Knob and Tube... or... ??? - InspectionNews

Michael Thomas · #1 (**permalink**) 10-06-2008, 09:02 PM

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?

Jim Luttrall · #2 (**permalink**) 10-06-2008, 09:24 PM

Why would you think it is not K&T?

That is a knob used with K&T.

Matt Fellman · #3 (**permalink**) 10-06-2008, 10:08 PM

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?

Gunnar Alquist · #4 (**permalink**) 10-06-2008, 10:40 PM

Quote:

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.

Michael Thomas · #5 (**permalink**) 10-06-2008, 10:48 PM

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:

Raymond Wand · #6 (**permalink**) 10-07-2008, 05:19 AM

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.

wayne soper · #7 (**permalink**) 10-07-2008, 05:36 AM

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

Michael Thomas · #8 (**permalink**) 10-07-2008, 07:14 AM

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:

Scott Patterson · #9 (**permalink**) 10-07-2008, 08:19 AM

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.

Brandon Whitmore · #10 (**permalink**) 10-07-2008, 03:02 PM

Quote:

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"

Eric Barker · #11 (**permalink**) 10-07-2008, 06:56 PM

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.

Trent Tarter · #12 (**permalink**) 10-10-2008, 09:10 AM

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

Tom McDonnell · #13 (**permalink**) 10-10-2008, 10:07 AM

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.

Jerry Peck · #14 (**permalink**) 10-10-2008, 10:24 AM

Quote:

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.

Tom McDonnell · #15 (**permalink**) 10-10-2008, 01:14 PM

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.

Jerry Peck · #16 (**permalink**) 10-10-2008, 08:16 PM

Quote:

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 ...

Michael Thomas · #17 (**permalink**) 10-10-2008, 10:25 PM

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

Jerry Peck · #18 (**permalink**) 10-11-2008, 09:48 AM

Quote:

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.

Jerry McCarthy · #19 (**permalink**) 10-11-2008, 10:14 AM

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