On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 09:15:55 -0600, bud--
wrote:

On 10/31/2011 12:06 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 10:54:33 -0600,
wrote:

On 10/30/2011 4:07 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 00:15:24 -0500, "Pete
wrote:

The
"trough" makes good sense, because IF I put the panel onto the main
feed , the top of the panel is 4 inches lower than the old panel. If I
can have a trough 4 inches high and 3 1/3 inches deep, with knockout
holes made to match the knockouts on the panel at the bottom, and to
match the cable spacing at the top, I can enter my load cables into
the trough with the existing cable clamps, and either pass the wires
through the trough or splice them in the trough, then through to the
panel. If I match drill the trough to fit the panel and use plastic
bushings (made for the purpose - not hardware store grommets or any
such crap) in the holes to pass the wires through, I don't need any
other connectors between the trough and the panel, as long as the
trough is firmly connected to the panel??? I'd "gasket" the trough to
the panel or seal it on with Silicone, as well as bolting it.

I wouldn't seal the gutter to the panel.

Not sure what plastic bushings you are talking about. Might be perfectly
good.

For the closest connection I would use "chase nipples" from the gutter
into the panel through matching holes (as you plan to do).
If I use "chase nipples" I require the plastic "anti-short" bushing
if the nipple is metal. Not required with plastic. Not enough room to
use 2" nipple. Total difference in "height" between old and new panel
is 4 inches. The "stub of 2 inch conduit" would have to be basically
just the threads with a nut on either end.

Chase nipple:
http://electrical.hardwarestore.com/14-47-metal-conduit-connectors/conduit-chase-nipple-601921.aspx

The gutter and panel can be in contact. Plastic bushing not required. I
would run a ground wire to the gutter (IMHO chase nipples aren't a great
ground).

But your plastic bushings might work great.

Required if metal conduit or metal punch-outs up here.


Pete suggested a "stub of 2 inch conduit" to connect the gutter to the
panel. (Could also one or more 2" chase nipples.)

The panel only has provision for 1 2 incher in the load center end,
and one in the "Main" end.


One can punch holes where desired.

And other size holes would be fine. Part of the point was that derating
is not required (in the US). The number of wires is limited by the wire
fill for that size conduit.

Usually running a lot
of wires in conduit would be a problem because you have to derate the
current rating of the wire up to up to 65%. When the conduit is shorter
than 24" that does not apply. This may not be the code where you are. It
could make the installation much easier (may or may not require gutter
splices).

How about a 4 inch long conduit nipple in each knockout, with the
connector that normally gets screwed onto the panel screwed into the
end of the conduit instead - so I end up with 6 3/4" stubs and 2 1"
stubs sticking out of the top of the panel with the "romex" connected
to the top, the individual wires from the "romex" entering the panel
via the conduit??? Then I just make a metal sheild panel to fit over
top, hiding the "Rube Goldberg" setup from open view?????

Don't think so.

There are romex connectors that can take 2 cables each (12/2 or 14/2).
Not legal into the panel in Ontario, apparently - at least it appears
it won't pass in Waterloo

------------------------------
Do you actually have aluminum branch circuit wiring? It was only used in
the US from about 1965 to the early 1970s. Much earlier there was rubber
insulated tinned copper that can look like aluminum.


Yes, it is second generation aluminum wiring. The stuff that doesn't
crack every time you look at it the wrong way - used from about about
1973/74 'till about 1978, when aluminum wiring basically dissapeared
from the market. I believe it has more copper in it than the earlier
aluminum, but I'm not sure. The old crap was 1350 alloy. The good
stuff is 8000 series. HUGE difference. But to a home inspector or an
insurance company "it's all aluminum".

gfretwell has written that the new wire is harder, and not likely to
extrude, which was one of the problems with the old wire (connection got
hot, wire expanded more than screw connection is in, wire compresses,
connection looser next operating cycle and gets hotter....)

I would have switches/receptacles marked CO/ALR (in the US).

And it still has problems with surface oxidation when installed. I would
use the connection method recommendations in the link provided. Like
with connections for larger aluminum wire, the alumiconn connectors
deform the wire and probably don't have oxide problems.


The best information, based on extensive research, on branch circuit
aluminum connections I have seen is:
http://www.kinginnovation.com/pdfs/R...Fire070706.pdf
A relatively new splice device that appears to make good aluminum
connections is:
http://www.kinginnovation.com/produc...cts/alumiconn/

But that is the US. More questions for an inspector.


I would avoid stainless because it is, as I remember, much harder to
work with than steel.

No problem as mu buddy fabricates stainless steel enclosures as a
regular part of his job.

As long as he cuts all the holes.
(And the inspector OKs it.)
The "stripit" makes short work of making holes in stainless sheet.

On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 13:40:28 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

On Nov 1, 11:19Â*am, bud-- wrote:
On 10/31/2011 6:11 PM, wrote:





On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 14:35:29 -0700 (PDT), bob
wrote:

On Oct 31, 12:55 pm, Â*wrote:
On 10/30/2011 4:12 PM, bob haller wrote:

Fuses are certainly less convenient. IMHO they are as good or better
protection. Might ask a real estate agent if fuses are a problem when
selling.

--
bud--

Did you notice the OPs first post, converting to breakers to obtain
new homeowners insurance.......

Certainly not in clare's first post.

I didn't see clare clearly say his likely new insurance wouldn't insure
fuses. Or that it would be a problem with other companies.

obviously a buyer who cant obtain homeowners insurance cant get a
mortage......

so its a no sale.......

Your fetishes affect your vision.

--
bud--

his pasted quote..... .

However, inspection is not an issue.
Will be required by the insurance company anyways when I switch
insurers - which is another reason I'm considering doing it NOW.
I moved my car insurance from the insurer I've been with for 53
years,
who currently also insure the house. The new insurer wants an
inspection.

bud your fetish is attempting to ignore the now current requirements
to obtain homeowners insurance.

Cite your source.

There are quite a few people here who have complained about your fetishes.



things like fuses, K&T wiring,

Both of which are still in the NEC.

Cite your source that either of them is hazardous.

cracked sidewalks, uneven steps, lack
of railings indoors and out, roof in poor condition, etc etc etc......

insurance companies dont like fuses because people overfuse, hey the
15 amp blows heres a 30, all better now it quit blowing

Fustats and fustat adapters have been around for a real long time. It is
harder to remove a fustat adapter than change a 15A breaker to 30A.

When my mother had a 100A service upgrade over 50 years ago the
electricians used fustats for all the plug fuses. The NEC requires their
use in some instances.



And exactly WHERE does it say the insurance company won't insure
fuses? I need the inspection aluminum wiring - and I figured if I
was going to have an inspection anyway, might just as well look into
doing the panel at the same time. Â*The insurance company (economical)
has no problem (at least so far) with the fuse panel, as long as it's
not a 60 amp or less.

hallerb fetish confirmed

--
bud--- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

this has been discussed before, just ask state farm. i asked several
agents all said KT and fuse boxes are not permissable for new
policies/////
Well, I work every morning at a general insurance brokerage office. A
REAL one, not a state-farm office. No problem with fuse panel (with
inspection certificate ) - same with AL wiring. Knob and tube is
uninsurable on a new policy. So is galvanized water pipe or cast iron
waste pipes / stack.
Apparently there is one company that MAY insure K&T if they can get
an electrician/inspector to give it a clean bill of health - but that
hasn't happened for quite some time

On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 13:40:44 -0700 (PDT), N8N
wrote:

On Oct 30, 7:12Â*pm, Evan wrote:
On Oct 29, 11:44Â*pm, wrote:





On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 19:45:27 -0700 (PDT), Evan

wrote:
On Oct 29, 9:32Â*pm, wrote:
I'm thinking mabee it's time to replace my old fuse panel with a
breaker panel.
Â*Problem is, the new panels are not even a close match to the old
panel. The existing panel is surface mounted with the main switch/fuse
on the left, with the power feed coming in from the back in the lower
corner. All the "load" wires come in the top. They come out through
the plywood service board and then enter thepanel within inches. This
does not allow much flexibility.

The closest I've found so far is a Schnieder StabLok panel, but I
would need to mount it sideways. No problem with the main breaker as
it would be oriented on up, as required by code. The feed would need
to come in through an elbow through the bottom of the box instead of
the back as the new panel is significantly smaller.
Â*I can make all this work - but then half of the load breakers are
upside-down. Don't know if that is an issue here in Canada - aparently
it is not allowed in the USA. I guess I could always restrict myself
to half capacity (use a 40 circuit panel as a 20)

The only problem I can forsee is some know-it-all home inspector
seeing the FPE on the panel and demanding a future buyer replace the
dang thing because early FPE StabLok breakers got a REAL bad name in
the USA (rightly or wrongly). We will likely be selling in the next 5
years or so (which is the MAJOR reason I'm even thinking about
replacing the panel in the firstr place.

It is clear that this project is beyond your skill level...

Au contraire my friend

First you are looking for a panel with an identical layout to the
one you have installed now... Â*-1...

Second you had not thought at all about removing your present
fuse box guts and using it as a junction box, extending all of
the existing wires through conduits to a new circuit breaker
panel installed next to the existing one, then obtaining a piece
of sheet metal of the proper thickness to correctly cover
the old fuse box...

Â*Not an option Not enough space, and besides that it would look like
heck as well. Would sure turn off any future buyer.

Then there is no fusing around with any of the old wiring
removing them from the old panel and installing them into
the new one, old wires sometimes lose their flexibility and
it would really suck to have to trace circuits back and
install new home runs or have to work with many junction boxes
out and away from the panel...

Â*Not a chance. The wire is in VERY good condition. And I've done a LOT
of this work in the past. Used to work wit my dad, who was an
electrician, and actually wired this house back in the early
seventies.Call an electrician to do this for you...

~~ Evan

Â*Even if I decided to get an electrician to do the job I am the one
choosing what goes in and what it is going to look like when it is
done. I know there are lots of ways this can be done that would be FAR
less than optimal. Anything less tha RIGHT, it will stay the way it is
- because there is nothing WRONG with it the way it is. In 30 years
the only fuses I've had to replace have been from jamming the table
saw or starting the compressor when it was too cold and stiff.

ANd it DOES still have 2 spare circuits available.

Â*I do know, however, that any half-assed home inspector hired by a
future buyer would flag the fused panel. And I've never met a home
inspector that was anything better than half-assed - period. They pick
on small unimportant stuff and miss the big expensive important stuff.

"you don't want this house, there's no dish washer, and the switch
plate in the bathroom is cracked" and they don't catch the bad grading
that causes water to flood into window wells in heavy rain, or the
blistered cast iron drain stack, or even the extention cords, or even
telephone wire, used to wire the rec room. Went through that before we
bought this place 30 years ago without an inspection. I checked this
place myself and Â*no problems I wasn't aware of. I knew the windows
were cheap contractor windows that would eventually need replacing,
along with the roof - I replaced the roof 7 years later, and the
windows starting after 15 years, finishing this year.

You are concerned about it "looking like heck" when you are trying
to find the one ideal panel which would be a drop in replacement, oh
and you are concerned about the name on the new panel...

dunno about you but a Stab-Lok panel would be a real turn off to me,
so the name is important.

I personally wouldn't use one.

nate
The new stuff is actually not too bad - but it's being discontinued
by Schnieder - being replaced with Square D Homeline - which is an
even "cheaper" product - even if not less expensive.

On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 13:42:51 -0700 (PDT), N8N
wrote:

On Oct 30, 10:46Â*pm, wrote:

Â*Look - what do you not understand about it can NOT be relocated. It
is in finished space. There is NO unimpeded location where it can be
moved to without serious re-work. It is 10 inches from a window, all
the wires come down inside the wall from above and enter the top of
the existing panel. The power feed comes through the wall from the
meter in conduit into the back of the bottom of the side mounted main
switch The ONLY solution that has been suggested so far that could
work is a roughly 24 inch trough or raceway with the panel installed
below and joined by conduit. I am investigating that possibility
tomorrow.

How is the meter located WRT the panel? If it's significantly higher
I would be tempted to punch through the exterior wall in a location
that will allow you to use a modern panel, then yes, you will have to
patch the hole in the siding where the old conduit came through. But
that seems like the best solution to me.

good luck

nate
As VERY plainly stated before, the meter base is DIRECTLY through the
wall from the panel. Ends up I may not have much choice - WNH
requires a "service layout" that I MUST comply with - which MAY
require moving the meter base, or MAY allow moving the meter base, but
WILL require replacing it.
Find out next week what is involved - which will make my descision
whether it gets done at all or not.

On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 14:59:40 -0700 (PDT), Evan
wrote:

On Oct 31, 2:06Â*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 10:54:33 -0600, bud--
wrote:


The
"trough" makes good sense, because IF I put the panel onto the main
feed , the top of the panel is 4 inches lower than the old panel. If I
can have a trough 4 inches high and 3 1/3 inches deep, with knockout
holes made to match the knockouts on the panel at the bottom, and to
match the cable spacing at the top, I can enter my load cables into
the trough with the existing cable clamps, and either pass the wires
through the trough or splice them in the trough, then through to the
panel. If I match drill the trough to fit the panel and use plastic
bushings (made for the purpose - not hardware store grommets or any
such crap) in the holes to pass the wires through, I don't need any
other connectors between the trough and the panel, as long as the
trough is firmly connected to the panel??? I'd "gasket" the trough to
the panel or seal it on with Silicone, as well as bolting it.

I wouldn't seal the gutter to the panel.

Not sure what plastic bushings you are talking about. Might be perfectly
good.

For the closest connection I would use "chase nipples" from the gutter
into the panel through matching holes (as you plan to do).

Â*If I use "chase nipples" I require the plastic "anti-short" bushing
if the nipple is metal. Not required with plastic. Not enough room to
use 2" nipple. Total difference in "height" between old and new panel
is 4 inches. The "stub of 2 inch conduit" would have to be basically
just Â*the threads with a nut on either end.



Pete suggested a "stub of 2 inch conduit" to connect the gutter to the
panel. (Could also one or more 2" chase nipples.)

The panel only has provision for 1 2 incher in the load center end,
and one in the "Main" end.

Usually running a lot
of wires in conduit would be a problem because you have to derate the
current rating of the wire up to up to 65%. When the conduit is shorter
than 24" that does not apply. This may not be the code where you are. It
could make the installation much easier (may or may not require gutter
splices).

Â*How about a 4 inch long conduit nipple in each knockout, with the
connector that normally gets screwed onto the panel screwed into the
end of the conduit instead - so I end up with Â*6 3/4" stubs and 2 1"
stubs sticking out of the top of the panel with the "romex" connected
to the top, the individual wires from the "romex" entering the panel
via the conduit??? Then I just make a metal sheild panel to fit over
top, hiding the "Rube Goldberg" setup from open view?????

Sounds like your ideas are about a thousand times worse anything
I ever suggested...

It sounds way too much like you are being unreasonable about this
and that a skilled electrician has the ability to create new knock
outs
in a panel in many sizes -- they are not stuck using the ones that the
factory has provided...

Your "Rube Goldberg" set up would raise more flags than a couple
of professionally installed conduits running underneath a window,
but whatever your house man...

~~ Evan
I just talked to the electric contractor that will LIKELY end up
doing the job,( who my Dad worked for the last few years of his
working life) given the latest information I'm getting Waterloo
North Hydro - and the offset conduit nipples would have met his
approval up until they were no longer allowed a few years ago. He said
it would work, would be VERY neet, totally safe,but sadly no longer
allowed, at least in Waterloo North.

As for the knockouts - yes, you can create new holes, but not where
existing knockouts already exist but do not line up. That's what
"greenley" punches are for.The problem is there is only about 4 square
inches of available "real estate" left to add holes.

On 11/1/2011 2:40 PM, bob haller wrote:
On Nov 1, 11:19 am, wrote:
On 10/31/2011 6:11 PM, wrote:





On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 14:35:29 -0700 (PDT), bob
wrote:

On Oct 31, 12:55 pm, wrote:
On 10/30/2011 4:12 PM, bob haller wrote:

Did you notice the OPs first post, converting to breakers to obtain
new homeowners insurance.......

Certainly not in clare's first post.

I didn't see clare clearly say his likely new insurance wouldn't insure
fuses. Or that it would be a problem with other companies.

obviously a buyer who cant obtain homeowners insurance cant get a
mortage......

so its a no sale.......

Your fetishes affect your vision.

--
bud--

his pasted quote..... .

However, inspection is not an issue.
Will be required by the insurance company anyways when I switch
insurers - which is another reason I'm considering doing it NOW.
I moved my car insurance from the insurer I've been with for 53
years,
who currently also insure the house. The new insurer wants an
inspection.

bud your fetish is attempting to ignore the now current requirements
to obtain homeowners insurance.

Cite your source.

There are quite a few people here who have complained about your fetishes.



things like fuses, K&T wiring,

Both of which are still in the NEC.

Cite your source that either of them is hazardous.

cracked sidewalks, uneven steps, lack
of railings indoors and out, roof in poor condition, etc etc etc......

insurance companies dont like fuses because people overfuse, hey the
15 amp blows heres a 30, all better now it quit blowing

Fustats and fustat adapters have been around for a real long time. It is
harder to remove a fustat adapter than change a 15A breaker to 30A.

When my mother had a 100A service upgrade over 50 years ago the
electricians used fustats for all the plug fuses. The NEC requires their
use in some instances.



And exactly WHERE does it say the insurance company won't insure
fuses? I need the inspection aluminum wiring - and I figured if I
was going to have an inspection anyway, might just as well look into
doing the panel at the same time. The insurance company (economical)
has no problem (at least so far) with the fuse panel, as long as it's
not a 60 amp or less.

hallerb fetish confirmed

--
bud--- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

this has been discussed before, just ask state farm. i asked several
agents all said KT and fuse boxes are not permissable for new
policies/////

I asked my State Farm agent in the context of buying a house.
The answer was that a 100A services with fuses were not likely a problem.
And a low percentage of K&T was probably not a problem. They might want
an electrician to look at it.

You are an expert at assuming what (allegedly) applies to you applies to
everyone.

Others have told you they did not have a problem, but you ignore
everything that does not fit your belief system.

Just like you ignored YOUR link to a report from the "Pennsylvania
Department of Community and Economic Development" that says "properly
installed and unaltered K&T wiring is not an inherent fire hazard". And
that the agency insulates over K&T.
Hey - don't you live in Pennsylvania.

And ignored one of YOUR links that said "the wires in knob-and-tube are
aluminum" which is a problem because copper and aluminum "carry current
at slightly different speeds" and "copper into aluminum is where things
get tricky - if the water (current) flows faster thru copper than thru
aluminum, you are going to get a backup at that junction."

And ignored that another of YOUR links said "no ground wire, [makes] the
use of GFCI style electrical outlets (receptacles) and GFCI and AFCI
breakers useless".

In this thread you misconstrued what clare said. And clare provides
insurance information different from your FUD.

State Farm, incidentally, had a surcharge in this state for 'old'
services. They were ordered to drop it by the state insurance regulator
because they provided no actuarial basis.

And in one of the creditable sources that have appeared here, a
homeowner was denied insurance in I don't remember which state. The
homeowner appealed and the state insurance regulator ordered the
insurance company to provide insurance because the company provided no
actuarial basis for the denial.

IMHO it is all redlining.

--
bud--

bud-- wrote:

And ignored one of YOUR links that said "the wires in knob-and-tube
are aluminum" which is a problem because copper and aluminum "carry
current at slightly different speeds" and "copper into aluminum is
where things get tricky - if the water (current) flows faster thru
copper than thru aluminum, you are going to get a backup at that
junction."

Huh? What happens at this "backup?" Does a big blister form filled with
current corpuscles? Should it be lanced if it gets bothersome?

On Nov 2, 4:47*pm, bud-- wrote:
On 11/1/2011 2:40 PM, bob haller wrote:





On Nov 1, 11:19 am, *wrote:
On 10/31/2011 6:11 PM, wrote:

On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 14:35:29 -0700 (PDT), bob
wrote:

On Oct 31, 12:55 pm, * *wrote:
On 10/30/2011 4:12 PM, bob haller wrote:

Did you notice the OPs first post, converting to breakers to obtain
new homeowners insurance.......

Certainly not in clare's first post.

I didn't see clare clearly say his likely new insurance wouldn't insure
fuses. Or that it would be a problem with other companies.

obviously a buyer who cant obtain homeowners insurance cant get a
mortage......

so its a no sale.......

Your fetishes affect your vision.

--
bud--

his pasted quote..... .

However, inspection is not an issue.
Will be required by the insurance company anyways when I switch
insurers - which is another reason I'm considering doing it NOW.
I moved my car insurance from the insurer I've been with for 53
years,
who currently also insure the house. The new insurer wants an
inspection.

bud your fetish is attempting to ignore the now current requirements
to obtain homeowners insurance.

Cite your source.

There are quite a few people here who have complained about your fetishes.

things like fuses, K&T wiring,

Both of which are still in the NEC.

Cite your source that either of them is hazardous.

cracked sidewalks, uneven steps, lack
of railings indoors and out, roof in poor condition, etc etc etc.......

insurance companies dont like fuses because people overfuse, hey the
15 amp blows heres a 30, all better now it quit blowing

Fustats and fustat adapters have been around for a real long time. It is
harder to remove a fustat adapter than change a 15A breaker to 30A.

When my mother had a 100A service upgrade over 50 years ago the
electricians used fustats for all the plug fuses. The NEC requires their
use in some instances.

And exactly WHERE does it say the insurance company won't insure
fuses? I need the inspection aluminum wiring - and I figured if I
was going to have an inspection anyway, might just as well look into
doing the panel at the same time. *The insurance company (economical)
has no problem (at least so far) with the fuse panel, as long as it's
not a 60 amp or less.

hallerb fetish confirmed

--
bud--- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

this has been discussed before, just ask state farm. i asked several
agents all said KT and fuse boxes are not permissable for new
policies/////

I asked my State Farm agent in the context of buying a house.
The answer was that a 100A services with fuses were not likely a problem.
And a low percentage of K&T was probably not a problem. They might want
an electrician to look at it.

You are an expert at assuming what (allegedly) applies to you applies to
everyone.

Others have told you they did not have a problem, but you ignore
everything that does not fit your belief system.

Just like you ignored YOUR link to a report from the "Pennsylvania
Department of Community and Economic Development" that says "properly
installed and unaltered K&T wiring is not an inherent fire hazard". And
that the agency insulates over K&T.
Hey - don't you live in Pennsylvania.

And ignored one of YOUR links that said "the wires in knob-and-tube are
aluminum" which is a problem because copper and aluminum "carry current
at slightly different speeds" and "copper into aluminum is where things
get tricky - if the water (current) flows faster thru copper than thru
aluminum, you are going to get a backup at that junction."

And ignored that another of YOUR links said "no ground wire, [makes] the
use of GFCI style electrical outlets (receptacles) and GFCI and AFCI
breakers useless".

In this thread you misconstrued what clare said. And clare provides
insurance information different from your FUD.

State Farm, incidentally, had a surcharge in this state for 'old'
services. They were ordered to drop it by the state insurance regulator
because they provided no actuarial basis.

And in one of the creditable sources that have appeared here, a
homeowner was denied insurance in I don't remember which state. The
homeowner appealed and the state insurance regulator ordered the
insurance company to provide insurance because the company provided no
actuarial basis for the denial.

IMHO it is all redlining.

--
bud--- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

home buyers are easily scared off by percieved ruisks seen and
unseen.... few people buying a home will want to sue to get homeowners
insurance.

i recommend anyone interested ask their local state farm agent about
K&T several friends had to rewire to obtain insurance.....

people posting here have reported being required to upgrade homes to
get insurance

On 11/2/2011 7:33 PM, bob haller wrote:

people posting here have reported being required to upgrade homes to
get insurance

I remember a lot of people posting that they had no problem.

Perhaps if you used "might" as part of your FUD.

--
bud--

On Nov 3, 12:22*pm, bud-- wrote:
On 11/2/2011 7:33 PM, bob haller wrote:



people posting here have reported being required to upgrade homes to
get insurance

I remember a lot of people posting that they had no problem.

Perhaps if you used "might" as part of your FUD.

--
bud--

when did they have no problem
?

its been much more of a issue in the last 5 years.

why would any insurance company insure a home at great chance of a
loss?"

On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 12:16:44 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

On Nov 3, 12:22Â*pm, bud-- wrote:
On 11/2/2011 7:33 PM, bob haller wrote:



people posting here have reported being required to upgrade homes to
get insurance

I remember a lot of people posting that they had no problem.

Perhaps if you used "might" as part of your FUD.

--
bud--

when did they have no problem
?

its been much more of a issue in the last 5 years.

why would any insurance company insure a home at great chance of a
loss?"
One thing I have found working for an insurance office over the last
decade is insurance companies are NOT in the risk taking business!!!

wrote:
On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 12:16:44 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

On Nov 3, 12:22 pm, bud-- wrote:
On 11/2/2011 7:33 PM, bob haller wrote:



people posting here have reported being required to upgrade homes
to get insurance

I remember a lot of people posting that they had no problem.

Perhaps if you used "might" as part of your FUD.

--
bud--

when did they have no problem
?

its been much more of a issue in the last 5 years.

why would any insurance company insure a home at great chance of a
loss?"
One thing I have found working for an insurance office over the last
decade is insurance companies are NOT in the risk taking business!!!

Actually there ARE in the risk-taking business. If the insurance companies
were to avoid all risk, they wouldn't be writing insurance policies. If
there was no risk at all, no one would buy insurance. One can ALWAYS get
insurance, no matter the risk - providing they are willing to pay the
premium.

On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 17:09:15 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 12:16:44 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

On Nov 3, 12:22 pm, bud-- wrote:
On 11/2/2011 7:33 PM, bob haller wrote:



people posting here have reported being required to upgrade homes
to get insurance

I remember a lot of people posting that they had no problem.

Perhaps if you used "might" as part of your FUD.

--
bud--

when did they have no problem
?

its been much more of a issue in the last 5 years.

why would any insurance company insure a home at great chance of a
loss?"
One thing I have found working for an insurance office over the last
decade is insurance companies are NOT in the risk taking business!!!

Actually there ARE in the risk-taking business. If the insurance companies
were to avoid all risk, they wouldn't be writing insurance policies. If
there was no risk at all, no one would buy insurance. One can ALWAYS get
insurance, no matter the risk - providing they are willing to pay the
premium.

They are NOT in the risk TAKING business. They are in the risk
MANAGEMENT business.

On Nov 3, 10:03*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 17:09:15 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:





wrote:
On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 12:16:44 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

On Nov 3, 12:22 pm, bud-- wrote:
On 11/2/2011 7:33 PM, bob haller wrote:

people posting here have reported being required to upgrade homes
to get insurance

I remember a lot of people posting that they had no problem.

Perhaps if you used "might" as part of your FUD.

--
bud--

when did they have no problem
?

its been much more of a issue in the last 5 years.

why would any insurance company insure a home at great chance of a
loss?"
One thing I have found working for an insurance office over the last
decade is insurance companies are NOT in the risk taking business!!!

Actually there ARE in the risk-taking business. If the insurance companies
were to avoid all risk, they wouldn't be writing insurance policies. If
there was no risk at all, no one would buy insurance. One can ALWAYS get
insurance, no matter the risk - providing they are willing to pay the
premium.

*They are NOT in the risk TAKING business. They are in the risk
MANAGEMENT business.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

insurance avoids insuring bad risks. people with multiple DUIs, homes
in poor condition, anything or anyone thats at greater risk than
average.
'
just look at health insurance surcharging policies of people with
health troubles.


smokers pay significantly more for life insurance.

insurance companies have gotten much more risk adverse...... with the
wild weather just look at their losses from extreme weather.........

like all business these days stockholders demand big profits......

and insurance looks to minimize their risks and payouts

wrote:
One thing I have found working for an insurance office over the last
decade is insurance companies are NOT in the risk taking business!!!

Actually there ARE in the risk-taking business. If the insurance
companies were to avoid all risk, they wouldn't be writing insurance
policies. If there was no risk at all, no one would buy insurance.
One can ALWAYS get insurance, no matter the risk - providing they
are willing to pay the premium.

They are NOT in the risk TAKING business. They are in the risk
MANAGEMENT business.

Oh.

On 11/3/2011 1:16 PM, bob haller wrote:
On Nov 3, 12:22 pm, wrote:
On 11/2/2011 7:33 PM, bob haller wrote:



people posting here have reported being required to upgrade homes to
get insurance

I remember a lot of people posting that they had no problem.

Perhaps if you used "might" as part of your FUD.

--
bud--

when did they have no problem
?

Maybe you could go back and find out.


its been much more of a issue in the last 5 years.

why would any insurance company insure a home at great chance of a
loss?"

Where is your actuarial basis that K&T and fuses are more hazardous that
a lot of other wiring.

*YOUR* link to a report from the "Pennsylvania Department of Community
and Economic Development" says "properly installed and unaltered K&T
wiring is not an inherent fire hazard".

My State Farm agent says a 100A fused service isn't a problem and
relatively small parentage of K&T is not likely a problem.

Clare said fuse panels weren't a problem.

Others have said they didn't have a problem with K&T.

None of that gets past your fetish screen.

You continue with FUD.

--
bud--

On Nov 4, 11:54*am, bud-- wrote:
On 11/3/2011 1:16 PM, bob haller wrote:





On Nov 3, 12:22 pm, *wrote:
On 11/2/2011 7:33 PM, bob haller wrote:

people posting here have reported being required to upgrade homes to
get insurance

I remember a lot of people posting that they had no problem.

Perhaps if you used "might" as part of your FUD.

--
bud--

when did they have no problem
?

Maybe you could go back and find out.



its been much more of a issue in the last 5 years.

why would any insurance company insure a home at great chance of a
loss?"

Where is your actuarial basis that K&T and fuses are more hazardous that
a lot of other wiring.

*YOUR* link to a report from the "Pennsylvania Department of Community
and Economic Development" says "properly installed and unaltered K&T
wiring is not an inherent fire hazard".

My State Farm agent says a 100A fused service isn't a problem and
relatively small parentage of K&T is not likely a problem.

Clare said fuse panels weren't a problem.

Others have said they didn't have a problem with K&T.

None of that gets past your fetish screen.

You continue with FUD.

--
bud--- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

YOUR* link to a report from the "Pennsylvania Department of Community
and Economic Development" says "properly installed and unaltered K&T
wiring is not an inherent fire hazard".



please show me some homes with 100 year old unaltered K&T. after 100
years or more most if not all homes have had wiring changes....

the worst part of K&T is there are no boxes and the wiring and
connections are buried in walls and cant be looked at.......

open the wall to inspect makes it mandatory to upgrade the wiring.....

and few people today want homes that cant be insulated, and at the
pittsburgh home show every insulating company refused to insulate a
home with K&T stating their business insurance wouldnt allow it..I
asked every vendor there......

Bud face facts K&T isnt as safe as modern wiring just like a 1950s
vehicle isnt as safe in a accident as a new vehicle.

in a test wreck of a 1957 bel air and a 2009 malibu the malibu driver
would of walked away while the bel air driver would of died from
multiple causes.....

On 11/4/2011 1:01 PM, bob haller wrote:
YOUR* link to a report from the "Pennsylvania Department of Community
and Economic Development" says "properly installed and unaltered K&T
wiring is not an inherent fire hazard".



please show me some homes with 100 year old unaltered K&T. after 100
years or more most if not all homes have had wiring changes....

So? My mothers old house that is now over 120 years old had added
outlets in many locations including kitchen, laundry, bath. The 30A
service was upgraded to 100A. All was more recent wiring with ground.


the worst part of K&T is there are no boxes and the wiring and
connections are buried in walls and cant be looked at.......

There you go again... Almost all K&E I have seen had boxes.

Running a service truck for years I ran across 2 soldered connections
that failed. One was K&T. The other was BX. Both were "cold" solder
joints when installed.

*YOUR* source, the "Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic
Development", says "properly installed and unaltered K&T wiring is not
an inherent fire hazard".

Where is the actuarial record of K&T hazard and record that K&T is
significantly worse than other wiring methods. In the only case that has
been posted here the insurance company couldn't come up with actuarial data.


open the wall to inspect makes it mandatory to upgrade the wiring.....

Bull****. Where do you get this crap?

K&T is even still in the NEC.


and few people today want homes that cant be insulated, and at the
pittsburgh home show every insulating company refused to insulate a
home with K&T stating their business insurance wouldnt allow it..I
asked every vendor there......

*YOUR* source, the "Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic
Development", in YOUR state, insulates over K&T.


Bud face facts K&T isnt as safe as modern wiring just like a 1950s
vehicle isnt as safe in a accident as a new vehicle.

You aren't as modern as a 20 year old. Take the "Soylent Green" solution.

If I was picking a wiring method I least wanted to see it might be early
2 wire romex with paper/tar jacket.

Electricians opinions here and on Holt's site don't share your fetish
that K&T is a big problem. It is still in the NEC.

And you forgot about fuses. You say they can't be insured. Clare and my
State Farm agent say you are wrong.


in a test wreck of a 1957 bel air and a 2009 malibu the malibu driver
would of walked away while the bel air driver would of died from
multiple causes.....


Oh what a relevant comparison.

Old 2x4s are larger than they are now and thus stronger. If you have the
new 2x4s you need to replace them before the building collapses.

The last time I worked on a PA project no one had to be licensed and
there was no state inspection. That was starting with an old warehouse,
installing a much larger service, and adding motors including one that
was too large to start across-the-line. State Farm knows your whole
state should be bulldozed and start over.

Like Evan, you think what (allegedly) is true where you are is true
everywhere. Others have said you are wrong where they are. My State Farm
agent says you are wrong here.

But reality doesn't matter to someone with a fetish. You just continue
to spread FUD.

--
bud--

On Nov 6, 9:58*am, bud-- wrote:
On 11/4/2011 1:01 PM, bob haller wrote:

YOUR* link to a report from the "Pennsylvania Department of Community
and Economic Development" says "properly installed and unaltered K&T
wiring is not an inherent fire hazard".

please show me some homes with 100 year old unaltered K&T. after 100
years or more most if not all homes have had wiring changes....

So? My mothers old house that is now over 120 years old had added
outlets in many locations including kitchen, laundry, bath. The 30A
service was upgraded to 100A. All was more recent wiring with ground.



the worst part of K&T is there are no boxes and the wiring and
connections are buried in walls and cant be looked at.......

There you go again... Almost all K&E I have seen had boxes.

Running a service truck for years I ran across 2 soldered connections
that failed. One was K&T. The other was BX. Both were "cold" solder
joints when installed.

*YOUR* source, the "Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic
Development", says "properly installed and unaltered K&T wiring is not
an inherent fire hazard".

Where is the actuarial record of K&T hazard and record that K&T is
significantly worse than other wiring methods. In the only case that has
been posted here the insurance company couldn't come up with actuarial data.



open the wall to inspect makes it mandatory to upgrade the wiring.....

Bull****. Where do you get this crap?

K&T is even still in the NEC.



and few people today want homes that cant be insulated, and at the
pittsburgh home show every insulating company refused to insulate a
home with K&T stating their business insurance wouldnt allow it..I
asked every vendor there......

*YOUR* source, the "Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic
Development", in YOUR state, insulates over K&T.



Bud face facts K&T isnt as safe as modern wiring just like a 1950s
vehicle isnt as safe in a accident as a new vehicle.

You aren't as modern as a 20 year old. Take the "Soylent Green" solution.

If I was picking a wiring method I least wanted to see it might be early
2 wire romex with paper/tar jacket.

Electricians opinions here and on Holt's site don't share your fetish
that K&T is a big problem. It is still in the NEC.

And you forgot about fuses. You say they can't be insured. Clare and my
State Farm agent say you are wrong.



in a test wreck of a 1957 bel air and a 2009 malibu the malibu driver
would of walked away while the bel air driver would of died from
multiple causes.....

Oh what a relevant comparison.

Old 2x4s are larger than they are now and thus stronger. If you have the
new 2x4s you need to replace them before the building collapses.

The last time I worked on a PA project no one had to be licensed and
there was no state inspection. That was starting with an old warehouse,
installing a much larger service, and adding motors including one that
was too large to start across-the-line. State Farm knows your whole
state should be bulldozed and start over.

Like Evan, you think what (allegedly) is true where you are is true
everywhere. Others have said you are wrong where they are. My State Farm
agent says you are wrong here.

But reality doesn't matter to someone with a fetish. You just continue
to spread FUD.

--
bud--

ultimately a homeowner attempting to sell will find out wether any
perspective buyer can obtain homeowners insurance at the time of
sale... if i a purcase aggrement all repairs must be done by licensed
bonded insured contractor, that can run up costs dramatically/.

but has zero effect on me......

do tell besides K&T what other things last over a 100 years?

how many unaltered K&T installs are still around?

K&T around here typically has no boxes.

in a lifetime how many cars have you purchased? certinally a model T
should be fine? why buy a new one, shouldnt it last forever?

On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 08:58:09 -0600, bud--
wrote:

On 11/4/2011 1:01 PM, bob haller wrote:
YOUR* link to a report from the "Pennsylvania Department of Community
and Economic Development" says "properly installed and unaltered K&T
wiring is not an inherent fire hazard".



please show me some homes with 100 year old unaltered K&T. after 100
years or more most if not all homes have had wiring changes....

So? My mothers old house that is now over 120 years old had added
outlets in many locations including kitchen, laundry, bath. The 30A
service was upgraded to 100A. All was more recent wiring with ground.


the worst part of K&T is there are no boxes and the wiring and
connections are buried in walls and cant be looked at.......

There you go again... Almost all K&E I have seen had boxes.

Well, the VAST MAJORITY originally did not.Original K&T used a LOT of
surface mounted switches, for example. Turn knob type in fact.

Many houses were modified as years went buy, with "modern" switches
added - often including installation of boxes. A LOT of K&T was also
"ring topology" - with both ends of easch conductor fastened together,
so effectively the wire only carried approxemately half the load
current. This in itself is not bad. But when changes are made to K&T
wired homes, and additional circuits are added, it is not out of the
ordinary for the ring circuit to be eliminated - and now the single
wire is carrying the entire load - which is also significantly higher
than the original load.
An un-modified, original K&T wired home, with no additional
insulation added, and no extra outlets installed, is AT LEAST as safe
as a modern home, electrically. But they are EXTREMELY rare.

Much the same can be said of newer homes - including those with
ALUMINUM wiring. Unmolested wiring is often safer tha "updated"
wiring.

If buying a house I'd rather buy an unmolested, original, 1950's or
1960's house needing renovation than one that has been renovated
several times and "updated" to make it more saleable.

The seller can save their money and agravation and just lower the
price - then I can have whatever renovations and upgrades made,
knowing what standard of work was done, and not having to tear out all
the updates to fix the underpinnings that "supposedly" make it all
work.
Running a service truck for years I ran across 2 soldered connections
that failed. One was K&T. The other was BX. Both were "cold" solder
joints when installed.

*YOUR* source, the "Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic
Development", says "properly installed and unaltered K&T wiring is not
an inherent fire hazard".

Where is the actuarial record of K&T hazard and record that K&T is
significantly worse than other wiring methods. In the only case that has
been posted here the insurance company couldn't come up with actuarial data.


open the wall to inspect makes it mandatory to upgrade the wiring.....

Bull****. Where do you get this crap?

K&T is even still in the NEC.


and few people today want homes that cant be insulated, and at the
pittsburgh home show every insulating company refused to insulate a
home with K&T stating their business insurance wouldnt allow it..I
asked every vendor there......

*YOUR* source, the "Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic
Development", in YOUR state, insulates over K&T.


Bud face facts K&T isnt as safe as modern wiring just like a 1950s
vehicle isnt as safe in a accident as a new vehicle.

You aren't as modern as a 20 year old. Take the "Soylent Green" solution.

If I was picking a wiring method I least wanted to see it might be early
2 wire romex with paper/tar jacket.

Electricians opinions here and on Holt's site don't share your fetish
that K&T is a big problem. It is still in the NEC.

And you forgot about fuses. You say they can't be insured. Clare and my
State Farm agent say you are wrong.


in a test wreck of a 1957 bel air and a 2009 malibu the malibu driver
would of walked away while the bel air driver would of died from
multiple causes.....


Oh what a relevant comparison.

Old 2x4s are larger than they are now and thus stronger. If you have the
new 2x4s you need to replace them before the building collapses.

The last time I worked on a PA project no one had to be licensed and
there was no state inspection. That was starting with an old warehouse,
installing a much larger service, and adding motors including one that
was too large to start across-the-line. State Farm knows your whole
state should be bulldozed and start over.

Like Evan, you think what (allegedly) is true where you are is true
everywhere. Others have said you are wrong where they are. My State Farm
agent says you are wrong here.

But reality doesn't matter to someone with a fetish. You just continue
to spread FUD.

If buying a house I'd rather buy an unmolested, original, 1950's or
1960's house needing renovation than one that has been renovated
several times and "updated" to make it more saleable.

The seller can save their money and agravation and just lower the
price - then I can have whatever renovations and upgrades made,
knowing what standard of work was done, and not having to tear out all
the updates to fix the underpinnings that "supposedly" make it all

90% of all buyers want a already rehabbed move in ready home.

that number doesnt apply here, home of the DIYers

On Sun, 6 Nov 2011 12:32:52 -0800 (PST), bob haller
wrote:

If buying a house I'd rather buy an unmolested, original, 1950's or
1960's house needing renovation than one that has been renovated
several times and "updated" to make it more saleable.

The seller can save their money and agravation and just lower the
price - then I can have whatever renovations and upgrades made,
knowing what standard of work was done, and not having to tear out all
the updates to fix the underpinnings that "supposedly" make it all

90% of all buyers want a already rehabbed move in ready home.

that number doesnt apply here, home of the DIYers


Seen WAY too many screwed up reno's. A lot of them done just to
"update" a house for sale - where they would hae been FAR better just
selling the house "as is", since ALL of the renovations had to be torn
out and done over just to make the house liveable.

On Nov 6, 10:11*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 6 Nov 2011 12:32:52 -0800 (PST), bob haller
wrote:

If buying a house I'd rather buy an unmolested, original, 1950's or
1960's house needing renovation than one that has been renovated
several times and "updated" to make it more saleable.

The seller can save their money and agravation and just lower the
price - then I can have whatever renovations and upgrades made,
knowing what standard of work was done, and not having to tear out all
the updates to fix the underpinnings that "supposedly" make it all

90% of all buyers want a already rehabbed move in ready home.

that number doesnt apply here, home of the DIYers

Seen WAY too many screwed up reno's. A lot of them done just to
"update" a house for sale - where they would hae been FAR better just
selling the house "as is", since ALL of the renovations had to be torn
out and done over just to make the house liveable.

none the less 90% OF CURRENT HOMEBUYERS DONT WANT TO RENOVATE A HOME.

can understand it, they are mortaged to the hilt and fear running into
unknown troubles, that can add to costs dramatically when renovating.

so they want turn key homes.

On Nov 1, 9:40*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 14:59:40 -0700 (PDT), Evan



wrote:
On Oct 31, 2:06*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 10:54:33 -0600, bud--
wrote:

The
"trough" makes good sense, because IF I put the panel onto the main
feed , the top of the panel is 4 inches lower than the old panel. If I
can have a trough 4 inches high and 3 1/3 inches deep, with knockout
holes made to match the knockouts on the panel at the bottom, and to
match the cable spacing at the top, I can enter my load cables into
the trough with the existing cable clamps, and either pass the wires
through the trough or splice them in the trough, then through to the
panel. If I match drill the trough to fit the panel and use plastic
bushings (made for the purpose - not hardware store grommets or any
such crap) in the holes to pass the wires through, I don't need any
other connectors between the trough and the panel, as long as the
trough is firmly connected to the panel??? I'd "gasket" the trough to
the panel or seal it on with Silicone, as well as bolting it.

I wouldn't seal the gutter to the panel.

Not sure what plastic bushings you are talking about. Might be perfectly
good.

For the closest connection I would use "chase nipples" from the gutter
into the panel through matching holes (as you plan to do).

*If I use "chase nipples" I require the plastic "anti-short" bushing
if the nipple is metal. Not required with plastic. Not enough room to
use 2" nipple. Total difference in "height" between old and new panel
is 4 inches. The "stub of 2 inch conduit" would have to be basically
just *the threads with a nut on either end.

Pete suggested a "stub of 2 inch conduit" to connect the gutter to the
panel. (Could also one or more 2" chase nipples.)

The panel only has provision for 1 2 incher in the load center end,
and one in the "Main" end.

Usually running a lot
of wires in conduit would be a problem because you have to derate the
current rating of the wire up to up to 65%. When the conduit is shorter
than 24" that does not apply. This may not be the code where you are. It
could make the installation much easier (may or may not require gutter
splices).

*How about a 4 inch long conduit nipple in each knockout, with the
connector that normally gets screwed onto the panel screwed into the
end of the conduit instead - so I end up with *6 3/4" stubs and 2 1"
stubs sticking out of the top of the panel with the "romex" connected
to the top, the individual wires from the "romex" entering the panel
via the conduit??? Then I just make a metal sheild panel to fit over
top, hiding the "Rube Goldberg" setup from open view?????

Sounds like your ideas are about a thousand times worse anything
I ever suggested...

It sounds way too much like you are being unreasonable about this
and that a skilled electrician has the ability to create new knock
outs
in a panel in many sizes -- they are not stuck using the ones that the
factory has provided...

Your "Rube Goldberg" set up would raise more flags than a couple
of professionally installed conduits running underneath a window,
but whatever your house man...

~~ Evan

*I just talked to the electric contractor that will LIKELY end up
doing the job,( who my Dad worked for the last few years of his
working life) given the latest information I'm getting Waterloo
North Hydro - and the offset conduit nipples would have met his
approval up until they were no longer allowed a few years ago. He said
it would work, would be VERY neet, totally safe,but sadly no longer
allowed, at least in Waterloo North.

*As for the knockouts - yes, you can create new holes, but not where
existing knockouts already exist but do not line up. *That's what
"greenley" punches are for.The problem is there is only about 4 square
inches of available "real estate" left to add holes.

Here is a *shocking* idea for you then, buy a panel enclosure with
no pre-punched knock outs in it and let the electrician make the
right sized holes in it where he needs them... Those kind of panels
are used in commercial applications all the time...

~~ Evan

On 11/6/2011 9:56 AM, bob haller wrote:
On Nov 6, 9:58 am, wrote:
On 11/4/2011 1:01 PM, bob haller wrote:

YOUR* link to a report from the "Pennsylvania Department of Community
and Economic Development" says "properly installed and unaltered K&T
wiring is not an inherent fire hazard".

please show me some homes with 100 year old unaltered K&T. after 100
years or more most if not all homes have had wiring changes....

So? My mothers old house that is now over 120 years old had added
outlets in many locations including kitchen, laundry, bath. The 30A
service was upgraded to 100A. All was more recent wiring with ground.



the worst part of K&T is there are no boxes and the wiring and
connections are buried in walls and cant be looked at.......

There you go again... Almost all K&E I have seen had boxes.

Running a service truck for years I ran across 2 soldered connections
that failed. One was K&T. The other was BX. Both were "cold" solder
joints when installed.

*YOUR* source, the "Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic
Development", says "properly installed and unaltered K&T wiring is not
an inherent fire hazard".

Where is the actuarial record of K&T hazard and record that K&T is
significantly worse than other wiring methods. In the only case that has
been posted here the insurance company couldn't come up with actuarial data.



open the wall to inspect makes it mandatory to upgrade the wiring.....

Bull****. Where do you get this crap?

K&T is even still in the NEC.



and few people today want homes that cant be insulated, and at the
pittsburgh home show every insulating company refused to insulate a
home with K&T stating their business insurance wouldnt allow it..I
asked every vendor there......

*YOUR* source, the "Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic
Development", in YOUR state, insulates over K&T.



Bud face facts K&T isnt as safe as modern wiring just like a 1950s
vehicle isnt as safe in a accident as a new vehicle.

You aren't as modern as a 20 year old. Take the "Soylent Green" solution.

If I was picking a wiring method I least wanted to see it might be early
2 wire romex with paper/tar jacket.

Electricians opinions here and on Holt's site don't share your fetish
that K&T is a big problem. It is still in the NEC.

And you forgot about fuses. You say they can't be insured. Clare and my
State Farm agent say you are wrong.



in a test wreck of a 1957 bel air and a 2009 malibu the malibu driver
would of walked away while the bel air driver would of died from
multiple causes.....

Oh what a relevant comparison.

Old 2x4s are larger than they are now and thus stronger. If you have the
new 2x4s you need to replace them before the building collapses.

The last time I worked on a PA project no one had to be licensed and
there was no state inspection. That was starting with an old warehouse,
installing a much larger service, and adding motors including one that
was too large to start across-the-line. State Farm knows your whole
state should be bulldozed and start over.

Like Evan, you think what (allegedly) is true where you are is true
everywhere. Others have said you are wrong where they are. My State Farm
agent says you are wrong here.

But reality doesn't matter to someone with a fetish. You just continue
to spread FUD.

--
bud--


do tell besides K&T what other things last over a 100 years?

You mean like wood studs?


how many unaltered K&T installs are still around?

What is the problem with my mothers old house?


K&T around here typically has no boxes.

When PA gets bulldozed it won't matter.


in a lifetime how many cars have you purchased? certinally a model T
should be fine? why buy a new one, shouldnt it last forever?

You are really an idiot.
When are you going to replace the wood studs in your house?


In this thread you have got wrong:
Clare needed to convert to breakers because of homeowners insurance.
you can't get insurance for fuses
you can never get insurance for K&T
you can never get insurance for K&T from State Farm
there is a "great chance of a loss" (K&T is intrinsically unsafe)
there are no boxes with K&T
if you open a wall with K&T it is "mandatory to upgrade"
homes with K&T can't be insulated

But reality doesn't matter to someone with a fetish.

--
bud--

On 11/6/2011 11:56 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 08:58:09 -0600,
wrote:

On 11/4/2011 1:01 PM, bob haller wrote:
YOUR* link to a report from the "Pennsylvania Department of Community
and Economic Development" says "properly installed and unaltered K&T
wiring is not an inherent fire hazard".



please show me some homes with 100 year old unaltered K&T. after 100
years or more most if not all homes have had wiring changes....

So? My mothers old house that is now over 120 years old had added
outlets in many locations including kitchen, laundry, bath. The 30A
service was upgraded to 100A. All was more recent wiring with ground.


the worst part of K&T is there are no boxes and the wiring and
connections are buried in walls and cant be looked at.......

There you go again... Almost all K&E I have seen had boxes.

Well, the VAST MAJORITY originally did not.Original K&T used a LOT of
surface mounted switches, for example. Turn knob type in fact.

I have not seen K&T surface mount switches here.

I see no reason to believe that the "VAST MAJORITY" of K&T installations
here did not have boxes.


Many houses were modified as years went buy, with "modern" switches
added - often including installation of boxes.


A LOT of K&T was also
"ring topology" - with both ends of easch conductor fastened together,
so effectively the wire only carried approxemately half the load
current.

Far as I know ring circuits were never used in the US. They are common
in post WW2 UK, but are a code violation here.

It would help if local practice was not generalized to everywhere,
particularly from Canada to the US. My comments on your service tried to
make clear what I said was practice in the US. This is hallerb's major
problem.

An un-modified, original K&T wired home, with no additional
insulation added, and no extra outlets installed, is AT LEAST as safe
as a modern home, electrically. But they are EXTREMELY rare.

OMG - that is heresy to hallerb.

My mothers old house was "modified" and is much safer now than it was.

In a report to the Illinois Department of Commerce and Community Affairs
on adding insulation around existing K&T wiring the head electrical
inspector in Minneapolis said no record of hazard was found in the large
number of K&T installations that had insulation added around them.

--
bud--

On Sun, 6 Nov 2011 19:42:42 -0800 (PST), bob haller
wrote:

On Nov 6, 10:11Â*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 6 Nov 2011 12:32:52 -0800 (PST), bob haller
wrote:

If buying a house I'd rather buy an unmolested, original, 1950's or
1960's house needing renovation than one that has been renovated
several times and "updated" to make it more saleable.

The seller can save their money and agravation and just lower the
price - then I can have whatever renovations and upgrades made,
knowing what standard of work was done, and not having to tear out all
the updates to fix the underpinnings that "supposedly" make it all

90% of all buyers want a already rehabbed move in ready home.

that number doesnt apply here, home of the DIYers

Seen WAY too many screwed up reno's. A lot of them done just to
"update" a house for sale - where they would hae been FAR better just
selling the house "as is", since ALL of the renovations had to be torn
out and done over just to make the house liveable.

none the less 90% OF CURRENT HOMEBUYERS DONT WANT TO RENOVATE A HOME.

can understand it, they are mortaged to the hilt and fear running into
unknown troubles, that can add to costs dramatically when renovating.

so they want turn key homes.
AND they pay top price for a newly renovated home, which is mortgaged
to the hilt AND they need to spend big money to fix the "unknown
troubles" hidden by the "renovations"

On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 13:11:46 -0600, bud--
wrote:

On 11/6/2011 9:56 AM, bob haller wrote:
On Nov 6, 9:58 am, wrote:
On 11/4/2011 1:01 PM, bob haller wrote:

YOUR* link to a report from the "Pennsylvania Department of Community
and Economic Development" says "properly installed and unaltered K&T
wiring is not an inherent fire hazard".

please show me some homes with 100 year old unaltered K&T. after 100
years or more most if not all homes have had wiring changes....

So? My mothers old house that is now over 120 years old had added
outlets in many locations including kitchen, laundry, bath. The 30A
service was upgraded to 100A. All was more recent wiring with ground.



the worst part of K&T is there are no boxes and the wiring and
connections are buried in walls and cant be looked at.......

There you go again... Almost all K&E I have seen had boxes.

Running a service truck for years I ran across 2 soldered connections
that failed. One was K&T. The other was BX. Both were "cold" solder
joints when installed.

*YOUR* source, the "Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic
Development", says "properly installed and unaltered K&T wiring is not
an inherent fire hazard".

Where is the actuarial record of K&T hazard and record that K&T is
significantly worse than other wiring methods. In the only case that has
been posted here the insurance company couldn't come up with actuarial data.



open the wall to inspect makes it mandatory to upgrade the wiring.....

Bull****. Where do you get this crap?

K&T is even still in the NEC.



and few people today want homes that cant be insulated, and at the
pittsburgh home show every insulating company refused to insulate a
home with K&T stating their business insurance wouldnt allow it..I
asked every vendor there......

*YOUR* source, the "Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic
Development", in YOUR state, insulates over K&T.



Bud face facts K&T isnt as safe as modern wiring just like a 1950s
vehicle isnt as safe in a accident as a new vehicle.

You aren't as modern as a 20 year old. Take the "Soylent Green" solution.

If I was picking a wiring method I least wanted to see it might be early
2 wire romex with paper/tar jacket.

Electricians opinions here and on Holt's site don't share your fetish
that K&T is a big problem. It is still in the NEC.

And you forgot about fuses. You say they can't be insured. Clare and my
State Farm agent say you are wrong.



in a test wreck of a 1957 bel air and a 2009 malibu the malibu driver
would of walked away while the bel air driver would of died from
multiple causes.....

Oh what a relevant comparison.

Old 2x4s are larger than they are now and thus stronger. If you have the
new 2x4s you need to replace them before the building collapses.

The last time I worked on a PA project no one had to be licensed and
there was no state inspection. That was starting with an old warehouse,
installing a much larger service, and adding motors including one that
was too large to start across-the-line. State Farm knows your whole
state should be bulldozed and start over.

Like Evan, you think what (allegedly) is true where you are is true
everywhere. Others have said you are wrong where they are. My State Farm
agent says you are wrong here.

But reality doesn't matter to someone with a fetish. You just continue
to spread FUD.

--
bud--


do tell besides K&T what other things last over a 100 years?

You mean like wood studs?


how many unaltered K&T installs are still around?

What is the problem with my mothers old house?


K&T around here typically has no boxes.

When PA gets bulldozed it won't matter.


in a lifetime how many cars have you purchased? certinally a model T
should be fine? why buy a new one, shouldnt it last forever?

You are really an idiot.
When are you going to replace the wood studs in your house?


In this thread you have got wrong:
Clare needed to convert to breakers because of homeowners insurance.
you can't get insurance for fuses
you can never get insurance for K&T
you can never get insurance for K&T from State Farm
there is a "great chance of a loss" (K&T is intrinsically unsafe)
there are no boxes with K&T
if you open a wall with K&T it is "mandatory to upgrade"
homes with K&T can't be insulated

But reality doesn't matter to someone with a fetish.

Well, he's RIGHT that MOST houses with ORIGINAL K&T do NOT have boxes,
and he's also correct - in MOST of North America that it is impossible
to insure just about every house with K&T wiring.

He is also CORRECT that FULLY insulating a house with K&T wiring is a
serious problem.

On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 13:32:17 -0600, bud--
wrote:

On 11/6/2011 11:56 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 08:58:09 -0600,
wrote:

On 11/4/2011 1:01 PM, bob haller wrote:
YOUR* link to a report from the "Pennsylvania Department of Community
and Economic Development" says "properly installed and unaltered K&T
wiring is not an inherent fire hazard".



please show me some homes with 100 year old unaltered K&T. after 100
years or more most if not all homes have had wiring changes....

So? My mothers old house that is now over 120 years old had added
outlets in many locations including kitchen, laundry, bath. The 30A
service was upgraded to 100A. All was more recent wiring with ground.


the worst part of K&T is there are no boxes and the wiring and
connections are buried in walls and cant be looked at.......

There you go again... Almost all K&E I have seen had boxes.

Well, the VAST MAJORITY originally did not.Original K&T used a LOT of
surface mounted switches, for example. Turn knob type in fact.

I have not seen K&T surface mount switches here.

I see no reason to believe that the "VAST MAJORITY" of K&T installations
here did not have boxes.


Many houses were modified as years went buy, with "modern" switches
added - often including installation of boxes.


A LOT of K&T was also
"ring topology" - with both ends of easch conductor fastened together,
so effectively the wire only carried approxemately half the load
current.

Far as I know ring circuits were never used in the US. They are common
in post WW2 UK, but are a code violation here.

It would help if local practice was not generalized to everywhere,
particularly from Canada to the US. My comments on your service tried to
make clear what I said was practice in the US. This is hallerb's major
problem.

An un-modified, original K&T wired home, with no additional
insulation added, and no extra outlets installed, is AT LEAST as safe
as a modern home, electrically. But they are EXTREMELY rare.

OMG - that is heresy to hallerb.

My mothers old house was "modified" and is much safer now than it was.

In a report to the Illinois Department of Commerce and Community Affairs
on adding insulation around existing K&T wiring the head electrical
inspector in Minneapolis said no record of hazard was found in the large
number of K&T installations that had insulation added around them.
My father was an electrician here in Ontario Canada and did a lot of
renovation, upgrade, and rural electrification work.

Of the houses he had to re-wire from K&T to "romex" in the seventies,
the VAST majority had NO boxes, and surface mounted devices. The house
we bought in 1957 was about half surface mount and half
"push-on/push-off" mounted in the walls without boxes.

On 11/7/2011 4:16 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 13:11:46 -0600,
wrote:

On 11/6/2011 9:56 AM, bob haller wrote:
On Nov 6, 9:58 am, wrote:
On 11/4/2011 1:01 PM, bob haller wrote:

YOUR* link to a report from the "Pennsylvania Department of Community
and Economic Development" says "properly installed and unaltered K&T
wiring is not an inherent fire hazard".

please show me some homes with 100 year old unaltered K&T. after 100
years or more most if not all homes have had wiring changes....

So? My mothers old house that is now over 120 years old had added
outlets in many locations including kitchen, laundry, bath. The 30A
service was upgraded to 100A. All was more recent wiring with ground.



the worst part of K&T is there are no boxes and the wiring and
connections are buried in walls and cant be looked at.......

There you go again... Almost all K&E I have seen had boxes.

Running a service truck for years I ran across 2 soldered connections
that failed. One was K&T. The other was BX. Both were "cold" solder
joints when installed.

*YOUR* source, the "Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic
Development", says "properly installed and unaltered K&T wiring is not
an inherent fire hazard".

Where is the actuarial record of K&T hazard and record that K&T is
significantly worse than other wiring methods. In the only case that has
been posted here the insurance company couldn't come up with actuarial data.



open the wall to inspect makes it mandatory to upgrade the wiring.....

Bull****. Where do you get this crap?

K&T is even still in the NEC.



and few people today want homes that cant be insulated, and at the
pittsburgh home show every insulating company refused to insulate a
home with K&T stating their business insurance wouldnt allow it..I
asked every vendor there......

*YOUR* source, the "Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic
Development", in YOUR state, insulates over K&T.



Bud face facts K&T isnt as safe as modern wiring just like a 1950s
vehicle isnt as safe in a accident as a new vehicle.

You aren't as modern as a 20 year old. Take the "Soylent Green" solution.

If I was picking a wiring method I least wanted to see it might be early
2 wire romex with paper/tar jacket.

Electricians opinions here and on Holt's site don't share your fetish
that K&T is a big problem. It is still in the NEC.

And you forgot about fuses. You say they can't be insured. Clare and my
State Farm agent say you are wrong.



in a test wreck of a 1957 bel air and a 2009 malibu the malibu driver
would of walked away while the bel air driver would of died from
multiple causes.....

Oh what a relevant comparison.

Old 2x4s are larger than they are now and thus stronger. If you have the
new 2x4s you need to replace them before the building collapses.

The last time I worked on a PA project no one had to be licensed and
there was no state inspection. That was starting with an old warehouse,
installing a much larger service, and adding motors including one that
was too large to start across-the-line. State Farm knows your whole
state should be bulldozed and start over.

Like Evan, you think what (allegedly) is true where you are is true
everywhere. Others have said you are wrong where they are. My State Farm
agent says you are wrong here.

But reality doesn't matter to someone with a fetish. You just continue
to spread FUD.

--
bud--


do tell besides K&T what other things last over a 100 years?

You mean like wood studs?


how many unaltered K&T installs are still around?

What is the problem with my mothers old house?


K&T around here typically has no boxes.

When PA gets bulldozed it won't matter.


in a lifetime how many cars have you purchased? certinally a model T
should be fine? why buy a new one, shouldnt it last forever?

You are really an idiot.
When are you going to replace the wood studs in your house?


In this thread you have got wrong:
Clare needed to convert to breakers because of homeowners insurance.
you can't get insurance for fuses
you can never get insurance for K&T
you can never get insurance for K&T from State Farm
there is a "great chance of a loss" (K&T is intrinsically unsafe)
there are no boxes with K&T
if you open a wall with K&T it is "mandatory to upgrade"
homes with K&T can't be insulated

But reality doesn't matter to someone with a fetish.

Well, he's RIGHT that MOST houses with ORIGINAL K&T do NOT have boxes,

You are generalizing your experience, in Canada, to the universe.

That is not my experience here.

and he's also correct - in MOST of North America that it is impossible
to insure just about every house with K&T wiring.

Cite.

A number of people at a.h.r have said they didn't have a problem.

Where is the actuarial data that K&T is more of a problem than other wiring.

Hallerb's source, the "Pennsylvania Department of Community and
Economic Development", says "properly installed and unaltered K&T wiring
is not an inherent fire hazard".

Perhaps a more defensible statement, like you MAY have a problem getting
insurance....


He is also CORRECT that FULLY insulating a house with K&T wiring is a
serious problem.

Cite.

The head electrical inspector here has said no record of hazard was
found in the large number of K&T installations that had insulation added
around them.

Hallerb's source, a state agency, in his state, insulates over K&T.

Where is your evidence?

--
bud--

On Nov 8, 12:06*pm, bud-- wrote:
On 11/7/2011 4:16 PM, wrote:





On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 13:11:46 -0600,
wrote:

On 11/6/2011 9:56 AM, bob haller wrote:
On Nov 6, 9:58 am, * wrote:
On 11/4/2011 1:01 PM, bob haller wrote:

YOUR* link to a report from the "Pennsylvania Department of Community
and Economic Development" says "properly installed and unaltered K&T
wiring is not an inherent fire hazard".

please show me some homes with 100 year old unaltered K&T. after 100
years or more most if not all homes have had wiring changes....

So? My mothers old house that is now over 120 years old had added
outlets in many locations including kitchen, laundry, bath. The 30A
service was upgraded to 100A. All was more recent wiring with ground..

the worst part of K&T is there are no boxes and the wiring and
connections are buried in walls and cant be looked at.......

There you go again... Almost all K&E I have seen had boxes.

Running a service truck for years I ran across 2 soldered connections
that failed. One was K&T. The other was BX. Both were "cold" solder
joints when installed.

*YOUR* source, the "Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic
Development", says "properly installed and unaltered K&T wiring is not
an inherent fire hazard".

Where is the actuarial record of K&T hazard and record that K&T is
significantly worse than other wiring methods. In the only case that has
been posted here the insurance company couldn't come up with actuarial data.

open the wall to inspect makes it mandatory to upgrade the wiring......

Bull****. Where do you get this crap?

K&T is even still in the NEC.

and few people today want homes that cant be insulated, and at the
pittsburgh home show every insulating company refused to insulate a
home with K&T stating their business insurance wouldnt allow it..I
asked every vendor there......

*YOUR* source, the "Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic
Development", in YOUR state, insulates over K&T.

Bud face facts K&T isnt as safe as modern wiring just like a 1950s
vehicle isnt as safe in a accident as a new vehicle.

You aren't as modern as a 20 year old. Take the "Soylent Green" solution.

If I was picking a wiring method I least wanted to see it might be early
2 wire romex with paper/tar jacket.

Electricians opinions here and on Holt's site don't share your fetish
that K&T is a big problem. It is still in the NEC.

And you forgot about fuses. You say they can't be insured. Clare and my
State Farm agent say you are wrong.

in a test wreck of a 1957 bel air and a 2009 malibu the malibu driver
would of walked away while the bel air driver would of died from
multiple causes.....

Oh what a relevant comparison.

Old 2x4s are larger than they are now and thus stronger. If you have the
new 2x4s you need to replace them before the building collapses.

The last time I worked on a PA project no one had to be licensed and
there was no state inspection. That was starting with an old warehouse,
installing a much larger service, and adding motors including one that
was too large to start across-the-line. State Farm knows your whole
state should be bulldozed and start over.

Like Evan, you think what (allegedly) is true where you are is true
everywhere. Others have said you are wrong where they are. My State Farm
agent says you are wrong here.

But reality doesn't matter to someone with a fetish. You just continue
to spread FUD.

--
bud--

do tell besides K&T what other things last over a 100 years?

You mean like wood studs?

how many unaltered K&T installs are still around?

What is the problem with my mothers old house?

K&T around here typically has no boxes.

When PA gets bulldozed it won't matter.

in a lifetime how many cars have you purchased? certinally a model T
should be fine? why buy a new one, shouldnt it last forever?

You are really an idiot.
When are you going to replace the wood studs in your house?

In this thread you have got wrong:
Clare needed to convert to breakers because of homeowners insurance.
you can't get insurance for fuses
you can never get insurance for K&T
you can never get insurance for K&T from State Farm
there is a "great chance of a loss" (K&T is intrinsically unsafe)
there are no boxes with K&T
if you open a wall with K&T it is "mandatory to upgrade"
homes with K&T can't be insulated

But reality doesn't matter to someone with a fetish.

Well, he's RIGHT that MOST houses with ORIGINAL K&T do NOT have boxes,

You are generalizing your experience, in Canada, to the universe.

That is not my experience here.

and he's also correct - in MOST of North America that it is impossible
to insure just about every house with K&T wiring.

Cite.

A number of people at a.h.r have said they didn't have a problem.

Where is the actuarial data that K&T is more of a problem than other wiring.

Hallerb's *source, the "Pennsylvania Department of Community and
Economic Development", says "properly installed and unaltered K&T wiring
is not an inherent fire hazard".

Perhaps a more defensible statement, like you MAY have a problem getting
insurance....



He is also CORRECT that FULLY insulating a house with K&T wiring is a
serious problem.

Cite.

The head electrical inspector here has said no record of hazard was
found in the large number of K&T installations that had insulation added
around them.

Hallerb's source, a state agency, in his state, insulates over K&T.

Where is your evidence?

--
bud--- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

well my best friend had a 100 year old soldered K&T connection fry. he
happened to go in the basement and smell the odor. if that connection
had been buried in insulation it would of been a fire for certain.

i helped some friends who had a fire not caused by K&T, however in
gutting the home it was amazing how much the original K&T had been
hacked, and the romex BX and other upgrades were at guaranteed risk of
fire..... their home was over 130 years old.

bud if insulating K&T is fine why did all the insulating contractors
at the pittsburgh homeshow flat out refuse to do it for safety
reasons?

you also ignore the posts here from insurance workers statements about
K&T being uninsurable

He is also CORRECT that FULLY insulating a house with K&T wiring is a
serious problem.

Cite.

The head electrical inspector here has said no record of hazard was
found in the large number of K&T installations that had insulation added
around them.

Hallerb's source, a state agency, in his state, insulates over K&T.

Where is your evidence?


https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&t...w=1134&bih=601
--
bud---

Where is your evidence?

https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&t...b&hl=en&site=w...


this dates back 10 years ag0 about no insurance no home sale

bud is seriously out of date

As existing K&T wiring gets older, insurance companies may deny
coverage due to a perception of increased risk.[6] Several companies
will not write new homeowners policies at all unless all K&T wiring is
replaced, or an electrician certifies that the wiring is in good
condition. Also, many institutional lenders are unwilling to finance a
home with limited ampacity (current carrying capacity) service (which,
as noted above, often goes hand-in-hand with K&T wiring), unless the
electrical service is upgraded

On Nov 8, 2:30*pm, bob haller wrote:
As existing K&T wiring gets older, insurance companies may deny
coverage due to a perception of increased risk.[6] Several companies
will not write new homeowners policies at all unless all K&T wiring is
replaced, or an electrician certifies that the wiring is in good
condition. Also, many institutional lenders are unwilling to finance a
home with limited ampacity (current carrying capacity) service (which,
as noted above, often goes hand-in-hand with K&T wiring), unless the
electrical service is upgraded

older home w/fuse panel and breaker box dilemna

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a home built in 1946 that has a 6 fuse panel with the
description 35 amp 125/240 volts inside the housev that has 6- 30amp
fuses in it. I also have a breaker box outside tied in under the meter
that has 4 main groups of breakers ( 2 sets of 30/30) one set of 40/40
and one set of 60/60. Is this a problem? I am selling my home and an
insurance agent for the buyer said his company wouldn't probably be
able to write a policy because of the way the electric is set up. I am
sure this panel was installed quite a few years ago because of the way
the factory paper description on the inside lid is worn and
discolored. Anyway,
any suggestions why he would not write a policy? I have insurance now
with no problem. We have seldom ever blown a fuse, and occasionally
one of the 30/30 breakers trips, but that has only happened when I'm
sure the circuit was definitely overloaded..... Thanks for your input.
Incidently, the fuse box and breaker are approx. 4 feet from each
other inside to outside of house, is it possible that I might have to
have the fuse box eliminated and a larger breaker box installed? Is
that possible without re-wiring the entire house?
thanks in advance.

Chances are replacing the fuse box with a circuit breaker could reduce
your home owner’s insurance policy markedly. Because fuses are
outdated, insurance companies look at a house with a fuse box and see
an electrical fire waiting to happen. Right there, your rates go up,
and homeowners have a big incentive to toss out the fuse box.

The one situation that will really leave you with little in the way of
options is if the wiring in your home is so old as to be so dangerous
that no insurance company will touch it with a 20 foot pole. In the
earliest days of electrical wiring, bare conductor was looped around
insulating knobs hammered into beams. This configuration, known as
knob-and-tube wiring, was so unsafe it was rapidly replaced by wires
sheathed in metal and cellulose; and yet there are still homes in the
oldest parts of Washington DC and its suburbs where electricians may
find it still in use today. If in the process of buying a home, a home
inspector finds that knob-and-tube wiring, it is unlikely you will be
able to find an insurance company willing to provide coverage for the
house

bud is this enough or would you like more pastes and links about fuse
boxes and K&T and not being able to obtain homowners insurance.....

are you convinced?

On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 11:06:29 -0600, bud--
wrote:

On 11/7/2011 4:16 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 13:11:46 -0600,
wrote:

On 11/6/2011 9:56 AM, bob haller wrote:
On Nov 6, 9:58 am, wrote:
On 11/4/2011 1:01 PM, bob haller wrote:

YOUR* link to a report from the "Pennsylvania Department of Community
and Economic Development" says "properly installed and unaltered K&T
wiring is not an inherent fire hazard".

please show me some homes with 100 year old unaltered K&T. after 100
years or more most if not all homes have had wiring changes....

So? My mothers old house that is now over 120 years old had added
outlets in many locations including kitchen, laundry, bath. The 30A
service was upgraded to 100A. All was more recent wiring with ground.



the worst part of K&T is there are no boxes and the wiring and
connections are buried in walls and cant be looked at.......

There you go again... Almost all K&E I have seen had boxes.

Running a service truck for years I ran across 2 soldered connections
that failed. One was K&T. The other was BX. Both were "cold" solder
joints when installed.

*YOUR* source, the "Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic
Development", says "properly installed and unaltered K&T wiring is not
an inherent fire hazard".

Where is the actuarial record of K&T hazard and record that K&T is
significantly worse than other wiring methods. In the only case that has
been posted here the insurance company couldn't come up with actuarial data.



open the wall to inspect makes it mandatory to upgrade the wiring.....

Bull****. Where do you get this crap?

K&T is even still in the NEC.



and few people today want homes that cant be insulated, and at the
pittsburgh home show every insulating company refused to insulate a
home with K&T stating their business insurance wouldnt allow it..I
asked every vendor there......

*YOUR* source, the "Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic
Development", in YOUR state, insulates over K&T.



Bud face facts K&T isnt as safe as modern wiring just like a 1950s
vehicle isnt as safe in a accident as a new vehicle.

You aren't as modern as a 20 year old. Take the "Soylent Green" solution.

If I was picking a wiring method I least wanted to see it might be early
2 wire romex with paper/tar jacket.

Electricians opinions here and on Holt's site don't share your fetish
that K&T is a big problem. It is still in the NEC.

And you forgot about fuses. You say they can't be insured. Clare and my
State Farm agent say you are wrong.



in a test wreck of a 1957 bel air and a 2009 malibu the malibu driver
would of walked away while the bel air driver would of died from
multiple causes.....

Oh what a relevant comparison.

Old 2x4s are larger than they are now and thus stronger. If you have the
new 2x4s you need to replace them before the building collapses.

The last time I worked on a PA project no one had to be licensed and
there was no state inspection. That was starting with an old warehouse,
installing a much larger service, and adding motors including one that
was too large to start across-the-line. State Farm knows your whole
state should be bulldozed and start over.

Like Evan, you think what (allegedly) is true where you are is true
everywhere. Others have said you are wrong where they are. My State Farm
agent says you are wrong here.

But reality doesn't matter to someone with a fetish. You just continue
to spread FUD.

--
bud--


do tell besides K&T what other things last over a 100 years?

You mean like wood studs?


how many unaltered K&T installs are still around?

What is the problem with my mothers old house?


K&T around here typically has no boxes.

When PA gets bulldozed it won't matter.


in a lifetime how many cars have you purchased? certinally a model T
should be fine? why buy a new one, shouldnt it last forever?

You are really an idiot.
When are you going to replace the wood studs in your house?


In this thread you have got wrong:
Clare needed to convert to breakers because of homeowners insurance.
you can't get insurance for fuses
you can never get insurance for K&T
you can never get insurance for K&T from State Farm
there is a "great chance of a loss" (K&T is intrinsically unsafe)
there are no boxes with K&T
if you open a wall with K&T it is "mandatory to upgrade"
homes with K&T can't be insulated

But reality doesn't matter to someone with a fetish.

Well, he's RIGHT that MOST houses with ORIGINAL K&T do NOT have boxes,

You are generalizing your experience, in Canada, to the universe.

That is not my experience here.

and he's also correct - in MOST of North America that it is impossible
to insure just about every house with K&T wiring.

Cite.

A number of people at a.h.r have said they didn't have a problem.

Where is the actuarial data that K&T is more of a problem than other wiring.

Hallerb's source, the "Pennsylvania Department of Community and
Economic Development", says "properly installed and unaltered K&T wiring
is not an inherent fire hazard".

Perhaps a more defensible statement, like you MAY have a problem getting
insurance....


He is also CORRECT that FULLY insulating a house with K&T wiring is a
serious problem.

Cite.

The head electrical inspector here has said no record of hazard was
found in the large number of K&T installations that had insulation added
around them.

Hallerb's source, a state agency, in his state, insulates over K&T.

Where is your evidence?
How about 3 1/2 hours a day in a general insurance brokerage??? If
you have cast iron waste pipes, galvanized water pipes, OR K&T wiring
up here you WILL have serious problems getting insurance. Same with a
60 amp service (which was a BIG service for most houses wit K&T
wiring.)

If you have aluminum wiring you need an electrical inspection and
certificate before they will insure the house. Select electricians are
authourized to provide the inspections.

Just because no "record of hazard" was found by a local electrical
inspector does not mean an insurance company, or even MANY insurance
companies, will not have a problem with insulation around K&T wiring -
or even that many insulation installers' insurance companies may not
have a problem with the insulation contractors installing insulation
around them.
Like I said before - insurance companies are NOT in the risk
business.

On Nov 8, 6:45*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 11:06:29 -0600, bud--
wrote:





On 11/7/2011 4:16 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 13:11:46 -0600,
wrote:

On 11/6/2011 9:56 AM, bob haller wrote:
On Nov 6, 9:58 am, * wrote:
On 11/4/2011 1:01 PM, bob haller wrote:

YOUR* link to a report from the "Pennsylvania Department of Community
and Economic Development" says "properly installed and unaltered K&T
wiring is not an inherent fire hazard".

please show me some homes with 100 year old unaltered K&T. after 100
years or more most if not all homes have had wiring changes....

So? My mothers old house that is now over 120 years old had added
outlets in many locations including kitchen, laundry, bath. The 30A
service was upgraded to 100A. All was more recent wiring with ground.

the worst part of K&T is there are no boxes and the wiring and
connections are buried in walls and cant be looked at.......

There you go again... Almost all K&E I have seen had boxes.

Running a service truck for years I ran across 2 soldered connections
that failed. One was K&T. The other was BX. Both were "cold" solder
joints when installed.

*YOUR* source, the "Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic
Development", says "properly installed and unaltered K&T wiring is not
an inherent fire hazard".

Where is the actuarial record of K&T hazard and record that K&T is
significantly worse than other wiring methods. In the only case that has
been posted here the insurance company couldn't come up with actuarial data.

open the wall to inspect makes it mandatory to upgrade the wiring......

Bull****. Where do you get this crap?

K&T is even still in the NEC.

and few people today want homes that cant be insulated, and at the
pittsburgh home show every insulating company refused to insulate a
home with K&T stating their business insurance wouldnt allow it..I
asked every vendor there......

*YOUR* source, the "Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic
Development", in YOUR state, insulates over K&T.

Bud face facts K&T isnt as safe as modern wiring just like a 1950s
vehicle isnt as safe in a accident as a new vehicle.

You aren't as modern as a 20 year old. Take the "Soylent Green" solution.

If I was picking a wiring method I least wanted to see it might be early
2 wire romex with paper/tar jacket.

Electricians opinions here and on Holt's site don't share your fetish
that K&T is a big problem. It is still in the NEC.

And you forgot about fuses. You say they can't be insured. Clare and my
State Farm agent say you are wrong.

in a test wreck of a 1957 bel air and a 2009 malibu the malibu driver
would of walked away while the bel air driver would of died from
multiple causes.....

Oh what a relevant comparison.

Old 2x4s are larger than they are now and thus stronger. If you have the
new 2x4s you need to replace them before the building collapses.

The last time I worked on a PA project no one had to be licensed and
there was no state inspection. That was starting with an old warehouse,
installing a much larger service, and adding motors including one that
was too large to start across-the-line. State Farm knows your whole
state should be bulldozed and start over.

Like Evan, you think what (allegedly) is true where you are is true
everywhere. Others have said you are wrong where they are. My State Farm
agent says you are wrong here.

But reality doesn't matter to someone with a fetish. You just continue
to spread FUD.

--
bud--

do tell besides K&T what other things last over a 100 years?

You mean like wood studs?

how many unaltered K&T installs are still around?

What is the problem with my mothers old house?

K&T around here typically has no boxes.

When PA gets bulldozed it won't matter.

in a lifetime how many cars have you purchased? certinally a model T
should be fine? why buy a new one, shouldnt it last forever?

You are really an idiot.
When are you going to replace the wood studs in your house?

In this thread you have got wrong:
Clare needed to convert to breakers because of homeowners insurance.
you can't get insurance for fuses
you can never get insurance for K&T
you can never get insurance for K&T from State Farm
there is a "great chance of a loss" (K&T is intrinsically unsafe)
there are no boxes with K&T
if you open a wall with K&T it is "mandatory to upgrade"
homes with K&T can't be insulated

But reality doesn't matter to someone with a fetish.

Well, he's RIGHT that MOST houses with ORIGINAL K&T do NOT have boxes,

You are generalizing your experience, in Canada, to the universe.

That is not my experience here.

and he's also correct - in MOST of North America that it is impossible
to insure just about every house with K&T wiring.

Cite.

A number of people at a.h.r have said they didn't have a problem.

Where is the actuarial data that K&T is more of a problem than other wiring.

Hallerb's *source, the "Pennsylvania Department of Community and
Economic Development", says "properly installed and unaltered K&T wiring
is not an inherent fire hazard".

Perhaps a more defensible statement, like you MAY have a problem getting
insurance....

He is also CORRECT that FULLY insulating a house with K&T wiring is a
serious problem.

Cite.

The head electrical inspector here has said no record of hazard was
found in the large number of K&T installations that had insulation added
around them.

Hallerb's source, a state agency, in his state, insulates over K&T.

Where is your evidence?

*How about 3 1/2 hours a day in a general insurance brokerage??? If
you have cast iron waste pipes, galvanized water pipes, OR K&T wiring
up here you WILL have serious problems getting insurance. Same with a
60 amp service (which was a BIG service for most houses wit K&T
wiring.)

If you have aluminum wiring you need an electrical inspection and
certificate before they will insure the house. Select electricians are
authourized to provide the inspections.

*Just because no "record of hazard" was found by a local electrical
inspector does not mean an insurance company, or even MANY insurance
companies, will not have a problem with insulation around K&T wiring -
or even that many insulation installers' insurance companies *may not
have a problem with the insulation contractors installing insulation
around them.
*Like I said before - insurance companies are NOT in the risk
business.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Knob and tube? Time to rewire
Knob-and-tube wiring was the main method of electrical wiring from the
1880s through the 1930s, lasting even into the 1950s. Back then, a
single outlet per room was common, and the average household's few
appliances didn't collectively suck much power.

What concerns insurers is the strain that today's power-hungry
appliances place on older wiring. Knob-and-tube wiring typically
doesn't have a ground, and you're not supposed to use modern three-
hole outlets unless the ground is functional.


Problems getting homeowners insurance
Fuse boxes, which often accompanied older wiring, pose another
problem. As a safety feature, the fuses have thin slivers of metal
designed to "blow" when too much electricity courses through them,
shutting off power. But homeowners occasionally try to beat the system
and keep the electricity flowing by sticking pennies, which are much
thicker, into the fuse sockets. Doing so makes the wiring inside a
house's walls hot -- so hot that the house could catch fire.

Good luck convincing an insurance agent that you would never try
this.

Bottom line: Most carriers consider extensive knob-and-tube wiring a
fire hazard and won't insure a house that has it