Thread: Knob and Tube... or... ???

This was the only scrap of this material I located the entire house- brick Georgian, supposedly built 1944-5.

My first assumption was K&T, but I've never seen K&T in a house of this vintage, I've never seen it jacketed in this manner before, I've never seen it color coded before, and I've never seen entering material like that at left before.

I considered the possibility it might be some kind of old telephone or other low voltage wiring, however my Tic Tracer indicated it was live, so I assume it's carrying AC .... but still...

Can anyone identify this material, or its usual usage?



Similar Threads:

• Tube lights
• That Big You Tube Ad
• Giant You Tube ad
• White "powder" at furnace exhaust tube
• From the old board, Knob and Tube Wiring

Why would you think it is not K&T?

That is a knob used with K&T.

My guess would be a house older than 1945, for sure.

I've never seen a post-depression era built house with knob/tube wiring.

Build dates around here get clouded sometimes if a house was moved or totally renovated with maybe a huge newer addition put on.

Any lath and plaster or true 2" dimensional lumber?

Originally Posted by Michael Thomas

This was the only scrap of this material I located the entire house- brick Georgian, supposedly built 1944-5. My first assumption was K&T, but I've never seen K&T in a house of this vintage, I've never seen it jacketed in this manner before, I've never seen it color coded before, and I've never seen entering material like that at left before. I considered the possibility it might be some kind of old telephone or other low voltage wiring, however my Tic Tracer indicated it was live, so I assume it's carrying AC .... but still... Can anyone identify this material, or its usual usage?

Michael,

My understanding is that the electrical union in San Francisco was so strong that knob & tube was used until the early '60s. I have seen some homes that were constructed in the '40s in my area that had knob & tube. I can't remember ever having seen red, but it does not seem unreasonable.

Although, I thought separate knobs were required for each conductor. At least, that is all I have ever seen. Two conductors on an insulator is something that I am unfamiliar with.

Jim,

I think it is K&T, I just have never seen any K&T like it, ever., and I don't want to be in the position of writing it up as K&T and then having some electrician who knows more than I do come along and grouse about the #$%^$% idiot home inspector.

Matt,

I too question the 1944/5 date (which I think came off the assessor's records, at least I found that date there) - around here not much was being built during World War II - little manpower or materials were available for that kind of civilian work.

But I think the dating probably errs in the other direction, looks to me like this may have been built in the late 40s or early 50s; the original building (there's a later addition, that's the offset portion in this picture) is lath and plaster but was built with modern dimensional lumber and there is no evidence I can find that was ever heated with oil, which is likely in this kind of property pre-1950. (This is in Park Ridge, IL by the way).

I beleve this panel (now being used as a junction box, the service has been upgraded) is likely original to the building, if that helps someone date it:

It is common for K&T to have the secondary cloth jacket on the wire. I have also seen the wire without the extra jacket. Most always the jacket is placed at the entry to junction boxes, outlets, and switch boxes for added protection. It was not common practice to use single insulators.

Was it live? What area of the home was it located?

Wayne,

"However my Tic Tracer indicated it was live, so I assume it's carrying AC".

It was at the basement ceiling just inside of a previous exterior window now serving as access to the crawl space under the addition:

That is K&T but just a more modern form with cloth covered wires instead of the older rubber covered wires. The wire does have a specific name, but I can't recall or locate it.
It still can not be covered with insulation just like the rubber coated.

That is K&T but just a more modern form with cloth covered wires instead of the older rubber covered wires. The wire does have a specific name, but I can't recall or locate it

The stuff that came out right after knob and tube is called "braided romex"

Michael,

Let the electrician grouse. Chances are far greater that he would be mis-informed than you're being wrong - which I don't think you are.

Besides, I'd rather be wrong about calling it K&T than assuming it wasn't and later finding out from some atty that it was.

From the exterior, the reported age of the home seems about right. The presence of K&T is weird. Out towards the Fox Valley area I'd be expecting it in 80+ yr old homes.

It's knob an tube, and that jacket/sleeving was commonly used in later knob and tube wiring.

Trent-There is no question in my mind that the wiring in the photo is K&T. My recommendation to you, for whatever it's worth-and that's not much, is to stand your ground and recommend that an electrician deal with this. I believe you are correct. And if the Electrician blows you off as "The Dummy Little HI" then so what. That would be his bad. The evidence in you photo is COMPELLING. And I'd also ask you to condsider this in your report:

Inspection of the electrical system branch wiring indicates there might be Knob and tube type branch wiring is in use. This type wiring often becomes brittle with age which can result in hazardous conditions. It is noted that buildings with knob and tube wiring might be difficult to insure. You might wish to consult your insurer about this. In addition to the possible knob and wiring found, it is not unusual that there might be more circuits that are wired using the same wiring method (the majority of the branch wiring is concealed and not visible). For this reason, it is recommended that the entire electrical system be evaluated by a licensed electrical contractor.

Sound hard? Around 15 years ago, I rewired a house because it wasn't expressed properly. Luckily, it was a very small bungalow, but still $1800. Again Stand your ground. Just my opinion.

Originally Posted by Tom McDonnell

And I'd also ask you to consider this in your report:

Inspection of the electrical system branch wiring indicates there might be Knob and tube type branch wiring is in use. This type wiring often becomes brittle with age which can result in hazardous conditions. It is noted that buildings with knob and tube wiring might be difficult to insure. You might wish to consult your insurer about this. In addition to the possible knob and wiring found, it is not unusual that there might be more circuits that are wired using the same wiring method (the majority of the branch wiring is concealed and not visible). For this reason, it is recommended that the entire electrical system be evaluated by a licensed electrical contractor.

"by a licensed electrical contractor"

Whoa there Nelly ...

You need to change your wording to ...

'by a licensed and competent electrical contractor'

Adding in those two words makes all the difference.

There are:
- licensed contractors
- unlicensed contractors
- qualified contractors
- unqualified contractors
- competent contractors
- incompetent contractors

In many every cases you will get two of the above: licensed contractors and incompetent contractors.

It all other cases you will get unlicensed contractors, and, by being unlicensed, they are therefore unqualified contractors.

Theoretically, if a contractor is licensed, they are qualified, and, if they are qualified, they are licensed. Those two go hand in hand, you cannot have one without the other.

However, in many case you will get a third thing from the above list: competent or incompetent.

By virtue of a contractor stating that they are a licensed and competent contractor, that contractor is stating that he/she know how to do everything correctly, and that they do everything correctly - i.e., they are therefore "competent".

When they do not do something correctly, they do not have a defense for that as they have already stated that they are competent. Their only other option is to claim incompetence ... and how many contractors are willing to claim to be incompetent? None. Zippo. Nada.

You now have the contractor in a bind because he stated he was competent, but has proven himself/herself to be other than competent. Claiming to be something you are not is fraudulent and you are therefore committing fraud. I want my money back, and you owe me $X for causing me all these problems you have caused me.

Well said Jerry. I'll certainly take that under advisement. But let me just ask you-Is it not incumbent on the purchaser of goods and services to make certain that those goods are quality and services professional or performed by a professional who is competent. And if he does not, is he not negligent or, at least lazy, and soley responsible?

Now I know it's all of our jobs to close all of the holes and legal theories that the legal eagles can come up with. We train ourselves to think, write, and express ouselves in this way. But just where is the line where all of this stops? It's crazy!

Thanks Jerry. Really.

Originally Posted by Tom McDonnell

But let me just ask you-Is it not incumbent on the purchaser of goods and services to make certain that those goods are quality and services professional or performed by a professional who is competent. And if he does not, is he not negligent or, at least lazy, and soley responsible?

If I sold you a box of chocolates, which you gave to your wife, only to find that they were not chocolates but colored wax ... would you be solely responsible for giving your wife a box of colored wax?

How about melamine tainted chocolates? Would you be solely responsible for not having made sure they were not contaminated with melamine?

How about toys with lead paint on them?

How about ...

.... an electrican who gave his wife a subpanel?

Originally Posted by Michael Thomas

.... an electrican who gave his wife a subpanel?

My wife would not want a subpanel, she's not a boater and submarines would not be for her either.

Report verbiage... ah-ah... Don't you love a debate in semantics? Which do you like better; qualified or competent?
Lets vote................

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

Report verbiage... ah-ah... Don't you love a debate in semantics? Which do you like better; qualified or competent?
Lets vote................

Hello All,

I doubt it really matters. I find it highly unlikley that a home inspector (or anyone else) can be responsible for a choice made by a client when picking a contractor if they pick a bad one. I just don't think the theories of "Failure to Warn" would apply or would hinge on "you didn't tell me to pick a good one". Come on now, that's just plain silly. I'm pretty sure the "reasonable man" theory would apply.

Most electrical instruction manuals (i.e. for breaker panels, breakers, etc.) use the term "qualified" but that probably has more to do with NEC article 100 "Qualifed Person" and NFPA 70 E and than anything else.

As for me, I prefer the word "qualified" because it is more inclusive but it really doesn't matter.

Sincerely,

Corey

Originally Posted by Corey Friedman

As for me, I prefer the word "qualified" because it is more inclusive but it really doesn't matter.

Corey,

I, too, preferred (past tense) "qualified" along with "license", but after a discussion here on the boards, and recognizing that "qualified" and "licensed" are interchangeable because of licensing ... which makes "licensed" people "qualified" and makes otherwise 'qualified' people 'unqualified' if they are not also "licensed".

However, "competent" means a person who is able to do the work in a competent manner, i.e., correctly. Because so many areas require licensing, "licensed and competent" is the preferred choice (at least by me and many others).

Also, the intent is not to protect the home inspector, as you suggested, but to protect the client by having them hire "licensed and competent" contractors. When the clients asks the contractor 'are you licensed and competent' the contractor responds by stating 'yes, I am licensed and competent', thereby removing any defense the contractor has for not pulling permits, not doing the work correctly, not doing what they should do.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Corey,

I, too, preferred (past tense) "qualified" along with "license", but after a discussion here on the boards, and recognizing that "qualified" and "licensed" are interchangeable because of licensing ... which makes "licensed" people "qualified" and makes otherwise 'qualified' people 'unqualified' if they are not also "licensed".

However, "competent" means a person who is able to do the work in a competent manner, i.e., correctly. Because so many areas require licensing, "licensed and competent" is the preferred choice (at least by me and many others).

Also, the intent is not to protect the home inspector, as you suggested, but to protect the client by having them hire "licensed and competent" contractors. When the clients asks the contractor 'are you licensed and competent' the contractor responds by stating 'yes, I am licensed and competent', thereby removing any defense the contractor has for not pulling permits, not doing the work correctly, not doing what they should do.

Hi Jerry,

Now my head hurts.

Don't you think it is implied that the person you hire should be competent? Does this really need to be expressed? I doubt you find a contractor to reply that he his not competent.

You know how contractor's vans are marked with slogans such as "Professional" "Old World Workmanship" "Quality" etc.... I'm waiting for the guy driving in a van that says....

AAAA Contractors. We're really Not That Good But We Are Cheap.

Be Well,

Corey

Originally Posted by Corey Friedman

Don't you think it is implied that the person you hire should be competent?

Corey,

Oh, absolutely, they *should* be competent. But how many contractors have you worked with which were truly competent and made very few errors (all will make errors - that is human, and we are all human).

That said, should not, for example, an HVAC contractor know more about how to install an HVAC unit than a home inspector, including what the minimum code requirements are and what the manufacturer requires in their installation instructions?

Does this really need to be expressed?

Unfortunately, the answer to that is 'Yes.' Now, if you were to ask 'Should that really need to be expressed?', then the answer would be 'No. It *should* not be necessary.'

I doubt you find a contractor to reply that he his not competent.

Which is precisely why we as home inspectors want our clients to ask the question - so the contractor can state that they are competent, after which they have no defense 'not to do it correctly'.

AAAA Contractors. We're really Not That Good But We Are Cheap.

And that contractor would probably have more business than he could handle, because people want it done "cheap".

They might even advertise: FFFF Contractors. You might need to pay us to do it twice so we could maybe get it right ... and you would still pay less than others charge.
(They are admittedly 4F. )

Corey,

Here is an example (wanted to make it into a separate post).

HVAC contractor installs air handler units in attic, installs a primary condensate drain line and trap, and services the unit for 6 years.

The primary condensate drain line backs up, the secondary drain opening still has the factory plug in the opening, the condensate has no where to go, so, when the condensate back up further, the condensate overflows into the air handler unit itself, saturating the insulation on the bottom and the sides, causing (OH-NO!) mold to grow on the insulation, the saturated insulation reduces the effectiveness of the insulation to near -0- R-value, which causes the cabinet to become cold, which then causes moisture from the attic to condense on the bottom and sides (near the bottom).

And they did this to each of the multiple air handlers in the attic.

There is nothing there to indicate that that was a abnormal installation for them, thus, they probably did it that way to every air handler they installed.

Now, only 6 years later, there are two options:

1) - Remove all the parts within the air handlers, scrape the insulation and adhesive off the interior of the cabinet, clean and dry the interior of the cabinet, primer and paint the inside of the cabinet which has now been damaged, apply an approved adhesive to the inside of the cabinet, install new insulation, then install all the other parts, replacing all which have been damaged due to the collection of condensate or the removal. Finally cleaning out the ducts which lead to and from the air handlers.

2) - Replace those air handlers with new air handlers. Which I am suggesting is likely to going to cost less than option 1) above, but am waiting on the HVAC contractor to provide a cost basis for both.

All air handlers are confined in the attic, but at least there is a walkway to and service platform in front of the air handlers.

Would not ... *should not* ... a competent HVAC mechanic *know* that a secondary condensate drain line is *required* to have been installed, especially when the installation manuals, laying on the units, states "Secondary condensate drain required" and "trap as required shown for primary condensate line"?

I am of the opinion that, yes, the installing HVAC technician/mechanic should have known that, and, furthermore, each HVAC technician/mechanic who serviced those units for the last 6 years should have known that, AND, if any of them had been competent and known that, the air handler units would not be needing to be replaced for the above reason.

Therefor, it should be the HVAC contractor who foots the bill for it. Not the buyer and not even the seller. By the way, it was the same HVAC contractor who installed the units as who serviced the units the past 6 years.

Competency is subjective, licensed is not. Either someone is licensed or they are not. That cant be debated. However, competency can be debated until the cows come home because its all based on each person's idea of competent!

I would think as long as you told the client to hire a licensed expert in that area, you should be fine. Its not the HI's fault that the contractor the buyer used wasnt competent.

You should be fine with just using licensed IMO

Originally Posted by Brian Thomas

Its not the HI's fault that the contractor the buyer used wasnt competent.

You are missing the point.

I will repeat it.

From my post to Corey above: "Also, the intent is not to protect the home inspector, as you suggested, but to protect the client"

"to protect the client"

Why is anything being brought up about "Its not the HI's fault"? No one is saying anything about it being the HIs fault.

It is simply for the protection OF THE CLIENT.

I too prefer “qualified” to “competent” but not enough to debate which terminology the courts will hold to be more important. Corey’s argument makes sense as does Jerry P’s and I’ve always gone with “a qualified state licensed contractor” which was probably overkill? I’ve found most courts and attorneys think licensed means qualified or competent, but almost every home inspector to a man (or woman) knows that’s a long lived urban legend.
So how about a, “competently qualified state licensed contractor with a minimum of 25 years experience within the trade they’ve been retained to evaluate, repair, and/or replace?”

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

So how about a, “competently qualified state licensed contractor with a minimum of 25 years experience within the trade they’ve been retained to evaluate, repair, and/or replace?”

That's those same people who say "I've been doing it this way for 30 years ... "

They are "licensed", and therefore they are "qualified" (by virtue of being licensed), they just are not "competent".

And lets not forget that cloth wrap is PACM. Presumed Asbestos Containing Material.

I'm reminded now why I waited so long to read join this site. I cannot understand how so many of you have so much time to talk about so little.

Some posts appear to be sincere attenpts to learn or find answers. A lot of replys seem to try to be ////.

Lamar

Damon,

Thanks for pointing that out.

Originally Posted by Lamar Bruce

...I cannot understand how so many of you have so much time to talk about so little. ..

We're fast typists. Or is it typers?
So, is this one of those posts trying to be ///? (What is that?).

Just a little comment here

Wording on your report has everything to do with you protecting yourself as well as the client.

That controversy should be cleared up. Seeing how one recommends a licensed contractor or if he says competent contractor or if he recommends a qualified contractor amounts to the same thing. You are advising your client that there is a difference between the Joe Shmoe down the street that once added an outlet in someones home and someone that does it for a living and advertises that they are licensed, competent, qualified. By sating anyone of those terms you are covering you backside. By stating anyone of them you are not sure if they will hire someone with those headings that has a clue of what they are doing. If you use any term that suggests qualified, competent, licensed, professional you have covered yourself. You are not responsible for any of them anyway. You found the concerns, you advised, you are done, you did your job. Your suggestion really became "hire someone that knows what they are doing". If they don't, its on them, not you. If he is the most reputable, qualified, competent, licensed, professional expert in his field for a hundred miles around, he could still screw up.

You have no responsibility past the point that you ended your paid for inspection. Unless you screwed up.

Originally Posted by Lamar Bruce

I'm reminded now why I waited so long to read join this site. I cannot understand how so many of you have so much time to talk about so little.

Some posts appear to be sincere attenpts to learn or find answers. A lot of replys seem to try to be ////.

Lamar

Originally Posted by John Arnold

We're fast typists. Or is it typers?
So, is this one of those posts trying to be ///? (What is that?).

John,

I thought the same thing when I read his post earlier in the day ... complaining about posts which take time to type and add nothing, only to do so in a post which took time to type and ... added nothing.

I think he should have just waited longer.

I know this is straying further from the k & t thread, but I have to share this, since it keeps showing its ugly head. No matter how carefully it is worded in the cover page of the report or in the contract, there are definitely seemingly reputable, qualified, competent, licensed, professional expert in his field scumbags out there preying on people for a quick buck.

I called out an obviously bad roof and was asked what it should cost to reshingle. I told the client and the realtor that the going rate for a tear, OSB overlay, and reshingle typically costs $200. per square in our area (what I would charge). At 12 square it should be around $2500. About a week later I got the call.........Bud, everything went through, the seller reduced the price of the home by $2500 for the roof (plus other things), but the roofer gave an estimate of 7 grand!!! So to avoid looking like an absolute idiot, I had to call a reputable, qualified, competent, licensed roofing contractor that I trust. He looked at the job and included a ridge vent (excluded by the guy with the 7 g's), and dropped an inactive failed chimney below the roofline (also not addressed by the 7 g's guy) for $200 per square. Everything is good in the end, but the time and the aggravation.........I'm not compensated for this. Giving prices & recommending contractors are outside most SOP's but I was forced to cross the line for a happy ending.

So my cover page now includes. "We subscribe to the rule of thumb and also recommend that you get at least 3 estimates." It sounds stupid, and is still a roll of the dice. You'd assume that this is common sense, right? Where does it end?

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

Just a little comment here

Wording on your report has everything to do with you protecting yourself as well as the client.

That controversy should be cleared up. Seeing how one recommends a licensed contractor or if he says competent contractor or if he recommends a qualified contractor amounts to the same thing. You are advising your client that there is a difference between the Joe Shmoe down the street that once added an outlet in someones home and someone that does it for a living and advertises that they are licensed, competent, qualified. By sating anyone of those terms you are covering you backside. By stating anyone of them you are not sure if they will hire someone with those headings that has a clue of what they are doing. If you use any term that suggests qualified, competent, licensed, professional you have covered yourself. You are not responsible for any of them anyway. You found the concerns, you advised, you are done, you did your job. Your suggestion really became "hire someone that knows what they are doing". If they don't, its on them, not you. If he is the most reputable, qualified, competent, licensed, professional expert in his field for a hundred miles around, he could still screw up.

You have no responsibility past the point that you ended your paid for inspection. Unless you screwed up.

I agree 100%!

Hi all,

I have little experiece with K&T. It's easy to spot in the crawl space and other places.

However, when looking at an outlet, it is less obvious. I am going to mention that the wiring is old and should be replaced. But to satisfy my curiosity, would this be K&T in this picture?

Thanks

There could still be K&T in the walls, but because the neutrals are white (kind of) in your pic, I would suspect 2-wire cloth wrapped cable, or BX, maybe. What is the age of the house?

I wouldn't report K&T unless I actually saw wiring on knobs or thru tubes, and the normally hot side was energized.

Not only that, John (referring to Zane's photo), but I doubt that box has sufficient space to properly terminate knob and tube in the box.

The year of construction is 1815

It is a 200 year old house. With floors that are surprisingly straight!

Z

Originally Posted by Zane Remenda

The year of construction is 1815

The wiring installation is not from that year.

The box is even from a later year.

Based on the two pieces of loom I think that may be K&T.

The electrical panel was installed in 1988, it had few problems.

There was evidence of past K&T but was removed in crawl space.

Thanks for your input

Zane,

K&T is occasionally removed in the attic and foundation areas, but left in the walls. The attitude by the offending electrician is probably "who is to know?"

Is that tinned copper?

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

Is that tinned copper?

Yes it is.

Originally Posted by Gunnar Alquist

Zane,

K&T is occasionally removed in the attic and foundation areas, but left in the walls. The attitude by the offending electrician is probably "who is to know?"

Having started out working with my Dad who was an electrical contractor, one thing we did A LOT OF was to re-wire old houses, replacing knob and tube with NM cable ... a 10 years old I was the smaller person and got to crawl through the attic and drill down through the top plates then fish the wire down to my Dad, or crawl through the crawlspace and drill up through the bottom plates to fish the wire up to him.

Those cats in the walls (fire blocking) were always the hard part because I would need to add extension onto extension onto extension and then the real long drill bit to reach down (or up) through those cats and then came the tricky part - dropping that sash chain down through that drilled hole that I could not see (worse was trying to push a fish tape up through one).

Yeah, many electricians would just leave the knob and tube in the walls, and improperly connect the NM cable to it in the crawlspace or the attic.