I might disconnect the neutral at the source to allow also tracing the neutral with a "gizmo". Or swap the hot and neutral to trace the neutral separately. (Only to be done if you know what you are doing.)
A tracer for identifying breakers might have enough range to trace buried wires. It can identify the neutral at the panel.
You might be able to use a phone "fox and hound" tracer on disconnected wiring. (Also only if you know what you are doing.)
K&T typically has one outlet per room, necessitating lots of extension cords. beyond the unsafe stuff the OP admitted on post one and ii pasted, do you still think K&T is safe and effective?
90 year old anything is elderly, all sorts of wierd stuff happens when something is that old.how many roofs has a 100 year old home had? how many plumbing upgrades?
how many vehicles have you had in a lifetime?
nothing lasts forever despite how much you protest
The number of outlets in a room has nothing to do with whether K&T is safe. My house, originally wired with rigid pipe, had one or two outlets per room when it was built.
The anecdotal evidence in this thread (clare) clearly indicates Romex is unsafe.
Still missing - the insurance casualty data that shows K&T is unsafe. An insurance company did not present any such data in one of the links that was posted.
The only links that have been posted do not support your crusade against K&T.
I believe the electricians in this newsgroup do not agree with you.
I thought them GRCI (pronounced "gerky") breakers only approved in GReat Britain?
yeah sure obsolete wiring thats been hacked repaired admitted by OP in post number one so old the insulation is falling off, no GFCIs, no arc fault breakers, no grounds, with lots of extension cords run around.
Yep totally safe and effective, heck its so great it should be the standard.
all those required NEC safety codes are totally unnecessary, and state farm is out to lunch refusing to insure homes with K&T/
heck high steps with no railings, its just a scam to sell railings.....
those defending K&T are just attempting to defend their refusal to upgrade their homes.......
..
My agent is a one company man. And he represents that company 100%. So that blows that theory out i guess.
s
The NEC still has a section on K&T. Among the limited applications is reconnecting in a rewire. Why is it still there?
In Minnesota, State Farm put a surcharge on houses that did not have the service replaced in some time period (don't remember what it was). They were reversed by the state insurance regulator. I remember there was no insurance casualty data that supported the surcharge.
In one of the links provided, an insurance company that was challenged "provided no justification for its position".
As I have said, K&T is probably the latest redlining technique.
The house I live in has never had K&T.
The links provided do not support your fetish.
I don't remember anyone else who did either. Why don't you get any support???
Still no insurance casualty information that shows K&T is a problem.
google knob and tube wiring home fire insurance. endless reports of not being able to get homeowners insurance. and that insulation shouldnt be used around K&T wiring.
with todays energy costs who doesnt want insulation?
It's not casualties, it's property loss they are woried about. The vast majority of houses with K&T are under wired, so a lot of extension cords, and often overfused to allow use of all the stuff everyone wants to use. Remenber, many houses had only 2 or 3 fuses originally. Even 6 15 amp circuits is inadequate for most homeowners today.
You really aren't smart enough to get rid of this garbage?
Perhaps you missed:
I understand insurance casualty to be insurance loss information.
Then maybe insurance companies could evaluate if houses had "adequate" outlets and circuits.
As I wrote before, my house was wired with rigid pipe and originally had maybe 1 or 2 outlets per room.
I still believe K&T denials are just redlining.
And to repeat from one of the 2 links in this thread, the report from a state insurance regulator on a challenge to insurance denial, the insurance company "provided no justification for its position that knob and tube wiring per se automatically provides grounds for nonrenewal".
Everyone tends to ignore the fact that there's not one documented case of insulation causing a problem around K&T wiring.
s
That's from ONE case that went to trial. Maybe the insurance company just decided that it wasn't worth the cost to go do the collection of data, make that data to the standards that a court would require, provide all the necessary expert witness testimony instead of just paying the $100K or whatever the judgement would be.
The notion that insurance companies just go around "redlining" for no reason is silly. They have their factors which affect how much they may or may not pay out depending on multiple factors. Personally, I would not want to insure a 100 year old house with hacked up knob and tube as described in the original post. I guess I'd guiltu of "redlining", whatever exactly that term means. Insurance companies are in the business of making money. Denying to take policy when there is not substantial increased risk makes no sense. Google "knob tube wiring insurance" and you will find plenty of hits concerning problems.
I guess the next step is for Obama to nationalize the home insurance markets because some people with K&T can' get insurance and the evil insurance companies are "redlining."
everyone wants low rates, but the added risks from super old homes, K&T wiring, bad roofs. cracked uneven sidewalks, all of these are outward indicators of a poorly maintained home.
when all is said and done the added claims MUST be covered by higher insurance rates. who voluneers to pay more?
if you google this topic you will find many reports of cant get homeowners insurance.
makes selling home near impossible.
It is NOT grounds for non-renewal - and insurance is NOT being cancelled because you have K&T, even here in Ontario. They ARE, however, refusing to write new business on houses with K&T - and no regulator can force them to write that new business.
the only non renewal I talked about is from friends who homeowners company got sold or went out of business. the new company inspected the home and was picky about hazards. both were required to replace all K&T wiring
one friends home needed a new roof, she didnt have the bucks to replace it. but had a mortage. so her lender gave her forced place insurance on structure ONLY. no coverage for possesions or living expenses. this was very bad.
they had a fire, the home was unlivable. officially homeless we had them move in here in our basement while their home was worked on. the damage was so bad, 130 grand lots of stuff had to be brought up to current code, being it was a gut rebuild. the cost was right about the value of the home.
I suggested they use the insurance money to pay the loan and sell off the derelict home, but they refused, and lived with us for 7 months and were out of the house 2 years largely because of insurance delays.
if your insurance company changes hands you can find out no one will insure you. this happened to at least 2 people i know.
some years ago severe coastal storms bankrupted some homeowners companies which started them being picky
It was a hearing before the Maine insurance regulator, not a trial. It resulted in an order to provide insurance because the insurance company "provided no justification for its position". As I said, Minnesota ordered State Farm(?) to drop a surcharge for services that had not been recently upgraded.
And you are saying that insurance companies should base their rates and policies on someone's opinion, not casualty (or loss if you prefer) data? I guess insurance companies could fire the people that analyze data. I think women have more accident, so they get higher rates.
The notion that insurance companies have gone around "redlining" neighborhoods is well documented. The neighborhood are likely to have old houses. Old houses may have K&T. They also tended to have a black population (maybe coincidence?)
Like casualty [loss] data?
Personally I wouldn't want to insure my kid's house (when he bought it) with hacked up Romex and other wiring.
Hacked up, along with not many outlets, is a separate issue.
IMHO K&T is safer than the early Romex (which also did not have a ground).
And what about the early 60 degree rated Romex that is buried in insulation? Twice the heat, wires in close proximity?
Maybe insurance companies could look at the condition of the wiring? They could at least look at casualty data. No indication yet that they did.
It was (maybe metaphorically) drawing a "red line" on a map and not insuring houses in that area. I believe it is illegal in many (all?) states, so insurance companies may use other means to accomplish the same thing.
Which goes back to the same question - what is the evidence there is increased risk? Still missing.
Anecdotal evidence in this thread (clare's younger brother) proves Romex is hazardous.
my best friends 200 year old home had K&T one evening he happened to go to the basement and smelled a burning odor, traced to a old solder joint that was overheating and smoking.......
there you go evidence K&T can cause fires just like romex
Likely have a very high loss ratio in the neighbourhood.
You are being STUPID.
The romex was not the hazard. The house was. And the installation of the Romex. This house was so far off kilter if you dropped anything CLOSE to round on the floor it would head for one corner, all by itself. The "addition" that held the kitchen was on a separate foundation, not tied to the main foundation, and the cable in question went through a drilled hole that went throgh framework on both the main house and the addition. Settling over time had "sheared" the cable between the two timbers. When the insulation finally gave way, it turned into a hot spot.
Granted, with K&T the two wires could never have touched.
The house was a disaster from the day he bought it - but it was all he could afford with a bit of land attached (20 acres IIRC) and room to park his rig, and turn it around. The barn wasn't much to look at either, but they lived in it and a small trailer while the new house was put up. He's my "red-neck trucker" kid brother.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.