Anyone know about the reliabiltiy of these mini-breakers that replaced fuses?

[ren ramsey]

Anyone know about the reliabiltiy of these mini-breakers that replaced fuses?http://i333.photobucket.com/albums/m378/ramdino/IMG_1228.jpg (http://s333.photobucket.com/user/ramdino/media/IMG_1228.jpg.html)

[Jim Port]

I would be more concerned about the paint overspray. Ducking and runs for cover.

Sorry Ren, couldn't resist.

[ren ramsey]

I would be more concerned about the paint overspray. Ducking and runs for cover.

Sorry Ren, couldn't resist. Good one, I was waiting for someone to bring it up. That took no time. This forum is relentless. LOL

[Jerry Peck]

I wouldn't worry about the paint overspray, arcing will be confined to the aluminum wrapped thread portion of those circuit breakers, which means that reliability (not blowing) should not be a problem. :)

[Garry Sorrells]

Just like the Edison fuse that they replaced they work. Anecdotal report that after decades of use and no failure or problem.

One note is that the original fuse may have been a 15amp. Have to look at wiring/outlets.

The Insurance industry will have a hiss fit looking at them, just like having Edison fuses.

[ren ramsey]

Ren - I think that you are missing the forest because the trees are in the way.
The panel box is probably beyond its serviceable life and Insurance Companies are often refusing to insure properties with fuse boxes.No, I got that and have recommended replacement. But I have never seen these mini breakers and wanted to add to my comment if there was something to add.

[Billy Stephens]

No, I got that and have recommended replacement. But I have never seen these mini breakers and wanted to add to my comment if there was something to add.

These breakers work as intended, nothing to comment on ( concerning the breaker type.)

[Garry Sorrells]

I have never seen these mini breakers and wanted to add to my comment if there was something to add.

As cheeze as it may look they work well. Function just as any breaker with the exception that it is visually hard to tell if it has been tripped. Push the center and it resets.

I would take issue with the statement that it is beyond its serviceable life. The box and fuses work. How the insurance industry looks at them may be the reason that Jim offers that it is "probably beyond its serviceable life". Yet the equipment works fine. Like most things it is what people do to it that makes it hazardous.

If you recommend replacement of anything make sure you really understand and explain the reasoning you are making that determination.

If old is the requirement for serviceable life then many of us are in trouble.:peep: Though our wives may want to upgrade to a newer model, even though we are still providing good service despite not being as shiny as we once were.:smokin:

[Raymond Wand]

I bet those resettable fuses are 5 amps over fused for the circuit based on the age of panel. Most likely used because there is nuisance tripping. Up the fuse, and save buying one use fuses and never having replacements on hand.

[Mbrooke]

If Im not mistaken those have thermal trip only, no magnetic trip. A fault will leave behind a lot more carnage. Wont hurt the wires if its within spec, but one less safety feature over a breaker.


Check those are the right size too.

[Garry Sorrells]

.......
The main issue with fuse boxes is that there is a significant amount of written information that fuse boxes are dangerous and a potential fire hazard. ...... A fuse box should be reported as beyond its serviceable due to liability issues because they are a well known hazard.

What is said/written repeatedly is that it is the person that made the box unsafe and caused the fire by installing a higher rated fuse. It is not the fuses, it is the people manipulating them. With a screwdriver you can do the same thing to a breaker panel.

As for data to support that the Edison fuse panel is unsafe take a look, you will not find much. The data goes back to installing a higher rated fuse. Data is from the 80's and 90's at that.

Jim,
Do you have any statistics rather than opinion that the "fuse boxes are dangerous and a potential fire hazard. ...... A fuse box should be reported as beyond its serviceable due to liability issues because they are a well known hazard." What I see is that it is opinions that are stated without any supporting evidence. And again it is about people changing the fuse that caused the problem not the box with correct fuse ratings installed.

[Billy Stephens]

What is said/written repeatedly is that it is the person that made the box unsafe and caused the fire by installing a higher rated fuse. It is not the fuses, it is the people manipulating them. With a screwdriver you can do the same thing to a breaker panel.

As for data to support that the Edison fuse panel is unsafe take a look, you will not find much. The data goes back to installing a higher rated fuse. Data is from the 80's and 90's at that.

Jim,
Do you have any statistics rather than opinion that the "fuse boxes are dangerous and a potential fire hazard. ...... A fuse box should be reported as beyond its serviceable due to liability issues because they are a well known hazard." What I see is that it is opinions that are stated without any supporting evidence. And again it is about people changing the fuse that caused the problem not the box with correct fuse ratings installed.

Gary,

You are correct in that a Human Being caused the hazard.

That said the liability would be that as a Human is involved think young inexperience driver with a very fast sports car verses a beater. The probability of a loss is increased.

[Garry Sorrells]

Gary,

You are correct in that a Human Being caused the hazard.

That said the liability would be that as a Human is involved think young inexperience driver with a very fast sports car verses a beater. The probability of a loss is increased.

Sorrry don't quite see the analogy. But no mater. It is the human factor. Fast sports car or 8,000LB beater the liability is what they hit and the damage they do all around. Still goes back to human factor.

Car analogy, I can take a car that is designed and built to operate reliable and safely and make it into a death trap. Change the suspension and steering, boar out the engine and add some/alot of Nitros, beef up the rear end (sorry old school, now front wheel drive) and put on some fat tires and head to the supermarket at 140mph.

It is not the car's original design that is hazardous, other than the ease to alter. It is the fact that the design is altered.

I have been repairing microwaves for years. They have security screws that make it just a tad more difficult to dissemble. Just need a security bit set ($6) and you are off to the races. Similarly the thinking is that people will not pick up a screw driver and open a service panel and change the breakers. Naaaaaaaa that would never happen. So would that make the breaker panel hazardous and beyond its serviceable life?

The difference in the design of the fuse as opposed to the breaker is not the issue. Yes the breaker has a different trip design yet they can melt down. Breakers are not totally fail safe are they? We have never seen a hot breaker in a box that no one knew about, have we?

Intermission:::::::::::: Let all go to the lobby.....
:pop2:As a redirection to the fuse discussion you might look at the introduction of the Smart Meter that is being introduced. Locally here in Maryland the electric supplier is now in the process of installing Smart Meters with some push back. Take a look at : Smart Meter Fires

Smart Meter Fires and Explosions | EMF Safety Network (http://emfsafetynetwork.org/smart-meters/smart-meter-fires-and-explosions/)

[Raymond Wand]

Yes opinions are a dime a dozen.

http://www.esasafe.com/assets/files/esasafe/pdf/Safety_Reports/2009_Safety_Report.pdf

Keep in mind these are stats from Ontario. While broken down by category does not go into what the specific cause was, nor age of panel, or any other pertinent data to categorically state old panels cause more fires.

[Raymond Wand]

Googled "Fuse Box Hazard" and the first two pages are nothing but contractors and discussion forum topics.

Can you provide a link to a government agency quoting stats as to your 'opinion?' The link I posted clearly shows empirical stats indicating your 'opinion(s)' are not necessarily based on empirical evidence.

And if you are sure of your opinions at the very least quote a source rather than simply telling someone to google a term that doesn't show much of anything.

[Garry Sorrells]

Gary -If you Google -" Fuse Box Hazards " you will come up with thousands of articles about hazards with fuse boxes.
It is these articles and opinions that create the issue. This is similar to the Federal Pacific issue.

I liked this one. Go to the end for panel demonstration.
Fuse Box Danger - YouTube (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=15&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CHYQtwIwDg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DdY3 o4HssHYA&ei=3oM1U47nIqTesATQyYDgCQ&usg=AFQjCNEcShaF8GyItcTn3fo7lJ0KC8R9ig&sig2=MwrN80BD1RkBs55VwF99bA&bvm=bv.63808443,d.cWc)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY3o4HssHYAJim, What you get is a lot of the same. People saying that people cause the problem not the box or the fuse.


Raymond has seized on my point. Where is it that the Edison fuse and box are the hazard. Is there a source that demonstrates, by testing, the box and correct fuse are any hazard in and of itself. Is there a source that has determined failure that was not directly connected to someone making the box and fuse unsafe?

Again the same point could be made about breaker panels. Breakers can be changed, a 30amp breaker can replace a 15amp breaker.

[Billy Stephens]

Sorrry don't quite see the analogy. But no mater. It is the human factor. Fast sports car or 8,000LB beater the liability is what they hit and the damage they do all around. Still goes back to human factor.

Yep,

It's the Human Nature Factor.

Fast car inexperienced driver = Known Risk and Liability

Slow car same drive = Less Risk

Edison Fuse Box = Known Risk and Liabilty

Breakers in enclosed Service Panel = Less Risk of an inexperienced Human altering the equipment to create a hazard.
* if a fire is caused by something say as an altered Microwave:( the Insurance carrier could shift liability.

[Garry Sorrells]

Ren - I think that you are missing the forest because the trees are in the way.
The panel box is probably beyond its serviceable life and Insurance Companies are often refusing to insure properties with fuse boxes.

So as not to be lost in the discussion 2 separate things.

1) "Beyond its serviceable life", Box and fuses work and replacement parts are available. So not beyond serviceable life. Most of the comments in the Google search will say that the fuses work as designed to protect the circuits. It what is done with them.

2) Insurance companies not willing to write coverage on box and fuses is something different. Yep, it is common that they will not provide coverage based on fuses being present.





...

Edison Fuse Box = Known Risk and Liabilty

Breakers in enclosed Service Panel = Less Risk of an inexperienced Human altering the equipment to create a hazard.
* if a fire is caused by something say as an altered Microwave:( the Insurance carrier could shift liability.


The risk is with the people because they are the hazard to the equipment. The equipment in and of itself is not the hazard.

" Less Risk of an inexperienced Human altering the equipment to create a hazard." Lack of the ability to use a screw driver is the only experience that it is dependent on.

Altered microwave may be hazard, but the hazard came from the person not the microwave.

So again the hazard is with the person not the equipment. Just like the fuses in the box.

[Raymond Wand]

Garry wrote in part:

2) Insurance companies not willing to write coverage on box and fuses is something different. Yep, it is common that they will not provide coverage based on fuses being present.

My experience is that some insurers will insure while others may not, while others may simply want a licenced electrician to inspect and state the service is okay.

One size does not fit all nor should it be said the insurers will automatically not insure a premise based on fused panel.

I have found insurers are more interested in Alu wiring and want generally speaking any 60 amp service upgraded to a minimum of 100 amp even though no authority had condemned 60 amp service, nor aluminum. It is the insurers who act as code authority even though they are not. They will reduce their risks any way they think suitable even though codes and authorities dictate otherwise.

[Billy Stephens]

The risk is with the people because they are the hazard to the equipment. The equipment in and of itself is not the hazard.

" Less Risk of an inexperienced Human altering the equipment to create a hazard." Lack of the ability to use a screw driver is the only experience that it is dependent on.


So again the hazard is with the person not the equipment. Just like the fuses in the box.

If this Equipment is in use it is a Hazard. ( Cars in the junk yard do not get in accidents.)

The want or need to alter the service equipment is the driving force. ( Lights go out put a penny in the slot, or flip the breaker back on.) Which of these is less likely to create a hazard?

So again you can not separate in use items from the Human ( other wise the item is not in use there for useless. ( what good is Electrical Service to a residence if no one uses it?)

[Jerry Peck]

So again the hazard is with the person not the equipment. Just like the fuses in the box.

Not quite correct.

The hazard is the ease with which the equipment can be altered from a relatively safe condition to an unsafe condition.

When a fuse blows, the fuse must be removed and replaced with a different fuse. The new fuse being installed will likely be "what is within reach" regardless of rating. Replace the fuse a couple of times and a higher rated fuse will likely be installed so as to eliminate the problem.

A fuse panel is also older and will likely have less capacity and fewer circuits - thereby creating the fuse blowing problem.

If a breaker trips, the breaker is not removed, it is simply reset.

breaker panels are typically newer and have more capacity for more circuits - thus breakers trip less often than fuses blow.

When breakers trip, usually there is a circuit problem more than an overload problem as with fuse panels.

Thus, fuse panels are more of a hazard than breaker panels and why insurance companies do not like fuse panels.

[Raymond Wand]

No personal opinion? Okay whatever you say! 10-4 over and out.

[Garry Sorrells]

Your reading comprehension is lacking . Read the post again .I do not have a personnel opinion on this subject.

Not just one???????????????????????

Maybe it is like Bill Clinton and the meaning of "is". An "opinion" by any other name still smells as sweet.

From: Merrian Webster
Full Definition of OPINION
1
a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter
b : approval (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/approval), esteem (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/esteem)

2
a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge
b : a generally held view

3
a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert
b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based

So, Jim you don't have an opinion. Maybe you have religion, where first you must believe and then you will understand. You have the understanding and need no source of support other than others opinion.

Please don't go to a Flat Lander Society meeting, you might then just go over the edge...:o

[Garry Sorrells]

Not quite correct.

The hazard is the ease with which the equipment can be altered ....



The argument is that the ease of making something hazardous makes it past its serviceable life and by that ease makes it hazardous?

If you remove the insurance industry position as the defining information source. Where do you find the supportable statical data that fuses are inherently hazardous and also that they are past their serviceable life and should be replaced.


Jerry, I know you have a lot of information and resources at your disposal. Can you provide the data (or source location) showing fires relating to residential boxes using fuses. Numbers of boxes in use, the number that are altered, fires or damage attributable directly to the fuses.

I seem to find more information on Smart Meters and related and related damage than statical information on the Edison screw in Fuse.

A little interesting that millions have been spent on every type of study under the sun and I can't find fuse related studies..... :(

[Glenn R Cummings]

I have experience with this type of breaker.
My previous home had the basement served by a 4 position fuse box.

Although I have no control over it now, but I am quite sure that it still has the indelible felt marker stating "15 AMP ONLY".

These breakers served me well. A shop vac and additional loads occasionally would pop the breaker.

I would rather push the reset button, than change a fuse.
I think this is when the 'accidents' happen. If a 15 amp fuse isn't available and you find a 20 ... and you know, just until you pickup a 15......
I have never done this, but I can see how this happens.

I always stored additional 15 amp fuses near the box and got rid of any other sizes from the area. The push button breaker helps minimize the change of an errant swap.

Still waiting to see if anyone posts some real data on their inherent dangers.

[Billy Stephens]

Still waiting to see if anyone posts some real data on their inherent dangers.

Really,

This type of service equipment has not been installed in residential housing scene the late 1950's.

Under this line of thinking Natural Gas lighting, knob&tube wiring, coal fired boilers, lead pipes, uninsulated walls & ceilings, wood cook stoves are all not beyond service life with No Hazards.:(

[Raymond Wand]

The photo by the original poster only shows that the box may be over fused. Nothing else. Does it have to be replaced? That depends on what is behind the panel door, as such I would not be making any recommendation until such time as I could view what is behind the cover, other than its possibly over fused.

[Garry Sorrells]

Really,

This type of service equipment has not been installed in residential housing scene the late 1950's.

Under this line of thinking Natural Gas lighting, knob&tube wiring, coal fired boilers, lead pipes, uninsulated walls & ceilings, wood cook stoves are all not beyond service life with No Hazards.:(

Natural Gas lighting not very practical anymore, and yes hazardous by design.
Knob & Tube, Yes hazardous by design.
Uninsulated walls & ceilings, definitely hazardous and beyond service life they need to be removed:thumb:
Wood cook stoves, most people should not play with matches.:tsk:
Coal fired boiler, definitely the average person today are not smart enough to operate.:sad:
Lead pipe, if you are not drinking bottled water you deserve lead pipes.:boink:


Under this line of thinking since black pipe for natural gas has been replaced by CSST, black pipe is not beyond service life with NO Hazards. :p

Because it has not been installed since the 50's does not mean that it does not work and in and of itself hazardous. It was not to long ago that a poster suggested that breakers 20 years old should be replaced due only to age. Which was proven wrong.

Should a report state that: As the new owner of a property you are to stupid not to understand that installing an incorrect fuse is bad. Therefore I have determined that the load center needs to be replaced with something that you will need a screw driver to alter.

Here is a thought; Cars come with a temporary limited use tire. That tire should be replaced with a full size tire same as the rest of the car since the owner might not use it properly according to design and manufacture use specifications. Injury and death may occur and therefor is hazardous and never had a useful life. :rolleyes:

[Billy Stephens]

Lead pipe, if you are not drinking bottled water you deserve lead pipes.:boink:


Here is a thought; Cars come with a temporary limited use tire. That tire should be replaced with a full size tire same as the rest of the car since the owner might not use it properly according to design and manufacture use specifications. Injury and death may occur and therefor is hazardous and never had a useful life. :rolleyes:

So you think bottled water comes from, Alpine Glaciers, Mountain Springs, Artisan Wells :confused:
*or the muni water supply at wherever the bottler is located.

You sure you want to go with the Donut spare as a comparison? ;)



Spare Tire
Your Mazda has a temporary spare tire.
The temporary spare tire is lighter and smaller than a conventional tire, and is designed only for emergency use and should be used only for VERY short periods. Temporary spare tires should NEVER be used for long drives or extended periods.
WARNING
Do not install the temporary spare tire in place of the front wheels (driving wheels):
Driving with the temporary spare tire on one of the front driving wheels is dangerous. Especially on ice or snow.
Handling will be affected. You could lose control of the vehicle and have an accident. Move a regular tire to the front wheel and install the temporary spare tire to the rear.
CAUTION
● When using the temporary spare tire, driving stability may decrease compared to when using only the conventional tire. Drive carefully.
● To avoid damage to the temporary spare tire or to the vehicle, observe the following precautions:
● Do not exceed 80 km/h (50 mph).
● Avoid driving over obstacles.
Also, do not drive through an automatic car wash. This tire's diameter is smaller than a conventional tire, so the ground clearance is reduced about 25 mm (1 in).
● Do not use a tire chain on this tire because it will not fit properly.
● Do not use your temporary spare tire on any other vehicle; it has been designed only for your Mazda.
● Use only one temporary spare tire on your vehicle at the same time.

[Garry Sorrells]

Billy,
Naaaaaa--- I thought that bottled water came from France. Only the best for me Acqua di Cristallo Tributo a Modigliani.


And if the instructions for using the spare tire aren't followed it has to be the tire's fault not the person using it. Because the instructions are so easy not to follow. :amen:

[Billy Stephens]

Billy,
Naaaaaa--- I thought that bottled water came from France. Only the best for me Acqua di Cristallo Tributo a Modigliani.


And if the instructions for using the spare tire aren't followed it has to be the tire's fault not the person using it. Because the instructions are so easy not to follow. :amen:


People are Hazardous ! Just more so when they have access to products that require thought and common sense to use. That's why some laws are on the books to limit that access.

*you'll need some of this Gold Booty Wipe to go whit ya High Class WaWA cause it be getting Deep round here. :D

"Weird Al" Yankovic - Fat - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2mU6USTBRE)

[Marshall Brown]

It seems like we have a lot of beliefs about what and when it is appropriate to report something as no longer serviceable, or potentially dangerous.

My thought is that if a device has not been ruled no longer suitable for use, is not worn to non serviceable condition, has suffered no damage that would impair safe function for the designed purpose, is only in use for the designed purpose and has not been improperly modified then it is still to be considered suitable for continued use. Old doesn't count.

That is not to say I might not recommend replacement for a number of other reasons, such as ability to find qualified service people, ability to have ready access to proper repair and maintenance parts, there are safer ways of performing the function, there are more efficient ways of performing that function, or even simply ease of use. These are included in the report as Maintenance Tips or Improvements.

My point is that if we write up something as being in need or repairs or replacement that should not be based on debatable issues or opinions but on clearly, and inarguable, demonstrable facts. If we do and the deal goes south because of it our client may not sue up but the homeowner might. DAMHIKT.

[Marshall Brown]

When I tell a client that a five year old roof covering should give reasonable service for another 20 -25 years I also tell them that that is statistically true but may not be their experience.

Much the same story applies to a water heater. I have seen water heaters essentially fail out of the box and others that seem to be impervious to the passage of time.

It's a bell curve type thing. A water heater, and many, if not most other things, are designed to have about 95% of the product exceed the warranty period. A water heater, and many, if not most other things, WILL fail eventually. The trick is not so much to predict the time of failure but to prepare for it.

As an aside, in the "good old days" they didn't really know how to design to an expected lifespan so they often just built things to last forever. I guess we'd all be out of work if that were still true.

Historically we have provided our clients with a brochure, similar to the InterNACHI table, that gives many expected life spans for home products. I really do need to have some more printed up to include with our reports. Thanks for the reminder.

[Marshall Brown]

The "aside" wasn't really meant to indicate that things actually last forever but more to point out that now we actually design for a life cycle. I don't think in the "good old days" they would have thought much of people who build things to wear out in a given time frame. But that's mainly a philosophical thing.

Actually I don't have a problem with telling a client something should be replaced if that's the case. I just like to be clear, and correct, about why it should be replaced, and I realize I'm not always.

[Garry Sorrells]

..... That's why some laws are on the books to limit that access.

...

So are there any laws that require the replacement of the Fuse box when there is nothing else effecting the installation?

[Billy Stephens]

People are Hazardous ! Just more so when they have access to products that require thought and common sense to use. That's why some laws are on the books to limit that access.


"Weird Al" Yankovic - Fat - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2mU6USTBRE)


So are there any laws that require the replacement of the Fuse box when there is nothing else effecting the installation?

Wow Gary,
*took ya this long for a come back?

My quote is out of content.

Examples of laws on the books that limit access to hazardous items that require thought and common sense.

*driving while intoxicated. * possession of hazardous chemicals without proper instruction or license to include drugs, explosives. * practicing a Profession needing vetting to protect others such as Doctor, Architect, Engineer, Pharmacist.

So ya see Gary some of us use more thought and common sense than others.
*that said I wouldn't want my Podiatrist writing a Remedy for my foundation crack.

MC Hammer - U Can't Touch This - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otCpCn0l4Wo)

[Jack Feldmann]

Out of curiosity, I called three friends that write insurance in the Knoxville area. They all said they had no problems writing policies on homes with fuses. However, they all have problems with knob and tube

- - - Updated - - -

Out of curiosity, I called three friends that write insurance in the Knoxville area. They all said they had no problems writing policies on homes with fuses. However, they all have problems with knob and tube

[Garry Sorrells]

Farmers mutual underwriting guidelines are below . The loss ratio of both K&T and fuses is off the charts and most Companies deny coverage for either of these and often Aluminum branch circuit.





Jim,
Could you contact your Farmers or other sources and obtain the " charts" that are refereed to?

[Raymond Wand]

Yes I would love to see the stats too, that is only one insurer out of many.

Fuses are actually safer than breakers...

- - - Updated - - -

Billy S. wrote in part..


Examples of laws on the books that limit access to hazardous items that require thought and common sense. Laws do not instill common sense, nor do they limit access, they only prescribe outcomes for lack of common sense and penalties for breach of same.

[Garry Sorrells]

Wow Gary,
*took ya this long for a come back? ......
So ya see Gary some of us use more thought and common sense than others.
*that said I wouldn't want my Podiatrist writing a Remedy for my foundation crack.....

Off to the shore and off the grid..

Where does common sense come from, wish I knew. Many intelligent people have none and some of the least intelligent will be overloaded. Where does governmental control to create common sense, for those that have none, exceed common sense. Extrapolation is that you should be licensed to buy chlorine and ammonia, since you could mix them and kill your self or others.

[Billy Stephens]

Raymond,

You can not freely buy certain goods or provide certain services. That is limiting your access.

[Garry Sorrells]

Ren - ...
The panel box is probably beyond its serviceable life and Insurance Companies are often refusing to insure properties with fuse boxes.


...

The Insurance Companies have issues with fuses because of the loss data . Houses with fused panel boxes have many more fires that houses with circuit breaker panel boxes.....
The main issue with fuse boxes is that there is a significant amount of written information that fuse boxes are dangerous and a potential fire hazard...... A fuse box should be reported as beyond its serviceable due to liability issues because they are a well known hazard.


Gary -If you Google -" Fuse Box Hazards " you will come up with thousands of articles about hazards with fuse boxes.
It is these articles and opinions that create the issue. This is similar to the Federal Pacific issue.


So; no data, charts or statical information. "Sorry Gary - This data is not generally available to the public." The criteria for the fuse box being beyond serviceable life and are a well known hazard is a bunch of people, saying the same thing, with nothing offered to support that opinion. Something like listening to the boys at the bar. Opinions with nothing to support them but the stool they are sitting on. After a while they will start quoting each other as fact.

:deadhorse: Fuse box is not rusted and no damage of any kind. The fuses are the rating for the wiring. Therefore the fuse box is beyond its serviceable life and is a hazard. The federal Pacific case is different in that the hazard is in the equipment itself and not the operator.

Its about what is being said. To often HI reports are filled with self aggrandizement and opinions without factual basis. Such as "Because your breakers are old they need to be replaced". Telling a client that there will be an issue (depending on state) of obtaining insurance for a property that has a fuse box is fine. Also informing them that they may need to replace the fuse box with a breaker panel to obtain insurance with a lower cost, is also fine. Saying that it is an insurance industry issue is fine. Explaining why the insurance industry has decided to make an issue of the fuse box is great. Telling your client that they have no common sense and can not be trusted to act responsibility is a individual decision on the HIs part. Saying that the working fuse with no defects, like a breaker with no defects, is not functioning as designed (serviceable ) is something else entirely. Granted it's splitting hairs.

Maybe I should be in Missouri so I can say "You have to how me" :wink:
"...story gives credit to Missouri's U.S. Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver for coining the phrase in 1899. During a speech in Philadelphia, he said:
"I come from a state that raises corn and cotton and cockleburs and Democrats, and frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. I am from Missouri. You have got to show me."

[Billy Stephens]

Opinions with nothing to support them but the stool they are sitting on. After a while they will start quoting each other as fact.

:deadhorse: Fuse box is not rusted and no damage of any kind. The fuses are the rating for the wiring.

How would you know that the wiring is rated for 20 amps???:confused:
* my swag would be 15 amp feeder lines.

Foolish man shoots himself in the leg. - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LE32Riyugg)

[Jerry Peck]

So; no data, charts or statical information.

Garry,

Don't feed the alligators, the bears, or the Troll ... they are not our friends - they would just as soon bite off the hand which is feeding them as they would take the food from that hand.

If a response to the Troll is necessary, the best response is to stay on topic and reply to the readers.

I wish I could claim that good advice above as mine, but that good advice above was recently passed my way from a friend on the board here.

[Marshall Brown]

I think we are discussing two different issues.

On the one hand there is the physical condition of a component of the house.

On the other is some organization finding that it is not acceptable for some reason.

My personal feeling is that we report the component as physically serviceable but no longer desirable/acceptable by reason of improvements in the technology and/or de facto rules/regulations.

Wandering back to the water heater example several of us used above, is a seller obligated to replace a water heater that is out of warranty or might be past its statistical life span if it is fully function with no damage? I would guess no.

Should we advise our clients that the water heater is older, less efficient, and that its failure might lead to other damage. I would guess yes.

I still see these as two different issues.

[Garry Sorrells]

How would you know that the wiring is rated for 20 amps???:confused:
* my swag would be 15 amp feeder lines.


Not sure what what you are trying to say..... But 14/4 = 15 amp,,,12/2 =20, amp is what I would be looking at....

[Billy Stephens]

Not sure what what you are trying to say..... But 14/4 = 15 amp,,,12/2 =20, amp is what I would be looking at....

How can you tell what gauge wire those 20 amp fuses are sitting on?

[Garry Sorrells]

Gary - You don't seem to get it . The Insurance Companies are ceasing to insure homes with fuses. No Insurance , no mortgage, and no sale. It is just that simple and you are not going to change it.

I would suspect that most states have insurance companies that will insure what the other companies will not. In Maryland it is called The Joint Insurance Company. Long story short, they do not realty compete with the main stream companies. I would think that other states have something similar.

- - - Updated - - -


How can you tell what gauge wire those 20 amp fuses are sitting on?

Look at them??????:confused: They all taste the same. Just like chicken..

[Garry Sorrells]

...
Don't feed the alligators,.

There is always a hope that something beneficial may surface.. Always worth a try.:rolleyes:

[Garry Sorrells]

.... is a seller obligated to replace a water heater ...

The seller is not obligated to do anything except pass the title. In reality the seller doesn't even have to pass a clean title, just a quitclaim deed.

[Billy Stephens]

How can you tell what gauge wire those 20 amp fuses are sitting on?


Look at them??????:confused:

How can you support your statement that the panel has the proper size fuses from the OPs posted photo. You looking ?

[Garry Sorrells]

Post #5
.......One note is that the original fuse may have been a 15amp. Have to look at wiring/outlets.

Sorry Billy, the wording of your question threw me since I didn't say that the panel had proper anything. I origionally questioned the sizing of the fuses. Just like I would if they were 20amp breakers controlling the lights. Combination makes me suspect.

If you look just from the outside at a breaker panel how do you know if the breakers the correct size for the circut they are connected to?

[Raymond Wand]

Looking at the branch circuit wiring going into the box would be a start as to whether the fuses are appropriately sized, then again that is not always conclusive without taking the cover off.

Regardless, fuses are safer, the panel does not ware out as being argued as most panels are never exercised to wear out. Screw in fuses do not wear out, cartridge fuses don't wear out.

Still waiting for empirical data on fire losses as a result of failure of old panels. I provided such proof and its time for you Mr. Abram to do the same rather than meaningless opinions based on your narrow view of inspecting regardless what 'some' insurers are doing is not indicative that all insurers are turning down coverage for such panels.

[Marshall Brown]

Jim, Thanks for the link. I haven't plowed through all 189 pages but think it will make an interesting read.

"Products that, even though they may not deteriorate with age, no longer provide as much fire protection as alternative products now widely used. Age is indirectly related because it correlates with the degree of usage of these alternative products. Circuit breakers and fuses are always cited as an example, but the FPRF study, like the NIST and CPSC studies, did not find a clear difference in performance between fuses and circuit breakers. All those studies tend to indicate that old fuses and old circuit breakers work well if not abused or misused. Fuses are easier to defeat through tampering, and this appears to be the key to any statistical difference in performance. "

Things don't have to be old or damaged to warrant replacement.

[Gregory Booth]

Raymond - You asked for the data .Find it posted below. https://www.nfpa.org/~/media/Files/Research/NFPA%20reports/Major%20Causes/OSHomeElectricalFires.pdf

This clearly supports the Insurance Companies position.

The report that you posted did not did not have any data to prove or support any of your contentions.

I find it bizarre that you believe that fuse panels do not wear out. Any one with even a basic amount of education on electricity understands that all electrical equipment deteriorates with use and eventually wears out.
The fact that it is becoming difficult to obtain Insurance on a property with a fused panel should be enough reason to inform a client that that may be an issue. The Insurance Companies are denying coverage for a reason. Think about it.

......Jim, every thing I read while skimming(admittedly) this voluminous data seems to equate fuses with circuit breakers. In other words, they both serve the same function. If there is a passage supporting your contention that panels utilizing fuses must be summarily replaced, how about leading us to it......Greg

[Jim Port]

I would think more of the issues with houses using fuses would be due to age and deterioration from insulation breakdown, not from the fuses themselves. A report on aging electrical systems was recently released but I have not read it or remember the source.

[Rick Cantrell]

I never made a convention that panels utilizing fuses must be summarily replaced. So, I cannot support a contention that I never made.

What a load of misinformation and outright deceit


Ren -...The panel box is probably beyond its serviceable life ...


... A fuse box should be reported as beyond its serviceable due to liability issues because they are a well known hazard.


Marshall - Old does count. ..... If a component is nearing or beyond the end of its life expectancy it should be noted. ......

I think I'll refer to you as Jim Clinton

[Rick Cantrell]

I really find this amusing as you are apparently taking the position that a 60 year old ,four branch circuit, fused panel box is OK.

No Jim
My position is that you are an idiot and a fool. You misinform and deceive whenever it suits your views. Your goal is not to educate or clarify, it is to irritate and contradict.
We have seen others like you on this forum. They left, and in time, you will also.
See Jim, you have no place here, at least not as you have been.
But all of us must suffer your foolishness until you have gotten your jollies and move on to annoy some other forum.
PS I'll bet money this is not the first time you were asked to leave a forum.

[Jerry Peck]

No Jim
My position is that you are an idiot and a fool. You misinform and deceive whenever it suits your views. Your goal is not to educate or clarify, it is to irritate and contradict.
We have seen others like you on this forum. They left, and in time, you will also.
See Jim, you have no place here, at least not as you have been.
But all of us must suffer your foolishness until you have gotten your jollies and move on to annoy some other forum.
PS I'll bet money this is not the first time you were asked to leave a forum.

Breathe in ... breathe out ... breathe in ... breathe out ...

Remember: Don't feed the alligators, the bears, or especially the Troll ...

[Raymond Wand]

JA wrote in part:

I find it bizarre that you believe that fuse panels do not wear out. Any one with even a basic amount of education on electricity understands that all electrical equipment deteriorates with use and eventually wears out.

Yes I will continue to believe in my research, experience, and I will continue to advise my clients accordingly when it comes to issues such as this, and what there wants and needs will be with their purchase. If I see that the panel is in good condition I am not automatically going to condemn unless there are other mitigating circumstances. Simply based on age is only one determining factor, not the determining factor.

I'll tell you what, please do not infer that my inspection methods or knowledge are inferior to yours, this is the second time you have done so. If you want to start with that sort of crap find another forum.

Given your licence suspension with your state licencing board you should refrain from lecturing. I can only imagine what you are under suspension for.

[Rick Cantrell]

Breathe in ... breathe out ... breathe in ... breathe out ...

Remember: Don't feed the alligators, the bears, or especially the Troll ...

Jerry
Do you remember how Ernest killed the Troll? (Ernest Sacred Stupid)
It was unconditional love.
Well, this was unconditional tough love. ;)

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry
Do you remember how Ernest killed the Troll? (Ernest Sacred Stupid)
It was unconditional love.
Well, this was unconditional tough love. ;)

I thought it was by tossing down a hand grenade and blowing the bridge up, causing the Troll to become homeless, and, being homeless, the Troll wandered around in a daze until the Troll succumbed to exhaustion ... now that is tough love. :)

[Rick Cantrell]

I thought it was by tossing down a hand grenade and blowing the bridge up, causing the Troll to become homeless, and, being homeless, the Troll wandered around in a daze until the Troll succumbed to exhaustion ... now that is tough love. :)
Oh, so I take it, you don't remember "Earnest Scared Stupid"?

[Jerry Peck]

Oh, so I take it, you don't remember "Earnest Scared Stupid"?

Nope, never watched any of those Earnest movies.

[Billy Stephens]

Nope, never watched any of those Earnest movies.

Ernest Kisses Boogerlips - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jIxJp5_jcE)

[Garry Sorrells]

.....This clearly supports the Insurance Companies position.......

Since you have read through the entire report. Where is the supporting data. Help me cut to the chase. ...... Thanks

[Garry Sorrells]

Thought this " https://www.nfpa.org/~/media/Files/R...ricalFires.pdf (https://www.nfpa.org/%7E/media/Files/Research/NFPA%20reports/Major%20Causes/OSHomeElectricalFires.pdf) " looked familiar. I did not find reference to Fuse Panel related statistics. Please point it out if it is there.

What I did find that is interesting and may only support that it is the the person that is the the problem and not the the equipment. There is a back handed reference to economic status and fires as they relate to house age and frequency of fire. Older houses have higher frequency of fires with an assertion that there are higher numbers of lower income/less affluent occupants of older homes.

From page 35 of report:
When studies show higher fire risk generally for older homes, it is usually because the studies have not controlled for the risk levels associated with occupants

Statistically, older homes have a higher proportion of occupants who are poor or have other risk factors

NFPA’s annual study of variations in state fire death rates is one of the few studies of risk factors where the statistical link between older homes and higher risk occupants is broken.9 This is because several states (like Vermont and Connecticut) have large shares of older, expensive homes with affluent occupants.

[Jim Port]

Thanks for posting that link Garry. That is the report I was thinking of.

[Brian Hannigan]

I have received several "Reports" on this thread.

Lets get back to the topic and leave the personal stuff out of it.

[Garry Sorrells]

Post #64

Raymond - You asked for the data .Find it posted below. https://www.nfpa.org/~/media/Files/Research/NFPA%20reports/Major%20Causes/OSHomeElectricalFires.pdf (https://www.nfpa.org/%7E/media/Files/Research/NFPA%20reports/Major%20Causes/OSHomeElectricalFires.pdf)

This clearly supports the Insurance Companies position..........


Thanks for posting that link Garry. That is the report I was thinking of.

The link to the report is from Jim Adams. I had looked at it early in the discussion relative to fuse box failure or something supporting the view that it is the equipment that has failed and reasoning behind beyond serviceable life and being a hazard. I didn't find anything differentiating between fuses and breakers as causes for fires. So I didn't bring it to the discussion. Jim Abram used it as support for his argument, though I still can not find what Jim seems to feel is supportive of his views/positions.

So the credit for the report link is all Jim's.

{{{{ Jim A,, still would like you to point out specifically where in the report your accretions "clearly supports the Insurance Companies position" are supported }}}}

[Jim Port]

There is less likelyhood of something to fail in a fuse panel than the breaker which contains mechanical parts.

What part of the fuse panel would wear out? Are the electrons degrading the bus?

[Billy Stephens]

There is less likelyhood of something to fail in a fuse panel than the breaker which contains mechanical parts.

What part of the fuse panel would wear out?

The 60 year old insulation on the branch circuits wiring and loosing of their connections.

[Jim Port]

The 60 year old insulation on the branch circuits wiring and loosing of their connections.

That would or could also happen in a breaker panel. Changing the panel does not change the deterioration of the insulation.

[Billy Stephens]

That would or could also happen in a breaker panel. Changing the panel does not change the deterioration of the insulation.

So How Many 60 year old Breaker Panels have you seen?
*of those what percentage would / did you recommend for replacement?

[Garry Sorrells]

{{{{ Jim A,, still would like you to point out specifically where in the report your accretions "clearly supports the Insurance Companies position" are supported }}}}

In case you have forgotten the link that you provided:

https://www.nfpa.org/~/media/Files/Research/NFPA%20reports/Major%20Causes/OSHomeElectricalFires.pdf (https://www.nfpa.org/%7E/media/Files/Research/NFPA%20reports/Major%20Causes/OSHomeElectricalFires.pdf)

Or are you now reversing your position on Serviceable Life and Hazard of fuses.

Or are you falling back on secrete reports and data that are not available to the public? If it is governmental it is available under the freedom of information act. Or are they located in Area 51???

[Raymond Wand]

Round and round we go....

[Marshall Brown]

As someone said above, we go round and round.

I think we all agree if during the course of our inspection we see something that is worn, damaged or defective for any reason we report it, explaining what we see, why it is or could be a problem and advise what to do about it.

It seems where there is some disagreement over when we try to predict the future.

If we see frayed insulation on a wire we predict that this could (but may never) cause a shock hazard or fire.

But, what if the wire is not frayed, it's just old but with no visible defects, do we make the same prediction?

PS: I am just using wire as an example not a source of topic drift. ;)

[Garry Sorrells]

Like many others that participate in this forum I look at what verification posters use in supporting their statements. Many people read the contributions made in the forum and often rely on it. SO as to not leave a dangling string in the thread.

Again, discussing the service life and hazard of the equipment, Fuse Box and Fuses, itself not how people may use it. Not referring to damaged equipment, nor how people may adapt or alter equipment to serve their purpose. Also, not discussing articles that have no supportive references for their opinions expressed.

Jim,
Not to beat a dead horse, but many people will reference statistics, reports, data or code to clarify and to specify where they find authority for their statements. If you were wrong in using your reference please just say so. If you have no supportive source for a position or argument other than others that have nothing to support their position just say so. Throwing something out, hoping that it will stick is not good.


Raymond - You asked for the data .Find it posted below. https://www.nfpa.org/~/media/Files/Research/NFPA%20reports/Major%20Causes/OSHomeElectricalFires.pdf (https://www.nfpa.org/%7E/media/Files/Research/NFPA%20reports/Major%20Causes/OSHomeElectricalFires.pdf)

This clearly supports the Insurance Companies position.

The report that you posted did not did not have any data to prove or support any of your contentions.

I find it bizarre that you believe that fuse panels do not wear out. Any one with even a basic amount of education on electricity understands that all electrical equipment deteriorates with use and eventually wears out.
The fact that it is becoming difficult to obtain Insurance on a property with a fused panel should be enough reason to inform a client that that may be an issue. The Insurance Companies are denying coverage for a reason. Think about it.


Since you have read through the entire report. Where is the supporting data. Help me cut to the chase. ...... Thanks


Post #64

The link to the report is from Jim Adams. I had looked at it early in the discussion relative to fuse box failure or something supporting the view that it is the equipment that has failed and reasoning behind beyond serviceable life and being a hazard. I didn't find anything differentiating between fuses and breakers as causes for fires. So I didn't bring it to the discussion. Jim Abram used it as support for his argument, though I still can not find what Jim seems to feel is supportive of his views/positions.

So the credit for the report link is all Jim's.

{{{{ Jim A,, still would like you to point out specifically where in the report your accretions "clearly supports the Insurance Companies position" are supported }}}}

Silence may be golden and in that silence I will have to assert that declaring equipment based on age is beyond its serviceable life and is a hazard is false concept. Like breakers, fuses seem to have an indefinite service life and, in and of themselves, no hazard.

[Billy Stephens]

Before we fully embrace this If It Ain't Broke Don't Fix It.
*most of us are not qualified to determine the Finial Say.

The folks over at Mike Holt electrical panel life span (http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=90842) appear to subscribe to "If in Doubt Change It Out."

[Jim Port]

But is the chance of an incident due to aging and deterioration in the insulation or is it from components of the system wearing out and failing? Would an older house become instantly safer just by installing a 100 amp service and a breaker panel when nothing is done to split any load off the fewer circuits than it was with fuses? How would the breakers make a safety improvement over fuses since the wiring would still have the same insulation?

[Raymond Wand]

Once again cutting and pasting from a non CPSC site without referencing a source is not going to fly.

http://www.cpsc.gov//PageFiles/102851/technolopt1.pdf

Introduction page 1


While some of these factors do not cause fires by themselves, combinations of these factors increase the likelihood of a potentially unsafe situation being exacerbated. Eventually, these factors can lead to electrical overheating and/or arching faults that can cause fires.

[Raymond Wand]

Yes and you still cut and paste without referencing the article.
That report whether current or not still clarifies the facts you portray as accurate without qualifying the conditions.

This what happens when you try to fudge facts as being accurate.

[Garry Sorrells]

......[/B] If you read the report and data it becomes evident that there is a higher risk of electrical fires with older equipment.


Reading the report provides the same basic information as the report you first sited. Yet both reports do not site that the issue is the service panel and its components, being either fuse or breaker, which are the cause of the fires or deaths. There is reference to many things that attribute to the causes of fires other than the age of the fuse or breaker. Or which was in use at the time of the fire.

As I pointed out there was a reference to the fact of income as a factor leading to fire risk. In Mass. Expensive old homes have fewer fires than low value older homes. Making a potential correlation that more affluent people make the difference in home age as it relates to the potential fire. Which just takes it back to the people factor and away from the equipment.

Again the report statement that you site is more anecdotal and opinion (http://www.cpsc.gov//PageFiles/102851/technolopt1.pdf ). Furthermore the CPSC report first posts a notice that you can not rely on anything that is in the report and they can not be held accountable for what is written. Putting that notice aside, the question again is where is there any data based report that puts Fuses beyond serviceable life and are a hazard by design and function? The report was about testing breakers.

The CSPC may possibly be using https://www.nfpa.org/~/media/Files/Research/NFPA%20reports/Major%20Causes/OSHomeElectricalFires.pdf (https://www.nfpa.org/%7E/media/Files/Research/NFPA%20reports/Major%20Causes/OSHomeElectricalFires.pdf) as a source for their comment, yet it is not sited and we do not know. Even if that is the source of their opinion it still does not site a non damaged fuse box as beyond its serviceable life and is a hazard.

So I am still hearing the silence.....

[Raymond Wand]

Your cut and paste stated in part -

Residences Wired in the 1960s or Earlier
According to the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission, homes over 40 years of age

The article I found (link above) and which you debate states the following part of which I accidentally omitted states -

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) estimates that in the year 1992 there were about 41,000 fires involving home electrical distribution systems. These fires resulted in 320 deaths, 1,600 injuries, and $511 Million in property loss. A study conducted by CPSC in 1987(1) indicated that the frequency of fires in the electrical system was disproportionately higher in homes more than 40 years old.

What your original clip from CPSC did not state and what you omitted was the fact -


The disproportionately high incidence of fire in the electrical system of older homes can usually be attributed to one or more of the following factors:

- Inadequate and overburdened electrical systems
- Thermally reinsulated walls and ceilings burying wiring
- Defeated or compromised overcurrent protection
- Misuse of extension cords and makeshift circuit extensions
- Worn-out wiring devices not being replaced
- Poorly done electrical repairs
- Socioeconomic considerations resulting in unsafe installations.

So as you can read, there are a number of 'factors' or overlapping factors which are at the root of your claims. Its not in my interpretation that fuses are the problem, nor necessarily the older panel but the study more than intimates its just more than older panels.

In conclusion the study dates are both referring to homes 40 years or older.

[Raymond Wand]

Firstly you are the odd man out in this discussion a number of us are disputing what you say should be done or indicated to client re old panels. And I base my findings and recommendations on what I see first hand, and make appropriate recommendations based on findings, not arbitrary decisions.

The studies both refer to homes prior to 1960 so my dating is accurate as far as documentation.


Residential wiring systems installed in new or existing houses during the 1960s and earlier are almost surely at the end of their functional design life.

As to wiring devices I believe this refers to old switches and plugs, and not fuse panels.

As to data I have already provided same and I am not the only one in opposition to your views, of which the data does not back up your claims as you would have everyone believe.

Happy Easter.

[Garry Sorrells]

@ Gary Sorells -"Silence may be golden and in that silence I will have to assert that declaring equipment based on age is beyond its serviceable life and is a hazard is false concept. Like breakers, fuses seem to have an indefinite service life and, in and of themselves, no hazard."

Well Gary - We have CPSC and Insurance Companies indicating that there is a higher risk of fire with old, (pre 1960), equipment. ..........
The 1948 fuse panel or fuse may be serviceable but, there are other factors involved. The homebuyer may not be able to obtain Insurance with the fuse panel in place.No Insurance = no mortgage = no sale. The homebuyer can yell as much as they want but,they still are facing underwriting rules that indicate that fuse panels are a high risk......
On the other side of the coin - Do you have any data to support that old fuse panels are safe ? ........



Jim,
The reports that you site do not identify the equipment as the sole cause and do not distinguish fuses from breakers. Then there is the point that that there are more fires in older homes due to there being more homes that are older. I think there are about 3million households in the U.S. How many of those households are living in property that is over 40 years old? Haven't done the research but intuitively I would say that there are a majority over 40 yrs old. Kinda skews the things a bit. But that is not the discussion.

As you point out "The 1948 fuse panel or fuse may be serviceable but, there are other factors involved." which is the salient point that I keep returning to. It is the other factors and not solely the fuses/breakers. Which, from what you have written, agree with it is not the solely equipment as other factors are involved. If the equipment was a cause, then there is the question of was it damaged or altered in some way which caused its failure and made it a hazard?

Like in psychology, normalcy is defined by the lack of the abnormal. Such is the case of Fuses. In the absence of there being something abnormal (not as designed and built) then it is safe. Further, by the lack of any data demonstrating the failure of the fuses to perform it then would be considered safe.

The lumping of fuses in with extension cords begs the question of the chicken and the egg. Does a failure of an extension cord condemn the fuse equipment?

Again we return to the question of; is the equipment serviceable or beyond its serviceable life and also is a hazard?

I do not think that you would summarily condemn all of the homes switches, wiring and outlets in a home built in 1960 (aluminum wiring excluded) as beyond its serviceable life and are all hazardous.

Then there is the thought that since older homes are less in cost and are owned by people with lower income, would it not be safe to say if a person does not make a lot of money then they are a hazard and should not be allowed to occupy an older home. Thus removing the hazard. OMG :shocked: don't tell the Senate or the President or they will create an Obama "something" to fix this unacceptable situation for the proletariat..

[Raymond Wand]

I usually don't like to use the quote button, but will make an exception for you.



It is not what I say ,it is the opinion of CPSC and the Insurance Companies. My judgments are based on opinions from the highest possible authority not a limited amount of first hand experiences although I do consider personal experiences. If you think that your limited findings outweigh the findings of the CPSC , I think that you have issues that I cannot help you with.

Wrong,

The highest possible authority are the codes and the authority having jurisdictions. Its unfortunate you cannot appreciate this fact. The CSPC is not a code authority, nor are the insurers. While I appreciate the insurers rights to refusal, they in most cases will at the very least accept a licenced electricians review or that of the (ESA) Electrical Safety Authority and their findings/recommendations.

As to limited findings you have argued once again with most of us.

Again - I base my recommendations on what I find and not on what you dictate because simply put you are not a code authority, nor are you an insurer and presently you are not a home inspector.

Do I have that right?

[Dan Howard]

Just another thought about the issue.

In the mid 1970's, HUD block Grant Redevelopment Authority took the position that fuses should be replaced with inserts called "Fuse Stats" These are really "S Type Fuses" when you look them up
Fuses 101: All About Plug Fuses and Your Fuse Box (http://homerepair.about.com/od/electricalrepair/ss/fuse_types_2.htm)

These were fuse panel inserts with successively smaller sized bases. Each diameter insert S Type Fuse was designed to fit in each size. When you screwed the appropriate size base for the circuit into the original fuse base, you could only install the correctly sized fuse for that circuit. In simpler words, you could not put a 30 amp fuse on a 15 amp circuit.

The problem that was being addresses was not the safety of the fuse panel system ( the metal strip inside a glass fuse will reliably melt before the house circuit wire turns into a "toaster wire" by overheating ... ..it is simple science ) The problem and safety risk being addressed was the people doing dumb things like over-fusing. Having also seen copper pipe being used in the space for the tube type fuses ...people are really, really dumb trying to avoid changing fuses and risking fire )

I would bet that everyone on this thread has seen the bank of 30 amp fuses installed with 15 amp wire. That is a danger and hazard we can all recognize and agree on. "Darwin Awards" candidates anyone ?

PS..... This is a different perspective and not a comment on the the prior posts in this thread.... This is a comment on history of fuses...from a guy who remembers putting them in and working on HUD Redevelopment jobs

[Garry Sorrells]

The "tamper-proof base" really isn't tamper proof. Bend the small wire that acts like a lock to the base and it comes out. Maybe tamper resistant but not tamper proof. Just like the screws on the face cover on a breaker panel make it tamper resistant.

[Marshall Brown]

Re: The comment above about tamper proof vs tamper resistant.

As we have all seen at one time or another, just when you think you have something fool proof you find out how truly ingenious fools are.

[Raymond Wand]

Have to disagree, based on my local and my experience.
No insurer up here requires proof of insurance of a licenced electrician to comment and provide assessment. Some insurers will only want an inspection by the code authority, and not the licenced electrician.

Many a home up here from the 70s were wired with Al and some insurers will refuse coverage out right while others will insure the home if inspected. Al is safe provided as with many things done correctly.

Thanks for your opinion.

[Garry Sorrells]

.... If you rely on only Code you are missing a large number of components that are potential hazards.......

Like the occupants....:biggrin:

[Raymond Wand]

JA

I appreciate that, but the fact remains houses are being insured with Al, while other insurers want a further assessment, while others will insure regardless no assessment, while other insurers will only accept government inspectors assessment, and they as code authority do not require insurance since it a government code authority.