Older house wiring puzzle

Page 7 of 10  

Roger Shoaf wrote:

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.)
--
bud--

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Electrical_Code
In looking into the NEC this report clearly indicates that although the NEC isnt a national law anyone who desnt follow its rules are liable if a fire occurs.
so nearly all juristictions have adopted these rules as local laws.
and if bud happily insulates over K&T to make a few bucks, and a fire occurs bud will be liable in a court of law for his stupidity.
ultimately who doing any home repairs wants the risk of a fire? or to be civily or criminally liable if a fire occurs? or someone gets hurt or worse?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
bob haller wrote:

Continuing stupidity from hallerb.
The code that applies is the one that has been accepted where you are.

It is common for jurisdictions to accept the NEC _with modifications_.

hallerb stupidly continues to misunderstand the authority of the NEC.
The code that applies is the code that has been accepted in your jurisdiction. Many jurisdictions, including 5 entire states, allow insulation around K&T.
hallerb's own source insulates around K&T.

Still missing - *data* that indicates significant hazard from insulation around K&T. The NEC restriction was not based on *data*. There are a very large number of houses with insulation installed over K&T. Where is the record of a problem? The "Illinois" report found no record of hazard in the large number of insulated K&T installations. hallerb's own source adds insulation around K&T.     
And still missing - *data* that supports hallerb's claim that K&T is intrinsically hazardous. His own source disagrees with him on that too.
--
bud--

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

how EXACTLY does a electrician inspect K&T that has connections buried in walls covered not accesible?
if you cant see it, how is it inspected?
bud ignores completely my state farm agents report of not accepting any new homeowners policies with K&T.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/1/2009 4:29 PM bob haller spake thus:
>

Well, that one's obvious: if one is serious about inspecting such wiring, then one opens up walls.
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

if your going to open the walls to inspect you might as well replace the K&T.
the rewire cost has a large part in cosmetic restoration.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

A few companies will apparently write new business on homes with K&T with an electrician's report CERTIFYING that there are no non-compliant modifications made - ie, the house is in "restored" or "virgin original" condition.
The electrician would need to be very certain to put his livelihood on the line and certify the wiring is up to standard.
I'm certain that VERY few houses in North America have unmolested knob and tube wiring that is adequate for the lifestyle of the new owner.
The FACT that the majority of K&T connections are in "open space" - ie not enclosed in an "accessible" junction box makes inspection of joints difficult, and not being enclosed in a fire-resistant box, any defective connection that can heat, if surrounded by flamable insulation (blown cellulose comes to mind) would be a fire hazard.
Also, loose insulation of a conductive nature (damp, or mineral based) in contact with a bare connection (the tape has come loose from the connection) could also cause either heating or shock hazard - although admittedly the probability of this is significantly lower)
The actual danger of a short in K&T is actually lower than with "Romex", but the results in case of a failure can be more spectacular.
The old bituminous non metalic sheathed cable (original Romex) also may have some flamability issues, but the connections are surrounded by a closed metal box and isolated from flammable insulation products, mitigating the probability of catastrophic fire somewhat.
That's why today's code requires all connections to be in accessible junction boxes, and why cable insulation materials have to meet certain temperature, flamability, and other safety related standards.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
bob haller wrote:

To quote hallerb - "Obviously you are too lazy to click on links." The "Illinois report" describes what 2 states require.

What you actually said was that at "home resale time house must be rewired to current code, or no insurance no sale."
I responded that "either you misunderstood the agent or he is as wacked-out as you are." Houses do not have to have wiring that complies with the "current code" when they are sold. You do not, for example, have to have receptacles at the currently required spacing. It is another example of you not understanding the NEC. In any case K&T is still in the NEC and compliant.
With regard to State Farm not insuring K&T, that has also been covered many times.
hallerb has provided no evidence that State Farm has data that K&T is hazardous. Where is the data? Insurance companies hire actuaries to find just that data. hallerb's own source says "properly installed and unaltered K&T wiring is not an inherent fire hazard" which is contrary to what hallerb claims.
And in a posted link - when challenged in Maine an insurance company "provided no justification for its position that knob and tube wiring per se automatically provides grounds for nonrenewal". As a result the state insurance regulator ordered the company to provide insurance.
And also still missing - data that shows there is a significant hazard in the very large number of houses that have K&T wiring and have been insulated. Where is the record of a significant hazard. The "Illinois report" says there isn't one.
hallerb continues his crusade, which is contrary to decisions from state agencies and research provided to state agencies. But Jehovah's Witnesses aren't deterred by reality either.
-- bud--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

WHAT I said was at home resale time if the new owners cant get homeowners insurance because of K&T a major rewire will be necessary and most codes REQUIRE updating with GFCIs, arc fault breakers, way more outlets etc etc. to current code.
you cant JUST replace the existing K&T with new romex unless its just a small amount.
given buds attitude here it appears codes are meaningless to him, so for him none of this discussion really matters:(
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
bob haller wrote:

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>

>>

>>

So, still too lazy or too stupid to edit out garbage from your retarded newsreader?

I can't deal with "most codes" Neither can anyone else in this newsgroup.
I can deal with the NEC. If the service is replaced, for example, the NEC does not require "way more outlets" and certainly does not require outlets to the current NEC as you said.
The NEC applies only to the work that has been done.
Your ignorance is breathtaking.

The NEC does not require replacement of K&T, which is still in the NEC.
And existence of K&T does not necessarily mean some insurance companies will require a "major rewire".

My "attitude" is based on the NEC .
The NEC is meaningless to you because you have no idea what it requires or when it applies.
Still missing - any data that says K&T is significantly more hazardous that other wiring. hallerb's own source says "properly installed and unaltered K&T wiring is not an inherent fire hazard".
Still missing - data that shows there is a significant hazard in the very large number of houses that have K&T wiring and have been insulated.
--
bud--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I DID NOT say replace the service I said and you are ignoring, lack of homeowners insurance because of K&T will likely require K&T replacement and if its a major rewire upgrades to current code.
My links included many reports of being unable to get insurance,
you quote the NEC but ignore its prohibiting insulating around K&T......
how interseting, and ignore the fact that most K&T installs being so old are likely hacked.
heck you ignore the 3 familys who had home fires because of insulating around K&T.
Bud are you a contractor? I sure hope not with your careless atrtitude way too many are probably at risk.........
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
bob haller wrote:

Same artifacts from the same retarded poster using the same retarded reader.

"If the service is replaced, _for example_"

And you ignore that for any work, "for example if the service is replaced", the NEC only covers the work that has been done.
It is idiotic to think, as you apparently do, that if you do a "major rewire" the NEC requires the whole house conform to current code requirement, for example, for spacing between receptacles. Or many other changes that have been made in the NEC (GFCI, AFCI, Ufer, kid-proof receptacles, ...).
And you ignore that the NEC does not require replacement of K&T. K&T is still in the NEC.
You say K&T is hazardous even with no modifications. Your own source disagrees with you.
Insurance companies not insuring K&T is, of course, the contention. Where is the actuarial data from insurance companies? Still missing. In one of my links an insurance company provided no evidence and their denial of insurance was reversed by the state.

I only remember one link, which disagrees with you. (For example, they insulated around K&T.)
You have anecdotes, which I see no reason to believe are not redlining.
Where is the actuarial data from insurance companies? Still missing.

You ignore that the prohibition was not based on evidence of a problem.
And that the "Illinois report" did not find evidence of a problem in the very large number of houses that have insulation added to K&T.
And that many jurisdictions, including 5 entire states allow insulation around K&T.
Where is the data that there is a significant problem in the large number of houses with K&T that have been insulated? Still missing.

Your opinion. Cite. Very few of the horror pictures in your source were identified as involving K&T.
And how likely is it that K&T is hacked versus other wiring.

Wow - 3 houses out of many thousands. No detail, like cause, was given. And your source says the number is not statistically significant.
How many fires from other wiring?
How many fires from houses in PA that were never inspected. Why not deny insurance if the house was not inspected during construction.

My "attitude" is based on the NEC, which you have little comprehension of. Also competent sources, including yours.
You have your beliefs and anecdotes and FUD.
Still missing - data that says K&T is significantly more hazardous that other wiring. Your own source disagrees with you.
Still missing - data that shows there is a significant hazard in the very large number of houses that have K&T wiring and have been insulated.
--
bud--

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

bud has a closed mind.........
all the data i have seen is concerned with hacked K&T with every other type of wiring all connections should be in a accesible box for easy access and inspection.......
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
bob haller wrote:

>>

>>

Same artifacts from the same retarded poster using the same retarded reader.

What a joke. I have learned from my extensive _experience_.
I have learned from two sources I posted, both involving state agencies.
And I have learned from hallerb's source.
hallerb can't even learn from his own source - it disagrees with him.

The only resemblance of data from you has disagreed with you.
One, of course, would like connections in accessible boxes.
But the question is whether K&T is intrinsically hazardous, as you claim. You own source says "properly installed and unaltered K&T wiring is not an inherent fire hazard". Still missing - data that says K&T is significantly more hazardous than other wiring.
Also missing - data that shows there is a significant hazard in the very large number of houses that have K&T wiring and have been insulated. The "Illinois report" looked and couldn't find such data. Your own source insulates over K&T.
hallerb has a closed mind.........
--
bud--

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

repeated use of retard, do you have a problem?psych docs can help many today.......
you pick and choose NEC like your walking thru a grocery store, oh i like plumbs but dont like carrots.
so you choose which NEC rules to follow.
bud are you a registered electrician? whats your extensive experience? do you get building permits for all jobs you should?
or are they unnecessary too?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
bob haller wrote:

You use a retarded reader and don't clean up the retarded artifacts. You did this time. Congratulations.

Perhaps a shrink could help you with your delusions about K&T.

Another of your delusions? Perhaps if you could follow what has been said ....
I have pointed out that the NEC code change was not based on data, and that many jurisdictions, including at least 5 whole states, have modified the prohibition on insulation. And even your source insulates K&T.

I have been a licensed master electrician for over 30 years. I spent a lot of time doing trouble calls and small jobs on a service truck, with exposure to K&T and also odd wiring 'enhancements'. I have also worked on big projects.

More stupid questions from someone who can't justify their position.
In particular, no data that K&T is intrinsically hazardous, as you claim. You own source says "properly installed and unaltered K&T wiring is not an inherent fire hazard".
And no data that shows there is a significant hazard in the very large number of houses that have K&T wiring and have been insulated. The "Illinois report" looked and couldn't find such data. Your own source insulates over K&T.
--
bud--



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
bud, other than avoiding the cost of a complete rewire, what other advantage is there in retaining a 70 to 100 year old system or more, that lacks capacity, safety devices like GFCIs, arc fault breakers, has perhaps ONE outlet per room, thats likely a risky floor outlet, where the connections arent in boxes where they can be inspected, its hard to inspect wiring completley covered by plaster walls, that at home resale time may discourage buyers making your home a fixer upper, after all most people today have microwaves, hair dryers air conditioners and all the rest, while the age of the system makes it more likely hack repairs have been done......
so just exactly list the advantages...................
wonder how many he will find?:)
other than the conductors are seperated far away
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
bob haller wrote:

A house with K&T is very unlikely to be unchanged from when it was constructed. How many houses do you think there are with 30A services?
My mother's old house may be typical. It was built in the 1880s. The original wiring was K&T. It was rewired over 50 years ago with a 100A service and added circuits and outlets. It was a completely functional house. But according to you it is haunted - with K&T wiring. Even worse, it had insulation added. It is a miracle it is still standing.
How many houses do you think there are with no K&T that don't have any GFCIs? A very small percentage of houses have AFCIs. More irrelevant arguments.
It is another of your posts from lala-lala land.
Because you still can't find data that K&T is intrinsically hazardous, as you claim. You own source says "properly installed and unaltered K&T wiring is not an inherent fire hazard".
And you still can't find data that shows there is a significant hazard in the very large number of houses that have K&T wiring and have been insulated. The "Illinois report" looked and couldn't find such data. Your own source insulates over K&T.
--
bud--

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

you largely ignored my question how is a home with K&T better?
and your point of partial rewire just proves K&T homes have likely been altered. unffortunatyely a 100 year old home hacked is likely a better term......
lastly you quote the NEC but then denounce their prohibition of insulating around K&T.
and failed to describe just what you are. a general contractor? electrician? or just a fellow who is too cheap to rewire their home
so whats the advantage of keeping K&T
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
bob haller wrote:

It is impossible to answer a questions from someone too stupid to know what a master electrician is.
Still missing - data that K&T is intrinsically hazardous, as you claim. You own source says "properly installed and unaltered K&T wiring is not an inherent fire hazard". Why does your own source disagree with you???
Still missing - data that shows there is a significant hazard in the very large number of houses that have K&T wiring and have been insulated. The "Illinois report" looked and couldn't find such data. Why does your own source insulate over K&T???
--
bud--

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.