the terminals in) - I've never had a single cable fail Fluke's certifications due to using the wrong connector or plug - for what it's worth.

Yes, thank you. That is the info I was looking for. It is solid core 100% copper 23g cat6 wire that I was looking to use.

For what it's worth, I once accidentally bought rj45's designed for multi-stranded wire. I got home and was like "damn", tried to use them anyway, but they did not make proper contact about half the time so back to the store I had to go.

 

[tmbrown97]

Everyone's mileage varies... but I found out many years back that I had been using a bag of connectors meant for stranded wire on miles of solid - but never did have an issue. In fact, for all the times I flubbed on the right connectors, *that* was never my issue.

Nearly all of the issues I've had have been from using cheaper crimpers. The right tools do make such a huge difference!

 

[apostolakisl]

Nearly all of the issues I've had have been from using cheaper crimpers. The right tools do make such a huge difference!

Well, that was the problem, sort of. Using the stranded rj45's on the solid wires, when I engaged the crimper, it would slip off of some of the contact blades, presumably because they were meant to cut into stranded wires which I suppose are "softer" than solid wires. However, it is also possible that a better crimper would have made it work. But I really don't think it would be fair to blame the crimper for failing to make a product function other than as it was spec'd. Probably you had a higher grade crimper than my $40 version which was able to overcome such hurdles.

 

[tmbrown97]

I absolutely swear by this crimper... The picture is wrong but the description is right... I have two of them - one with the coax dies and one with the RJ45 dies. They work amazingly well and literally work every single time - not one single bad crimp in probably 10 years and tens of thousands of connections.

 

[NeverDie]

It appears I just got burned by this.  I just recently ordered 250 feet of a popular Cat5e wire from amazon, and there was no mention in either the amazon description, nor on the box, nor on the cable jacketing that it was CCA.  The jacketing *does* state both CMR and TIA/EIA 568.  However, I ran out of cable during installation and was about to buy a box of the same type, but a different color, when I noticed a warning posted by a reviewer of the different color model that it was CCA.  So, I scraped lengthwise the surface of the solid core of a wire from the cabling I just finished installing, and looked at it under 14x magnification, and  beneath the surface it sure does look aluminum in color.   :angry2:
 
In retrospect, the lack of a UL 444 designation is a red flag:  http://www.cablinginstall.com/articles/2011/03/ccca-cda-warn-against-copper-clad-aluminum-cables.html
 
I was planning to do 302.af POE over the cable.  I don't know whether the aluminum will make a difference at roughly 100' length, but because copper has about 70% the resistance of CCA, it's giving me concern.  I definitely think that if a wire is CCA, it should be clearly stated and not require forensic methods to ascertain the truth about it.  Ordinarily, the only color you're likely to notice on 24AWG CCA wire is the copper color, because it is so thin you can't easily see the aluminum color in a cross-section.

 

[NeverDie]

Here's what it looks like after scraping the surface with a box cutter blade.  Unfortunately, the camera wouldn't focus closer. I scraped from left to right. Toward the left you can see the copper color on the part I didn't scrape.
 

 

[sda]

I too admit that I got burned on ebay last year with some 22/4 cca.   The seller did not mention it in the non-existent fine print.  Lesson learned - if it doesn't specifically say "100% copper", ask what it is.  In any event, It hasn't failed yet.  Good enough for guvmint work.

 

[NeverDie]

In looking at a box of 100% copper Cat6 cable, I do notice the UL Listing marking on the box.  In contrast, I don't see a  UL Listing marking anywhere on the box of the cable which appears to be CCA.  I had assumed CMR implied the cable had a UL Listing, but apparently not.
 
In any case, from now on I'm going to look for a marking indicating UL Listing whenever I buy cat cable.