On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 2:43:07 PM UTC-6, DJ Delorie wrote:
> Michael <[email protected]> writes:
> > Can I use a converter to make this plug work in a regular household outlet?
>
> That's a standard 20A plug. It plugs into a standard 20A household outlet.
>
> https://www.homedepot.com/s/20a%20outlet
>
> If you try to adapt it to a standard 15A outlet, you might blow a
> circuit breaker.
>
> If the circuit *is* 20A (15A outlets are used on 20A circuits in USA
> houses), you're still better off replacing the 15A outlet with a 20A
> outlet; an adapter would let you plug into a 15A *circuit* without
> realizing it.
Thanks for the help, everyone! I know nothing about electricity and this has been very helpful.
On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 3:43:07 PM UTC-5, DJ Delorie wrote:
> Michael <[email protected]> writes:
> > Can I use a converter to make this plug work in a regular household outlet?
>
> That's a standard 20A plug. It plugs into a standard 20A household outlet.
Actually, that's a standard 20A, 120 VAC plug.
There are many different types of "standard" 20A plugs.
>
> https://www.homedepot.com/s/20a%20outlet
>
> If you try to adapt it to a standard 15A outlet, you might blow a
> circuit breaker.
>
> If the circuit *is* 20A (15A outlets are used on 20A circuits in USA
> houses), you're still better off replacing the 15A outlet with a 20A
> outlet; an adapter would let you plug into a 15A *circuit* without
> realizing it.
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 11:17:28 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 11:58:21 -0500, J. Clarke
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 10:37:24 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 20:40:52 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 18:45:12 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>An additional question: This is for a treadmill.
>>>>>>It will be in a room right next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (unused).
>>>>>>Will the electrician be able to use that connection to create an outlet for the treadmill,
>>>>>>or will he/she have to run a totally new connection for the 17A from the fusebox?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks for the help!
>>>>>
>>>>>An electrician could set up sub panel from that outlet, question is do
>>>>>you want that. Questions to ask the are in your quoted text above,
>>>>>they can do what you want the limiting factor is what it costs.
>>>>>
>>>>>Where is your fuse/circuit breaker box for the house, are there open
>>>>>circuit in the box?
>>>> Sub panel not required No open circuits required, location of panel
>>>>immaterial.
>>>
>>>Really you live in a fantasy world with no building codes?
>>
>>OK, tell us the specific provision of code that forbids splitting an
>>existing 240v circuit into two 120v circuits by replacing the
>>receptacle and the breaker.
>
>Well if you run a 120v circuit off a 240v breaker you are asking for a
>fire, commom sense not code. If you replace the 240v breaker with 2
>120v breakers it will work.
>
>But then Mr. Clarke is alway just looking for an argument.
No - you are wrong - because a "240 volt breaker" is a common trip 2
pole 120 volt breaker. It is basically 2 120 volt breakers on opposite
sides of the panel wired in series with the center-tap being the
shared neutral.
Don't spout off about things you OBVIOUSLY have no knowlege of.
On Sunday, December 29, 2019 at 6:50:01 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 14:32:21 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>=20
> >On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 15:00:01 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 21:20:09 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 20:55:45 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 13:38:18 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
> >>>>wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 14:30:51 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]=
>
> >>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>> Well I INTIMATED it here:"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
> >>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Snyder wr=
ote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>An additional question: This is for a treadmill. It will be in a r=
oom right next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (unused).=
Will the electrician be able to use that connection to create an outlet fo=
r the treadmill, or will he/she have to run a totally new connection for th=
e 17A from the fusebox?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Thanks for the help!
> >>>>>>Any electrician worth his salt will be able to give you at least on=
e,
> >>>>>>and likely 2, 20 amp circuits drom that wire (after changing to a 2=
0
> >>>>>>amp braker)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And I guess it was a different thread where I said if he had to as=
k
> >>>>>>the question he shouldn't be doing it and should get an electrician=
.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I've said that MANY times on both the woodworking and home.repair
> >>>>>>groups.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Good to that you INTIMATED it, but I said get an electrian to look a=
t
> >>>>>it. Because from here I can not see whether it is a grounded dryer
> >>>>>device or just a 2 hot and a neutral device.
> >>>> Or more likely a 2 hot and GROUND
> >>>
> >>> I have seen both, but then there are still houses that have knob tube
> >>>that are functioning. That is just 2 wires no ground.
> >> Getting fewer and fewer up here. as soon as they change hands the
> >>knob and tube has to go. Almost impossible to get new insurance on a
> >>house with knob and tube or a 60 amp or smaller service up here - and
> >>no insurance means no mortgage
>=20
> My son recently bought a house in Vermont with a mix of romex and K&T.
> I certainly wouldn't have but he didn't ask me (and I didn't offer an
> opinion).
Was the K&T the only reason you wouldn't have bought the house? I certainly
would have put that on the con side of the ledger, but there may have been=
=20
enough pros to offset it. I've seen some old Vermont mansions that I'd cons=
ider
buying even if they had *no* electricity. ;-)
The first time I ever saw K&T was in my God-parents house. They lived on=20
Narragansett Blvd. Why do I tell you what street they lived on? Here's why:
Many years later, when I bought my first house, they reached under the=20
mattress and pulled out a wad of cash to help with the down payment. When I=
=20
started to upgrade the wiring in the house they helped me buy, the first th=
ing=20
I noticed was that some of the cloth covered "romex" was made by the=20
Narragansett Wiring Company. God does things like that every now and then. =
:-)
On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 22:22:02 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 18:27:55 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 9:04:24 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 16:13:40 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 2:22:12 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>> >> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 06:35:25 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 3:15:03 AM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>> >> >> On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 22:38:00 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>> >> >> wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 23:06:46 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>> >> >> >wrote:
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> No - you are wrong - because a "240 volt breaker" is a common trip 2
>>> >> >> >>pole 120 volt breaker. It is basically 2 120 volt breakers on opposite
>>> >> >> >>sides of the panel wired in series with the center-tap being the
>>> >> >> >>shared neutral.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>Don't spout off about things you OBVIOUSLY have no knowlege of.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >So my advice to the original poster is get an electrician rather than
>>> >> >> >depend upon the myriad of thoughts expressed here.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >Any thoughts on that sir?
>>> >> >> I said a few days ago if he had to ask the question perhaps he should
>>> >> >> have an electrician do the job. Nowhere did I say HE should do the
>>> >> >> job. I just said it could be done, without a subpanel, and without
>>> >> >> replacingthe wire. I dissagree with running an external ground - which
>>> >> >> would NOT pass inspection here in Ontario Canada. - 4 wire will give
>>> >> >> him 2 circuits - 3 wire will give him one. At least that's what would
>>> >> >> pass here and what a qualified electrician would agree to here. My Dad
>>> >> >> was an electrician and he taught me a lot.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Assuming the OP is working within the US NEC arena, why would you disagree
>>> >> >with a code-compliant external ground?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> If it is accepted in his jurisdiction, OK - and if it is an external
>>> >> GROUND - but a lot of old drier 3 wire plugs were on 2 wire plus
>>> >> ground - which would mean in most cases only 2 insulated wires -
>>> >> requiring an external NEUTRAL which IS verbotten.
>>> >>
>>> >> If the cable contains red, black, and white you may (in some cases) be
>>> >> allowed to run an external ground and use the white for the common
>>> >> neutral.
>>> >> If it has black and red or black and white with either green or bare
>>> >> you can not use the green or bare as the neutral - it is GROUND ONLY -
>>> >> and you can NOT run an external neutral wire. ( to the best of my
>>> >> knowlege)
>>> >
>>> >I asked a very simple question to which you provided an answer with a lot of unrelated stuff (unrelated to my question, that is).
>>> >
>>> >You said: "I dissagree [sic] with running an external ground"
>>> >
>>> >I asked: "...why would you disagree with a code-compliant external ground?"
>>> >
>>> >You could have stopped right after "If it is accepted in his jurisdiction,
>>> >OK"
>>> >
>>> >Bottom line, it appears that you *don't* disagree with running an code-
>>> >compliant external ground, which (your disagreement) is the only thing I
>>> >asked about.
>>> >
>>> >Now I'm curious as to why you said you disagree, when in fact, you do not.
>>> "I" dissagree - code may not. Here I can't get away with it. (unless
>>> it is strapped to the cable for the full length making it
>>> "effectively" part of the cable). If you can get to the cable the full
>>> lenth to strap on the ground you may as well pull out the deficient
>>> cable and pull in the proper 3 wire plus ground cable.
>>> It USED to be acceptable to connect the safety ground to a water
>>> pipe. That is no longer kosher. (for good reason) Also USED to be able
>>> to use EMT conduit as safety ground. Also no longer allowed.
>>
>>You still haven't explained *why* you disagree. I didn't ask whether it was
>>compliant in Ontario. I didn't ask what installation method might make it
>>compliant in Ontario. I didn't ask about old code language related to water
>>pipes.
>>
>>I'm not sure why you keep answering questions that I'm not asking.
>>
>>In fact, I'm not even sure that you actually disagree. Earlier you said "OK".
>>
>>So which is it? Do you disagree with using a code-compliant external ground
>>or not? If you do, tell us why. Nothing else, just *why* you disagree with
>>using a code-compliant external ground.
> No I don't agree with it because it's a dumb-ass redneck hack. Just
>because the fools who write code in the USA allow it doesn't mean it
>is right or safe. The reason we use "cable" instead of individual
>wires is to ensure all conductors for a given circuit are kept
>together so unidentified or separate conductors don't get "lost" down
>the way. A safety ground is for "safety" and it is meant to be an
>"integrated" safety solution.
>Another reason I can't figure out why some American jurisdictions
>require conduit and wire instead of cable for residential use. Bad
>enough trying to sort out the spiderweb in industrial and commercial
>premises after a dew electricians have had their fingers into it.
The reason why conduit was require is money, the unions and
contractors had enough influence to get it in as the code. Cook County
Illinois, also required cast iron DVW above ground, til recently when
the reduction in cost of PVC and ABS was realized.
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 14:32:21 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 15:00:01 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 21:20:09 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 20:55:45 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 13:38:18 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 14:30:51 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>> Well I INTIMATED it here:"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>An additional question: This is for a treadmill. It will be in a room right next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (unused). Will the electrician be able to use that connection to create an outlet for the treadmill, or will he/she have to run a totally new connection for the 17A from the fusebox?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Thanks for the help!
>>>>>>Any electrician worth his salt will be able to give you at least one,
>>>>>>and likely 2, 20 amp circuits drom that wire (after changing to a 20
>>>>>>amp braker)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And I guess it was a different thread where I said if he had to ask
>>>>>>the question he shouldn't be doing it and should get an electrician.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I've said that MANY times on both the woodworking and home.repair
>>>>>>groups.
>>>>>
>>>>>Good to that you INTIMATED it, but I said get an electrian to look at
>>>>>it. Because from here I can not see whether it is a grounded dryer
>>>>>device or just a 2 hot and a neutral device.
>>>> Or more likely a 2 hot and GROUND
>>>
>>> I have seen both, but then there are still houses that have knob tube
>>>that are functioning. That is just 2 wires no ground.
>> Getting fewer and fewer up here. as soon as they change hands the
>>knob and tube has to go. Almost impossible to get new insurance on a
>>house with knob and tube or a 60 amp or smaller service up here - and
>>no insurance means no mortgage
My son recently bought a house in Vermont with a mix of romex and K&T.
I certainly wouldn't have but he didn't ask me (and I didn't offer an
opinion).
>
>So a cash buyer could.
Own a house without insurance? Sure. Not smart but it's certainly
possible.
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 14:32:21 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 15:00:01 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 21:20:09 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 20:55:45 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 13:38:18 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 14:30:51 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>> Well I INTIMATED it here:"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>An additional question: This is for a treadmill. It will be in a room right next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (unused). Will the electrician be able to use that connection to create an outlet for the treadmill, or will he/she have to run a totally new connection for the 17A from the fusebox?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Thanks for the help!
>>>>>>Any electrician worth his salt will be able to give you at least one,
>>>>>>and likely 2, 20 amp circuits drom that wire (after changing to a 20
>>>>>>amp braker)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And I guess it was a different thread where I said if he had to ask
>>>>>>the question he shouldn't be doing it and should get an electrician.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I've said that MANY times on both the woodworking and home.repair
>>>>>>groups.
>>>>>
>>>>>Good to that you INTIMATED it, but I said get an electrian to look at
>>>>>it. Because from here I can not see whether it is a grounded dryer
>>>>>device or just a 2 hot and a neutral device.
>>>> Or more likely a 2 hot and GROUND
>>>
>>> I have seen both, but then there are still houses that have knob tube
>>>that are functioning. That is just 2 wires no ground.
>> Getting fewer and fewer up here. as soon as they change hands the
>>knob and tube has to go. Almost impossible to get new insurance on a
>>house with knob and tube or a 60 amp or smaller service up here - and
>>no insurance means no mortgage
>
>So a cash buyer could.
He could buy but he could not insure. Don't know about down in the
bayou but up here just about any building that is livable year round
is worth insuring. I've seen some of the miners' shacks in the hills
of Virginia and the hollers of Kentucky that aren't worth insuring
-but I'm not sure the residents can afford electricity either. If they
were chicken coups up here we'd knock them down and start over
On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 13:41:06 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:24:27 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 12:45:53 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>> >
>>> >The point is that you simply can not admit to being wrong.
>>> >
>>> >Your blanket statement that a cash buyer of a house with K&T could not insure
>>> >is just not true 100% of the time.
>>> >
>>> >You can post a million words about known examples where it would be difficult if not
>>> >impossible to insure, but that still doesn't eliminate the ability in every single case.
>>> And YOU mr Derby, have to nit-pick at everything - You sure can't be
>>> wrong - you are an AMERICAN for cripes sake!!!
>>>
>>> FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES a house with K&T wiring IS uninsurable.
>>> Mabee not in some backwater bayou where a house with electricity is a
>>> luxury even if it's wired with fencewire using old bud bottles as
>>> insulators - but then how many of those hovels are insured???
>>> Or where if you know the cheif inspector and drink with him every
>>> night and go target shooting with yout AK every weekend with him you
>>> can get anything passed - - - -
>>>
>>> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - look in the mirror!!!
>>
>>Man, you do get worked up, don't you?
>>
>>All caps, multiple punctuation marks, misspellings galore.
>>
>>Wouldn't it be easier to just say. "Sorry, I misspoke"?
>>
>>That has to be better for your blood pressure than your way of
>>handling things.
>
>As far as better way of handling things, tracing a circuit in conduit.
>Try a circuit tracer, you disconnect the hot lead at the breaker (or
>fure box) hook the tracer up go find all the devices on that circuit.
That DOES let you trace the power - sort of - when the circuit does
not have a problem - but does not do a good job of tracing neutrals.
When not in a conduit a "fox and hound" tracer works but they are
almost useless in a metal conduit.
Generally finding what is ON a circuit isn't too much of a problem.
Finding what circuit it is SUPPOSED to be on when it has "fallen off"
for some reason is the fun part - in a building with 4 panels in it,
where there appears to be no rhyme or reason to what is on what panel.
One building in particular - where I spent a LOT of time was built as
a 4 unit commercial building which was developed as the office
headquarters of a notorious financial planning fraudster locally (and
foreclosed on before he opened the doors for business) was then
redeveloped as the offices of the insurance company that was my major
client for 17 years. Lots of changes were made by the developer.
Then more changes were made as time went on - and I ended up
trobleshooting a lot of issues. A real pain in the butt!! Complicating
matters was the way some of the creditors removed equipment that was
unpaid for when they came back to reclaim it - - - - - - (from the
original tennant.)
On Wed, 01 Jan 2020 09:11:03 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Wed, 01 Jan 2020 01:38:22 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 19:43:20 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 18:30:03 -0500, J. Clarke
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 17:06:38 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 17:24:23 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:27:36 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:55:11 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 08:42:49 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 20:59:13 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 13:41:06 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:24:27 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>>>>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 12:45:53 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >The point is that you simply can not admit to being wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >Your blanket statement that a cash buyer of a house with K&T could not insure
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >is just not true 100% of the time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >You can post a million words about known examples where it would be difficult if not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >impossible to insure, but that still doesn't eliminate the ability in every single case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And YOU mr Derby, have to nit-pick at everything - You sure can't be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong - you are an AMERICAN for cripes sake!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES a house with K&T wiring IS uninsurable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mabee not in some backwater bayou where a house with electricity is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> luxury even if it's wired with fencewire using old bud bottles as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> insulators - but then how many of those hovels are insured???
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or where if you know the cheif inspector and drink with him every
>>>>>>>>>>>>> night and go target shooting with yout AK every weekend with him you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can get anything passed - - - -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - look in the mirror!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Man, you do get worked up, don't you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>All caps, multiple punctuation marks, misspellings galore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Wouldn't it be easier to just say. "Sorry, I misspoke"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>That has to be better for your blood pressure than your way of
>>>>>>>>>>>>handling things.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>As far as better way of handling things, tracing a circuit in conduit.
>>>>>>>>>>>Try a circuit tracer, you disconnect the hot lead at the breaker (or
>>>>>>>>>>>fure box) hook the tracer up go find all the devices on that circuit.
>>>>>>>>>> That DOES let you trace the power - sort of - when the circuit does
>>>>>>>>>>not have a problem - but does not do a good job of tracing neutrals.
>>>>>>>>>>When not in a conduit a "fox and hound" tracer works but they are
>>>>>>>>>>almost useless in a metal conduit.
>>>>>>>>>> Generally finding what is ON a circuit isn't too much of a problem.
>>>>>>>>>>Finding what circuit it is SUPPOSED to be on when it has "fallen off"
>>>>>>>>>>for some reason is the fun part - in a building with 4 panels in it,
>>>>>>>>>>where there appears to be no rhyme or reason to what is on what panel.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>One building in particular - where I spent a LOT of time was built as
>>>>>>>>>>a 4 unit commercial building which was developed as the office
>>>>>>>>>>headquarters of a notorious financial planning fraudster locally (and
>>>>>>>>>>foreclosed on before he opened the doors for business) was then
>>>>>>>>>>redeveloped as the offices of the insurance company that was my major
>>>>>>>>>>client for 17 years. Lots of changes were made by the developer.
>>>>>>>>>>Then more changes were made as time went on - and I ended up
>>>>>>>>>>trobleshooting a lot of issues. A real pain in the butt!! Complicating
>>>>>>>>>>matters was the way some of the creditors removed equipment that was
>>>>>>>>>>unpaid for when they came back to reclaim it - - - - - - (from the
>>>>>>>>>>original tennant.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>So no matter what I come up with you are going to trash the idea,
>>>>>>>>>right?
>>>>>>>> No. There are many devices that can be used to make tracing and
>>>>>>>>troubleshooting individual conductor circuits in conduit and raceway
>>>>>>>>easier - but NOTHING will make it as simple as following cable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I have found just following the cable simple way to figure out where
>>>>>>>the conduit runs. Unless you have a situation where you should just
>>>>>>>tear it out and start over because of others incompetence.
>>>>>> Follow what cable? The wires run through conduit from the panel to
>>>>>>the outlet - through numerous "pull boxes" through a virtual GRID of
>>>>>>conduit.
>>>>>
>>>>>If you put the tracer on the hot lead you can follow it at the outlet
>>>>>and switch boxes, conduit does not act like a faraday cage.
>>>>
>>>>In conduit that only tells you where the "hot lead" is going. You
>>>>seem to have the impression that the normal procedure is to pull
>>>>multiconductor cable through conduit. That is something that is
>>>>sometimes done where a multiconductor cable has to pass through an
>>>>exposed area and needs protection, but the norm is separate,
>>>>independent conductors.
>>>
>>>In house wiring. You are over thinking it.
>>
>>
>> Thank GOD in Ontario in single unit and all stick framed residential
>>units we don't have to use the infernal stuff!!!!
>
>Helped rewire some houses that had aluminum wire, you might think it
>is not that bad when rewiring a whole house. Tract houses the layout
>is all the same too.
replaced all devices in my aluminum wired house with coalr devices
and pigtailed everything else with copper to pass theESA Safe
inspection 2 years ago. Would hate to have to rewire with finished
basement and no attic - and the service entry panel on the far side of
the garage with the garage also fully insulated and drywalled (and
scratrch-coated). Even ASSNING a ciecuit is fun - had to pull in a
circuit for the central cac - at the extreme far end of the house
basement - thankfully the house is only 30 feet long but 50 feet of
wire would not have done the job - - Up 6, back 6, over 12, down 12
forward12, then 25 feet over and down 3 - had to stretch 75 feet to
make it work! The up, back, across and down was all surface in the
garage - in corners except the initial up from the panel - all the
rest was in finished basement except the last5 or 6 frrt. Only
slightly damaged 2 accoustic 8" square tiles in the ceiling of the
laundry room - can hardly see the damage after re-installing.
Basically the only wiring modifications done on the whole house (other
than assing 240 volt outlet in the garage and the generator inlet
circuit)
On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 21:36:41 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 20:46:42 -0500, J. Clarke
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 19:43:20 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 18:30:03 -0500, J. Clarke
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 17:06:38 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 17:24:23 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:27:36 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:55:11 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 08:42:49 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 20:59:13 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 13:41:06 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:24:27 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>>>>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 12:45:53 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >The point is that you simply can not admit to being wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >Your blanket statement that a cash buyer of a house with K&T could not insure
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >is just not true 100% of the time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >You can post a million words about known examples where it would be difficult if not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >impossible to insure, but that still doesn't eliminate the ability in every single case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And YOU mr Derby, have to nit-pick at everything - You sure can't be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong - you are an AMERICAN for cripes sake!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES a house with K&T wiring IS uninsurable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mabee not in some backwater bayou where a house with electricity is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> luxury even if it's wired with fencewire using old bud bottles as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> insulators - but then how many of those hovels are insured???
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or where if you know the cheif inspector and drink with him every
>>>>>>>>>>>>> night and go target shooting with yout AK every weekend with him you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can get anything passed - - - -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - look in the mirror!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Man, you do get worked up, don't you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>All caps, multiple punctuation marks, misspellings galore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Wouldn't it be easier to just say. "Sorry, I misspoke"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>That has to be better for your blood pressure than your way of
>>>>>>>>>>>>handling things.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>As far as better way of handling things, tracing a circuit in conduit.
>>>>>>>>>>>Try a circuit tracer, you disconnect the hot lead at the breaker (or
>>>>>>>>>>>fure box) hook the tracer up go find all the devices on that circuit.
>>>>>>>>>> That DOES let you trace the power - sort of - when the circuit does
>>>>>>>>>>not have a problem - but does not do a good job of tracing neutrals.
>>>>>>>>>>When not in a conduit a "fox and hound" tracer works but they are
>>>>>>>>>>almost useless in a metal conduit.
>>>>>>>>>> Generally finding what is ON a circuit isn't too much of a problem.
>>>>>>>>>>Finding what circuit it is SUPPOSED to be on when it has "fallen off"
>>>>>>>>>>for some reason is the fun part - in a building with 4 panels in it,
>>>>>>>>>>where there appears to be no rhyme or reason to what is on what panel.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>One building in particular - where I spent a LOT of time was built as
>>>>>>>>>>a 4 unit commercial building which was developed as the office
>>>>>>>>>>headquarters of a notorious financial planning fraudster locally (and
>>>>>>>>>>foreclosed on before he opened the doors for business) was then
>>>>>>>>>>redeveloped as the offices of the insurance company that was my major
>>>>>>>>>>client for 17 years. Lots of changes were made by the developer.
>>>>>>>>>>Then more changes were made as time went on - and I ended up
>>>>>>>>>>trobleshooting a lot of issues. A real pain in the butt!! Complicating
>>>>>>>>>>matters was the way some of the creditors removed equipment that was
>>>>>>>>>>unpaid for when they came back to reclaim it - - - - - - (from the
>>>>>>>>>>original tennant.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>So no matter what I come up with you are going to trash the idea,
>>>>>>>>>right?
>>>>>>>> No. There are many devices that can be used to make tracing and
>>>>>>>>troubleshooting individual conductor circuits in conduit and raceway
>>>>>>>>easier - but NOTHING will make it as simple as following cable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I have found just following the cable simple way to figure out where
>>>>>>>the conduit runs. Unless you have a situation where you should just
>>>>>>>tear it out and start over because of others incompetence.
>>>>>> Follow what cable? The wires run through conduit from the panel to
>>>>>>the outlet - through numerous "pull boxes" through a virtual GRID of
>>>>>>conduit.
>>>>>
>>>>>If you put the tracer on the hot lead you can follow it at the outlet
>>>>>and switch boxes, conduit does not act like a faraday cage.
>>>>
>>>>In conduit that only tells you where the "hot lead" is going. You
>>>>seem to have the impression that the normal procedure is to pull
>>>>multiconductor cable through conduit. That is something that is
>>>>sometimes done where a multiconductor cable has to pass through an
>>>>exposed area and needs protection, but the norm is separate,
>>>>independent conductors.
>>>
>>>In house wiring. You are over thinking it.
>>
>>Conduit is not the norm in house wiring.
>
>Was where I grew up.
Apparently it is in CrookCounty
On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 22:22:02 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 18:27:55 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 9:04:24 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 16:13:40 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 2:22:12 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>> >> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 06:35:25 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 3:15:03 AM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>> >> >> On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 22:38:00 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>> >> >> wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 23:06:46 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>> >> >> >wrote:
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> No - you are wrong - because a "240 volt breaker" is a common trip 2
>>> >> >> >>pole 120 volt breaker. It is basically 2 120 volt breakers on opposite
>>> >> >> >>sides of the panel wired in series with the center-tap being the
>>> >> >> >>shared neutral.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>Don't spout off about things you OBVIOUSLY have no knowlege of.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >So my advice to the original poster is get an electrician rather than
>>> >> >> >depend upon the myriad of thoughts expressed here.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >Any thoughts on that sir?
>>> >> >> I said a few days ago if he had to ask the question perhaps he should
>>> >> >> have an electrician do the job. Nowhere did I say HE should do the
>>> >> >> job. I just said it could be done, without a subpanel, and without
>>> >> >> replacingthe wire. I dissagree with running an external ground - which
>>> >> >> would NOT pass inspection here in Ontario Canada. - 4 wire will give
>>> >> >> him 2 circuits - 3 wire will give him one. At least that's what would
>>> >> >> pass here and what a qualified electrician would agree to here. My Dad
>>> >> >> was an electrician and he taught me a lot.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Assuming the OP is working within the US NEC arena, why would you disagree
>>> >> >with a code-compliant external ground?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> If it is accepted in his jurisdiction, OK - and if it is an external
>>> >> GROUND - but a lot of old drier 3 wire plugs were on 2 wire plus
>>> >> ground - which would mean in most cases only 2 insulated wires -
>>> >> requiring an external NEUTRAL which IS verbotten.
>>> >>
>>> >> If the cable contains red, black, and white you may (in some cases) be
>>> >> allowed to run an external ground and use the white for the common
>>> >> neutral.
>>> >> If it has black and red or black and white with either green or bare
>>> >> you can not use the green or bare as the neutral - it is GROUND ONLY -
>>> >> and you can NOT run an external neutral wire. ( to the best of my
>>> >> knowlege)
>>> >
>>> >I asked a very simple question to which you provided an answer with a lot of unrelated stuff (unrelated to my question, that is).
>>> >
>>> >You said: "I dissagree [sic] with running an external ground"
>>> >
>>> >I asked: "...why would you disagree with a code-compliant external ground?"
>>> >
>>> >You could have stopped right after "If it is accepted in his jurisdiction,
>>> >OK"
>>> >
>>> >Bottom line, it appears that you *don't* disagree with running an code-
>>> >compliant external ground, which (your disagreement) is the only thing I
>>> >asked about.
>>> >
>>> >Now I'm curious as to why you said you disagree, when in fact, you do not.
>>> "I" dissagree - code may not. Here I can't get away with it. (unless
>>> it is strapped to the cable for the full length making it
>>> "effectively" part of the cable). If you can get to the cable the full
>>> lenth to strap on the ground you may as well pull out the deficient
>>> cable and pull in the proper 3 wire plus ground cable.
>>> It USED to be acceptable to connect the safety ground to a water
>>> pipe. That is no longer kosher. (for good reason) Also USED to be able
>>> to use EMT conduit as safety ground. Also no longer allowed.
>>
>>You still haven't explained *why* you disagree. I didn't ask whether it was
>>compliant in Ontario. I didn't ask what installation method might make it
>>compliant in Ontario. I didn't ask about old code language related to water
>>pipes.
>>
>>I'm not sure why you keep answering questions that I'm not asking.
>>
>>In fact, I'm not even sure that you actually disagree. Earlier you said "OK".
>>
>>So which is it? Do you disagree with using a code-compliant external ground
>>or not? If you do, tell us why. Nothing else, just *why* you disagree with
>>using a code-compliant external ground.
> No I don't agree with it because it's a dumb-ass redneck hack. Just
>because the fools who write code in the USA allow it doesn't mean it
>is right or safe. The reason we use "cable" instead of individual
>wires is to ensure all conductors for a given circuit are kept
>together so unidentified or separate conductors don't get "lost" down
>the way.
I thought we used it because it was easier to pull a cable than a
conduit.
>A safety ground is for "safety" and it is meant to be an
>"integrated" safety solution.
>Another reason I can't figure out why some American jurisdictions
>require conduit and wire instead of cable for residential use. Bad
>enough trying to sort out the spiderweb in industrial and commercial
>premises after a dew electricians have had their fingers into it.
However conduit is harder to damage in exposed locations.
On Sunday, December 29, 2019 at 7:29:18 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 14:32:21 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>=20
> >On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 15:00:01 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 21:20:09 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 20:55:45 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 13:38:18 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
> >>>>wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 14:30:51 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]=
>
> >>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>> Well I INTIMATED it here:"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
> >>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Snyder wr=
ote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>An additional question: This is for a treadmill. It will be in a r=
oom right next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (unused).=
Will the electrician be able to use that connection to create an outlet fo=
r the treadmill, or will he/she have to run a totally new connection for th=
e 17A from the fusebox?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Thanks for the help!
> >>>>>>Any electrician worth his salt will be able to give you at least on=
e,
> >>>>>>and likely 2, 20 amp circuits drom that wire (after changing to a 2=
0
> >>>>>>amp braker)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And I guess it was a different thread where I said if he had to as=
k
> >>>>>>the question he shouldn't be doing it and should get an electrician=
.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I've said that MANY times on both the woodworking and home.repair
> >>>>>>groups.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Good to that you INTIMATED it, but I said get an electrian to look a=
t
> >>>>>it. Because from here I can not see whether it is a grounded dryer
> >>>>>device or just a 2 hot and a neutral device.
> >>>> Or more likely a 2 hot and GROUND
> >>>
> >>> I have seen both, but then there are still houses that have knob tube
> >>>that are functioning. That is just 2 wires no ground.
> >> Getting fewer and fewer up here. as soon as they change hands the
> >>knob and tube has to go. Almost impossible to get new insurance on a
> >>house with knob and tube or a 60 amp or smaller service up here - and
> >>no insurance means no mortgage
> >
> >So a cash buyer could.
> He could buy but he could not insure.=20
You know what they say about blanket statements...
From the WireChief Electric Ltd in Vancouver, BC. Their website says=20
Copywrite 2010-2019, so I guess the following is still current.
https://www.wirechiefelectric.com/knob-tube-wiring-homeowner-insurance
*** Begin Copied Text ***
However, you may still be able to get homeowner=E2=80=99s insurance if your=
K&T=20
system for lighting and power outlets is upgraded to meet the following=20
conditions:
- Exposed conductors must be in good condition.
- Circuits must be protected by a circuit breaker or appropriate fuse.
- No further outlets are added to the original system.
- Not used ungrounding plugs in laundry rooms or bathrooms or=20
outdoors for even a lower risk level.
Knob-and-Tube wiring repairs may be a good option if budget is a concern.
*** End Copied Text ***
The following was written by a US based insurance agent, also with website=
=20
dated 2019. Note the words "nearly impossible" and "will consider", as oppo=
sed
to "impossible" and "won't consider".
https://www.regencyinsurance.net/blog/knob-tube-wiring--is-it-making-your-h=
ome-uninsurable.aspx
*** Begin Copied Text ***
Keep in mind, I'm not aware of any company cancelling existing policies bec=
ause
of Knob & Tube wiring at this time. However, the insurance industry has bee=
n=20
quietly restricting underwriting guidelines to the point where it is nearly=
=20
impossible to find a standard company willing to issue a new policy on a ho=
me=20
that contains this type of wiring.=20
...
... has caused companies to view Knob & Tube wiring as an unacceptable risk=
.=20
I've contacted other insurance agents in my area, and have found only a few=
=20
who have markets that will consider homes with limited K&T wiring (in=20
basements or attics) if a licensed electrician will provide a written state=
ment
attesting to its safety.
*** End Copied Text ***
On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 20:59:13 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 13:41:06 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:24:27 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 12:45:53 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >The point is that you simply can not admit to being wrong.
>>>> >
>>>> >Your blanket statement that a cash buyer of a house with K&T could not insure
>>>> >is just not true 100% of the time.
>>>> >
>>>> >You can post a million words about known examples where it would be difficult if not
>>>> >impossible to insure, but that still doesn't eliminate the ability in every single case.
>>>> And YOU mr Derby, have to nit-pick at everything - You sure can't be
>>>> wrong - you are an AMERICAN for cripes sake!!!
>>>>
>>>> FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES a house with K&T wiring IS uninsurable.
>>>> Mabee not in some backwater bayou where a house with electricity is a
>>>> luxury even if it's wired with fencewire using old bud bottles as
>>>> insulators - but then how many of those hovels are insured???
>>>> Or where if you know the cheif inspector and drink with him every
>>>> night and go target shooting with yout AK every weekend with him you
>>>> can get anything passed - - - -
>>>>
>>>> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - look in the mirror!!!
>>>
>>>Man, you do get worked up, don't you?
>>>
>>>All caps, multiple punctuation marks, misspellings galore.
>>>
>>>Wouldn't it be easier to just say. "Sorry, I misspoke"?
>>>
>>>That has to be better for your blood pressure than your way of
>>>handling things.
>>
>>As far as better way of handling things, tracing a circuit in conduit.
>>Try a circuit tracer, you disconnect the hot lead at the breaker (or
>>fure box) hook the tracer up go find all the devices on that circuit.
> That DOES let you trace the power - sort of - when the circuit does
>not have a problem - but does not do a good job of tracing neutrals.
>When not in a conduit a "fox and hound" tracer works but they are
>almost useless in a metal conduit.
> Generally finding what is ON a circuit isn't too much of a problem.
>Finding what circuit it is SUPPOSED to be on when it has "fallen off"
>for some reason is the fun part - in a building with 4 panels in it,
>where there appears to be no rhyme or reason to what is on what panel.
>
>One building in particular - where I spent a LOT of time was built as
>a 4 unit commercial building which was developed as the office
>headquarters of a notorious financial planning fraudster locally (and
>foreclosed on before he opened the doors for business) was then
>redeveloped as the offices of the insurance company that was my major
>client for 17 years. Lots of changes were made by the developer.
>Then more changes were made as time went on - and I ended up
>trobleshooting a lot of issues. A real pain in the butt!! Complicating
>matters was the way some of the creditors removed equipment that was
>unpaid for when they came back to reclaim it - - - - - - (from the
>original tennant.)
So no matter what I come up with you are going to trash the idea,
right?
On Wed, 01 Jan 2020 05:22:19 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Markem <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 20:46:42 -0500, J. Clarke
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Conduit is not the norm in house wiring.
>>
>> Was where I grew up.
>>
>
>Chicago?
Northwest burbs
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 14:47:07 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 12:03:43 -0800 (PST), Michael
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Can I use a converter to make this plug work in a regular household outlet?
>>
>>120 voc/60hz
>>Current 17a
>>
>>https://ibb.co/G0Bkh7j
>>
>>Thanks!
>
>It is a 240 volt plug, why would you want to?
>
>Now you could wire a 240 receptacle with 120 volts and it would work.
>
>Sorry but makes no sense to me with minimal info from your side.
No, that's a 20 amp 120 volt plug.
On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 3:03:46 PM UTC-5, Michael wrote:
> Can I use a converter to make this plug work in a regular household outlet?
>
> 120 voc/60hz
> Current 17a
>
> https://ibb.co/G0Bkh7j
>
> Thanks!
BTW...You used the word "converter". Did you actually mean adapter?
From: https://www.goaheadtours.com/travel-blog/articles/guide-to-power-adapters-and-converters
"While the purpose of an adapter is to simply help the plugs on your electronics fit into (or more aptly, adapt to the shape of) foreign outlets, a converter's job is to change the voltage found in an outlet to match that of your devices."
On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 20:40:52 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 18:45:12 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>
>>>An additional question: This is for a treadmill.
>>>It will be in a room right next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (unused).
>>>Will the electrician be able to use that connection to create an outlet for the treadmill,
>>>or will he/she have to run a totally new connection for the 17A from the fusebox?
>>>
>>>Thanks for the help!
>>
>>An electrician could set up sub panel from that outlet, question is do
>>you want that. Questions to ask the are in your quoted text above,
>>they can do what you want the limiting factor is what it costs.
>>
>>Where is your fuse/circuit breaker box for the house, are there open
>>circuit in the box?
> Sub panel not required No open circuits required, location of panel
>immaterial.
Really you live in a fantasy world with no building codes?
On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 20:55:45 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 13:38:18 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 14:30:51 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>> Well I INTIMATED it here:"
>>>
>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>An additional question: This is for a treadmill. It will be in a room right next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (unused). Will the electrician be able to use that connection to create an outlet for the treadmill, or will he/she have to run a totally new connection for the 17A from the fusebox?
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for the help!
>>>Any electrician worth his salt will be able to give you at least one,
>>>and likely 2, 20 amp circuits drom that wire (after changing to a 20
>>>amp braker)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And I guess it was a different thread where I said if he had to ask
>>>the question he shouldn't be doing it and should get an electrician.
>>>
>>>I've said that MANY times on both the woodworking and home.repair
>>>groups.
>>
>>Good to that you INTIMATED it, but I said get an electrian to look at
>>it. Because from here I can not see whether it is a grounded dryer
>>device or just a 2 hot and a neutral device.
> Or more likely a 2 hot and GROUND
I have seen both, but then there are still houses that have knob tube
that are functioning. That is just 2 wires no ground.
On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 00:53:51 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 23:13:06 -0500, J. Clarke
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 22:56:23 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 22:44:46 -0500, J. Clarke
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 22:27:24 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 17:11:43 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sunday, December 29, 2019 at 7:29:18 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 14:32:21 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 15:00:01 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> >wrote:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 21:20:09 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> >>wrote:
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 20:55:45 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> >>>wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 13:38:18 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> >>>>wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 14:30:51 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> >>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>>>> Well I INTIMATED it here:"
>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
>>>>>>> >>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>An additional question: This is for a treadmill. It will be in a room right next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (unused). Will the electrician be able to use that connection to create an outlet for the treadmill, or will he/she have to run a totally new connection for the 17A from the fusebox?
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>Thanks for the help!
>>>>>>> >>>>>>Any electrician worth his salt will be able to give you at least one,
>>>>>>> >>>>>>and likely 2, 20 amp circuits drom that wire (after changing to a 20
>>>>>>> >>>>>>amp braker)
>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>> And I guess it was a different thread where I said if he had to ask
>>>>>>> >>>>>>the question he shouldn't be doing it and should get an electrician.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>I've said that MANY times on both the woodworking and home.repair
>>>>>>> >>>>>>groups.
>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>Good to that you INTIMATED it, but I said get an electrian to look at
>>>>>>> >>>>>it. Because from here I can not see whether it is a grounded dryer
>>>>>>> >>>>>device or just a 2 hot and a neutral device.
>>>>>>> >>>> Or more likely a 2 hot and GROUND
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>> I have seen both, but then there are still houses that have knob tube
>>>>>>> >>>that are functioning. That is just 2 wires no ground.
>>>>>>> >> Getting fewer and fewer up here. as soon as they change hands the
>>>>>>> >>knob and tube has to go. Almost impossible to get new insurance on a
>>>>>>> >>house with knob and tube or a 60 amp or smaller service up here - and
>>>>>>> >>no insurance means no mortgage
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >So a cash buyer could.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He could buy but he could not insure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You know what they say about blanket statements...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>From the WireChief Electric Ltd in Vancouver, BC. Their website says
>>>>>>Copywrite 2010-2019, so I guess the following is still current.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>https://www.wirechiefelectric.com/knob-tube-wiring-homeowner-insurance
>>>>>>
>>>>>>*** Begin Copied Text ***
>>>>>>
>>>>>>However, you may still be able to get homeownerâs insurance if your K&T
>>>>>>system for lighting and power outlets is upgraded to meet the following
>>>>>>conditions:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Exposed conductors must be in good condition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Circuits must be protected by a circuit breaker or appropriate fuse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - No further outlets are added to the original system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Not used ungrounding plugs in laundry rooms or bathrooms or
>>>>>> outdoors for even a lower risk level.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Knob-and-Tube wiring repairs may be a good option if budget is a concern.
>>>>
>>>>Not seeing DerbyDad's post so commenting here. Repairing knob and
>>>>tube may not be allowed under code--many localities require that any
>>>>repair be brought up to current code, which for knob and tube may mean
>>>>a complete rewiring job.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Don't know about the USA, but "repairing" knob and tube wiring in
>>>Canada would NOT be allowed in most cases. Perhaps on a case by case
>>>basis you MIGHT get ESA approval - but I highly doubt it. Mabee the
>>>last of Knob and Tube wiring where boxes were actually used you MAY be
>>>allowerd to leave K&T wiring in uninsulated ceilings for overhead
>>>lighting - but definitely NOT the common K&T that used surface mount
>>>devices.
>>
>>In the US each jurisdiction has its own code and inspectors. The town
>>I live in may have a different electrical code that the town over.
>>
>>And then there's the quality of inspection.
>>
>>My parents had the knob and tube in their house in Florida
>>replaced--the spec included "must be compliant with NEC except where
>>NEC is in conflict with local code local code prevails".
>>
>>Wiring was permitted, performed, signed off, and done. Then I took a
>>look at it and ended up redoing half of it because it was such a
>>Godawful wiring job--two inches of exposed conductor outside of the
>>box, no strain reliefs, one place I found half a dozen cables going
>>into a huge blob of electrical tape with the blob hanging in mid-air
>>by the cables and God-knows-what in the middle (turned out to be a
>>bunch of connections made by twisting ends together with pliers and
>>then taping. Note that this would have been in the '80s.
>>
>>If it had been my house I would have called a lawyer, but my parents
>>didn't want to go that route.
> Let me guess - they took the lowest bid??
I suspect they went with somebody recommended as a "good old boy".
On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 12:45:53 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
> >
> >The point is that you simply can not admit to being wrong.
> >
> >Your blanket statement that a cash buyer of a house with K&T could not insure
> >is just not true 100% of the time.
> >
> >You can post a million words about known examples where it would be difficult if not
> >impossible to insure, but that still doesn't eliminate the ability in every single case.
> And YOU mr Derby, have to nit-pick at everything - You sure can't be
> wrong - you are an AMERICAN for cripes sake!!!
>
> FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES a house with K&T wiring IS uninsurable.
> Mabee not in some backwater bayou where a house with electricity is a
> luxury even if it's wired with fencewire using old bud bottles as
> insulators - but then how many of those hovels are insured???
> Or where if you know the cheif inspector and drink with him every
> night and go target shooting with yout AK every weekend with him you
> can get anything passed - - - -
>
> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - look in the mirror!!!
Man, you do get worked up, don't you?
All caps, multiple punctuation marks, misspellings galore.
Wouldn't it be easier to just say. "Sorry, I misspoke"?
That has to be better for your blood pressure than your way of
handling things.
On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 17:05:50 -0700, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 12/31/2019 4:30 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 17:06:38 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 17:24:23 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:27:36 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:55:11 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 08:42:49 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 20:59:13 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 13:41:06 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:24:27 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 12:45:53 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The point is that you simply can not admit to being wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your blanket statement that a cash buyer of a house with K&T could not insure
>>>>>>>>>>>> is just not true 100% of the time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You can post a million words about known examples where it would be difficult if not
>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible to insure, but that still doesn't eliminate the ability in every single case.
>>>>>>>>>>> And YOU mr Derby, have to nit-pick at everything - You sure can't be
>>>>>>>>>>> wrong - you are an AMERICAN for cripes sake!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES a house with K&T wiring IS uninsurable.
>>>>>>>>>>> Mabee not in some backwater bayou where a house with electricity is a
>>>>>>>>>>> luxury even if it's wired with fencewire using old bud bottles as
>>>>>>>>>>> insulators - but then how many of those hovels are insured???
>>>>>>>>>>> Or where if you know the cheif inspector and drink with him every
>>>>>>>>>>> night and go target shooting with yout AK every weekend with him you
>>>>>>>>>>> can get anything passed - - - -
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - look in the mirror!!!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Man, you do get worked up, don't you?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All caps, multiple punctuation marks, misspellings galore.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wouldn't it be easier to just say. "Sorry, I misspoke"?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That has to be better for your blood pressure than your way of
>>>>>>>>>> handling things.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As far as better way of handling things, tracing a circuit in conduit.
>>>>>>>>> Try a circuit tracer, you disconnect the hot lead at the breaker (or
>>>>>>>>> fure box) hook the tracer up go find all the devices on that circuit.
>>>>>>>> That DOES let you trace the power - sort of - when the circuit does
>>>>>>>> not have a problem - but does not do a good job of tracing neutrals.
>>>>>>>> When not in a conduit a "fox and hound" tracer works but they are
>>>>>>>> almost useless in a metal conduit.
>>>>>>>> Generally finding what is ON a circuit isn't too much of a problem.
>>>>>>>> Finding what circuit it is SUPPOSED to be on when it has "fallen off"
>>>>>>>> for some reason is the fun part - in a building with 4 panels in it,
>>>>>>>> where there appears to be no rhyme or reason to what is on what panel.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One building in particular - where I spent a LOT of time was built as
>>>>>>>> a 4 unit commercial building which was developed as the office
>>>>>>>> headquarters of a notorious financial planning fraudster locally (and
>>>>>>>> foreclosed on before he opened the doors for business) was then
>>>>>>>> redeveloped as the offices of the insurance company that was my major
>>>>>>>> client for 17 years. Lots of changes were made by the developer.
>>>>>>>> Then more changes were made as time went on - and I ended up
>>>>>>>> trobleshooting a lot of issues. A real pain in the butt!! Complicating
>>>>>>>> matters was the way some of the creditors removed equipment that was
>>>>>>>> unpaid for when they came back to reclaim it - - - - - - (from the
>>>>>>>> original tennant.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So no matter what I come up with you are going to trash the idea,
>>>>>>> right?
>>>>>> No. There are many devices that can be used to make tracing and
>>>>>> troubleshooting individual conductor circuits in conduit and raceway
>>>>>> easier - but NOTHING will make it as simple as following cable.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have found just following the cable simple way to figure out where
>>>>> the conduit runs. Unless you have a situation where you should just
>>>>> tear it out and start over because of others incompetence.
>>>> Follow what cable? The wires run through conduit from the panel to
>>>> the outlet - through numerous "pull boxes" through a virtual GRID of
>>>> conduit.
>>>
>>> If you put the tracer on the hot lead you can follow it at the outlet
>>> and switch boxes, conduit does not act like a faraday cage.
>>
>> In conduit that only tells you where the "hot lead" is going. You
>> seem to have the impression that the normal procedure is to pull
>> multiconductor cable through conduit. That is something that is
>> sometimes done where a multiconductor cable has to pass through an
>> exposed area and needs protection, but the norm is separate,
>> independent conductors.
>
>GUARD #1: Halt! Who goes there?
>
>ARTHUR: It is I, Arthur, son of Uther Pendragon, from the castle of
>Camelot. King of the Britons, defeator of the Saxons, sovereign of all
>England!
>
>GUARD #1: Pull the other one!
>
>ARTHUR: I am. And this my trusty servant Patsy. We have ridden the
>length and breadth of the land in search of knights who will join me
>in my court at Camelot. I must speak with your lord and master.
>
>GUARD #1: What, ridden on a horse?
>
>ARTHUR: Yes!
>
>GUARD #1: You're using coconuts!
>
>ARTHUR: What?
>
>GUARD #1: You've got two empty halves of coconut and you're bangin' 'em
>together.
>
>ARTHUR: So? We have ridden since the snows of winter covered this land,
>through the kingdom of Mercea, through...
>
>GUARD #1: Where'd you get the coconut?
>
>ARTHUR: We found them.
>
>GUARD #1: Found them? In Mercea? The coconut's tropical!
>
>ARTHUR: What do you mean?
>
>GUARD #1: Well, this is a temperate zone.
>
>ARTHUR: The swallow may fly south with the sun or the house martin or
>the plumber may seek warmer climes in winter yet these are not strangers
>to our land.
>
>GUARD #1: Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?
>
>ARTHUR: Not at all, they could be carried.
>
>GUARD #1: What, a swallow carrying a coconut?
>
>ARTHUR: It could grip it by the husk!
>
>GUARD #1: It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple
>question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a one pound
>coconut.
>
>ARTHUR: Well, it doesn't matter. Will you go and tell your master that
>Arthur from the Court of Camelot is here.
>
>GUARD #1: Listen, in order to maintain air-speed velocity, a swallow
>needs to beat its wings 43 times every second, right?
>
>ARTHUR: Please!
>
>GUARD #1: Am I right?
>
>ARTHUR: I'm not interested!
>
>GUARD #2: It could be carried by an African swallow!
>
>GUARD #1: Oh, yeah, an African swallow maybe, but not a European
>swallow, that's my point.
>
>GUARD #2: Oh, yeah, I agree with that.
>
>ARTHUR: Will you ask your master if he wants to join my court at Camelot?!
>
>GUARD #1: But then of course African swallows are not migratory.
>
>GUARD #2: Oh, yeah.
>
>GUARD #1: So they couldn't bring a coconut back anyway... [clop clop]
>
>GUARD #2: Wait a minute -- supposing two swallows carried it together?
>
>GUARD #1: No, they'd have to have it on a line.
>
>GUARD #2: Well, simple! They'd just use a strand of creeper!
>
>GUARD #1: What, held under the dorsal guiding feathers?
>
>GUARD #2: Well, why not?
Like 'enry 'iggins once said (slightly paraphrased) "By George, I
think youve got it!!!!"
On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 19:43:20 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 18:30:03 -0500, J. Clarke
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 17:06:38 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 17:24:23 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:27:36 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:55:11 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 08:42:49 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 20:59:13 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 13:41:06 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:24:27 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 12:45:53 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >The point is that you simply can not admit to being wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >Your blanket statement that a cash buyer of a house with K&T could not insure
>>>>>>>>>>> >is just not true 100% of the time.
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >You can post a million words about known examples where it would be difficult if not
>>>>>>>>>>> >impossible to insure, but that still doesn't eliminate the ability in every single case.
>>>>>>>>>>> And YOU mr Derby, have to nit-pick at everything - You sure can't be
>>>>>>>>>>> wrong - you are an AMERICAN for cripes sake!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES a house with K&T wiring IS uninsurable.
>>>>>>>>>>> Mabee not in some backwater bayou where a house with electricity is a
>>>>>>>>>>> luxury even if it's wired with fencewire using old bud bottles as
>>>>>>>>>>> insulators - but then how many of those hovels are insured???
>>>>>>>>>>> Or where if you know the cheif inspector and drink with him every
>>>>>>>>>>> night and go target shooting with yout AK every weekend with him you
>>>>>>>>>>> can get anything passed - - - -
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - look in the mirror!!!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Man, you do get worked up, don't you?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>All caps, multiple punctuation marks, misspellings galore.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Wouldn't it be easier to just say. "Sorry, I misspoke"?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>That has to be better for your blood pressure than your way of
>>>>>>>>>>handling things.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>As far as better way of handling things, tracing a circuit in conduit.
>>>>>>>>>Try a circuit tracer, you disconnect the hot lead at the breaker (or
>>>>>>>>>fure box) hook the tracer up go find all the devices on that circuit.
>>>>>>>> That DOES let you trace the power - sort of - when the circuit does
>>>>>>>>not have a problem - but does not do a good job of tracing neutrals.
>>>>>>>>When not in a conduit a "fox and hound" tracer works but they are
>>>>>>>>almost useless in a metal conduit.
>>>>>>>> Generally finding what is ON a circuit isn't too much of a problem.
>>>>>>>>Finding what circuit it is SUPPOSED to be on when it has "fallen off"
>>>>>>>>for some reason is the fun part - in a building with 4 panels in it,
>>>>>>>>where there appears to be no rhyme or reason to what is on what panel.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>One building in particular - where I spent a LOT of time was built as
>>>>>>>>a 4 unit commercial building which was developed as the office
>>>>>>>>headquarters of a notorious financial planning fraudster locally (and
>>>>>>>>foreclosed on before he opened the doors for business) was then
>>>>>>>>redeveloped as the offices of the insurance company that was my major
>>>>>>>>client for 17 years. Lots of changes were made by the developer.
>>>>>>>>Then more changes were made as time went on - and I ended up
>>>>>>>>trobleshooting a lot of issues. A real pain in the butt!! Complicating
>>>>>>>>matters was the way some of the creditors removed equipment that was
>>>>>>>>unpaid for when they came back to reclaim it - - - - - - (from the
>>>>>>>>original tennant.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So no matter what I come up with you are going to trash the idea,
>>>>>>>right?
>>>>>> No. There are many devices that can be used to make tracing and
>>>>>>troubleshooting individual conductor circuits in conduit and raceway
>>>>>>easier - but NOTHING will make it as simple as following cable.
>>>>>
>>>>>I have found just following the cable simple way to figure out where
>>>>>the conduit runs. Unless you have a situation where you should just
>>>>>tear it out and start over because of others incompetence.
>>>> Follow what cable? The wires run through conduit from the panel to
>>>>the outlet - through numerous "pull boxes" through a virtual GRID of
>>>>conduit.
>>>
>>>If you put the tracer on the hot lead you can follow it at the outlet
>>>and switch boxes, conduit does not act like a faraday cage.
>>
>>In conduit that only tells you where the "hot lead" is going. You
>>seem to have the impression that the normal procedure is to pull
>>multiconductor cable through conduit. That is something that is
>>sometimes done where a multiconductor cable has to pass through an
>>exposed area and needs protection, but the norm is separate,
>>independent conductors.
>
>In house wiring. You are over thinking it.
Conduit is not the norm in house wiring.
On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 19:43:20 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 18:30:03 -0500, J. Clarke
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 17:06:38 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 17:24:23 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:27:36 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:55:11 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 08:42:49 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 20:59:13 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 13:41:06 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:24:27 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 12:45:53 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >The point is that you simply can not admit to being wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >Your blanket statement that a cash buyer of a house with K&T could not insure
>>>>>>>>>>> >is just not true 100% of the time.
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >You can post a million words about known examples where it would be difficult if not
>>>>>>>>>>> >impossible to insure, but that still doesn't eliminate the ability in every single case.
>>>>>>>>>>> And YOU mr Derby, have to nit-pick at everything - You sure can't be
>>>>>>>>>>> wrong - you are an AMERICAN for cripes sake!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES a house with K&T wiring IS uninsurable.
>>>>>>>>>>> Mabee not in some backwater bayou where a house with electricity is a
>>>>>>>>>>> luxury even if it's wired with fencewire using old bud bottles as
>>>>>>>>>>> insulators - but then how many of those hovels are insured???
>>>>>>>>>>> Or where if you know the cheif inspector and drink with him every
>>>>>>>>>>> night and go target shooting with yout AK every weekend with him you
>>>>>>>>>>> can get anything passed - - - -
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - look in the mirror!!!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Man, you do get worked up, don't you?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>All caps, multiple punctuation marks, misspellings galore.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Wouldn't it be easier to just say. "Sorry, I misspoke"?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>That has to be better for your blood pressure than your way of
>>>>>>>>>>handling things.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>As far as better way of handling things, tracing a circuit in conduit.
>>>>>>>>>Try a circuit tracer, you disconnect the hot lead at the breaker (or
>>>>>>>>>fure box) hook the tracer up go find all the devices on that circuit.
>>>>>>>> That DOES let you trace the power - sort of - when the circuit does
>>>>>>>>not have a problem - but does not do a good job of tracing neutrals.
>>>>>>>>When not in a conduit a "fox and hound" tracer works but they are
>>>>>>>>almost useless in a metal conduit.
>>>>>>>> Generally finding what is ON a circuit isn't too much of a problem.
>>>>>>>>Finding what circuit it is SUPPOSED to be on when it has "fallen off"
>>>>>>>>for some reason is the fun part - in a building with 4 panels in it,
>>>>>>>>where there appears to be no rhyme or reason to what is on what panel.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>One building in particular - where I spent a LOT of time was built as
>>>>>>>>a 4 unit commercial building which was developed as the office
>>>>>>>>headquarters of a notorious financial planning fraudster locally (and
>>>>>>>>foreclosed on before he opened the doors for business) was then
>>>>>>>>redeveloped as the offices of the insurance company that was my major
>>>>>>>>client for 17 years. Lots of changes were made by the developer.
>>>>>>>>Then more changes were made as time went on - and I ended up
>>>>>>>>trobleshooting a lot of issues. A real pain in the butt!! Complicating
>>>>>>>>matters was the way some of the creditors removed equipment that was
>>>>>>>>unpaid for when they came back to reclaim it - - - - - - (from the
>>>>>>>>original tennant.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So no matter what I come up with you are going to trash the idea,
>>>>>>>right?
>>>>>> No. There are many devices that can be used to make tracing and
>>>>>>troubleshooting individual conductor circuits in conduit and raceway
>>>>>>easier - but NOTHING will make it as simple as following cable.
>>>>>
>>>>>I have found just following the cable simple way to figure out where
>>>>>the conduit runs. Unless you have a situation where you should just
>>>>>tear it out and start over because of others incompetence.
>>>> Follow what cable? The wires run through conduit from the panel to
>>>>the outlet - through numerous "pull boxes" through a virtual GRID of
>>>>conduit.
>>>
>>>If you put the tracer on the hot lead you can follow it at the outlet
>>>and switch boxes, conduit does not act like a faraday cage.
>>
>>In conduit that only tells you where the "hot lead" is going. You
>>seem to have the impression that the normal procedure is to pull
>>multiconductor cable through conduit. That is something that is
>>sometimes done where a multiconductor cable has to pass through an
>>exposed area and needs protection, but the norm is separate,
>>independent conductors.
>
>In house wiring. You are over thinking it.
Thank GOD in Ontario in single unit and all stick framed residential
units we don't have to use the infernal stuff!!!!
>
>The point is that you simply can not admit to being wrong.
>
>Your blanket statement that a cash buyer of a house with K&T could not insure
>is just not true 100% of the time.
>
>You can post a million words about known examples where it would be difficult if not
>impossible to insure, but that still doesn't eliminate the ability in every single case.
And YOU mr Derby, have to nit-pick at everything - You sure can't be
wrong - you are an AMERICAN for cripes sake!!!
FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES a house with K&T wiring IS uninsurable.
Mabee not in some backwater bayou where a house with electricity is a
luxury even if it's wired with fencewire using old bud bottles as
insulators - but then how many of those hovels are insured???
Or where if you know the cheif inspector and drink with him every
night and go target shooting with yout AK every weekend with him you
can get anything passed - - - -
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - look in the mirror!!!
On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 18:30:03 -0500, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 17:06:38 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 17:24:23 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:27:36 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:55:11 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 08:42:49 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 20:59:13 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 13:41:06 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:24:27 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 12:45:53 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> >The point is that you simply can not admit to being wrong.
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> >Your blanket statement that a cash buyer of a house with K&T could not insure
>>>>>>>>>> >is just not true 100% of the time.
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> >You can post a million words about known examples where it would be difficult if not
>>>>>>>>>> >impossible to insure, but that still doesn't eliminate the ability in every single case.
>>>>>>>>>> And YOU mr Derby, have to nit-pick at everything - You sure can't be
>>>>>>>>>> wrong - you are an AMERICAN for cripes sake!!!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES a house with K&T wiring IS uninsurable.
>>>>>>>>>> Mabee not in some backwater bayou where a house with electricity is a
>>>>>>>>>> luxury even if it's wired with fencewire using old bud bottles as
>>>>>>>>>> insulators - but then how many of those hovels are insured???
>>>>>>>>>> Or where if you know the cheif inspector and drink with him every
>>>>>>>>>> night and go target shooting with yout AK every weekend with him you
>>>>>>>>>> can get anything passed - - - -
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - look in the mirror!!!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Man, you do get worked up, don't you?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>All caps, multiple punctuation marks, misspellings galore.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Wouldn't it be easier to just say. "Sorry, I misspoke"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>That has to be better for your blood pressure than your way of
>>>>>>>>>handling things.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>As far as better way of handling things, tracing a circuit in conduit.
>>>>>>>>Try a circuit tracer, you disconnect the hot lead at the breaker (or
>>>>>>>>fure box) hook the tracer up go find all the devices on that circuit.
>>>>>>> That DOES let you trace the power - sort of - when the circuit does
>>>>>>>not have a problem - but does not do a good job of tracing neutrals.
>>>>>>>When not in a conduit a "fox and hound" tracer works but they are
>>>>>>>almost useless in a metal conduit.
>>>>>>> Generally finding what is ON a circuit isn't too much of a problem.
>>>>>>>Finding what circuit it is SUPPOSED to be on when it has "fallen off"
>>>>>>>for some reason is the fun part - in a building with 4 panels in it,
>>>>>>>where there appears to be no rhyme or reason to what is on what panel.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>One building in particular - where I spent a LOT of time was built as
>>>>>>>a 4 unit commercial building which was developed as the office
>>>>>>>headquarters of a notorious financial planning fraudster locally (and
>>>>>>>foreclosed on before he opened the doors for business) was then
>>>>>>>redeveloped as the offices of the insurance company that was my major
>>>>>>>client for 17 years. Lots of changes were made by the developer.
>>>>>>>Then more changes were made as time went on - and I ended up
>>>>>>>trobleshooting a lot of issues. A real pain in the butt!! Complicating
>>>>>>>matters was the way some of the creditors removed equipment that was
>>>>>>>unpaid for when they came back to reclaim it - - - - - - (from the
>>>>>>>original tennant.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So no matter what I come up with you are going to trash the idea,
>>>>>>right?
>>>>> No. There are many devices that can be used to make tracing and
>>>>>troubleshooting individual conductor circuits in conduit and raceway
>>>>>easier - but NOTHING will make it as simple as following cable.
>>>>
>>>>I have found just following the cable simple way to figure out where
>>>>the conduit runs. Unless you have a situation where you should just
>>>>tear it out and start over because of others incompetence.
>>> Follow what cable? The wires run through conduit from the panel to
>>>the outlet - through numerous "pull boxes" through a virtual GRID of
>>>conduit.
>>
>>If you put the tracer on the hot lead you can follow it at the outlet
>>and switch boxes, conduit does not act like a faraday cage.
>
>In conduit that only tells you where the "hot lead" is going. You
>seem to have the impression that the normal procedure is to pull
>multiconductor cable through conduit. That is something that is
>sometimes done where a multiconductor cable has to pass through an
>exposed area and needs protection, but the norm is separate,
>independent conductors.
Separate independent conductors are not just the "norm" - it is all
that is allowed except for short runs for "protection".
On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 18:30:03 -0500, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 17:06:38 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 17:24:23 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:27:36 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:55:11 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 08:42:49 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 20:59:13 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 13:41:06 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:24:27 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 12:45:53 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> >The point is that you simply can not admit to being wrong.
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> >Your blanket statement that a cash buyer of a house with K&T could not insure
>>>>>>>>>> >is just not true 100% of the time.
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> >You can post a million words about known examples where it would be difficult if not
>>>>>>>>>> >impossible to insure, but that still doesn't eliminate the ability in every single case.
>>>>>>>>>> And YOU mr Derby, have to nit-pick at everything - You sure can't be
>>>>>>>>>> wrong - you are an AMERICAN for cripes sake!!!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES a house with K&T wiring IS uninsurable.
>>>>>>>>>> Mabee not in some backwater bayou where a house with electricity is a
>>>>>>>>>> luxury even if it's wired with fencewire using old bud bottles as
>>>>>>>>>> insulators - but then how many of those hovels are insured???
>>>>>>>>>> Or where if you know the cheif inspector and drink with him every
>>>>>>>>>> night and go target shooting with yout AK every weekend with him you
>>>>>>>>>> can get anything passed - - - -
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - look in the mirror!!!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Man, you do get worked up, don't you?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>All caps, multiple punctuation marks, misspellings galore.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Wouldn't it be easier to just say. "Sorry, I misspoke"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>That has to be better for your blood pressure than your way of
>>>>>>>>>handling things.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>As far as better way of handling things, tracing a circuit in conduit.
>>>>>>>>Try a circuit tracer, you disconnect the hot lead at the breaker (or
>>>>>>>>fure box) hook the tracer up go find all the devices on that circuit.
>>>>>>> That DOES let you trace the power - sort of - when the circuit does
>>>>>>>not have a problem - but does not do a good job of tracing neutrals.
>>>>>>>When not in a conduit a "fox and hound" tracer works but they are
>>>>>>>almost useless in a metal conduit.
>>>>>>> Generally finding what is ON a circuit isn't too much of a problem.
>>>>>>>Finding what circuit it is SUPPOSED to be on when it has "fallen off"
>>>>>>>for some reason is the fun part - in a building with 4 panels in it,
>>>>>>>where there appears to be no rhyme or reason to what is on what panel.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>One building in particular - where I spent a LOT of time was built as
>>>>>>>a 4 unit commercial building which was developed as the office
>>>>>>>headquarters of a notorious financial planning fraudster locally (and
>>>>>>>foreclosed on before he opened the doors for business) was then
>>>>>>>redeveloped as the offices of the insurance company that was my major
>>>>>>>client for 17 years. Lots of changes were made by the developer.
>>>>>>>Then more changes were made as time went on - and I ended up
>>>>>>>trobleshooting a lot of issues. A real pain in the butt!! Complicating
>>>>>>>matters was the way some of the creditors removed equipment that was
>>>>>>>unpaid for when they came back to reclaim it - - - - - - (from the
>>>>>>>original tennant.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So no matter what I come up with you are going to trash the idea,
>>>>>>right?
>>>>> No. There are many devices that can be used to make tracing and
>>>>>troubleshooting individual conductor circuits in conduit and raceway
>>>>>easier - but NOTHING will make it as simple as following cable.
>>>>
>>>>I have found just following the cable simple way to figure out where
>>>>the conduit runs. Unless you have a situation where you should just
>>>>tear it out and start over because of others incompetence.
>>> Follow what cable? The wires run through conduit from the panel to
>>>the outlet - through numerous "pull boxes" through a virtual GRID of
>>>conduit.
>>
>>If you put the tracer on the hot lead you can follow it at the outlet
>>and switch boxes, conduit does not act like a faraday cage.
>
>In conduit that only tells you where the "hot lead" is going. You
>seem to have the impression that the normal procedure is to pull
>multiconductor cable through conduit. That is something that is
>sometimes done where a multiconductor cable has to pass through an
>exposed area and needs protection, but the norm is separate,
>independent conductors.
In house wiring. You are over thinking it.
On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 21:04:18 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 16:13:40 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 2:22:12 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 06:35:25 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 3:15:03 AM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>> >> On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 22:38:00 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 23:06:46 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>> >> >wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> No - you are wrong - because a "240 volt breaker" is a common trip 2
>>> >> >>pole 120 volt breaker. It is basically 2 120 volt breakers on opposite
>>> >> >>sides of the panel wired in series with the center-tap being the
>>> >> >>shared neutral.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>Don't spout off about things you OBVIOUSLY have no knowlege of.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >So my advice to the original poster is get an electrician rather than
>>> >> >depend upon the myriad of thoughts expressed here.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Any thoughts on that sir?
>>> >> I said a few days ago if he had to ask the question perhaps he should
>>> >> have an electrician do the job. Nowhere did I say HE should do the
>>> >> job. I just said it could be done, without a subpanel, and without
>>> >> replacingthe wire. I dissagree with running an external ground - which
>>> >> would NOT pass inspection here in Ontario Canada. - 4 wire will give
>>> >> him 2 circuits - 3 wire will give him one. At least that's what would
>>> >> pass here and what a qualified electrician would agree to here. My Dad
>>> >> was an electrician and he taught me a lot.
>>> >
>>> >Assuming the OP is working within the US NEC arena, why would you disagree
>>> >with a code-compliant external ground?
>>
>>
>>> If it is accepted in his jurisdiction, OK - and if it is an external
>>> GROUND - but a lot of old drier 3 wire plugs were on 2 wire plus
>>> ground - which would mean in most cases only 2 insulated wires -
>>> requiring an external NEUTRAL which IS verbotten.
>>>
>>> If the cable contains red, black, and white you may (in some cases) be
>>> allowed to run an external ground and use the white for the common
>>> neutral.
>>> If it has black and red or black and white with either green or bare
>>> you can not use the green or bare as the neutral - it is GROUND ONLY -
>>> and you can NOT run an external neutral wire. ( to the best of my
>>> knowlege)
>>
>>I asked a very simple question to which you provided an answer with a lot of unrelated stuff (unrelated to my question, that is).
>>
>>You said: "I dissagree [sic] with running an external ground"
>>
>>I asked: "...why would you disagree with a code-compliant external ground?"
>>
>>You could have stopped right after "If it is accepted in his jurisdiction,
>>OK"
>>
>>Bottom line, it appears that you *don't* disagree with running an code-
>>compliant external ground, which (your disagreement) is the only thing I
>>asked about.
>>
>>Now I'm curious as to why you said you disagree, when in fact, you do not.
> "I" dissagree - code may not. Here I can't get away with it. (unless
>it is strapped to the cable for the full length making it
>"effectively" part of the cable). If you can get to the cable the full
>lenth to strap on the ground you may as well pull out the deficient
>cable and pull in the proper 3 wire plus ground cable.
> It USED to be acceptable to connect the safety ground to a water
>pipe. That is no longer kosher. (for good reason) Also USED to be able
>to use EMT conduit as safety ground. Also no longer allowed.
Boy that could get the electricians in Cook County a lot of sidejobs
pulling ground wires in conduit.
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 7:19:12 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 13:48:08 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> #4 certainly looks like it would cover it. I'm really surprised
> because future modifications could disconnect the safety ground.
Actually I would have gone with #3, assuming that was physically possible.
Single ground wire from the receptacle back to the panel. BTDT
On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Snyder wrote:
An additional question: This is for a treadmill. It will be in a room right=
next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (unused). Will the=
electrician be able to use that connection to create an outlet for the tre=
admill, or will he/she have to run a totally new connection for the 17A fro=
m the fusebox?
Thanks for the help!
On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 2:22:12 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 06:35:25 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 3:15:03 AM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
> >> On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 22:38:00 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 23:06:46 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> No - you are wrong - because a "240 volt breaker" is a common trip 2
> >> >>pole 120 volt breaker. It is basically 2 120 volt breakers on opposite
> >> >>sides of the panel wired in series with the center-tap being the
> >> >>shared neutral.
> >> >>
> >> >>Don't spout off about things you OBVIOUSLY have no knowlege of.
> >> >
> >> >So my advice to the original poster is get an electrician rather than
> >> >depend upon the myriad of thoughts expressed here.
> >> >
> >> >Any thoughts on that sir?
> >> I said a few days ago if he had to ask the question perhaps he should
> >> have an electrician do the job. Nowhere did I say HE should do the
> >> job. I just said it could be done, without a subpanel, and without
> >> replacingthe wire. I dissagree with running an external ground - which
> >> would NOT pass inspection here in Ontario Canada. - 4 wire will give
> >> him 2 circuits - 3 wire will give him one. At least that's what would
> >> pass here and what a qualified electrician would agree to here. My Dad
> >> was an electrician and he taught me a lot.
> >
> >Assuming the OP is working within the US NEC arena, why would you disagree
> >with a code-compliant external ground?
> If it is accepted in his jurisdiction, OK - and if it is an external
> GROUND - but a lot of old drier 3 wire plugs were on 2 wire plus
> ground - which would mean in most cases only 2 insulated wires -
> requiring an external NEUTRAL which IS verbotten.
>
> If the cable contains red, black, and white you may (in some cases) be
> allowed to run an external ground and use the white for the common
> neutral.
> If it has black and red or black and white with either green or bare
> you can not use the green or bare as the neutral - it is GROUND ONLY -
> and you can NOT run an external neutral wire. ( to the best of my
> knowlege)
I asked a very simple question to which you provided an answer with a lot of unrelated stuff (unrelated to my question, that is).
You said: "I dissagree [sic] with running an external ground"
I asked: "...why would you disagree with a code-compliant external ground?"
You could have stopped right after "If it is accepted in his jurisdiction,
OK"
Bottom line, it appears that you *don't* disagree with running an code-
compliant external ground, which (your disagreement) is the only thing I
asked about.
Now I'm curious as to why you said you disagree, when in fact, you do not.
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 22:02:54 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 19:56:22 -0500, J. Clarke
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 19:31:49 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 16:37:25 -0500, J. Clarke
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 15:10:06 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 21:55:55 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 22:22:02 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 18:27:55 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 9:04:24 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 16:13:40 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 2:22:12 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 06:35:25 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>>>>>>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> >On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 3:15:03 AM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >> >> On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 22:38:00 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>> >> >> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> >> >On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 23:06:46 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>> >> >> >wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> No - you are wrong - because a "240 volt breaker" is a common trip 2
>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>pole 120 volt breaker. It is basically 2 120 volt breakers on opposite
>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>sides of the panel wired in series with the center-tap being the
>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>shared neutral.
>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>Don't spout off about things you OBVIOUSLY have no knowlege of.
>>>>>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>>>>>> >> >> >So my advice to the original poster is get an electrician rather than
>>>>>>>>> >> >> >depend upon the myriad of thoughts expressed here.
>>>>>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>>>>>> >> >> >Any thoughts on that sir?
>>>>>>>>> >> >> I said a few days ago if he had to ask the question perhaps he should
>>>>>>>>> >> >> have an electrician do the job. Nowhere did I say HE should do the
>>>>>>>>> >> >> job. I just said it could be done, without a subpanel, and without
>>>>>>>>> >> >> replacingthe wire. I dissagree with running an external ground - which
>>>>>>>>> >> >> would NOT pass inspection here in Ontario Canada. - 4 wire will give
>>>>>>>>> >> >> him 2 circuits - 3 wire will give him one. At least that's what would
>>>>>>>>> >> >> pass here and what a qualified electrician would agree to here. My Dad
>>>>>>>>> >> >> was an electrician and he taught me a lot.
>>>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>>> >> >Assuming the OP is working within the US NEC arena, why would you disagree
>>>>>>>>> >> >with a code-compliant external ground?
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >> If it is accepted in his jurisdiction, OK - and if it is an external
>>>>>>>>> >> GROUND - but a lot of old drier 3 wire plugs were on 2 wire plus
>>>>>>>>> >> ground - which would mean in most cases only 2 insulated wires -
>>>>>>>>> >> requiring an external NEUTRAL which IS verbotten.
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> If the cable contains red, black, and white you may (in some cases) be
>>>>>>>>> >> allowed to run an external ground and use the white for the common
>>>>>>>>> >> neutral.
>>>>>>>>> >> If it has black and red or black and white with either green or bare
>>>>>>>>> >> you can not use the green or bare as the neutral - it is GROUND ONLY -
>>>>>>>>> >> and you can NOT run an external neutral wire. ( to the best of my
>>>>>>>>> >> knowlege)
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >I asked a very simple question to which you provided an answer with a lot of unrelated stuff (unrelated to my question, that is).
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >You said: "I dissagree [sic] with running an external ground"
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >I asked: "...why would you disagree with a code-compliant external ground?"
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >You could have stopped right after "If it is accepted in his jurisdiction,
>>>>>>>>> >OK"
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >Bottom line, it appears that you *don't* disagree with running an code-
>>>>>>>>> >compliant external ground, which (your disagreement) is the only thing I
>>>>>>>>> >asked about.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >Now I'm curious as to why you said you disagree, when in fact, you do not.
>>>>>>>>> "I" dissagree - code may not. Here I can't get away with it. (unless
>>>>>>>>> it is strapped to the cable for the full length making it
>>>>>>>>> "effectively" part of the cable). If you can get to the cable the full
>>>>>>>>> lenth to strap on the ground you may as well pull out the deficient
>>>>>>>>> cable and pull in the proper 3 wire plus ground cable.
>>>>>>>>> It USED to be acceptable to connect the safety ground to a water
>>>>>>>>> pipe. That is no longer kosher. (for good reason) Also USED to be able
>>>>>>>>> to use EMT conduit as safety ground. Also no longer allowed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You still haven't explained *why* you disagree. I didn't ask whether it was
>>>>>>>>compliant in Ontario. I didn't ask what installation method might make it
>>>>>>>>compliant in Ontario. I didn't ask about old code language related to water
>>>>>>>>pipes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I'm not sure why you keep answering questions that I'm not asking.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In fact, I'm not even sure that you actually disagree. Earlier you said "OK".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>So which is it? Do you disagree with using a code-compliant external ground
>>>>>>>>or not? If you do, tell us why. Nothing else, just *why* you disagree with
>>>>>>>>using a code-compliant external ground.
>>>>>>> No I don't agree with it because it's a dumb-ass redneck hack. Just
>>>>>>>because the fools who write code in the USA allow it doesn't mean it
>>>>>>>is right or safe. The reason we use "cable" instead of individual
>>>>>>>wires is to ensure all conductors for a given circuit are kept
>>>>>>>together so unidentified or separate conductors don't get "lost" down
>>>>>>>the way. A safety ground is for "safety" and it is meant to be an
>>>>>>>"integrated" safety solution.
>>>>>>>Another reason I can't figure out why some American jurisdictions
>>>>>>>require conduit and wire instead of cable for residential use. Bad
>>>>>>>enough trying to sort out the spiderweb in industrial and commercial
>>>>>>>premises after a dew electricians have had their fingers into it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The reason why conduit was require is money, the unions and
>>>>>>contractors had enough influence to get it in as the code. Cook County
>>>>>>Illinois, also required cast iron DVW above ground, til recently when
>>>>>>the reduction in cost of PVC and ABS was realized.
>>>>> Crook county is a totally different UNIVERSE.
>>>>>
>>>>>Cast iron has been basically DEAD up here for over 30 years - and like
>>>>>knob and tube wiring is virtually uninsureable. Copper DVW is just
>>>>>about as bad (for good reason)
>>>>> Insurance companies are NOT in the business of taking risks - no
>>>>>matter WHAT you may believe.
>>>>
>>>>One of the requirements for issuance of insurance is that there be an
>>>>"insurable risk". If there were no risks there would be no need for
>>>>insurance.
>>>>
>>>>> With water damage claims becoming the MAJORITY of insured losses -
>>>>>including mold damage from "incipient leaks", insurers are getting
>>>>>REALLY gun-shy. Used to be insurers made their money on investing the
>>>>>premiums,
>>>>
>>>>Actually the ability of insurers to invest premiums is controlled by
>>>>regulations. Insurers most assuredly do make their money by
>>>>collecting premiums and selling product. There is an investment
>>>>component but it is not the major source of income. Note that that is
>>>>not a guess on my part--I do these calculations for a living.
>>>>
>>>>>and paid out losses from the investment income. That
>>>>>investment income has pretty much evaporated at the same time claim
>>>>>costs have sky-rocketed.
>>>>
>>>>What leads you to believe that claim costs have "sky-rocketed"?
>>> How's 17 years in the general insurance industry????
>>
>>Doing what? Actuary? Underwriter? Quant? Customer service? Do you
>>have statistics?
> Tech support - and good friend of the president of the company - and
>my daughter is manager - largest general insurance brokerage in the
>tri-cities.
> Also reading a LOT of statistics -
>
>Take a look at:
>https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-us-catastrophes
>Also see:
>https://www.iii.org/graph-archive/218208
>and:
>https://www.iii.org/graph-archive/218209
>
>and:
>https://www.iii.org/graph-archive/218222
>
>and:
>https://www.iii.org/sites/default/files/images/factstat_uscatastrophe_5.gif
> as well as:
>https://www.iii.org/table-archive/20922
>
> 2017 was the worst year up untill this year - the figures for 2019
>are not out yet - Worlswide insured losses due to natural disasters in
>2016 were US$50,700,000,000. In 2017 that figure was US$
>135,000,000,000.
>2018 dropped back to 80,000,000 - which was a relief to the
>re-insurance market but has not allowed the market to recover fully -
>and 2019 sure isn't looking good either!!!! They are looking to pretty
>well hold steady with 2018 -
>
> In the world market Hurricaine Katrina alone in 2005 cost insurers in
>excess of 82.39BILLION dollars - the largest insured lossby a factor
>of almost 2.5 - with Fukishama in Japan being in second place (38.13
>BILLION US$) Hurricaine Maria in 2017 is third at $32 BILLION. with
>Sandy, Irma and Harvey addin in excess of 30BILLION EACH in 2017.
>You go back to 9-11 with losses of just under 26BILLION in 2001 and
>Hurricaine Andrew in 1992 with losses of 27BILLION.
>
>By just about ANY definition that indicates claim costs skyrocketing
>in general property insurance.
>
>Lots of other information that I can't access any more since I retired
>2 years ago.
>
> From insurancebusinessmag.com
>
>A new report has found that the number of water damage claims
>resulting from leaks have surged in recent years, as other types of
>claims have declined in frequency.
>
>The report, prepared by Verisk Analyticsâ ISO unit, found that one in
>50 homeowners filed a water damage claim each year, between 2013 and
>2017. This 2.05% frequency rate is a noticeable increase from the
>1.44% frequency rate annually for the period between 2005 and 2009.
>Industry figures have also highlighted that the increase in water
>damage claims occurred even as other types of claims (such as for
>fire) have declined in frequency.
>
>
>
>ISO additionally found that, in 2017, the total amount of insurance
>payouts for water damage was $13 billion. The average claim cost about
>$10,000.
>
>Several industry leaders have confirmed that water damage is just as
>rampant as the data reveals.
>
>âWildfires, hurricanes and tornadoes catch headlines, but the reality
>is that the No. 1 kind of risk that the everyday consumer has is a
>water claim,â USAA assistant vice-president of P&C innovation Jon-Mike
>Kowall told Wall Street Journal.
>
>From Canadian Underwriter.ca:
>
>Water is the most common cause of damage and accounts for 50% of home
>insurance claims costs, Desjardins Group said Thursday. This is
>similar to other recent industry findings, with the Canadian Institute
>of Actuaries saying in a 2014 report that water damage is responsible
>for 48% of Canadian home claims, ahead of theft and fire, which made
>up 18% and 4% of total claims, respectively.
>
>In Desjardinsâ survey â conducted online with 3,020 respondents aged
>16 to 74 across Canada â just over one-quarter (26%) reported having a
>water damage incident in their home. But 43% didnât know how to
>prevent this type of damage (which could include steps such as sealing
>cracks, checking the backwater valve to avoid sewer backup and
>extending downspouts to prevent water seepage).
>
>With more frequent and severe weather incidents like heavy rain,
>lightning storms, hail, freezing-thawing cycles and flooding, there
>has been an increase in the number of water-related insurance claims
>across the country, Desjardins said. When asked if they feel weather
>severity has increased in frequency in the last 10 years, 75% of
>respondents believed it has, with 58% indicating they are worried
>about climate change impacting their personal safety or the safety of
>their property.
>
> From waterdamagedefense.com;
>
>Home Water Damage
>
>When you consider the statistics, it becomes clear just how common and
>devastating a problem water damage can be. According to industry
>estimates, 14,000 people in the US experience a water damage emergency
>at home or work each day, and 98% of basements in the US will suffer
>from some type of water damage during their lifetime.
>
>The costs are just a staggering as the frequency. Water damage and
>mold cost the insurance industry $2.5 billion dollars per year, and
>the average cost of a home water damage insurance claim is $6,965.
>
>Water leaks alone leave incredible amounts of damage and immense waste
>in their wake. Water leaks from homes in the US can exceed 1 trillion
>gallons of water in a year. That's equivalent to the annual water
>usage of Los Angeles, Chicago, and Miami combined! These individual
>leaks often seem tiny, but over time they can generate enormous waste
>and damage to a home. For example, a continuously running toilet can
>waste over 200 gallons of water per day, and a 1/8 inch crack in a
>pipe can spill 250 gallons of water in a day.
>
>
>
> Also, my home town is home to the head offices of 3 of the largest
>insurance COMPANIES in Canada including Manulife Sun Life (formerly
>Mutual Life) and Economical, as well as at least 4 other smaller
>insurance companies. Many of my friends work in the insurance industry
>in head office.
>
> Returns ARE getting better over the last 2 or 3 years after an
>abyssmal start to the 2000 century - particularly the mid-century
>when virtually all the insurance companies were running net losses in
>their investment portfolios.
>
>The worldwide economy and loss record also affects our insurance rates
>through a shortage of affordable re-insurance. The fires in Cali,
>Australia, Alberta, and the Amazon all put a big drain on re-insurers
>like Lloyds of London - as do flooding and brush fires in Portugal,
>flooding in the UK - flooding in Venice - it is a WORLDWIDE market and
>losses anywhere in the world affect underwriting costs - and economic
>dactors world-wide affect the investment income.
>
> From
>https://www.oecd.org/daf/fin/insurance/Global-Insurance-Market-Trends-2018.pdf
>
>Despite positive investment performance of most insurers, returns
>tended to
>be lower in 2017 than in 2016, particularly for non-life insurers.
>Investment
>returns were lower in 2017 in 76% of the reporting countries for
>non-life
>insurers (28 out of 37 countries), in 48% of the reporting countries
>for life
>insurers (16 out of 33 countries) and in 60% of the reporting
>countries for
>composite insurers (12 out of 20 countries). 7
>Despite the normalisation of monetary policy in the US, low interest
>rates
>still represent a challenge for insurers.
>
>This document covers world-wide insurance operations
>LOTS of interesting stuff in there - particularly if you can compare
>it to 10, 15, 20 years back.
I'm not going to go through all this line by line. However most of
your graphs seem to reflect costs due to "catastrophe". Generally
speaking a shorted out branch circuit or a busted pipe wouldn't be
described as "catastrophe"--that would be hurricanes, floods, etc. I
also wonder to what extend broken or rusted DWV would factor into
water damage--my expectation would be that that resulted more from
broken supply pipes and the like. And what percentage of electrical
fires result from failure of the equipment ground?
Note that I'm not disputing your assertions--underwriting is as much
art as science and algo is necessarily simplified compared to human
underwriting--"knob and tube" is an easy checkbox--the inspector's
opinion concerning the condition of that knob-and-tube is more
difficult for an algorithm to deal with.
On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 09:15:29 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 03:14:59 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 22:38:00 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 23:06:46 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> No - you are wrong - because a "240 volt breaker" is a common trip 2
>>>>pole 120 volt breaker. It is basically 2 120 volt breakers on opposite
>>>>sides of the panel wired in series with the center-tap being the
>>>>shared neutral.
>>>>
>>>>Don't spout off about things you OBVIOUSLY have no knowlege of.
>>>
>>>So my advice to the original poster is get an electrician rather than
>>>depend upon the myriad of thoughts expressed here.
>>>
>>>Any thoughts on that sir?
>> I said a few days ago if he had to ask the question perhaps he should
>>have an electrician do the job. Nowhere did I say HE should do the
>>job. I just said it could be done, without a subpanel, and without
>>replacingthe wire. I dissagree with running an external ground - which
>>would NOT pass inspection here in Ontario Canada. - 4 wire will give
>>him 2 circuits - 3 wire will give him one. At least that's what would
>>pass here and what a qualified electrician would agree to here. My Dad
>>was an electrician and he taught me a lot.
>
>Really you said it in this thread, you may have thought it but where
>did you type it out?
Well I INTIMATED it here:"
On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Snyder wrote:
>
>An additional question: This is for a treadmill. It will be in a room right next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (unused). Will the electrician be able to use that connection to create an outlet for the treadmill, or will he/she have to run a totally new connection for the 17A from the fusebox?
>
>Thanks for the help!
Any electrician worth his salt will be able to give you at least one,
and likely 2, 20 amp circuits drom that wire (after changing to a 20
amp braker)
And I guess it was a different thread where I said if he had to ask
the question he shouldn't be doing it and should get an electrician.
I've said that MANY times on both the woodworking and home.repair
groups.
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 22:44:46 -0500, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 22:27:24 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 17:11:43 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sunday, December 29, 2019 at 7:29:18 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 14:32:21 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 15:00:01 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>> >wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 21:20:09 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>> >>wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 20:55:45 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>> >>>wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 13:38:18 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>> >>>>wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 14:30:51 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>> >>>>>wrote:
>>>> >>>>>> Well I INTIMATED it here:"
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
>>>> >>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>An additional question: This is for a treadmill. It will be in a room right next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (unused). Will the electrician be able to use that connection to create an outlet for the treadmill, or will he/she have to run a totally new connection for the 17A from the fusebox?
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>Thanks for the help!
>>>> >>>>>>Any electrician worth his salt will be able to give you at least one,
>>>> >>>>>>and likely 2, 20 amp circuits drom that wire (after changing to a 20
>>>> >>>>>>amp braker)
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> And I guess it was a different thread where I said if he had to ask
>>>> >>>>>>the question he shouldn't be doing it and should get an electrician.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>I've said that MANY times on both the woodworking and home.repair
>>>> >>>>>>groups.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>Good to that you INTIMATED it, but I said get an electrian to look at
>>>> >>>>>it. Because from here I can not see whether it is a grounded dryer
>>>> >>>>>device or just a 2 hot and a neutral device.
>>>> >>>> Or more likely a 2 hot and GROUND
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I have seen both, but then there are still houses that have knob tube
>>>> >>>that are functioning. That is just 2 wires no ground.
>>>> >> Getting fewer and fewer up here. as soon as they change hands the
>>>> >>knob and tube has to go. Almost impossible to get new insurance on a
>>>> >>house with knob and tube or a 60 amp or smaller service up here - and
>>>> >>no insurance means no mortgage
>>>> >
>>>> >So a cash buyer could.
>>>
>>>> He could buy but he could not insure.
>>>
>>>You know what they say about blanket statements...
>>>
>>>From the WireChief Electric Ltd in Vancouver, BC. Their website says
>>>Copywrite 2010-2019, so I guess the following is still current.
>>>
>>>https://www.wirechiefelectric.com/knob-tube-wiring-homeowner-insurance
>>>
>>>*** Begin Copied Text ***
>>>
>>>However, you may still be able to get homeowners insurance if your K&T
>>>system for lighting and power outlets is upgraded to meet the following
>>>conditions:
>>>
>>> - Exposed conductors must be in good condition.
>>>
>>> - Circuits must be protected by a circuit breaker or appropriate fuse.
>>>
>>> - No further outlets are added to the original system.
>>>
>>> - Not used ungrounding plugs in laundry rooms or bathrooms or
>>> outdoors for even a lower risk level.
>>>
>>>Knob-and-Tube wiring repairs may be a good option if budget is a concern.
>
>Not seeing DerbyDad's post so commenting here. Repairing knob and
>tube may not be allowed under code--many localities require that any
>repair be brought up to current code, which for knob and tube may mean
>a complete rewiring job.
>
Don't know about the USA, but "repairing" knob and tube wiring in
Canada would NOT be allowed in most cases. Perhaps on a case by case
basis you MIGHT get ESA approval - but I highly doubt it. Mabee the
last of Knob and Tube wiring where boxes were actually used you MAY be
allowerd to leave K&T wiring in uninsulated ceilings for overhead
lighting - but definitely NOT the common K&T that used surface mount
devices.
On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 12:51:12 AM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 19:57:35 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>=20
> >On Sunday, December 29, 2019 at 10:27:31 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
> >> On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 17:11:43 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>=20
> >> >On Sunday, December 29, 2019 at 7:29:18 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 14:32:21 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>=20
> >> >> >On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 15:00:01 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected].=
ca>
> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 21:20:09 -0600, Markem <[email protected]=
>
> >> >> >>wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 20:55:45 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]=
n.ca>
> >> >> >>>wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 13:38:18 -0600, Markem <[email protected]=
om>
> >> >> >>>>wrote:
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 14:30:51 -0500, Clare Snyder <clare@snyder=
.on.ca>
> >> >> >>>>>wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>> Well I INTIMATED it here:"
> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
> >> >> >>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Sny=
der wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>>An additional question: This is for a treadmill. It will be =
in a room right next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (un=
used). Will the electrician be able to use that connection to create an out=
let for the treadmill, or will he/she have to run a totally new connection =
for the 17A from the fusebox?
> >> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>>Thanks for the help!
> >> >> >>>>>>Any electrician worth his salt will be able to give you at le=
ast one,
> >> >> >>>>>>and likely 2, 20 amp circuits drom that wire (after changing =
to a 20
> >> >> >>>>>>amp braker)
> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>> And I guess it was a different thread where I said if he had=
to ask
> >> >> >>>>>>the question he shouldn't be doing it and should get an elect=
rician.
> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>I've said that MANY times on both the woodworking and home.re=
pair
> >> >> >>>>>>groups.
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>Good to that you INTIMATED it, but I said get an electrian to =
look at
> >> >> >>>>>it. Because from here I can not see whether it is a grounded d=
ryer
> >> >> >>>>>device or just a 2 hot and a neutral device.
> >> >> >>>> Or more likely a 2 hot and GROUND
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> I have seen both, but then there are still houses that have kno=
b tube
> >> >> >>>that are functioning. That is just 2 wires no ground.
> >> >> >> Getting fewer and fewer up here. as soon as they change hands th=
e
> >> >> >>knob and tube has to go. Almost impossible to get new insurance o=
n a
> >> >> >>house with knob and tube or a 60 amp or smaller service up here -=
and
> >> >> >>no insurance means no mortgage
> >> >> >
> >> >> >So a cash buyer could.
> >> >
> >> >> He could buy but he could not insure.=20
> >> >
> >> >You know what they say about blanket statements...
> >> >
> >> >From the WireChief Electric Ltd in Vancouver, BC. Their website says=
=20
> >> >Copywrite 2010-2019, so I guess the following is still current.
> >> >
> >> >https://www.wirechiefelectric.com/knob-tube-wiring-homeowner-insuranc=
e
> >> >
> >> >*** Begin Copied Text ***
> >> >
> >> >However, you may still be able to get homeowner=E2=80=99s insurance i=
f your K&T=20
> >> >system for lighting and power outlets is upgraded to meet the followi=
ng=20
> >> >conditions:
> >> >
> >> > - Exposed conductors must be in good condition.
> >> >
> >> > - Circuits must be protected by a circuit breaker or appropriate fus=
e.
> >> >
> >> > - No further outlets are added to the original system.
> >> >
> >> > - Not used ungrounding plugs in laundry rooms or bathrooms or=20
> >> > outdoors for even a lower risk level.
> >> >
> >> >Knob-and-Tube wiring repairs may be a good option if budget is a conc=
ern.
> >> >
> >> >*** End Copied Text ***
> >> >
> >> >The following was written by a US based insurance agent, also with we=
bsite=20
> >> >dated 2019. Note the words "nearly impossible" and "will consider", a=
s opposed
> >> >to "impossible" and "won't consider".
> >>=20
> >> You better quote that in context:
> >>=20
> >> Why Insurance Companies Don=E2=80=99t Like Knob and Tube Wiring
> >>=20
> >> Many insurance companies won=E2=80=99t cover homes with Knob-and-Tube =
wiring
> >> on the basis of absence of a ground wire. Another issue is difficulty
> >> of access to inspect wiring buried within walls or ceilings.
> >>=20
> >> Insurance providers will also be concerned that Knob-and-Tube wiring
> >> may be a safety hazard due to the addition of building insulation. For
> >> example, additional thermal insulation installed in an attic can
> >> smother the wiring and prevent access to the air it needs for cooling.
> >>=20
> >> Most insurance companies say your home has to have a 100-amp service/
> >> breaker panel. Knob-and-Tube systems run on a 60-amp service.
> >>=20
> >> Other reasons insurance providers are wary about Knob-and-Tube wiring
> >> include concerns over:
> >>=20
> >> General wear and tear =E2=80=93 because the wiring is so old.
> >>=20
> >> Damage =E2=80=93 the ceramic knobs and tubes can crack.
> >>=20
> >> Frayed wires.
> >>=20
> >> Fragile insulation =E2=80=93 K&T insulation can become brittle and fla=
ke with
> >> time.
> >>=20
> >> Dangerous modifications.
> >>=20
> >> Overheating and fire risks.
> >>=20
> >> Modern technology exceeding original supply design.
> >>=20
> >> Upgrading Knob-and-Tube Wiring Systems
> >>=20
> >> To make it easier to get insurance for a home with Knob-and-Tube
> >> wiring, you=E2=80=99ll probably need to have the system updated to mee=
t
> >> today=E2=80=99s electrical safety codes.
> >>=20
> >> This can be tricky, particularly if the original wiring wasn=E2=80=99t
> >> installed properly or it=E2=80=99s been tampered with over the years b=
y
> >> amateurs in a misguided attempt to make it safer or more effective.
> >>=20
> >> However, you may still be able to get homeowner=E2=80=99s insurance if=
your
> >> K&T system for lighting and power outlets is upgraded to meet the
> >> following conditions:
> >>=20
> >> Exposed conductors must be in good condition.
> >>=20
> >> Circuits must be protected by a circuit breaker or appropriate fuse.
> >>=20
> >> No further outlets are added to the original system.
> >>=20
> >> Not used ungrounding plugs in laundry rooms or bathrooms or outdoors
> >> for even a lower risk level.
> >>=20
> >> Knob-and-Tube wiring repairs may be a good option if budget is a
> >> concern.
> >>=20
> >> A better alternative for many homes, though, may be to replace the K&T
> >> system with brand-new electrics.
> >>=20
> >> >
> >> >https://www.regencyinsurance.net/blog/knob-tube-wiring--is-it-making-=
your-home-uninsurable.aspx
> >> Better look closely at this one too - - -=20
> >>=20
> >> The insurance industry is taking a hard stance on homes with Knob &
> >> Tube wiring.=20
> >>=20
> >> This is a controversial subject, and it affects anyone who owns, or is
> >> considering the purchase of an older home in Northeast Ohio. Keep in
> >> mind, I'm not aware of any company cancelling existing policies
> >> because of Knob & Tube wiring at this time. However, the insurance
> >> industry has been quietly restricting underwriting guidelines to the
> >> point where it is nearly impossible to find a standard company willing
> >> to issue a new policy on a home that contains this type of wiring.=20
> >>=20
> >> Let me be clear; I realize many electricians consider this a safe and
> >> effective means of wiring. I'm not arguing for the position insurance
> >> companies are taking. In fact, I'm sometimes frustrated by the
> >> approach. I just think it's time to share what I know, so you are
> >> informed of the challenges this issue is causing.=20
> >>=20
> >> So what is "Knob & Tube" (K&T) wiring? This form of wiring was
> >> installed in homes from the 1880's and into the 1930's for most of the
> >> country. However, it continued to be installed for another 30 years
> >> in parts of Northeast Ohio (I've seen homes in our area with Knob &
> >> Tube that were built as late as 1963).
> >>=20
> >> It consists of two wires, a black "hot wire" and another white or
> >> neutral colored wire to create a circuit. There is no ground wire.=20
> >>=20
> >> The individual wires were run spaced apart at least 2 1/2 inches. As
> >> they passed through walls and floors, they were run through porcelain
> >> "insulating tubes". These were meant to stop arcing that might cause
> >> a fire.
> >>=20
> >> The main concerns are:
> >> =E2=80=A2The wiring is old. The insulation is subject to drying and cr=
acking
> >> and may not be intact, leaving bare wires.=20
> >> =E2=80=A2It's not grounded, making it more hazardous, especially in ar=
eas
> >> where it can come into contact with water such as kitchens and
> >> bathrooms.=20
> >> =E2=80=A2In the past, many older homes had loose fill insulation blown=
into
> >> attics and walls. This material covers the wiring and creates a
> >> potential fire hazard.=20
> >>=20
> >> Although I have no statistics regarding fires caused specifically by
> >> Knob & Tube wiring, according to a March 2017 report on electrical
> >> fires by The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), there was an
> >> average of over 45,000 home fires per year between 2010 and 2014 that
> >> involved some type of electrical failure as a factor contributing to
> >> ignition. Nearly half of these were caused by wiring and related
> >> equipment.=20
> >>=20
> >> This has caused companies to view Knob & Tube wiring as an
> >> unacceptable risk. I've contacted other insurance agents in my area,
> >> and have found only a few who have markets that will consider homes
> >> with limited K&T wiring (in basements or attics) if a licensed
> >> electrician will provide a written statement attesting to its safety.
> >>=20
> >>=20
> >> AND TAKE NOTE OF THE BIG IF!!!!!
> >>=20
> >> " I've contacted other insurance agents in my area, and have found
> >> only a few who have markets that will consider homes with limited K&T
> >> wiring (in basements or attics) IF a licensed electrician will
> >> provide a written statement attesting to its safety"
> >>=20
> >> Good luck getting an eklectrician to stick his kneck out on THAT!!!!!
> >>=20
> >> ANd EXACTLY WHAT did "I" say???
> >> I said "almost impossible" - didn't I???
> >>=20
> >> Show me a home where all of the following apply:
> >>=20
> >> - Exposed conductors must be in good condition.
> >>=20
> >> - Circuits must be protected by a circuit breaker or appropriate
> >> fuse.
> >>=20
> >> - No further outlets are added to the original system.
> >>=20
> >> - Not used ungrounding plugs in laundry rooms or bathrooms or=20
> >> outdoors for even a lower risk level.
> >>=20
> >> Possibly a restored historically significant home - but "restored"
> >> pretty much eliminates " No further outlets are added to the original
> >> system." and rewiring with current technology is MUCH cheaper!!!!!!!
> >>=20
> >> Not to mention you would be hard pressed to get a permit to do ANY
> >> modification/restoration from the ESA - since you are using a Canadian
> >> refference.
> >>=20
> >> Just converting an old knob and tube to a breaker panel is a huge
> >> undertaking - particularly if it was wired with a "Ring Topography"
> >> which WAS common - with 2 or 4 circuits operating the whole house.
> >>=20
> >> Knob and Tube was "virtually never" connected to more than a 60 amp
> >> service - which was FUSED - which eliminates the chance as NO
> >> insurance company in Canada for sure - don't know about the USA - will
> >> insure a home with a 60 amp grid connected electrical service and
> >> fewer and fewer will even write a home with a fuse panel
> >>=20
> >> I'll up the ante from "almost impossible" to "virtually impossible"
> >> for the purposes of this discussion.
> >>=20
> >>=20
> >> Also note I didn't say an insurance company will niot renew a policy -
> >> but the extra cost is often enough to make it financially advantageous
> >> to rewire the house even if the home does not change hands, or
> >> insurance companies.
> >>=20
> >> Not sure what would happen when an insurance company is purchased by
> >> another company - they MAY re-assess at that point and require
> >> upgrades.
> >
> >I did read the entire articles. I specifically quoted the sections that
> >disputed what you actually said, not what you claimed to have said.
> >
> >> ANd EXACTLY WHAT did "I" say???
> >> I said "almost impossible" - didn't I???
> >
> >I replied to, and quoted, *exactly* what you said in the post I responde=
d
> >to.
> >
> >"He could buy but he could not insure."=20
> >
> >Look upwards...it's there.
> For all practical purposes what I said is 100% true.
> You show me ONE instance of a house meeting the very stringent
> requirements required to POSSIBLY be insured with knob and tube wiring
> TODAY.
> I know of MANY that have not been insurable - one or two totally
> unmolested - time capsules if you like - which came as close as
> possible to meeting all the requirements stated above. The main
> disqualifier was the 60 amp service - which COULD NOT be replaced
> without modifying the K&T wiring - for which a permit could NOT be
> issued.
>=20
> The only possibility would have been to install a new service (100
> amp or more) and convert the existing panel to a sub-panel to power
> the K&T system - but they could not get a permit to connect the old
> panel without an extensive inspection of the K&T wiring which could
> NOT be made to comply with current code - what with surface mounted
> non-approved switches and other devices, no grounds, no junction boxes
> and all kinds of inaccessible connections. MUCH simpler (and cheaper)
> to re-wire completely.
>=20
>=20
> My brother's house still has a couple ceiling lights on K&T - but
> with boxes. The boxes were installed when the house was originally
> wired (house was originally lit by "lighting gas" from the coalgas
> plant about a mile away.) My brother is the third owner and the house
> is, IIRC, about 112 years old and double brick so NO wires in the
> outer walls.
>=20
> This may be a problem when he goes to sell the house - - - - He's been
> there about 35 years with the same insurance company.
The point is that you simply can not admit to being wrong.
Your blanket statement that a cash buyer of a house with K&T could not insu=
re=20
is just not true 100% of the time.
You can post a million words about known examples where it would be difficu=
lt if not
impossible to insure, but that still doesn't eliminate the ability in every=
single case.=20
On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 17:04:33 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 17:23:02 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:27:36 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:55:11 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 08:42:49 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 20:59:13 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 13:41:06 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:24:27 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 12:45:53 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >The point is that you simply can not admit to being wrong.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >Your blanket statement that a cash buyer of a house with K&T could not insure
>>>>>>>>> >is just not true 100% of the time.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >You can post a million words about known examples where it would be difficult if not
>>>>>>>>> >impossible to insure, but that still doesn't eliminate the ability in every single case.
>>>>>>>>> And YOU mr Derby, have to nit-pick at everything - You sure can't be
>>>>>>>>> wrong - you are an AMERICAN for cripes sake!!!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES a house with K&T wiring IS uninsurable.
>>>>>>>>> Mabee not in some backwater bayou where a house with electricity is a
>>>>>>>>> luxury even if it's wired with fencewire using old bud bottles as
>>>>>>>>> insulators - but then how many of those hovels are insured???
>>>>>>>>> Or where if you know the cheif inspector and drink with him every
>>>>>>>>> night and go target shooting with yout AK every weekend with him you
>>>>>>>>> can get anything passed - - - -
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - look in the mirror!!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Man, you do get worked up, don't you?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>All caps, multiple punctuation marks, misspellings galore.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Wouldn't it be easier to just say. "Sorry, I misspoke"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That has to be better for your blood pressure than your way of
>>>>>>>>handling things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>As far as better way of handling things, tracing a circuit in conduit.
>>>>>>>Try a circuit tracer, you disconnect the hot lead at the breaker (or
>>>>>>>fure box) hook the tracer up go find all the devices on that circuit.
>>>>>> That DOES let you trace the power - sort of - when the circuit does
>>>>>>not have a problem - but does not do a good job of tracing neutrals.
>>>>>>When not in a conduit a "fox and hound" tracer works but they are
>>>>>>almost useless in a metal conduit.
>>>>>> Generally finding what is ON a circuit isn't too much of a problem.
>>>>>>Finding what circuit it is SUPPOSED to be on when it has "fallen off"
>>>>>>for some reason is the fun part - in a building with 4 panels in it,
>>>>>>where there appears to be no rhyme or reason to what is on what panel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>One building in particular - where I spent a LOT of time was built as
>>>>>>a 4 unit commercial building which was developed as the office
>>>>>>headquarters of a notorious financial planning fraudster locally (and
>>>>>>foreclosed on before he opened the doors for business) was then
>>>>>>redeveloped as the offices of the insurance company that was my major
>>>>>>client for 17 years. Lots of changes were made by the developer.
>>>>>>Then more changes were made as time went on - and I ended up
>>>>>>trobleshooting a lot of issues. A real pain in the butt!! Complicating
>>>>>>matters was the way some of the creditors removed equipment that was
>>>>>>unpaid for when they came back to reclaim it - - - - - - (from the
>>>>>>original tennant.)
>>>>>
>>>>>So no matter what I come up with you are going to trash the idea,
>>>>>right?
>>>> No. There are many devices that can be used to make tracing and
>>>>troubleshooting individual conductor circuits in conduit and raceway
>>>>easier - but NOTHING will make it as simple as following cable.
>>>
>>>I have found just following the cable simple way to figure out where
>>>the conduit runs. Unless you have a situation where you should just
>>>tear it out and start over because of others incompetence.
>> Picture if you will a 300 foot building with 4 panels,160 circuits,
>>and something in excess of 600 outlets, with the wiring running in
>>conduits above a 12 - 15 foot suspended ceiling that has been
>>renovated 3 times in 10 years. Over a mile of that wire was installed
>>by myself - and none of THAT caused problems other than finding where
>>the unused circuits had been dead-ended to get my power.
>> THAT was fun - - - -
>
>Honest questions, was the price per foot below the market, when all
>the problem addressed was the cost still below market?
>
>Fun can also be trying to pull wires through a conduit that was not
>sealed in a light weight concrete floor, then you pull the drywall
>down and reroute.
DEFINITELY. There was over 3 million dollars of leasehold
improvements done to the building by the previous tennant (who never
got to occupy the bulding due to his fraud) and we spent only $60,000
in renovations to make it suitable for our use - and we leased it for
the same price as if it was bare walls.
No question it was the deal of the century.
I pulled out over 1800 feet of co-ax and re-routed a lot of cat5.
Had to sort out all the cat5 too, because when the supplier of the
server came to take away their equipment they cut all the cat5 cable
off about 3 feet from the ceiling above the door to the server room. I
had to identify and re-terminate 128 network cables - and some were
terminated 568A and some were 568B - no rhymr or reason. Then I had to
hang a rack above the door for the network switches anc connect all
the IT system cables to one pair of switches and all the IP Phone
cables to another pair of switches.
Then we converted the theatre portion to office space - putting a
trench in the concrete floor for a sequestered raceway where we pulled
several miles of cat 5 cable and power cables for the workstations on
the main floor as well as on the raised poertion (was stepped theatre
seating - we removed about half of the rizers - which were built solid
enough you could have parked at least a D9 on them). I had to get
wiring fot 6 workstations into the rizer area which was 2 layers of
3/4 inch plywood screwed and glued to a framework of laminated 2X
material - double thickness - running ACROSS the floor on 16 inch
centers. I had to drill through 12 feet and pull 3 circuits of BX plus
12 cat5 cables into stage boxes located 6 and 12 feet in. Made my own
extendable 2 1/2 inch drill bit using half inch galvanized water pipe
and a forstner bit - pulling in a fish cord with the drill when I
pulled it out -and then pulling in the cables. All those cables to the
trench raceway had to be pulled through 2 2 inch conduits - one for
power and one for data- over a 15 foot ceiling from the server room
and power panel - and all the power circuits had to be repurposed from
the stage lighting and stage power circuits. 8 power circuits in the
trench plus the 6 on the rizer. There wer 8 "split" floor receptacles
and 8 more of the floor boxes with 16 data cables fastened to the
steel decking of the trench box. That was what "I" was involved with
on the primary renovation. As space was repurposed over the next 7
years I had to relocate and repurpose and add circuits - poth power
and data - throughout the building. Adding those circuits was the most
fun - as there were dead-headed circuits all over the place from
"features" that were removed in the first renovation - and finding
where those wires were was a major pain in the ASS. I'd find a
junction box with nutted off cables in it - then have to find what
panel they were connected to, and what breaker, orWHERE they had been
disconnected further forward in the circuit and if they had already
been repurposed at that point - and what all was on the circuit to
know if I could add the additional required load/outlet - and whether
it was switched somewhere or not. You would not believe how many
crossed neutrals I uncovered!!!!! the neutral for the circuit running
to one panel, and the line to another - ond with a 3 phase feed.
Then the HVAC system - what a mishmash. 4 rooftop units. controlled
from 3 controller locations and 6 thermostatrs - with zoning - and the
control for the north end unit in the middle of the building, and the
control for the center unit about 15 feet farther north - you get the
picture????
The eaziest part was tracing the cat 5 - because it wasn't pulled
through conduit. And yes - I had fox and hound, and I had network
tracers (cable analysers) - and numerous other "toys" including a
modified Tyco RC truck that I ran across the suspended ceiling to
pull fish ropes for pulling in data cables - - - - Took a bit of
concentration to run the little beggar in reverse for 200 feet dodging
the hangar wires- had to have the drive wheels at the front to crawl
over the "T" bars. I'd get it stuck. pull it back a bit with tnhe
fiash cable and give it another try 'till it would drop through the
opening in the ceiling at the other end (where I had removed a tile)
THAT was a LOT easier than pulling extra wire into an already half
full conduit and we resorted to using it to pull in AC cable (BX) on
occaision when there was no available power circuit in the conduit
where it was required.
On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 17:04:33 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 17:23:02 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:27:36 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:55:11 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 08:42:49 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 20:59:13 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 13:41:06 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:24:27 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 12:45:53 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >The point is that you simply can not admit to being wrong.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >Your blanket statement that a cash buyer of a house with K&T could not insure
>>>>>>>>> >is just not true 100% of the time.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >You can post a million words about known examples where it would be difficult if not
>>>>>>>>> >impossible to insure, but that still doesn't eliminate the ability in every single case.
>>>>>>>>> And YOU mr Derby, have to nit-pick at everything - You sure can't be
>>>>>>>>> wrong - you are an AMERICAN for cripes sake!!!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES a house with K&T wiring IS uninsurable.
>>>>>>>>> Mabee not in some backwater bayou where a house with electricity is a
>>>>>>>>> luxury even if it's wired with fencewire using old bud bottles as
>>>>>>>>> insulators - but then how many of those hovels are insured???
>>>>>>>>> Or where if you know the cheif inspector and drink with him every
>>>>>>>>> night and go target shooting with yout AK every weekend with him you
>>>>>>>>> can get anything passed - - - -
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - look in the mirror!!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Man, you do get worked up, don't you?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>All caps, multiple punctuation marks, misspellings galore.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Wouldn't it be easier to just say. "Sorry, I misspoke"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That has to be better for your blood pressure than your way of
>>>>>>>>handling things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>As far as better way of handling things, tracing a circuit in conduit.
>>>>>>>Try a circuit tracer, you disconnect the hot lead at the breaker (or
>>>>>>>fure box) hook the tracer up go find all the devices on that circuit.
>>>>>> That DOES let you trace the power - sort of - when the circuit does
>>>>>>not have a problem - but does not do a good job of tracing neutrals.
>>>>>>When not in a conduit a "fox and hound" tracer works but they are
>>>>>>almost useless in a metal conduit.
>>>>>> Generally finding what is ON a circuit isn't too much of a problem.
>>>>>>Finding what circuit it is SUPPOSED to be on when it has "fallen off"
>>>>>>for some reason is the fun part - in a building with 4 panels in it,
>>>>>>where there appears to be no rhyme or reason to what is on what panel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>One building in particular - where I spent a LOT of time was built as
>>>>>>a 4 unit commercial building which was developed as the office
>>>>>>headquarters of a notorious financial planning fraudster locally (and
>>>>>>foreclosed on before he opened the doors for business) was then
>>>>>>redeveloped as the offices of the insurance company that was my major
>>>>>>client for 17 years. Lots of changes were made by the developer.
>>>>>>Then more changes were made as time went on - and I ended up
>>>>>>trobleshooting a lot of issues. A real pain in the butt!! Complicating
>>>>>>matters was the way some of the creditors removed equipment that was
>>>>>>unpaid for when they came back to reclaim it - - - - - - (from the
>>>>>>original tennant.)
>>>>>
>>>>>So no matter what I come up with you are going to trash the idea,
>>>>>right?
>>>> No. There are many devices that can be used to make tracing and
>>>>troubleshooting individual conductor circuits in conduit and raceway
>>>>easier - but NOTHING will make it as simple as following cable.
>>>
>>>I have found just following the cable simple way to figure out where
>>>the conduit runs. Unless you have a situation where you should just
>>>tear it out and start over because of others incompetence.
>> Picture if you will a 300 foot building with 4 panels,160 circuits,
>>and something in excess of 600 outlets, with the wiring running in
>>conduits above a 12 - 15 foot suspended ceiling that has been
>>renovated 3 times in 10 years. Over a mile of that wire was installed
>>by myself - and none of THAT caused problems other than finding where
>>the unused circuits had been dead-ended to get my power.
>> THAT was fun - - - -
>
>Honest questions, was the price per foot below the market, when all
>the problem addressed was the cost still below market?
>
>Fun can also be trying to pull wires through a conduit that was not
>sealed in a light weight concrete floor, then you pull the drywall
>down and reroute.
Except for outlets located IN the floor - both data and power,
EVERYTHING was fed from above, through conduit in either steel stud or
concrete block walls.. Fun getting additional conduit down into the
steel stud walls was remedied by dropping armoured cable instead for
power.
On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 17:06:38 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 17:24:23 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:27:36 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:55:11 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 08:42:49 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 20:59:13 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 13:41:06 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:24:27 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 12:45:53 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >The point is that you simply can not admit to being wrong.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >Your blanket statement that a cash buyer of a house with K&T could not insure
>>>>>>>>> >is just not true 100% of the time.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >You can post a million words about known examples where it would be difficult if not
>>>>>>>>> >impossible to insure, but that still doesn't eliminate the ability in every single case.
>>>>>>>>> And YOU mr Derby, have to nit-pick at everything - You sure can't be
>>>>>>>>> wrong - you are an AMERICAN for cripes sake!!!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES a house with K&T wiring IS uninsurable.
>>>>>>>>> Mabee not in some backwater bayou where a house with electricity is a
>>>>>>>>> luxury even if it's wired with fencewire using old bud bottles as
>>>>>>>>> insulators - but then how many of those hovels are insured???
>>>>>>>>> Or where if you know the cheif inspector and drink with him every
>>>>>>>>> night and go target shooting with yout AK every weekend with him you
>>>>>>>>> can get anything passed - - - -
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - look in the mirror!!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Man, you do get worked up, don't you?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>All caps, multiple punctuation marks, misspellings galore.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Wouldn't it be easier to just say. "Sorry, I misspoke"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That has to be better for your blood pressure than your way of
>>>>>>>>handling things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>As far as better way of handling things, tracing a circuit in conduit.
>>>>>>>Try a circuit tracer, you disconnect the hot lead at the breaker (or
>>>>>>>fure box) hook the tracer up go find all the devices on that circuit.
>>>>>> That DOES let you trace the power - sort of - when the circuit does
>>>>>>not have a problem - but does not do a good job of tracing neutrals.
>>>>>>When not in a conduit a "fox and hound" tracer works but they are
>>>>>>almost useless in a metal conduit.
>>>>>> Generally finding what is ON a circuit isn't too much of a problem.
>>>>>>Finding what circuit it is SUPPOSED to be on when it has "fallen off"
>>>>>>for some reason is the fun part - in a building with 4 panels in it,
>>>>>>where there appears to be no rhyme or reason to what is on what panel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>One building in particular - where I spent a LOT of time was built as
>>>>>>a 4 unit commercial building which was developed as the office
>>>>>>headquarters of a notorious financial planning fraudster locally (and
>>>>>>foreclosed on before he opened the doors for business) was then
>>>>>>redeveloped as the offices of the insurance company that was my major
>>>>>>client for 17 years. Lots of changes were made by the developer.
>>>>>>Then more changes were made as time went on - and I ended up
>>>>>>trobleshooting a lot of issues. A real pain in the butt!! Complicating
>>>>>>matters was the way some of the creditors removed equipment that was
>>>>>>unpaid for when they came back to reclaim it - - - - - - (from the
>>>>>>original tennant.)
>>>>>
>>>>>So no matter what I come up with you are going to trash the idea,
>>>>>right?
>>>> No. There are many devices that can be used to make tracing and
>>>>troubleshooting individual conductor circuits in conduit and raceway
>>>>easier - but NOTHING will make it as simple as following cable.
>>>
>>>I have found just following the cable simple way to figure out where
>>>the conduit runs. Unless you have a situation where you should just
>>>tear it out and start over because of others incompetence.
>> Follow what cable? The wires run through conduit from the panel to
>>the outlet - through numerous "pull boxes" through a virtual GRID of
>>conduit.
>
>If you put the tracer on the hot lead you can follow it at the outlet
>and switch boxes, conduit does not act like a faraday cage.
Tell that to the hound trying to "follow" the fox!!!! Yes - if you
could find the end of the wire you could confirm it was the end of
that wire - most of the time - but crosstalk could make a parallel
wire indicate as well. - just like plugging the breaker detector into
an outlet then going back with the sniffer to figure out which breaker
it was on ---- You could narrow it down to one of 3 breakers most
often - then by turning them off and on pin down which one was your
target - - -
On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 17:06:38 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 17:24:23 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:27:36 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:55:11 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 08:42:49 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 20:59:13 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 13:41:06 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:24:27 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 12:45:53 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >The point is that you simply can not admit to being wrong.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >Your blanket statement that a cash buyer of a house with K&T could not insure
>>>>>>>>> >is just not true 100% of the time.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >You can post a million words about known examples where it would be difficult if not
>>>>>>>>> >impossible to insure, but that still doesn't eliminate the ability in every single case.
>>>>>>>>> And YOU mr Derby, have to nit-pick at everything - You sure can't be
>>>>>>>>> wrong - you are an AMERICAN for cripes sake!!!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES a house with K&T wiring IS uninsurable.
>>>>>>>>> Mabee not in some backwater bayou where a house with electricity is a
>>>>>>>>> luxury even if it's wired with fencewire using old bud bottles as
>>>>>>>>> insulators - but then how many of those hovels are insured???
>>>>>>>>> Or where if you know the cheif inspector and drink with him every
>>>>>>>>> night and go target shooting with yout AK every weekend with him you
>>>>>>>>> can get anything passed - - - -
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - look in the mirror!!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Man, you do get worked up, don't you?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>All caps, multiple punctuation marks, misspellings galore.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Wouldn't it be easier to just say. "Sorry, I misspoke"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That has to be better for your blood pressure than your way of
>>>>>>>>handling things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>As far as better way of handling things, tracing a circuit in conduit.
>>>>>>>Try a circuit tracer, you disconnect the hot lead at the breaker (or
>>>>>>>fure box) hook the tracer up go find all the devices on that circuit.
>>>>>> That DOES let you trace the power - sort of - when the circuit does
>>>>>>not have a problem - but does not do a good job of tracing neutrals.
>>>>>>When not in a conduit a "fox and hound" tracer works but they are
>>>>>>almost useless in a metal conduit.
>>>>>> Generally finding what is ON a circuit isn't too much of a problem.
>>>>>>Finding what circuit it is SUPPOSED to be on when it has "fallen off"
>>>>>>for some reason is the fun part - in a building with 4 panels in it,
>>>>>>where there appears to be no rhyme or reason to what is on what panel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>One building in particular - where I spent a LOT of time was built as
>>>>>>a 4 unit commercial building which was developed as the office
>>>>>>headquarters of a notorious financial planning fraudster locally (and
>>>>>>foreclosed on before he opened the doors for business) was then
>>>>>>redeveloped as the offices of the insurance company that was my major
>>>>>>client for 17 years. Lots of changes were made by the developer.
>>>>>>Then more changes were made as time went on - and I ended up
>>>>>>trobleshooting a lot of issues. A real pain in the butt!! Complicating
>>>>>>matters was the way some of the creditors removed equipment that was
>>>>>>unpaid for when they came back to reclaim it - - - - - - (from the
>>>>>>original tennant.)
>>>>>
>>>>>So no matter what I come up with you are going to trash the idea,
>>>>>right?
>>>> No. There are many devices that can be used to make tracing and
>>>>troubleshooting individual conductor circuits in conduit and raceway
>>>>easier - but NOTHING will make it as simple as following cable.
>>>
>>>I have found just following the cable simple way to figure out where
>>>the conduit runs. Unless you have a situation where you should just
>>>tear it out and start over because of others incompetence.
>> Follow what cable? The wires run through conduit from the panel to
>>the outlet - through numerous "pull boxes" through a virtual GRID of
>>conduit.
>
>If you put the tracer on the hot lead you can follow it at the outlet
>and switch boxes, conduit does not act like a faraday cage.
In conduit that only tells you where the "hot lead" is going. You
seem to have the impression that the normal procedure is to pull
multiconductor cable through conduit. That is something that is
sometimes done where a multiconductor cable has to pass through an
exposed area and needs protection, but the norm is separate,
independent conductors.
On 12/31/2019 4:30 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 17:06:38 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 17:24:23 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:27:36 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:55:11 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 08:42:49 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 20:59:13 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 13:41:06 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:24:27 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 12:45:53 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The point is that you simply can not admit to being wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Your blanket statement that a cash buyer of a house with K&T could not insure
>>>>>>>>>>> is just not true 100% of the time.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You can post a million words about known examples where it would be difficult if not
>>>>>>>>>>> impossible to insure, but that still doesn't eliminate the ability in every single case.
>>>>>>>>>> And YOU mr Derby, have to nit-pick at everything - You sure can't be
>>>>>>>>>> wrong - you are an AMERICAN for cripes sake!!!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES a house with K&T wiring IS uninsurable.
>>>>>>>>>> Mabee not in some backwater bayou where a house with electricity is a
>>>>>>>>>> luxury even if it's wired with fencewire using old bud bottles as
>>>>>>>>>> insulators - but then how many of those hovels are insured???
>>>>>>>>>> Or where if you know the cheif inspector and drink with him every
>>>>>>>>>> night and go target shooting with yout AK every weekend with him you
>>>>>>>>>> can get anything passed - - - -
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - look in the mirror!!!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Man, you do get worked up, don't you?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All caps, multiple punctuation marks, misspellings galore.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wouldn't it be easier to just say. "Sorry, I misspoke"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That has to be better for your blood pressure than your way of
>>>>>>>>> handling things.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As far as better way of handling things, tracing a circuit in conduit.
>>>>>>>> Try a circuit tracer, you disconnect the hot lead at the breaker (or
>>>>>>>> fure box) hook the tracer up go find all the devices on that circuit.
>>>>>>> That DOES let you trace the power - sort of - when the circuit does
>>>>>>> not have a problem - but does not do a good job of tracing neutrals.
>>>>>>> When not in a conduit a "fox and hound" tracer works but they are
>>>>>>> almost useless in a metal conduit.
>>>>>>> Generally finding what is ON a circuit isn't too much of a problem.
>>>>>>> Finding what circuit it is SUPPOSED to be on when it has "fallen off"
>>>>>>> for some reason is the fun part - in a building with 4 panels in it,
>>>>>>> where there appears to be no rhyme or reason to what is on what panel.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One building in particular - where I spent a LOT of time was built as
>>>>>>> a 4 unit commercial building which was developed as the office
>>>>>>> headquarters of a notorious financial planning fraudster locally (and
>>>>>>> foreclosed on before he opened the doors for business) was then
>>>>>>> redeveloped as the offices of the insurance company that was my major
>>>>>>> client for 17 years. Lots of changes were made by the developer.
>>>>>>> Then more changes were made as time went on - and I ended up
>>>>>>> trobleshooting a lot of issues. A real pain in the butt!! Complicating
>>>>>>> matters was the way some of the creditors removed equipment that was
>>>>>>> unpaid for when they came back to reclaim it - - - - - - (from the
>>>>>>> original tennant.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So no matter what I come up with you are going to trash the idea,
>>>>>> right?
>>>>> No. There are many devices that can be used to make tracing and
>>>>> troubleshooting individual conductor circuits in conduit and raceway
>>>>> easier - but NOTHING will make it as simple as following cable.
>>>>
>>>> I have found just following the cable simple way to figure out where
>>>> the conduit runs. Unless you have a situation where you should just
>>>> tear it out and start over because of others incompetence.
>>> Follow what cable? The wires run through conduit from the panel to
>>> the outlet - through numerous "pull boxes" through a virtual GRID of
>>> conduit.
>>
>> If you put the tracer on the hot lead you can follow it at the outlet
>> and switch boxes, conduit does not act like a faraday cage.
>
> In conduit that only tells you where the "hot lead" is going. You
> seem to have the impression that the normal procedure is to pull
> multiconductor cable through conduit. That is something that is
> sometimes done where a multiconductor cable has to pass through an
> exposed area and needs protection, but the norm is separate,
> independent conductors.
GUARD #1: Halt! Who goes there?
ARTHUR: It is I, Arthur, son of Uther Pendragon, from the castle of
Camelot. King of the Britons, defeator of the Saxons, sovereign of all
England!
GUARD #1: Pull the other one!
ARTHUR: I am. And this my trusty servant Patsy. We have ridden the
length and breadth of the land in search of knights who will join me
in my court at Camelot. I must speak with your lord and master.
GUARD #1: What, ridden on a horse?
ARTHUR: Yes!
GUARD #1: You're using coconuts!
ARTHUR: What?
GUARD #1: You've got two empty halves of coconut and you're bangin' 'em
together.
ARTHUR: So? We have ridden since the snows of winter covered this land,
through the kingdom of Mercea, through...
GUARD #1: Where'd you get the coconut?
ARTHUR: We found them.
GUARD #1: Found them? In Mercea? The coconut's tropical!
ARTHUR: What do you mean?
GUARD #1: Well, this is a temperate zone.
ARTHUR: The swallow may fly south with the sun or the house martin or
the plumber may seek warmer climes in winter yet these are not strangers
to our land.
GUARD #1: Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?
ARTHUR: Not at all, they could be carried.
GUARD #1: What, a swallow carrying a coconut?
ARTHUR: It could grip it by the husk!
GUARD #1: It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple
question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a one pound
coconut.
ARTHUR: Well, it doesn't matter. Will you go and tell your master that
Arthur from the Court of Camelot is here.
GUARD #1: Listen, in order to maintain air-speed velocity, a swallow
needs to beat its wings 43 times every second, right?
ARTHUR: Please!
GUARD #1: Am I right?
ARTHUR: I'm not interested!
GUARD #2: It could be carried by an African swallow!
GUARD #1: Oh, yeah, an African swallow maybe, but not a European
swallow, that's my point.
GUARD #2: Oh, yeah, I agree with that.
ARTHUR: Will you ask your master if he wants to join my court at Camelot?!
GUARD #1: But then of course African swallows are not migratory.
GUARD #2: Oh, yeah.
GUARD #1: So they couldn't bring a coconut back anyway... [clop clop]
GUARD #2: Wait a minute -- supposing two swallows carried it together?
GUARD #1: No, they'd have to have it on a line.
GUARD #2: Well, simple! They'd just use a strand of creeper!
GUARD #1: What, held under the dorsal guiding feathers?
GUARD #2: Well, why not?
On Sunday, December 29, 2019 at 10:06:50 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 18:23:30 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>=20
> >On Sunday, December 29, 2019 at 8:37:12 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote=
:
> >> On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 16:41:50 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>=20
> >> >On Sunday, December 29, 2019 at 6:50:01 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wr=
ote:
> >> >> On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 14:32:21 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>=20
> >> >> >On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 15:00:01 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected].=
ca>
> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 21:20:09 -0600, Markem <[email protected]=
>
> >> >> >>wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 20:55:45 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]=
n.ca>
> >> >> >>>wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 13:38:18 -0600, Markem <[email protected]=
om>
> >> >> >>>>wrote:
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 14:30:51 -0500, Clare Snyder <clare@snyder=
.on.ca>
> >> >> >>>>>wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>> Well I INTIMATED it here:"
> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
> >> >> >>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Sny=
der wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>>An additional question: This is for a treadmill. It will be =
in a room right next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (un=
used). Will the electrician be able to use that connection to create an out=
let for the treadmill, or will he/she have to run a totally new connection =
for the 17A from the fusebox?
> >> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>>Thanks for the help!
> >> >> >>>>>>Any electrician worth his salt will be able to give you at le=
ast one,
> >> >> >>>>>>and likely 2, 20 amp circuits drom that wire (after changing =
to a 20
> >> >> >>>>>>amp braker)
> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>> And I guess it was a different thread where I said if he had=
to ask
> >> >> >>>>>>the question he shouldn't be doing it and should get an elect=
rician.
> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>I've said that MANY times on both the woodworking and home.re=
pair
> >> >> >>>>>>groups.
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>Good to that you INTIMATED it, but I said get an electrian to =
look at
> >> >> >>>>>it. Because from here I can not see whether it is a grounded d=
ryer
> >> >> >>>>>device or just a 2 hot and a neutral device.
> >> >> >>>> Or more likely a 2 hot and GROUND
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> I have seen both, but then there are still houses that have kno=
b tube
> >> >> >>>that are functioning. That is just 2 wires no ground.
> >> >> >> Getting fewer and fewer up here. as soon as they change hands th=
e
> >> >> >>knob and tube has to go. Almost impossible to get new insurance o=
n a
> >> >> >>house with knob and tube or a 60 amp or smaller service up here -=
and
> >> >> >>no insurance means no mortgage
> >> >>=20
> >> >> My son recently bought a house in Vermont with a mix of romex and K=
&T.
> >> >> I certainly wouldn't have but he didn't ask me (and I didn't offer =
an
> >> >> opinion).
> >> >
> >> >Was the K&T the only reason you wouldn't have bought the house? I cer=
tainly
> >> >would have put that on the con side of the ledger, but there may have=
been=20
> >> >enough pros to offset it. I've seen some old Vermont mansions that I'=
d consider
> >> >buying even if they had *no* electricity. ;-)
> >>=20
> >> Not but a long shot but it was a huge negative. The wiring in the
> >> walls had (mostly) been redone but the ceilings were all K&T. They
> >> don't have the money to rewire the rest (or do the rest of the needed
> >> repairs on an old house). I could do much of it but they're 1200mi
> >> from here and I've seen enough snow for this lifetime. ;-)
> >> >
> >
> >Some parts of Vermont sure are beautiful in the spring.
>=20
> Winters can be very depressing. The only time the sun shines is when
> it's below 0F. Otherwise it's months on end of gray (November to
> April).=20
>=20
> We lived in the Burlington area for almost 15 years. He's now on the
> other side of the state. Nice place to visit but I certainly don't
> want to live there. The year we left, we had 36" of snow on Valentines
> day and 24" on St. Patty's day. Saints my butt! =20
>=20
> Like I said, I've seen enough snow for a lifetime. I'll go up there
> from June to October but forget the rest of the year.
>=20
> >I spent a couple of weeks "bonding" with my daughter, making an old
> >farmhouse she rented just a bit more livable.
>=20
> I was really tempted but if I didn't finish anything, it would never
> get done. I'd have left a needed tool at home anyway. We were up
> there in October. We drove the Mustang instead of the pickup - no
> room for clothes, much less tools. ;-)
My main disappointment with Vermont is the limited places for night skiing.=
=20
I think only 4 areas offer night skiing and 3 of them are small "town tow"
operations. A few years ago the summer gondola operator at Killington told=
=20
me that there was practically no night skiing in VT due to DEC rules about=
=20
bothering the wildlife. I never verified that.
That was the year my daughter moved to Rutland and got a weekend job teachi=
ng
little kids to ski. The job came with a free season lift pass, but with no=
=20
night skiing at Killington and typically working at the mountain at least=
=20
one day each weekend, it didn't get a lot of use. She had a real job during=
=20
the week, so she didn't often spend her only day off at the mountain. Famil=
ies
got a discount, so I went up a few times. Free lodging 20 minutes from the=
=20
mountain and 1/2 lift tickets is a sweet deal. ;-)
My dad lived in MA and I took him up to Killington to ride the Gondola=20
the summer before he passed away. Grandpa, son and granddaughter sharing
lunch at the summit lodge. Pretty cool.
=20
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 18:23:30 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sunday, December 29, 2019 at 8:37:12 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 16:41:50 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, December 29, 2019 at 6:50:01 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 14:32:21 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 15:00:01 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 21:20:09 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>> >> >>wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 20:55:45 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>> >> >>>wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 13:38:18 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>> >> >>>>wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 14:30:51 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>> >> >>>>>wrote:
>> >> >>>>>> Well I INTIMATED it here:"
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
>> >> >>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Snyder wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>An additional question: This is for a treadmill. It will be in a room right next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (unused). Will the electrician be able to use that connection to create an outlet for the treadmill, or will he/she have to run a totally new connection for the 17A from the fusebox?
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>Thanks for the help!
>> >> >>>>>>Any electrician worth his salt will be able to give you at least one,
>> >> >>>>>>and likely 2, 20 amp circuits drom that wire (after changing to a 20
>> >> >>>>>>amp braker)
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> And I guess it was a different thread where I said if he had to ask
>> >> >>>>>>the question he shouldn't be doing it and should get an electrician.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>I've said that MANY times on both the woodworking and home.repair
>> >> >>>>>>groups.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>Good to that you INTIMATED it, but I said get an electrian to look at
>> >> >>>>>it. Because from here I can not see whether it is a grounded dryer
>> >> >>>>>device or just a 2 hot and a neutral device.
>> >> >>>> Or more likely a 2 hot and GROUND
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I have seen both, but then there are still houses that have knob tube
>> >> >>>that are functioning. That is just 2 wires no ground.
>> >> >> Getting fewer and fewer up here. as soon as they change hands the
>> >> >>knob and tube has to go. Almost impossible to get new insurance on a
>> >> >>house with knob and tube or a 60 amp or smaller service up here - and
>> >> >>no insurance means no mortgage
>> >>
>> >> My son recently bought a house in Vermont with a mix of romex and K&T.
>> >> I certainly wouldn't have but he didn't ask me (and I didn't offer an
>> >> opinion).
>> >
>> >Was the K&T the only reason you wouldn't have bought the house? I certainly
>> >would have put that on the con side of the ledger, but there may have been
>> >enough pros to offset it. I've seen some old Vermont mansions that I'd consider
>> >buying even if they had *no* electricity. ;-)
>>
>> Not but a long shot but it was a huge negative. The wiring in the
>> walls had (mostly) been redone but the ceilings were all K&T. They
>> don't have the money to rewire the rest (or do the rest of the needed
>> repairs on an old house). I could do much of it but they're 1200mi
>> from here and I've seen enough snow for this lifetime. ;-)
>> >
>
>Some parts of Vermont sure are beautiful in the spring.
Winters can be very depressing. The only time the sun shines is when
it's below 0F. Otherwise it's months on end of gray (November to
April).
We lived in the Burlington area for almost 15 years. He's now on the
other side of the state. Nice place to visit but I certainly don't
want to live there. The year we left, we had 36" of snow on Valentines
day and 24" on St. Patty's day. Saints my butt!
Like I said, I've seen enough snow for a lifetime. I'll go up there
from June to October but forget the rest of the year.
>I spent a couple of weeks "bonding" with my daughter, making an old
>farmhouse she rented just a bit more livable.
I was really tempted but if I didn't finish anything, it would never
get done. I'd have left a needed tool at home anyway. We were up
there in October. We drove the Mustang instead of the pickup - no
room for clothes, much less tools. ;-)
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 19:57:35 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sunday, December 29, 2019 at 10:27:31 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 17:11:43 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, December 29, 2019 at 7:29:18 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 14:32:21 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 15:00:01 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 21:20:09 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>> >> >>wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 20:55:45 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>> >> >>>wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 13:38:18 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>> >> >>>>wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 14:30:51 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>> >> >>>>>wrote:
>> >> >>>>>> Well I INTIMATED it here:"
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
>> >> >>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Snyder wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>An additional question: This is for a treadmill. It will be in a room right next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (unused). Will the electrician be able to use that connection to create an outlet for the treadmill, or will he/she have to run a totally new connection for the 17A from the fusebox?
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>Thanks for the help!
>> >> >>>>>>Any electrician worth his salt will be able to give you at least one,
>> >> >>>>>>and likely 2, 20 amp circuits drom that wire (after changing to a 20
>> >> >>>>>>amp braker)
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> And I guess it was a different thread where I said if he had to ask
>> >> >>>>>>the question he shouldn't be doing it and should get an electrician.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>I've said that MANY times on both the woodworking and home.repair
>> >> >>>>>>groups.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>Good to that you INTIMATED it, but I said get an electrian to look at
>> >> >>>>>it. Because from here I can not see whether it is a grounded dryer
>> >> >>>>>device or just a 2 hot and a neutral device.
>> >> >>>> Or more likely a 2 hot and GROUND
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I have seen both, but then there are still houses that have knob tube
>> >> >>>that are functioning. That is just 2 wires no ground.
>> >> >> Getting fewer and fewer up here. as soon as they change hands the
>> >> >>knob and tube has to go. Almost impossible to get new insurance on a
>> >> >>house with knob and tube or a 60 amp or smaller service up here - and
>> >> >>no insurance means no mortgage
>> >> >
>> >> >So a cash buyer could.
>> >
>> >> He could buy but he could not insure.
>> >
>> >You know what they say about blanket statements...
>> >
>> >From the WireChief Electric Ltd in Vancouver, BC. Their website says
>> >Copywrite 2010-2019, so I guess the following is still current.
>> >
>> >https://www.wirechiefelectric.com/knob-tube-wiring-homeowner-insurance
>> >
>> >*** Begin Copied Text ***
>> >
>> >However, you may still be able to get homeowners insurance if your K&T
>> >system for lighting and power outlets is upgraded to meet the following
>> >conditions:
>> >
>> > - Exposed conductors must be in good condition.
>> >
>> > - Circuits must be protected by a circuit breaker or appropriate fuse.
>> >
>> > - No further outlets are added to the original system.
>> >
>> > - Not used ungrounding plugs in laundry rooms or bathrooms or
>> > outdoors for even a lower risk level.
>> >
>> >Knob-and-Tube wiring repairs may be a good option if budget is a concern.
>> >
>> >*** End Copied Text ***
>> >
>> >The following was written by a US based insurance agent, also with website
>> >dated 2019. Note the words "nearly impossible" and "will consider", as opposed
>> >to "impossible" and "won't consider".
>>
>> You better quote that in context:
>>
>> Why Insurance Companies Dont Like Knob and Tube Wiring
>>
>> Many insurance companies wont cover homes with Knob-and-Tube wiring
>> on the basis of absence of a ground wire. Another issue is difficulty
>> of access to inspect wiring buried within walls or ceilings.
>>
>> Insurance providers will also be concerned that Knob-and-Tube wiring
>> may be a safety hazard due to the addition of building insulation. For
>> example, additional thermal insulation installed in an attic can
>> smother the wiring and prevent access to the air it needs for cooling.
>>
>> Most insurance companies say your home has to have a 100-amp service/
>> breaker panel. Knob-and-Tube systems run on a 60-amp service.
>>
>> Other reasons insurance providers are wary about Knob-and-Tube wiring
>> include concerns over:
>>
>> General wear and tear because the wiring is so old.
>>
>> Damage the ceramic knobs and tubes can crack.
>>
>> Frayed wires.
>>
>> Fragile insulation K&T insulation can become brittle and flake with
>> time.
>>
>> Dangerous modifications.
>>
>> Overheating and fire risks.
>>
>> Modern technology exceeding original supply design.
>>
>> Upgrading Knob-and-Tube Wiring Systems
>>
>> To make it easier to get insurance for a home with Knob-and-Tube
>> wiring, youll probably need to have the system updated to meet
>> todays electrical safety codes.
>>
>> This can be tricky, particularly if the original wiring wasnt
>> installed properly or its been tampered with over the years by
>> amateurs in a misguided attempt to make it safer or more effective.
>>
>> However, you may still be able to get homeowners insurance if your
>> K&T system for lighting and power outlets is upgraded to meet the
>> following conditions:
>>
>> Exposed conductors must be in good condition.
>>
>> Circuits must be protected by a circuit breaker or appropriate fuse.
>>
>> No further outlets are added to the original system.
>>
>> Not used ungrounding plugs in laundry rooms or bathrooms or outdoors
>> for even a lower risk level.
>>
>> Knob-and-Tube wiring repairs may be a good option if budget is a
>> concern.
>>
>> A better alternative for many homes, though, may be to replace the K&T
>> system with brand-new electrics.
>>
>> >
>> >https://www.regencyinsurance.net/blog/knob-tube-wiring--is-it-making-your-home-uninsurable.aspx
>> Better look closely at this one too - - -
>>
>> The insurance industry is taking a hard stance on homes with Knob &
>> Tube wiring.
>>
>> This is a controversial subject, and it affects anyone who owns, or is
>> considering the purchase of an older home in Northeast Ohio. Keep in
>> mind, I'm not aware of any company cancelling existing policies
>> because of Knob & Tube wiring at this time. However, the insurance
>> industry has been quietly restricting underwriting guidelines to the
>> point where it is nearly impossible to find a standard company willing
>> to issue a new policy on a home that contains this type of wiring.
>>
>> Let me be clear; I realize many electricians consider this a safe and
>> effective means of wiring. I'm not arguing for the position insurance
>> companies are taking. In fact, I'm sometimes frustrated by the
>> approach. I just think it's time to share what I know, so you are
>> informed of the challenges this issue is causing.
>>
>> So what is "Knob & Tube" (K&T) wiring? This form of wiring was
>> installed in homes from the 1880's and into the 1930's for most of the
>> country. However, it continued to be installed for another 30 years
>> in parts of Northeast Ohio (I've seen homes in our area with Knob &
>> Tube that were built as late as 1963).
>>
>> It consists of two wires, a black "hot wire" and another white or
>> neutral colored wire to create a circuit. There is no ground wire.
>>
>> The individual wires were run spaced apart at least 2 1/2 inches. As
>> they passed through walls and floors, they were run through porcelain
>> "insulating tubes". These were meant to stop arcing that might cause
>> a fire.
>>
>> The main concerns are:
>> The wiring is old. The insulation is subject to drying and cracking
>> and may not be intact, leaving bare wires.
>> It's not grounded, making it more hazardous, especially in areas
>> where it can come into contact with water such as kitchens and
>> bathrooms.
>> In the past, many older homes had loose fill insulation blown into
>> attics and walls. This material covers the wiring and creates a
>> potential fire hazard.
>>
>> Although I have no statistics regarding fires caused specifically by
>> Knob & Tube wiring, according to a March 2017 report on electrical
>> fires by The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), there was an
>> average of over 45,000 home fires per year between 2010 and 2014 that
>> involved some type of electrical failure as a factor contributing to
>> ignition. Nearly half of these were caused by wiring and related
>> equipment.
>>
>> This has caused companies to view Knob & Tube wiring as an
>> unacceptable risk. I've contacted other insurance agents in my area,
>> and have found only a few who have markets that will consider homes
>> with limited K&T wiring (in basements or attics) if a licensed
>> electrician will provide a written statement attesting to its safety.
>>
>>
>> AND TAKE NOTE OF THE BIG IF!!!!!
>>
>> " I've contacted other insurance agents in my area, and have found
>> only a few who have markets that will consider homes with limited K&T
>> wiring (in basements or attics) IF a licensed electrician will
>> provide a written statement attesting to its safety"
>>
>> Good luck getting an eklectrician to stick his kneck out on THAT!!!!!
>>
>> ANd EXACTLY WHAT did "I" say???
>> I said "almost impossible" - didn't I???
>>
>> Show me a home where all of the following apply:
>>
>> - Exposed conductors must be in good condition.
>>
>> - Circuits must be protected by a circuit breaker or appropriate
>> fuse.
>>
>> - No further outlets are added to the original system.
>>
>> - Not used ungrounding plugs in laundry rooms or bathrooms or
>> outdoors for even a lower risk level.
>>
>> Possibly a restored historically significant home - but "restored"
>> pretty much eliminates " No further outlets are added to the original
>> system." and rewiring with current technology is MUCH cheaper!!!!!!!
>>
>> Not to mention you would be hard pressed to get a permit to do ANY
>> modification/restoration from the ESA - since you are using a Canadian
>> refference.
>>
>> Just converting an old knob and tube to a breaker panel is a huge
>> undertaking - particularly if it was wired with a "Ring Topography"
>> which WAS common - with 2 or 4 circuits operating the whole house.
>>
>> Knob and Tube was "virtually never" connected to more than a 60 amp
>> service - which was FUSED - which eliminates the chance as NO
>> insurance company in Canada for sure - don't know about the USA - will
>> insure a home with a 60 amp grid connected electrical service and
>> fewer and fewer will even write a home with a fuse panel
>>
>> I'll up the ante from "almost impossible" to "virtually impossible"
>> for the purposes of this discussion.
>>
>>
>> Also note I didn't say an insurance company will niot renew a policy -
>> but the extra cost is often enough to make it financially advantageous
>> to rewire the house even if the home does not change hands, or
>> insurance companies.
>>
>> Not sure what would happen when an insurance company is purchased by
>> another company - they MAY re-assess at that point and require
>> upgrades.
>
>I did read the entire articles. I specifically quoted the sections that
>disputed what you actually said, not what you claimed to have said.
>
>> ANd EXACTLY WHAT did "I" say???
>> I said "almost impossible" - didn't I???
>
>I replied to, and quoted, *exactly* what you said in the post I responded
>to.
>
>"He could buy but he could not insure."
>
>Look upwards...it's there.
For all practical purposes what I said is 100% true.
You show me ONE instance of a house meeting the very stringent
requirements required to POSSIBLY be insured with knob and tube wiring
TODAY.
I know of MANY that have not been insurable - one or two totally
unmolested - time capsules if you like - which came as close as
possible to meeting all the requirements stated above. The main
disqualifier was the 60 amp service - which COULD NOT be replaced
without modifying the K&T wiring - for which a permit could NOT be
issued.
The only possibility would have been to install a new service (100
amp or more) and convert the existing panel to a sub-panel to power
the K&T system - but they could not get a permit to connect the old
panel without an extensive inspection of the K&T wiring which could
NOT be made to comply with current code - what with surface mounted
non-approved switches and other devices, no grounds, no junction boxes
and all kinds of inaccessible connections. MUCH simpler (and cheaper)
to re-wire completely.
My brother's house still has a couple ceiling lights on K&T - but
with boxes. The boxes were installed when the house was originally
wired (house was originally lit by "lighting gas" from the coalgas
plant about a mile away.) My brother is the third owner and the house
is, IIRC, about 112 years old and double brick so NO wires in the
outer walls.
This may be a problem when he goes to sell the house - - - - He's been
there about 35 years with the same insurance company.
On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:27:36 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:55:11 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 08:42:49 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 20:59:13 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 13:41:06 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:24:27 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 12:45:53 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >The point is that you simply can not admit to being wrong.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >Your blanket statement that a cash buyer of a house with K&T could not insure
>>>>>>> >is just not true 100% of the time.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >You can post a million words about known examples where it would be difficult if not
>>>>>>> >impossible to insure, but that still doesn't eliminate the ability in every single case.
>>>>>>> And YOU mr Derby, have to nit-pick at everything - You sure can't be
>>>>>>> wrong - you are an AMERICAN for cripes sake!!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES a house with K&T wiring IS uninsurable.
>>>>>>> Mabee not in some backwater bayou where a house with electricity is a
>>>>>>> luxury even if it's wired with fencewire using old bud bottles as
>>>>>>> insulators - but then how many of those hovels are insured???
>>>>>>> Or where if you know the cheif inspector and drink with him every
>>>>>>> night and go target shooting with yout AK every weekend with him you
>>>>>>> can get anything passed - - - -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - look in the mirror!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Man, you do get worked up, don't you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>All caps, multiple punctuation marks, misspellings galore.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Wouldn't it be easier to just say. "Sorry, I misspoke"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That has to be better for your blood pressure than your way of
>>>>>>handling things.
>>>>>
>>>>>As far as better way of handling things, tracing a circuit in conduit.
>>>>>Try a circuit tracer, you disconnect the hot lead at the breaker (or
>>>>>fure box) hook the tracer up go find all the devices on that circuit.
>>>> That DOES let you trace the power - sort of - when the circuit does
>>>>not have a problem - but does not do a good job of tracing neutrals.
>>>>When not in a conduit a "fox and hound" tracer works but they are
>>>>almost useless in a metal conduit.
>>>> Generally finding what is ON a circuit isn't too much of a problem.
>>>>Finding what circuit it is SUPPOSED to be on when it has "fallen off"
>>>>for some reason is the fun part - in a building with 4 panels in it,
>>>>where there appears to be no rhyme or reason to what is on what panel.
>>>>
>>>>One building in particular - where I spent a LOT of time was built as
>>>>a 4 unit commercial building which was developed as the office
>>>>headquarters of a notorious financial planning fraudster locally (and
>>>>foreclosed on before he opened the doors for business) was then
>>>>redeveloped as the offices of the insurance company that was my major
>>>>client for 17 years. Lots of changes were made by the developer.
>>>>Then more changes were made as time went on - and I ended up
>>>>trobleshooting a lot of issues. A real pain in the butt!! Complicating
>>>>matters was the way some of the creditors removed equipment that was
>>>>unpaid for when they came back to reclaim it - - - - - - (from the
>>>>original tennant.)
>>>
>>>So no matter what I come up with you are going to trash the idea,
>>>right?
>> No. There are many devices that can be used to make tracing and
>>troubleshooting individual conductor circuits in conduit and raceway
>>easier - but NOTHING will make it as simple as following cable.
>
>I have found just following the cable simple way to figure out where
>the conduit runs. Unless you have a situation where you should just
>tear it out and start over because of others incompetence.
Picture if you will a 300 foot building with 4 panels,160 circuits,
and something in excess of 600 outlets, with the wiring running in
conduits above a 12 - 15 foot suspended ceiling that has been
renovated 3 times in 10 years. Over a mile of that wire was installed
by myself - and none of THAT caused problems other than finding where
the unused circuits had been dead-ended to get my power.
THAT was fun - - - -
On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:27:36 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:55:11 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 08:42:49 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 20:59:13 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 13:41:06 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:24:27 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 12:45:53 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >The point is that you simply can not admit to being wrong.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >Your blanket statement that a cash buyer of a house with K&T could not insure
>>>>>>> >is just not true 100% of the time.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >You can post a million words about known examples where it would be difficult if not
>>>>>>> >impossible to insure, but that still doesn't eliminate the ability in every single case.
>>>>>>> And YOU mr Derby, have to nit-pick at everything - You sure can't be
>>>>>>> wrong - you are an AMERICAN for cripes sake!!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES a house with K&T wiring IS uninsurable.
>>>>>>> Mabee not in some backwater bayou where a house with electricity is a
>>>>>>> luxury even if it's wired with fencewire using old bud bottles as
>>>>>>> insulators - but then how many of those hovels are insured???
>>>>>>> Or where if you know the cheif inspector and drink with him every
>>>>>>> night and go target shooting with yout AK every weekend with him you
>>>>>>> can get anything passed - - - -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - look in the mirror!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Man, you do get worked up, don't you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>All caps, multiple punctuation marks, misspellings galore.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Wouldn't it be easier to just say. "Sorry, I misspoke"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That has to be better for your blood pressure than your way of
>>>>>>handling things.
>>>>>
>>>>>As far as better way of handling things, tracing a circuit in conduit.
>>>>>Try a circuit tracer, you disconnect the hot lead at the breaker (or
>>>>>fure box) hook the tracer up go find all the devices on that circuit.
>>>> That DOES let you trace the power - sort of - when the circuit does
>>>>not have a problem - but does not do a good job of tracing neutrals.
>>>>When not in a conduit a "fox and hound" tracer works but they are
>>>>almost useless in a metal conduit.
>>>> Generally finding what is ON a circuit isn't too much of a problem.
>>>>Finding what circuit it is SUPPOSED to be on when it has "fallen off"
>>>>for some reason is the fun part - in a building with 4 panels in it,
>>>>where there appears to be no rhyme or reason to what is on what panel.
>>>>
>>>>One building in particular - where I spent a LOT of time was built as
>>>>a 4 unit commercial building which was developed as the office
>>>>headquarters of a notorious financial planning fraudster locally (and
>>>>foreclosed on before he opened the doors for business) was then
>>>>redeveloped as the offices of the insurance company that was my major
>>>>client for 17 years. Lots of changes were made by the developer.
>>>>Then more changes were made as time went on - and I ended up
>>>>trobleshooting a lot of issues. A real pain in the butt!! Complicating
>>>>matters was the way some of the creditors removed equipment that was
>>>>unpaid for when they came back to reclaim it - - - - - - (from the
>>>>original tennant.)
>>>
>>>So no matter what I come up with you are going to trash the idea,
>>>right?
>> No. There are many devices that can be used to make tracing and
>>troubleshooting individual conductor circuits in conduit and raceway
>>easier - but NOTHING will make it as simple as following cable.
>
>I have found just following the cable simple way to figure out where
>the conduit runs. Unless you have a situation where you should just
>tear it out and start over because of others incompetence.
How do you "follow the cable" when the "cable" is multiple independent
wires pulled through a steel pipe?
On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 17:23:02 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:27:36 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:55:11 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 08:42:49 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 20:59:13 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 13:41:06 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:24:27 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 12:45:53 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >The point is that you simply can not admit to being wrong.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >Your blanket statement that a cash buyer of a house with K&T could not insure
>>>>>>>> >is just not true 100% of the time.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >You can post a million words about known examples where it would be difficult if not
>>>>>>>> >impossible to insure, but that still doesn't eliminate the ability in every single case.
>>>>>>>> And YOU mr Derby, have to nit-pick at everything - You sure can't be
>>>>>>>> wrong - you are an AMERICAN for cripes sake!!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES a house with K&T wiring IS uninsurable.
>>>>>>>> Mabee not in some backwater bayou where a house with electricity is a
>>>>>>>> luxury even if it's wired with fencewire using old bud bottles as
>>>>>>>> insulators - but then how many of those hovels are insured???
>>>>>>>> Or where if you know the cheif inspector and drink with him every
>>>>>>>> night and go target shooting with yout AK every weekend with him you
>>>>>>>> can get anything passed - - - -
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - look in the mirror!!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Man, you do get worked up, don't you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>All caps, multiple punctuation marks, misspellings galore.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Wouldn't it be easier to just say. "Sorry, I misspoke"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That has to be better for your blood pressure than your way of
>>>>>>>handling things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As far as better way of handling things, tracing a circuit in conduit.
>>>>>>Try a circuit tracer, you disconnect the hot lead at the breaker (or
>>>>>>fure box) hook the tracer up go find all the devices on that circuit.
>>>>> That DOES let you trace the power - sort of - when the circuit does
>>>>>not have a problem - but does not do a good job of tracing neutrals.
>>>>>When not in a conduit a "fox and hound" tracer works but they are
>>>>>almost useless in a metal conduit.
>>>>> Generally finding what is ON a circuit isn't too much of a problem.
>>>>>Finding what circuit it is SUPPOSED to be on when it has "fallen off"
>>>>>for some reason is the fun part - in a building with 4 panels in it,
>>>>>where there appears to be no rhyme or reason to what is on what panel.
>>>>>
>>>>>One building in particular - where I spent a LOT of time was built as
>>>>>a 4 unit commercial building which was developed as the office
>>>>>headquarters of a notorious financial planning fraudster locally (and
>>>>>foreclosed on before he opened the doors for business) was then
>>>>>redeveloped as the offices of the insurance company that was my major
>>>>>client for 17 years. Lots of changes were made by the developer.
>>>>>Then more changes were made as time went on - and I ended up
>>>>>trobleshooting a lot of issues. A real pain in the butt!! Complicating
>>>>>matters was the way some of the creditors removed equipment that was
>>>>>unpaid for when they came back to reclaim it - - - - - - (from the
>>>>>original tennant.)
>>>>
>>>>So no matter what I come up with you are going to trash the idea,
>>>>right?
>>> No. There are many devices that can be used to make tracing and
>>>troubleshooting individual conductor circuits in conduit and raceway
>>>easier - but NOTHING will make it as simple as following cable.
>>
>>I have found just following the cable simple way to figure out where
>>the conduit runs. Unless you have a situation where you should just
>>tear it out and start over because of others incompetence.
> Picture if you will a 300 foot building with 4 panels,160 circuits,
>and something in excess of 600 outlets, with the wiring running in
>conduits above a 12 - 15 foot suspended ceiling that has been
>renovated 3 times in 10 years. Over a mile of that wire was installed
>by myself - and none of THAT caused problems other than finding where
>the unused circuits had been dead-ended to get my power.
> THAT was fun - - - -
Honest questions, was the price per foot below the market, when all
the problem addressed was the cost still below market?
Fun can also be trying to pull wires through a conduit that was not
sealed in a light weight concrete floor, then you pull the drywall
down and reroute.
On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:27:36 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:55:11 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 08:42:49 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 20:59:13 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 13:41:06 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:24:27 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 12:45:53 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >The point is that you simply can not admit to being wrong.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >Your blanket statement that a cash buyer of a house with K&T could not insure
>>>>>>> >is just not true 100% of the time.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >You can post a million words about known examples where it would be difficult if not
>>>>>>> >impossible to insure, but that still doesn't eliminate the ability in every single case.
>>>>>>> And YOU mr Derby, have to nit-pick at everything - You sure can't be
>>>>>>> wrong - you are an AMERICAN for cripes sake!!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES a house with K&T wiring IS uninsurable.
>>>>>>> Mabee not in some backwater bayou where a house with electricity is a
>>>>>>> luxury even if it's wired with fencewire using old bud bottles as
>>>>>>> insulators - but then how many of those hovels are insured???
>>>>>>> Or where if you know the cheif inspector and drink with him every
>>>>>>> night and go target shooting with yout AK every weekend with him you
>>>>>>> can get anything passed - - - -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - look in the mirror!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Man, you do get worked up, don't you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>All caps, multiple punctuation marks, misspellings galore.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Wouldn't it be easier to just say. "Sorry, I misspoke"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That has to be better for your blood pressure than your way of
>>>>>>handling things.
>>>>>
>>>>>As far as better way of handling things, tracing a circuit in conduit.
>>>>>Try a circuit tracer, you disconnect the hot lead at the breaker (or
>>>>>fure box) hook the tracer up go find all the devices on that circuit.
>>>> That DOES let you trace the power - sort of - when the circuit does
>>>>not have a problem - but does not do a good job of tracing neutrals.
>>>>When not in a conduit a "fox and hound" tracer works but they are
>>>>almost useless in a metal conduit.
>>>> Generally finding what is ON a circuit isn't too much of a problem.
>>>>Finding what circuit it is SUPPOSED to be on when it has "fallen off"
>>>>for some reason is the fun part - in a building with 4 panels in it,
>>>>where there appears to be no rhyme or reason to what is on what panel.
>>>>
>>>>One building in particular - where I spent a LOT of time was built as
>>>>a 4 unit commercial building which was developed as the office
>>>>headquarters of a notorious financial planning fraudster locally (and
>>>>foreclosed on before he opened the doors for business) was then
>>>>redeveloped as the offices of the insurance company that was my major
>>>>client for 17 years. Lots of changes were made by the developer.
>>>>Then more changes were made as time went on - and I ended up
>>>>trobleshooting a lot of issues. A real pain in the butt!! Complicating
>>>>matters was the way some of the creditors removed equipment that was
>>>>unpaid for when they came back to reclaim it - - - - - - (from the
>>>>original tennant.)
>>>
>>>So no matter what I come up with you are going to trash the idea,
>>>right?
>> No. There are many devices that can be used to make tracing and
>>troubleshooting individual conductor circuits in conduit and raceway
>>easier - but NOTHING will make it as simple as following cable.
>
>I have found just following the cable simple way to figure out where
>the conduit runs. Unless you have a situation where you should just
>tear it out and start over because of others incompetence.
Follow what cable? The wires run through conduit from the panel to
the outlet - through numerous "pull boxes" through a virtual GRID of
conduit.
On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 17:24:23 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:27:36 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:55:11 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 08:42:49 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 20:59:13 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 13:41:06 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:24:27 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 12:45:53 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >The point is that you simply can not admit to being wrong.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >Your blanket statement that a cash buyer of a house with K&T could not insure
>>>>>>>> >is just not true 100% of the time.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >You can post a million words about known examples where it would be difficult if not
>>>>>>>> >impossible to insure, but that still doesn't eliminate the ability in every single case.
>>>>>>>> And YOU mr Derby, have to nit-pick at everything - You sure can't be
>>>>>>>> wrong - you are an AMERICAN for cripes sake!!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES a house with K&T wiring IS uninsurable.
>>>>>>>> Mabee not in some backwater bayou where a house with electricity is a
>>>>>>>> luxury even if it's wired with fencewire using old bud bottles as
>>>>>>>> insulators - but then how many of those hovels are insured???
>>>>>>>> Or where if you know the cheif inspector and drink with him every
>>>>>>>> night and go target shooting with yout AK every weekend with him you
>>>>>>>> can get anything passed - - - -
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - look in the mirror!!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Man, you do get worked up, don't you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>All caps, multiple punctuation marks, misspellings galore.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Wouldn't it be easier to just say. "Sorry, I misspoke"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That has to be better for your blood pressure than your way of
>>>>>>>handling things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As far as better way of handling things, tracing a circuit in conduit.
>>>>>>Try a circuit tracer, you disconnect the hot lead at the breaker (or
>>>>>>fure box) hook the tracer up go find all the devices on that circuit.
>>>>> That DOES let you trace the power - sort of - when the circuit does
>>>>>not have a problem - but does not do a good job of tracing neutrals.
>>>>>When not in a conduit a "fox and hound" tracer works but they are
>>>>>almost useless in a metal conduit.
>>>>> Generally finding what is ON a circuit isn't too much of a problem.
>>>>>Finding what circuit it is SUPPOSED to be on when it has "fallen off"
>>>>>for some reason is the fun part - in a building with 4 panels in it,
>>>>>where there appears to be no rhyme or reason to what is on what panel.
>>>>>
>>>>>One building in particular - where I spent a LOT of time was built as
>>>>>a 4 unit commercial building which was developed as the office
>>>>>headquarters of a notorious financial planning fraudster locally (and
>>>>>foreclosed on before he opened the doors for business) was then
>>>>>redeveloped as the offices of the insurance company that was my major
>>>>>client for 17 years. Lots of changes were made by the developer.
>>>>>Then more changes were made as time went on - and I ended up
>>>>>trobleshooting a lot of issues. A real pain in the butt!! Complicating
>>>>>matters was the way some of the creditors removed equipment that was
>>>>>unpaid for when they came back to reclaim it - - - - - - (from the
>>>>>original tennant.)
>>>>
>>>>So no matter what I come up with you are going to trash the idea,
>>>>right?
>>> No. There are many devices that can be used to make tracing and
>>>troubleshooting individual conductor circuits in conduit and raceway
>>>easier - but NOTHING will make it as simple as following cable.
>>
>>I have found just following the cable simple way to figure out where
>>the conduit runs. Unless you have a situation where you should just
>>tear it out and start over because of others incompetence.
> Follow what cable? The wires run through conduit from the panel to
>the outlet - through numerous "pull boxes" through a virtual GRID of
>conduit.
If you put the tracer on the hot lead you can follow it at the outlet
and switch boxes, conduit does not act like a faraday cage.
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 17:13:45 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 8:07:22 PM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>> On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 7:19:12 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
>> > On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 13:48:08 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > #4 certainly looks like it would cover it. I'm really surprised
>> > because future modifications could disconnect the safety ground.
>>
>> Actually I would have gone with #3, assuming that was physically possible.
>>
>> Single ground wire from the receptacle back to the panel. BTDT
>
>I forgot to mention that I labeled both ends of the ground wire cuz I ain't
>gonna be around forever. That should cover your safety concern somewhat.
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 11:59:45 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 17:13:45 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 8:07:22 PM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> >> On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 7:19:12 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 13:48:08 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
> >> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > #4 certainly looks like it would cover it. I'm really surprised
> >> > because future modifications could disconnect the safety ground.
> >>
> >> Actually I would have gone with #3, assuming that was physically possible.
> >>
> >> Single ground wire from the receptacle back to the panel. BTDT
> >
> >I forgot to mention that I labeled both ends of the ground wire cuz I ain't
> >gonna be around forever. That should cover your safety concern somewhat.
>
> That doesn't necessarily cover it. If the outlet you're scabbing the
> ground off of may be abandoned upstream of the scabbed outlet,
> removing the ground from the split circuit.
>
Something's not grammatically correct there, so I'm missing your point.
Perhaps you could clarify.
I'm suggesting using 250-130(C)-3. The current 3-wire receptacle would be
replaced with a junction box and a ground wire would be run from the new
junction box back to the panel.
Any properly wired receptacles run from that junction box would thus be
properly grounded. I'm not sure what you think might be "abandoned" in that
situation.
I did something very similar except that I wasn't replacing a receptacle. I
had an un-grounded Edison circuit running to a junction box, so I simply
added a ground wire. The 2 branch circuits that come from that box were run
with 14/2 w/ground Romex. I labeled the ground wire at the panel and junction
box just to avoid confusion at either end.
> Fortunately, I have an unfinished basement (~2000 ft^2 of shop ;-) so
> running everything the right way is pretty easy. The second story is
> a bit problematic but there're just two bedrooms and a bath upstairs
> so little need for wiring changes.
My 1955 house was wired in a way that made upgrading fairly easy. The first
floor was wired in a "up-down" manner such that almost all of the wiring
goes up to a receptacle or switch then comes back down to the basement, over
to the next,up-down, etc.
On the second floor they reversed the process by using down-up into the attic.
Tracing all the wires was pretty easy. Adding ceiling fixtures in the bedrooms
was a breeze because all of the wiring was easily accessible.
What I never understood is why they were willing to use so much wire with
all of the up-down, down-up runs and then chose to save a small amount of
wire by running that single Edison circuit. It would have been just as easy
to run 2 cables from the panel as it was to run the single 3 wire cable. It's
a fairly short run, fully exposed in the basement.
Maybe it was a teaching moment between a master electrician and his
apprentice.
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 17:13:45 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 8:07:22 PM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>> On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 7:19:12 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
>> > On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 13:48:08 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > #4 certainly looks like it would cover it. I'm really surprised
>> > because future modifications could disconnect the safety ground.
>>
>> Actually I would have gone with #3, assuming that was physically possible.
>>
>> Single ground wire from the receptacle back to the panel. BTDT
>
>I forgot to mention that I labeled both ends of the ground wire cuz I ain't
>gonna be around forever. That should cover your safety concern somewhat.
That doesn't necessarily cover it. If the outlet you're scabbing the
ground off of may be abandoned upstream of the scabbed outlet,
removing the ground from the split circuit.
Fortunately, I have an unfinished basement (~2000 ft^2 of shop ;-) so
running everything the right way is pretty easy. The second story is
a bit problematic but there're just two bedrooms and a bath upstairs
so little need for wiring changes.
On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 06:35:25 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 3:15:03 AM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 22:38:00 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 23:06:46 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> No - you are wrong - because a "240 volt breaker" is a common trip 2
>> >>pole 120 volt breaker. It is basically 2 120 volt breakers on opposite
>> >>sides of the panel wired in series with the center-tap being the
>> >>shared neutral.
>> >>
>> >>Don't spout off about things you OBVIOUSLY have no knowlege of.
>> >
>> >So my advice to the original poster is get an electrician rather than
>> >depend upon the myriad of thoughts expressed here.
>> >
>> >Any thoughts on that sir?
>> I said a few days ago if he had to ask the question perhaps he should
>> have an electrician do the job. Nowhere did I say HE should do the
>> job. I just said it could be done, without a subpanel, and without
>> replacingthe wire. I dissagree with running an external ground - which
>> would NOT pass inspection here in Ontario Canada. - 4 wire will give
>> him 2 circuits - 3 wire will give him one. At least that's what would
>> pass here and what a qualified electrician would agree to here. My Dad
>> was an electrician and he taught me a lot.
>
>Assuming the OP is working within the US NEC arena, why would you disagree
>with a code-compliant external ground?
If it is accepted in his jurisdiction, OK - and if it is an external
GROUND - but a lot of old drier 3 wire plugs were on 2 wire plus
ground - which would mean in most cases only 2 insulated wires -
requiring an external NEUTRAL which IS verbotten.
If the cable contains red, black, and white you may (in some cases) be
allowed to run an external ground and use the white for the common
neutral.
If it has black and red or black and white with either green or bare
you can not use the green or bare as the neutral - it is GROUND ONLY -
and you can NOT run an external neutral wire. ( to the best of my
knowlege)
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 19:56:22 -0500, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 19:31:49 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 16:37:25 -0500, J. Clarke
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 15:10:06 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 21:55:55 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 22:22:02 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 18:27:55 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 9:04:24 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 16:13:40 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 2:22:12 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>>>> >> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 06:35:25 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>>>>>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 3:15:03 AM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>>>> >> >> On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 22:38:00 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>> >> >> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 23:06:46 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >wrote:
>>>>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> No - you are wrong - because a "240 volt breaker" is a common trip 2
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>pole 120 volt breaker. It is basically 2 120 volt breakers on opposite
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>sides of the panel wired in series with the center-tap being the
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>shared neutral.
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>Don't spout off about things you OBVIOUSLY have no knowlege of.
>>>>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>>>>> >> >> >So my advice to the original poster is get an electrician rather than
>>>>>>>> >> >> >depend upon the myriad of thoughts expressed here.
>>>>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>>>>> >> >> >Any thoughts on that sir?
>>>>>>>> >> >> I said a few days ago if he had to ask the question perhaps he should
>>>>>>>> >> >> have an electrician do the job. Nowhere did I say HE should do the
>>>>>>>> >> >> job. I just said it could be done, without a subpanel, and without
>>>>>>>> >> >> replacingthe wire. I dissagree with running an external ground - which
>>>>>>>> >> >> would NOT pass inspection here in Ontario Canada. - 4 wire will give
>>>>>>>> >> >> him 2 circuits - 3 wire will give him one. At least that's what would
>>>>>>>> >> >> pass here and what a qualified electrician would agree to here. My Dad
>>>>>>>> >> >> was an electrician and he taught me a lot.
>>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>> >> >Assuming the OP is working within the US NEC arena, why would you disagree
>>>>>>>> >> >with a code-compliant external ground?
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >> If it is accepted in his jurisdiction, OK - and if it is an external
>>>>>>>> >> GROUND - but a lot of old drier 3 wire plugs were on 2 wire plus
>>>>>>>> >> ground - which would mean in most cases only 2 insulated wires -
>>>>>>>> >> requiring an external NEUTRAL which IS verbotten.
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> If the cable contains red, black, and white you may (in some cases) be
>>>>>>>> >> allowed to run an external ground and use the white for the common
>>>>>>>> >> neutral.
>>>>>>>> >> If it has black and red or black and white with either green or bare
>>>>>>>> >> you can not use the green or bare as the neutral - it is GROUND ONLY -
>>>>>>>> >> and you can NOT run an external neutral wire. ( to the best of my
>>>>>>>> >> knowlege)
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >I asked a very simple question to which you provided an answer with a lot of unrelated stuff (unrelated to my question, that is).
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >You said: "I dissagree [sic] with running an external ground"
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >I asked: "...why would you disagree with a code-compliant external ground?"
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >You could have stopped right after "If it is accepted in his jurisdiction,
>>>>>>>> >OK"
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >Bottom line, it appears that you *don't* disagree with running an code-
>>>>>>>> >compliant external ground, which (your disagreement) is the only thing I
>>>>>>>> >asked about.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >Now I'm curious as to why you said you disagree, when in fact, you do not.
>>>>>>>> "I" dissagree - code may not. Here I can't get away with it. (unless
>>>>>>>> it is strapped to the cable for the full length making it
>>>>>>>> "effectively" part of the cable). If you can get to the cable the full
>>>>>>>> lenth to strap on the ground you may as well pull out the deficient
>>>>>>>> cable and pull in the proper 3 wire plus ground cable.
>>>>>>>> It USED to be acceptable to connect the safety ground to a water
>>>>>>>> pipe. That is no longer kosher. (for good reason) Also USED to be able
>>>>>>>> to use EMT conduit as safety ground. Also no longer allowed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You still haven't explained *why* you disagree. I didn't ask whether it was
>>>>>>>compliant in Ontario. I didn't ask what installation method might make it
>>>>>>>compliant in Ontario. I didn't ask about old code language related to water
>>>>>>>pipes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm not sure why you keep answering questions that I'm not asking.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In fact, I'm not even sure that you actually disagree. Earlier you said "OK".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So which is it? Do you disagree with using a code-compliant external ground
>>>>>>>or not? If you do, tell us why. Nothing else, just *why* you disagree with
>>>>>>>using a code-compliant external ground.
>>>>>> No I don't agree with it because it's a dumb-ass redneck hack. Just
>>>>>>because the fools who write code in the USA allow it doesn't mean it
>>>>>>is right or safe. The reason we use "cable" instead of individual
>>>>>>wires is to ensure all conductors for a given circuit are kept
>>>>>>together so unidentified or separate conductors don't get "lost" down
>>>>>>the way. A safety ground is for "safety" and it is meant to be an
>>>>>>"integrated" safety solution.
>>>>>>Another reason I can't figure out why some American jurisdictions
>>>>>>require conduit and wire instead of cable for residential use. Bad
>>>>>>enough trying to sort out the spiderweb in industrial and commercial
>>>>>>premises after a dew electricians have had their fingers into it.
>>>>>
>>>>>The reason why conduit was require is money, the unions and
>>>>>contractors had enough influence to get it in as the code. Cook County
>>>>>Illinois, also required cast iron DVW above ground, til recently when
>>>>>the reduction in cost of PVC and ABS was realized.
>>>> Crook county is a totally different UNIVERSE.
>>>>
>>>>Cast iron has been basically DEAD up here for over 30 years - and like
>>>>knob and tube wiring is virtually uninsureable. Copper DVW is just
>>>>about as bad (for good reason)
>>>> Insurance companies are NOT in the business of taking risks - no
>>>>matter WHAT you may believe.
>>>
>>>One of the requirements for issuance of insurance is that there be an
>>>"insurable risk". If there were no risks there would be no need for
>>>insurance.
>>>
>>>> With water damage claims becoming the MAJORITY of insured losses -
>>>>including mold damage from "incipient leaks", insurers are getting
>>>>REALLY gun-shy. Used to be insurers made their money on investing the
>>>>premiums,
>>>
>>>Actually the ability of insurers to invest premiums is controlled by
>>>regulations. Insurers most assuredly do make their money by
>>>collecting premiums and selling product. There is an investment
>>>component but it is not the major source of income. Note that that is
>>>not a guess on my part--I do these calculations for a living.
>>>
>>>>and paid out losses from the investment income. That
>>>>investment income has pretty much evaporated at the same time claim
>>>>costs have sky-rocketed.
>>>
>>>What leads you to believe that claim costs have "sky-rocketed"?
>> How's 17 years in the general insurance industry????
>
>Doing what? Actuary? Underwriter? Quant? Customer service? Do you
>have statistics?
Tech support - and good friend of the president of the company - and
my daughter is manager - largest general insurance brokerage in the
tri-cities.
Also reading a LOT of statistics -
Take a look at:
https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-us-catastrophes
Also see:
https://www.iii.org/graph-archive/218208
and:
https://www.iii.org/graph-archive/218209
and:
https://www.iii.org/graph-archive/218222
and:
https://www.iii.org/sites/default/files/images/factstat_uscatastrophe_5.gif
as well as:
https://www.iii.org/table-archive/20922
2017 was the worst year up untill this year - the figures for 2019
are not out yet - Worlswide insured losses due to natural disasters in
2016 were US$50,700,000,000. In 2017 that figure was US$
135,000,000,000.
2018 dropped back to 80,000,000 - which was a relief to the
re-insurance market but has not allowed the market to recover fully -
and 2019 sure isn't looking good either!!!! They are looking to pretty
well hold steady with 2018 -
In the world market Hurricaine Katrina alone in 2005 cost insurers in
excess of 82.39BILLION dollars - the largest insured lossby a factor
of almost 2.5 - with Fukishama in Japan being in second place (38.13
BILLION US$) Hurricaine Maria in 2017 is third at $32 BILLION. with
Sandy, Irma and Harvey addin in excess of 30BILLION EACH in 2017.
You go back to 9-11 with losses of just under 26BILLION in 2001 and
Hurricaine Andrew in 1992 with losses of 27BILLION.
By just about ANY definition that indicates claim costs skyrocketing
in general property insurance.
Lots of other information that I can't access any more since I retired
2 years ago.
From insurancebusinessmag.com
A new report has found that the number of water damage claims
resulting from leaks have surged in recent years, as other types of
claims have declined in frequency.
The report, prepared by Verisk Analytics ISO unit, found that one in
50 homeowners filed a water damage claim each year, between 2013 and
2017. This 2.05% frequency rate is a noticeable increase from the
1.44% frequency rate annually for the period between 2005 and 2009.
Industry figures have also highlighted that the increase in water
damage claims occurred even as other types of claims (such as for
fire) have declined in frequency.
ISO additionally found that, in 2017, the total amount of insurance
payouts for water damage was $13 billion. The average claim cost about
$10,000.
Several industry leaders have confirmed that water damage is just as
rampant as the data reveals.
Wildfires, hurricanes and tornadoes catch headlines, but the reality
is that the No. 1 kind of risk that the everyday consumer has is a
water claim, USAA assistant vice-president of P&C innovation Jon-Mike
Kowall told Wall Street Journal.
From Canadian Underwriter.ca:
Water is the most common cause of damage and accounts for 50% of home
insurance claims costs, Desjardins Group said Thursday. This is
similar to other recent industry findings, with the Canadian Institute
of Actuaries saying in a 2014 report that water damage is responsible
for 48% of Canadian home claims, ahead of theft and fire, which made
up 18% and 4% of total claims, respectively.
In Desjardins survey conducted online with 3,020 respondents aged
16 to 74 across Canada just over one-quarter (26%) reported having a
water damage incident in their home. But 43% didnt know how to
prevent this type of damage (which could include steps such as sealing
cracks, checking the backwater valve to avoid sewer backup and
extending downspouts to prevent water seepage).
With more frequent and severe weather incidents like heavy rain,
lightning storms, hail, freezing-thawing cycles and flooding, there
has been an increase in the number of water-related insurance claims
across the country, Desjardins said. When asked if they feel weather
severity has increased in frequency in the last 10 years, 75% of
respondents believed it has, with 58% indicating they are worried
about climate change impacting their personal safety or the safety of
their property.
From waterdamagedefense.com;
Home Water Damage
When you consider the statistics, it becomes clear just how common and
devastating a problem water damage can be. According to industry
estimates, 14,000 people in the US experience a water damage emergency
at home or work each day, and 98% of basements in the US will suffer
from some type of water damage during their lifetime.
The costs are just a staggering as the frequency. Water damage and
mold cost the insurance industry $2.5 billion dollars per year, and
the average cost of a home water damage insurance claim is $6,965.
Water leaks alone leave incredible amounts of damage and immense waste
in their wake. Water leaks from homes in the US can exceed 1 trillion
gallons of water in a year. That's equivalent to the annual water
usage of Los Angeles, Chicago, and Miami combined! These individual
leaks often seem tiny, but over time they can generate enormous waste
and damage to a home. For example, a continuously running toilet can
waste over 200 gallons of water per day, and a 1/8 inch crack in a
pipe can spill 250 gallons of water in a day.
Also, my home town is home to the head offices of 3 of the largest
insurance COMPANIES in Canada including Manulife Sun Life (formerly
Mutual Life) and Economical, as well as at least 4 other smaller
insurance companies. Many of my friends work in the insurance industry
in head office.
Returns ARE getting better over the last 2 or 3 years after an
abyssmal start to the 2000 century - particularly the mid-century
when virtually all the insurance companies were running net losses in
their investment portfolios.
The worldwide economy and loss record also affects our insurance rates
through a shortage of affordable re-insurance. The fires in Cali,
Australia, Alberta, and the Amazon all put a big drain on re-insurers
like Lloyds of London - as do flooding and brush fires in Portugal,
flooding in the UK - flooding in Venice - it is a WORLDWIDE market and
losses anywhere in the world affect underwriting costs - and economic
dactors world-wide affect the investment income.
From
https://www.oecd.org/daf/fin/insurance/Global-Insurance-Market-Trends-2018.pdf
Despite positive investment performance of most insurers, returns
tended to
be lower in 2017 than in 2016, particularly for non-life insurers.
Investment
returns were lower in 2017 in 76% of the reporting countries for
non-life
insurers (28 out of 37 countries), in 48% of the reporting countries
for life
insurers (16 out of 33 countries) and in 60% of the reporting
countries for
composite insurers (12 out of 20 countries). 7
Despite the normalisation of monetary policy in the US, low interest
rates
still represent a challenge for insurers.
This document covers world-wide insurance operations
LOTS of interesting stuff in there - particularly if you can compare
it to 10, 15, 20 years back.
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 19:31:49 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 16:37:25 -0500, J. Clarke
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 15:10:06 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 21:55:55 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 22:22:02 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 18:27:55 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 9:04:24 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 16:13:40 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 2:22:12 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>>> >> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 06:35:25 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>>>>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> >On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 3:15:03 AM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>>> >> >> On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 22:38:00 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> >> >> wrote:
>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>> >> >> >On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 23:06:46 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> >> >> >wrote:
>>>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>>>> >> >> >> No - you are wrong - because a "240 volt breaker" is a common trip 2
>>>>>>> >> >> >>pole 120 volt breaker. It is basically 2 120 volt breakers on opposite
>>>>>>> >> >> >>sides of the panel wired in series with the center-tap being the
>>>>>>> >> >> >>shared neutral.
>>>>>>> >> >> >>
>>>>>>> >> >> >>Don't spout off about things you OBVIOUSLY have no knowlege of.
>>>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>>>> >> >> >So my advice to the original poster is get an electrician rather than
>>>>>>> >> >> >depend upon the myriad of thoughts expressed here.
>>>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>>>> >> >> >Any thoughts on that sir?
>>>>>>> >> >> I said a few days ago if he had to ask the question perhaps he should
>>>>>>> >> >> have an electrician do the job. Nowhere did I say HE should do the
>>>>>>> >> >> job. I just said it could be done, without a subpanel, and without
>>>>>>> >> >> replacingthe wire. I dissagree with running an external ground - which
>>>>>>> >> >> would NOT pass inspection here in Ontario Canada. - 4 wire will give
>>>>>>> >> >> him 2 circuits - 3 wire will give him one. At least that's what would
>>>>>>> >> >> pass here and what a qualified electrician would agree to here. My Dad
>>>>>>> >> >> was an electrician and he taught me a lot.
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> >Assuming the OP is working within the US NEC arena, why would you disagree
>>>>>>> >> >with a code-compliant external ground?
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >> If it is accepted in his jurisdiction, OK - and if it is an external
>>>>>>> >> GROUND - but a lot of old drier 3 wire plugs were on 2 wire plus
>>>>>>> >> ground - which would mean in most cases only 2 insulated wires -
>>>>>>> >> requiring an external NEUTRAL which IS verbotten.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> If the cable contains red, black, and white you may (in some cases) be
>>>>>>> >> allowed to run an external ground and use the white for the common
>>>>>>> >> neutral.
>>>>>>> >> If it has black and red or black and white with either green or bare
>>>>>>> >> you can not use the green or bare as the neutral - it is GROUND ONLY -
>>>>>>> >> and you can NOT run an external neutral wire. ( to the best of my
>>>>>>> >> knowlege)
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >I asked a very simple question to which you provided an answer with a lot of unrelated stuff (unrelated to my question, that is).
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >You said: "I dissagree [sic] with running an external ground"
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >I asked: "...why would you disagree with a code-compliant external ground?"
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >You could have stopped right after "If it is accepted in his jurisdiction,
>>>>>>> >OK"
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >Bottom line, it appears that you *don't* disagree with running an code-
>>>>>>> >compliant external ground, which (your disagreement) is the only thing I
>>>>>>> >asked about.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >Now I'm curious as to why you said you disagree, when in fact, you do not.
>>>>>>> "I" dissagree - code may not. Here I can't get away with it. (unless
>>>>>>> it is strapped to the cable for the full length making it
>>>>>>> "effectively" part of the cable). If you can get to the cable the full
>>>>>>> lenth to strap on the ground you may as well pull out the deficient
>>>>>>> cable and pull in the proper 3 wire plus ground cable.
>>>>>>> It USED to be acceptable to connect the safety ground to a water
>>>>>>> pipe. That is no longer kosher. (for good reason) Also USED to be able
>>>>>>> to use EMT conduit as safety ground. Also no longer allowed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You still haven't explained *why* you disagree. I didn't ask whether it was
>>>>>>compliant in Ontario. I didn't ask what installation method might make it
>>>>>>compliant in Ontario. I didn't ask about old code language related to water
>>>>>>pipes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm not sure why you keep answering questions that I'm not asking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In fact, I'm not even sure that you actually disagree. Earlier you said "OK".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So which is it? Do you disagree with using a code-compliant external ground
>>>>>>or not? If you do, tell us why. Nothing else, just *why* you disagree with
>>>>>>using a code-compliant external ground.
>>>>> No I don't agree with it because it's a dumb-ass redneck hack. Just
>>>>>because the fools who write code in the USA allow it doesn't mean it
>>>>>is right or safe. The reason we use "cable" instead of individual
>>>>>wires is to ensure all conductors for a given circuit are kept
>>>>>together so unidentified or separate conductors don't get "lost" down
>>>>>the way. A safety ground is for "safety" and it is meant to be an
>>>>>"integrated" safety solution.
>>>>>Another reason I can't figure out why some American jurisdictions
>>>>>require conduit and wire instead of cable for residential use. Bad
>>>>>enough trying to sort out the spiderweb in industrial and commercial
>>>>>premises after a dew electricians have had their fingers into it.
>>>>
>>>>The reason why conduit was require is money, the unions and
>>>>contractors had enough influence to get it in as the code. Cook County
>>>>Illinois, also required cast iron DVW above ground, til recently when
>>>>the reduction in cost of PVC and ABS was realized.
>>> Crook county is a totally different UNIVERSE.
>>>
>>>Cast iron has been basically DEAD up here for over 30 years - and like
>>>knob and tube wiring is virtually uninsureable. Copper DVW is just
>>>about as bad (for good reason)
>>> Insurance companies are NOT in the business of taking risks - no
>>>matter WHAT you may believe.
>>
>>One of the requirements for issuance of insurance is that there be an
>>"insurable risk". If there were no risks there would be no need for
>>insurance.
>>
>>> With water damage claims becoming the MAJORITY of insured losses -
>>>including mold damage from "incipient leaks", insurers are getting
>>>REALLY gun-shy. Used to be insurers made their money on investing the
>>>premiums,
>>
>>Actually the ability of insurers to invest premiums is controlled by
>>regulations. Insurers most assuredly do make their money by
>>collecting premiums and selling product. There is an investment
>>component but it is not the major source of income. Note that that is
>>not a guess on my part--I do these calculations for a living.
>>
>>>and paid out losses from the investment income. That
>>>investment income has pretty much evaporated at the same time claim
>>>costs have sky-rocketed.
>>
>>What leads you to believe that claim costs have "sky-rocketed"?
> How's 17 years in the general insurance industry????
Doing what? Actuary? Underwriter? Quant? Customer service? Do you
have statistics?
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 10:37:24 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 20:40:52 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 18:45:12 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>An additional question: This is for a treadmill.
>>>>It will be in a room right next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (unused).
>>>>Will the electrician be able to use that connection to create an outlet for the treadmill,
>>>>or will he/she have to run a totally new connection for the 17A from the fusebox?
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for the help!
>>>
>>>An electrician could set up sub panel from that outlet, question is do
>>>you want that. Questions to ask the are in your quoted text above,
>>>they can do what you want the limiting factor is what it costs.
>>>
>>>Where is your fuse/circuit breaker box for the house, are there open
>>>circuit in the box?
>> Sub panel not required No open circuits required, location of panel
>>immaterial.
>
>Really you live in a fantasy world with no building codes?
No. But at least here in Canada an "edison circuit" is still legal -
allowing 2 20 ampo circuits to be run on that 3-wire plus ground cable
.
If it is not a 3+ground cable it is still legal to run single 120 volt
circuit on the 2 wire circuit and the edison circuit can be split in
the "junction box" without a sub-panel - the breaker MUST be a common
trip 2 pole 20 amp breaker.
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 11:14:10 AM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 03:33:08 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>=20
> >On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 10:42:39 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wr=
ote:
> >> On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 20:39:17 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>=20
> >> >On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
> >> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Snyder wrot=
e:
> >> >>
> >> >>An additional question: This is for a treadmill. It will be in a roo=
m right next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (unused). W=
ill the electrician be able to use that connection to create an outlet for =
the treadmill, or will he/she have to run a totally new connection for the =
17A from the fusebox?
> >> >>
> >> >>Thanks for the help!
> >> >Any electrician worth his salt will be able to give you at least one,
> >> >and likely 2, 20 amp circuits drom that wire (after changing to a 20
> >> >amp braker)
> >>=20
> >> IFF it's a 4-wire circuit.
> >
> >If it's currently a 3 wire circuit, a ground could be run back to the pa=
nel, couldn't it?
>=20
> I don't believe that meets code.
Isn't it covered by 250.130(C)?
(C) Nongrounding Receptacle Replacement or Branch Circuit Extensions. The=
=20
equipment grounding conductor of a grounding-type receptacle or a branch-
circuit extension shall be permitted to be connected to any of the followin=
g:=20
(1) Any accessible point on the grounding electrode system as described in=
=20
250.50=20
(2) Any accessible point on the grounding electrode conductor=20
(3) The equipment grounding terminal bar within the enclosure where the bra=
nch=20
circuit for the receptacle or branch circuit originates=20
(4) An equipment grounding conductor that is part of another branch circuit=
=20
that originates from the enclosure where the branch circuit for the recepta=
cle=20
or branch circuit originates=20
(5) For grounded systems, the grounded service conductor within the service=
=20
equipment enclosure=20
(6) For ungrounded systems, the grounding terminal bar within the service=
=20
equipment enclosure
On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 10:42:39 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote=
:
> On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 20:39:17 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>=20
> >On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Snyder wrote:
> >>
> >>An additional question: This is for a treadmill. It will be in a room r=
ight next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (unused). Will=
the electrician be able to use that connection to create an outlet for the=
treadmill, or will he/she have to run a totally new connection for the 17A=
from the fusebox?
> >>
> >>Thanks for the help!
> >Any electrician worth his salt will be able to give you at least one,
> >and likely 2, 20 amp circuits drom that wire (after changing to a 20
> >amp braker)
>=20
> IFF it's a 4-wire circuit.
If it's currently a 3 wire circuit, a ground could be run back to the panel=
, couldn't it?
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 12:03:43 -0800 (PST), Michael
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Can I use a converter to make this plug work in a regular household outlet?
>
>120 voc/60hz
>Current 17a
>
>https://ibb.co/G0Bkh7j
>
That is a standard plug for a 20A service. Anything that would adapt
that to a NEMA 5-15 would be dangerous, particularly since your device
draws 17A. Don't do it. You might be able to replace the outlet with
a 5-20 but only if it's a 20A circuit and there's nothing else on it.
On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 3:03:46 PM UTC-5, Michael wrote:
> Can I use a converter to make this plug work in a regular household outlet?
>
> 120 voc/60hz
> Current 17a
>
> https://ibb.co/G0Bkh7j
>
> Thanks!
Physically? Sure:
https://www.amazon.com/AC-WORKS-XH515520-Household-T-Blade/dp/B017EUTHC0
But what is a "regular household outlet"?
Looks to me like you would need a 20A circuit for whatever that plug is for.
If you only have 15A receptacles on 15A circuits, then you may run into issues.
What is it for and what does the manual say about the type of circuit required?
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 16:11:47 -0500, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 11:17:28 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 11:58:21 -0500, J. Clarke
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 10:37:24 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 20:40:52 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 18:45:12 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>An additional question: This is for a treadmill.
>>>>>>>It will be in a room right next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (unused).
>>>>>>>Will the electrician be able to use that connection to create an outlet for the treadmill,
>>>>>>>or will he/she have to run a totally new connection for the 17A from the fusebox?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Thanks for the help!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>An electrician could set up sub panel from that outlet, question is do
>>>>>>you want that. Questions to ask the are in your quoted text above,
>>>>>>they can do what you want the limiting factor is what it costs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Where is your fuse/circuit breaker box for the house, are there open
>>>>>>circuit in the box?
>>>>> Sub panel not required No open circuits required, location of panel
>>>>>immaterial.
>>>>
>>>>Really you live in a fantasy world with no building codes?
>>>
>>>OK, tell us the specific provision of code that forbids splitting an
>>>existing 240v circuit into two 120v circuits by replacing the
>>>receptacle ******----->>>>>and the breaker<<<<<-----*****.
>>
>>Well if you run a 120v circuit off a 240v breaker you are asking for a
>>fire, commom sense not code. If you replace the 240v breaker with 2
>>120v breakers it will work.
>
>See emphasis above.
>
>>But then Mr. Clarke is alway just looking for an argument.
>
>You're the one who asserted that such a thing could be done only in a
>fantasy world with no building codes.
>
Just fuck off and die, you ass
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 14:47:07 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 12:03:43 -0800 (PST), Michael
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Can I use a converter to make this plug work in a regular household outlet?
>>
>>120 voc/60hz
>>Current 17a
>>
>>https://ibb.co/G0Bkh7j
>>
>>Thanks!
>
>It is a 240 volt plug, why would you want to?
No, it's a 120v 20a plug. A 240v 20a plug looks similar but the
horizontal and vertical blades are switched.
>Now you could wire a 240 receptacle with 120 volts and it would work.
Not a good idea.
>Sorry but makes no sense to me with minimal info from your side.
On 12/22/2019 3:03 PM, Michael wrote:
> Can I use a converter to make this plug work in a regular household outlet?
>
> 120 voc/60hz
> Current 17a
>
> https://ibb.co/G0Bkh7j
>
> Thanks!
>
You should only use 80% of the rated capacity or 16A You should not put
it on a `5A breaker at all.
If it is a one time deal for 10 minutes, no biggie but if it is a steady
load you may be asking for trouble. Big trouble.
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 22:38:00 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 23:06:46 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>> No - you are wrong - because a "240 volt breaker" is a common trip 2
>>pole 120 volt breaker. It is basically 2 120 volt breakers on opposite
>>sides of the panel wired in series with the center-tap being the
>>shared neutral.
>>
>>Don't spout off about things you OBVIOUSLY have no knowlege of.
>
>So my advice to the original poster is get an electrician rather than
>depend upon the myriad of thoughts expressed here.
>
>Any thoughts on that sir?
I said a few days ago if he had to ask the question perhaps he should
have an electrician do the job. Nowhere did I say HE should do the
job. I just said it could be done, without a subpanel, and without
replacingthe wire. I dissagree with running an external ground - which
would NOT pass inspection here in Ontario Canada. - 4 wire will give
him 2 circuits - 3 wire will give him one. At least that's what would
pass here and what a qualified electrician would agree to here. My Dad
was an electrician and he taught me a lot.
On Sunday, December 29, 2019 at 8:37:12 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 16:41:50 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>=20
> >On Sunday, December 29, 2019 at 6:50:01 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote=
:
> >> On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 14:32:21 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>=20
> >> >On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 15:00:01 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 21:20:09 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
> >> >>wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 20:55:45 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]=
a>
> >> >>>wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 13:38:18 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
> >> >>>>wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 14:30:51 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]=
.ca>
> >> >>>>>wrote:
> >> >>>>>> Well I INTIMATED it here:"
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
> >> >>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Snyder=
wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>An additional question: This is for a treadmill. It will be in =
a room right next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (unuse=
d). Will the electrician be able to use that connection to create an outlet=
for the treadmill, or will he/she have to run a totally new connection for=
the 17A from the fusebox?
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>Thanks for the help!
> >> >>>>>>Any electrician worth his salt will be able to give you at least=
one,
> >> >>>>>>and likely 2, 20 amp circuits drom that wire (after changing to =
a 20
> >> >>>>>>amp braker)
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> And I guess it was a different thread where I said if he had to=
ask
> >> >>>>>>the question he shouldn't be doing it and should get an electric=
ian.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>I've said that MANY times on both the woodworking and home.repai=
r
> >> >>>>>>groups.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>Good to that you INTIMATED it, but I said get an electrian to loo=
k at
> >> >>>>>it. Because from here I can not see whether it is a grounded drye=
r
> >> >>>>>device or just a 2 hot and a neutral device.
> >> >>>> Or more likely a 2 hot and GROUND
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I have seen both, but then there are still houses that have knob t=
ube
> >> >>>that are functioning. That is just 2 wires no ground.
> >> >> Getting fewer and fewer up here. as soon as they change hands the
> >> >>knob and tube has to go. Almost impossible to get new insurance on a
> >> >>house with knob and tube or a 60 amp or smaller service up here - an=
d
> >> >>no insurance means no mortgage
> >>=20
> >> My son recently bought a house in Vermont with a mix of romex and K&T.
> >> I certainly wouldn't have but he didn't ask me (and I didn't offer an
> >> opinion).
> >
> >Was the K&T the only reason you wouldn't have bought the house? I certai=
nly
> >would have put that on the con side of the ledger, but there may have be=
en=20
> >enough pros to offset it. I've seen some old Vermont mansions that I'd c=
onsider
> >buying even if they had *no* electricity. ;-)
>=20
> Not but a long shot but it was a huge negative. The wiring in the
> walls had (mostly) been redone but the ceilings were all K&T. They
> don't have the money to rewire the rest (or do the rest of the needed
> repairs on an old house). I could do much of it but they're 1200mi
> from here and I've seen enough snow for this lifetime. ;-)
> >
> >The first time I ever saw K&T was in my God-parents house. They lived on=
=20
> >Narragansett Blvd. Why do I tell you what street they lived on? Here's w=
hy:
> >
> >Many years later, when I bought my first house, they reached under the=
=20
> >mattress and pulled out a wad of cash to help with the down payment. Whe=
n I=20
> >started to upgrade the wiring in the house they helped me buy, the first=
thing=20
> >I noticed was that some of the cloth covered "romex" was made by the=20
> >Narragansett Wiring Company. God does things like that every now and the=
n. :-)
>=20
> Too funny. Was the mattress from the Bank of Narragansett?
No, more like the Bank of Beautyrest.
I'm fairly serious about the figurative "mattress". The cash I got was wrap=
ped=20
in aluminum foil. Most banks use envelopes. ;-)
I'm pretty sure that the first bank that cash ever saw was mine.
BTW...there was something very "high tech" about that Narragansett St=20
house. It was built by my Great-grandfather, who also built the building=20
3 lots down the street. When someone in the house pressed the button in the=
=20
kitchen, a bell rang in the other building, signalling that the revenuers=
=20
had just turned the corner. Great-grandpa had better hide the liquor. The
speakeasy he ran suddenly became a tea house. ;-)
On Sunday, December 29, 2019 at 8:37:12 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 16:41:50 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>=20
> >On Sunday, December 29, 2019 at 6:50:01 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote=
:
> >> On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 14:32:21 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>=20
> >> >On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 15:00:01 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 21:20:09 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
> >> >>wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 20:55:45 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]=
a>
> >> >>>wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 13:38:18 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
> >> >>>>wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 14:30:51 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]=
.ca>
> >> >>>>>wrote:
> >> >>>>>> Well I INTIMATED it here:"
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
> >> >>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Snyder=
wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>An additional question: This is for a treadmill. It will be in =
a room right next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (unuse=
d). Will the electrician be able to use that connection to create an outlet=
for the treadmill, or will he/she have to run a totally new connection for=
the 17A from the fusebox?
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>Thanks for the help!
> >> >>>>>>Any electrician worth his salt will be able to give you at least=
one,
> >> >>>>>>and likely 2, 20 amp circuits drom that wire (after changing to =
a 20
> >> >>>>>>amp braker)
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> And I guess it was a different thread where I said if he had to=
ask
> >> >>>>>>the question he shouldn't be doing it and should get an electric=
ian.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>I've said that MANY times on both the woodworking and home.repai=
r
> >> >>>>>>groups.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>Good to that you INTIMATED it, but I said get an electrian to loo=
k at
> >> >>>>>it. Because from here I can not see whether it is a grounded drye=
r
> >> >>>>>device or just a 2 hot and a neutral device.
> >> >>>> Or more likely a 2 hot and GROUND
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I have seen both, but then there are still houses that have knob t=
ube
> >> >>>that are functioning. That is just 2 wires no ground.
> >> >> Getting fewer and fewer up here. as soon as they change hands the
> >> >>knob and tube has to go. Almost impossible to get new insurance on a
> >> >>house with knob and tube or a 60 amp or smaller service up here - an=
d
> >> >>no insurance means no mortgage
> >>=20
> >> My son recently bought a house in Vermont with a mix of romex and K&T.
> >> I certainly wouldn't have but he didn't ask me (and I didn't offer an
> >> opinion).
> >
> >Was the K&T the only reason you wouldn't have bought the house? I certai=
nly
> >would have put that on the con side of the ledger, but there may have be=
en=20
> >enough pros to offset it. I've seen some old Vermont mansions that I'd c=
onsider
> >buying even if they had *no* electricity. ;-)
>=20
> Not but a long shot but it was a huge negative. The wiring in the
> walls had (mostly) been redone but the ceilings were all K&T. They
> don't have the money to rewire the rest (or do the rest of the needed
> repairs on an old house). I could do much of it but they're 1200mi
> from here and I've seen enough snow for this lifetime. ;-)
> >
Some parts of Vermont sure are beautiful in the spring.=20
I spent a couple of weeks "bonding" with my daughter, making an old
farmhouse she rented just a bit more livable.
On Sunday, December 29, 2019 at 10:27:31 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 17:11:43 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>=20
> >On Sunday, December 29, 2019 at 7:29:18 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
> >> On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 14:32:21 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>=20
> >> >On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 15:00:01 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 21:20:09 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
> >> >>wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 20:55:45 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]=
a>
> >> >>>wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 13:38:18 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
> >> >>>>wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 14:30:51 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]=
.ca>
> >> >>>>>wrote:
> >> >>>>>> Well I INTIMATED it here:"
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
> >> >>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Snyder=
wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>An additional question: This is for a treadmill. It will be in =
a room right next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (unuse=
d). Will the electrician be able to use that connection to create an outlet=
for the treadmill, or will he/she have to run a totally new connection for=
the 17A from the fusebox?
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>Thanks for the help!
> >> >>>>>>Any electrician worth his salt will be able to give you at least=
one,
> >> >>>>>>and likely 2, 20 amp circuits drom that wire (after changing to =
a 20
> >> >>>>>>amp braker)
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> And I guess it was a different thread where I said if he had to=
ask
> >> >>>>>>the question he shouldn't be doing it and should get an electric=
ian.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>I've said that MANY times on both the woodworking and home.repai=
r
> >> >>>>>>groups.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>Good to that you INTIMATED it, but I said get an electrian to loo=
k at
> >> >>>>>it. Because from here I can not see whether it is a grounded drye=
r
> >> >>>>>device or just a 2 hot and a neutral device.
> >> >>>> Or more likely a 2 hot and GROUND
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I have seen both, but then there are still houses that have knob t=
ube
> >> >>>that are functioning. That is just 2 wires no ground.
> >> >> Getting fewer and fewer up here. as soon as they change hands the
> >> >>knob and tube has to go. Almost impossible to get new insurance on a
> >> >>house with knob and tube or a 60 amp or smaller service up here - an=
d
> >> >>no insurance means no mortgage
> >> >
> >> >So a cash buyer could.
> >
> >> He could buy but he could not insure.=20
> >
> >You know what they say about blanket statements...
> >
> >From the WireChief Electric Ltd in Vancouver, BC. Their website says=20
> >Copywrite 2010-2019, so I guess the following is still current.
> >
> >https://www.wirechiefelectric.com/knob-tube-wiring-homeowner-insurance
> >
> >*** Begin Copied Text ***
> >
> >However, you may still be able to get homeowner=E2=80=99s insurance if y=
our K&T=20
> >system for lighting and power outlets is upgraded to meet the following=
=20
> >conditions:
> >
> > - Exposed conductors must be in good condition.
> >
> > - Circuits must be protected by a circuit breaker or appropriate fuse.
> >
> > - No further outlets are added to the original system.
> >
> > - Not used ungrounding plugs in laundry rooms or bathrooms or=20
> > outdoors for even a lower risk level.
> >
> >Knob-and-Tube wiring repairs may be a good option if budget is a concern=
.
> >
> >*** End Copied Text ***
> >
> >The following was written by a US based insurance agent, also with websi=
te=20
> >dated 2019. Note the words "nearly impossible" and "will consider", as o=
pposed
> >to "impossible" and "won't consider".
>=20
> You better quote that in context:
>=20
> Why Insurance Companies Don=E2=80=99t Like Knob and Tube Wiring
>=20
> Many insurance companies won=E2=80=99t cover homes with Knob-and-Tube wir=
ing
> on the basis of absence of a ground wire. Another issue is difficulty
> of access to inspect wiring buried within walls or ceilings.
>=20
> Insurance providers will also be concerned that Knob-and-Tube wiring
> may be a safety hazard due to the addition of building insulation. For
> example, additional thermal insulation installed in an attic can
> smother the wiring and prevent access to the air it needs for cooling.
>=20
> Most insurance companies say your home has to have a 100-amp service/
> breaker panel. Knob-and-Tube systems run on a 60-amp service.
>=20
> Other reasons insurance providers are wary about Knob-and-Tube wiring
> include concerns over:
>=20
> General wear and tear =E2=80=93 because the wiring is so old.
>=20
> Damage =E2=80=93 the ceramic knobs and tubes can crack.
>=20
> Frayed wires.
>=20
> Fragile insulation =E2=80=93 K&T insulation can become brittle and flake =
with
> time.
>=20
> Dangerous modifications.
>=20
> Overheating and fire risks.
>=20
> Modern technology exceeding original supply design.
>=20
> Upgrading Knob-and-Tube Wiring Systems
>=20
> To make it easier to get insurance for a home with Knob-and-Tube
> wiring, you=E2=80=99ll probably need to have the system updated to meet
> today=E2=80=99s electrical safety codes.
>=20
> This can be tricky, particularly if the original wiring wasn=E2=80=99t
> installed properly or it=E2=80=99s been tampered with over the years by
> amateurs in a misguided attempt to make it safer or more effective.
>=20
> However, you may still be able to get homeowner=E2=80=99s insurance if yo=
ur
> K&T system for lighting and power outlets is upgraded to meet the
> following conditions:
>=20
> Exposed conductors must be in good condition.
>=20
> Circuits must be protected by a circuit breaker or appropriate fuse.
>=20
> No further outlets are added to the original system.
>=20
> Not used ungrounding plugs in laundry rooms or bathrooms or outdoors
> for even a lower risk level.
>=20
> Knob-and-Tube wiring repairs may be a good option if budget is a
> concern.
>=20
> A better alternative for many homes, though, may be to replace the K&T
> system with brand-new electrics.
>=20
> >
> >https://www.regencyinsurance.net/blog/knob-tube-wiring--is-it-making-you=
r-home-uninsurable.aspx
> Better look closely at this one too - - -=20
>=20
> The insurance industry is taking a hard stance on homes with Knob &
> Tube wiring.=20
>=20
> This is a controversial subject, and it affects anyone who owns, or is
> considering the purchase of an older home in Northeast Ohio. Keep in
> mind, I'm not aware of any company cancelling existing policies
> because of Knob & Tube wiring at this time. However, the insurance
> industry has been quietly restricting underwriting guidelines to the
> point where it is nearly impossible to find a standard company willing
> to issue a new policy on a home that contains this type of wiring.=20
>=20
> Let me be clear; I realize many electricians consider this a safe and
> effective means of wiring. I'm not arguing for the position insurance
> companies are taking. In fact, I'm sometimes frustrated by the
> approach. I just think it's time to share what I know, so you are
> informed of the challenges this issue is causing.=20
>=20
> So what is "Knob & Tube" (K&T) wiring? This form of wiring was
> installed in homes from the 1880's and into the 1930's for most of the
> country. However, it continued to be installed for another 30 years
> in parts of Northeast Ohio (I've seen homes in our area with Knob &
> Tube that were built as late as 1963).
>=20
> It consists of two wires, a black "hot wire" and another white or
> neutral colored wire to create a circuit. There is no ground wire.=20
>=20
> The individual wires were run spaced apart at least 2 1/2 inches. As
> they passed through walls and floors, they were run through porcelain
> "insulating tubes". These were meant to stop arcing that might cause
> a fire.
>=20
> The main concerns are:
> =E2=80=A2The wiring is old. The insulation is subject to drying and crack=
ing
> and may not be intact, leaving bare wires.=20
> =E2=80=A2It's not grounded, making it more hazardous, especially in areas
> where it can come into contact with water such as kitchens and
> bathrooms.=20
> =E2=80=A2In the past, many older homes had loose fill insulation blown in=
to
> attics and walls. This material covers the wiring and creates a
> potential fire hazard.=20
>=20
> Although I have no statistics regarding fires caused specifically by
> Knob & Tube wiring, according to a March 2017 report on electrical
> fires by The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), there was an
> average of over 45,000 home fires per year between 2010 and 2014 that
> involved some type of electrical failure as a factor contributing to
> ignition. Nearly half of these were caused by wiring and related
> equipment.=20
>=20
> This has caused companies to view Knob & Tube wiring as an
> unacceptable risk. I've contacted other insurance agents in my area,
> and have found only a few who have markets that will consider homes
> with limited K&T wiring (in basements or attics) if a licensed
> electrician will provide a written statement attesting to its safety.
>=20
>=20
> AND TAKE NOTE OF THE BIG IF!!!!!
>=20
> " I've contacted other insurance agents in my area, and have found
> only a few who have markets that will consider homes with limited K&T
> wiring (in basements or attics) IF a licensed electrician will
> provide a written statement attesting to its safety"
>=20
> Good luck getting an eklectrician to stick his kneck out on THAT!!!!!
>=20
> ANd EXACTLY WHAT did "I" say???
> I said "almost impossible" - didn't I???
>=20
> Show me a home where all of the following apply:
>=20
> - Exposed conductors must be in good condition.
>=20
> - Circuits must be protected by a circuit breaker or appropriate
> fuse.
>=20
> - No further outlets are added to the original system.
>=20
> - Not used ungrounding plugs in laundry rooms or bathrooms or=20
> outdoors for even a lower risk level.
>=20
> Possibly a restored historically significant home - but "restored"
> pretty much eliminates " No further outlets are added to the original
> system." and rewiring with current technology is MUCH cheaper!!!!!!!
>=20
> Not to mention you would be hard pressed to get a permit to do ANY
> modification/restoration from the ESA - since you are using a Canadian
> refference.
>=20
> Just converting an old knob and tube to a breaker panel is a huge
> undertaking - particularly if it was wired with a "Ring Topography"
> which WAS common - with 2 or 4 circuits operating the whole house.
>=20
> Knob and Tube was "virtually never" connected to more than a 60 amp
> service - which was FUSED - which eliminates the chance as NO
> insurance company in Canada for sure - don't know about the USA - will
> insure a home with a 60 amp grid connected electrical service and
> fewer and fewer will even write a home with a fuse panel
>=20
> I'll up the ante from "almost impossible" to "virtually impossible"
> for the purposes of this discussion.
>=20
>=20
> Also note I didn't say an insurance company will niot renew a policy -
> but the extra cost is often enough to make it financially advantageous
> to rewire the house even if the home does not change hands, or
> insurance companies.
>=20
> Not sure what would happen when an insurance company is purchased by
> another company - they MAY re-assess at that point and require
> upgrades.
I did read the entire articles. I specifically quoted the sections that
disputed what you actually said, not what you claimed to have said.
> ANd EXACTLY WHAT did "I" say???
> I said "almost impossible" - didn't I???
I replied to, and quoted, *exactly* what you said in the post I responded
to.
"He could buy but he could not insure."=20
Look upwards...it's there.
On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:55:11 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 08:42:49 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 20:59:13 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 13:41:06 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:24:27 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 12:45:53 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >The point is that you simply can not admit to being wrong.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >Your blanket statement that a cash buyer of a house with K&T could not insure
>>>>>> >is just not true 100% of the time.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >You can post a million words about known examples where it would be difficult if not
>>>>>> >impossible to insure, but that still doesn't eliminate the ability in every single case.
>>>>>> And YOU mr Derby, have to nit-pick at everything - You sure can't be
>>>>>> wrong - you are an AMERICAN for cripes sake!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES a house with K&T wiring IS uninsurable.
>>>>>> Mabee not in some backwater bayou where a house with electricity is a
>>>>>> luxury even if it's wired with fencewire using old bud bottles as
>>>>>> insulators - but then how many of those hovels are insured???
>>>>>> Or where if you know the cheif inspector and drink with him every
>>>>>> night and go target shooting with yout AK every weekend with him you
>>>>>> can get anything passed - - - -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - look in the mirror!!!
>>>>>
>>>>>Man, you do get worked up, don't you?
>>>>>
>>>>>All caps, multiple punctuation marks, misspellings galore.
>>>>>
>>>>>Wouldn't it be easier to just say. "Sorry, I misspoke"?
>>>>>
>>>>>That has to be better for your blood pressure than your way of
>>>>>handling things.
>>>>
>>>>As far as better way of handling things, tracing a circuit in conduit.
>>>>Try a circuit tracer, you disconnect the hot lead at the breaker (or
>>>>fure box) hook the tracer up go find all the devices on that circuit.
>>> That DOES let you trace the power - sort of - when the circuit does
>>>not have a problem - but does not do a good job of tracing neutrals.
>>>When not in a conduit a "fox and hound" tracer works but they are
>>>almost useless in a metal conduit.
>>> Generally finding what is ON a circuit isn't too much of a problem.
>>>Finding what circuit it is SUPPOSED to be on when it has "fallen off"
>>>for some reason is the fun part - in a building with 4 panels in it,
>>>where there appears to be no rhyme or reason to what is on what panel.
>>>
>>>One building in particular - where I spent a LOT of time was built as
>>>a 4 unit commercial building which was developed as the office
>>>headquarters of a notorious financial planning fraudster locally (and
>>>foreclosed on before he opened the doors for business) was then
>>>redeveloped as the offices of the insurance company that was my major
>>>client for 17 years. Lots of changes were made by the developer.
>>>Then more changes were made as time went on - and I ended up
>>>trobleshooting a lot of issues. A real pain in the butt!! Complicating
>>>matters was the way some of the creditors removed equipment that was
>>>unpaid for when they came back to reclaim it - - - - - - (from the
>>>original tennant.)
>>
>>So no matter what I come up with you are going to trash the idea,
>>right?
> No. There are many devices that can be used to make tracing and
>troubleshooting individual conductor circuits in conduit and raceway
>easier - but NOTHING will make it as simple as following cable.
I have found just following the cable simple way to figure out where
the conduit runs. Unless you have a situation where you should just
tear it out and start over because of others incompetence.
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 15:10:06 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 21:55:55 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 22:22:02 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 18:27:55 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 9:04:24 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 16:13:40 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 2:22:12 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>> >> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 06:35:25 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> >On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 3:15:03 AM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>> >> >> On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 22:38:00 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>> >> >> wrote:
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> >On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 23:06:46 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>> >> >> >wrote:
>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>> >> >> >> No - you are wrong - because a "240 volt breaker" is a common trip 2
>>>>> >> >> >>pole 120 volt breaker. It is basically 2 120 volt breakers on opposite
>>>>> >> >> >>sides of the panel wired in series with the center-tap being the
>>>>> >> >> >>shared neutral.
>>>>> >> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> >>Don't spout off about things you OBVIOUSLY have no knowlege of.
>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>> >> >> >So my advice to the original poster is get an electrician rather than
>>>>> >> >> >depend upon the myriad of thoughts expressed here.
>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>> >> >> >Any thoughts on that sir?
>>>>> >> >> I said a few days ago if he had to ask the question perhaps he should
>>>>> >> >> have an electrician do the job. Nowhere did I say HE should do the
>>>>> >> >> job. I just said it could be done, without a subpanel, and without
>>>>> >> >> replacingthe wire. I dissagree with running an external ground - which
>>>>> >> >> would NOT pass inspection here in Ontario Canada. - 4 wire will give
>>>>> >> >> him 2 circuits - 3 wire will give him one. At least that's what would
>>>>> >> >> pass here and what a qualified electrician would agree to here. My Dad
>>>>> >> >> was an electrician and he taught me a lot.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >Assuming the OP is working within the US NEC arena, why would you disagree
>>>>> >> >with a code-compliant external ground?
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> If it is accepted in his jurisdiction, OK - and if it is an external
>>>>> >> GROUND - but a lot of old drier 3 wire plugs were on 2 wire plus
>>>>> >> ground - which would mean in most cases only 2 insulated wires -
>>>>> >> requiring an external NEUTRAL which IS verbotten.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> If the cable contains red, black, and white you may (in some cases) be
>>>>> >> allowed to run an external ground and use the white for the common
>>>>> >> neutral.
>>>>> >> If it has black and red or black and white with either green or bare
>>>>> >> you can not use the green or bare as the neutral - it is GROUND ONLY -
>>>>> >> and you can NOT run an external neutral wire. ( to the best of my
>>>>> >> knowlege)
>>>>> >
>>>>> >I asked a very simple question to which you provided an answer with a lot of unrelated stuff (unrelated to my question, that is).
>>>>> >
>>>>> >You said: "I dissagree [sic] with running an external ground"
>>>>> >
>>>>> >I asked: "...why would you disagree with a code-compliant external ground?"
>>>>> >
>>>>> >You could have stopped right after "If it is accepted in his jurisdiction,
>>>>> >OK"
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Bottom line, it appears that you *don't* disagree with running an code-
>>>>> >compliant external ground, which (your disagreement) is the only thing I
>>>>> >asked about.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Now I'm curious as to why you said you disagree, when in fact, you do not.
>>>>> "I" dissagree - code may not. Here I can't get away with it. (unless
>>>>> it is strapped to the cable for the full length making it
>>>>> "effectively" part of the cable). If you can get to the cable the full
>>>>> lenth to strap on the ground you may as well pull out the deficient
>>>>> cable and pull in the proper 3 wire plus ground cable.
>>>>> It USED to be acceptable to connect the safety ground to a water
>>>>> pipe. That is no longer kosher. (for good reason) Also USED to be able
>>>>> to use EMT conduit as safety ground. Also no longer allowed.
>>>>
>>>>You still haven't explained *why* you disagree. I didn't ask whether it was
>>>>compliant in Ontario. I didn't ask what installation method might make it
>>>>compliant in Ontario. I didn't ask about old code language related to water
>>>>pipes.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not sure why you keep answering questions that I'm not asking.
>>>>
>>>>In fact, I'm not even sure that you actually disagree. Earlier you said "OK".
>>>>
>>>>So which is it? Do you disagree with using a code-compliant external ground
>>>>or not? If you do, tell us why. Nothing else, just *why* you disagree with
>>>>using a code-compliant external ground.
>>> No I don't agree with it because it's a dumb-ass redneck hack. Just
>>>because the fools who write code in the USA allow it doesn't mean it
>>>is right or safe. The reason we use "cable" instead of individual
>>>wires is to ensure all conductors for a given circuit are kept
>>>together so unidentified or separate conductors don't get "lost" down
>>>the way. A safety ground is for "safety" and it is meant to be an
>>>"integrated" safety solution.
>>>Another reason I can't figure out why some American jurisdictions
>>>require conduit and wire instead of cable for residential use. Bad
>>>enough trying to sort out the spiderweb in industrial and commercial
>>>premises after a dew electricians have had their fingers into it.
>>
>>The reason why conduit was require is money, the unions and
>>contractors had enough influence to get it in as the code. Cook County
>>Illinois, also required cast iron DVW above ground, til recently when
>>the reduction in cost of PVC and ABS was realized.
> Crook county is a totally different UNIVERSE.
>
>Cast iron has been basically DEAD up here for over 30 years - and like
>knob and tube wiring is virtually uninsureable. Copper DVW is just
>about as bad (for good reason)
> Insurance companies are NOT in the business of taking risks - no
>matter WHAT you may believe.
One of the requirements for issuance of insurance is that there be an
"insurable risk". If there were no risks there would be no need for
insurance.
> With water damage claims becoming the MAJORITY of insured losses -
>including mold damage from "incipient leaks", insurers are getting
>REALLY gun-shy. Used to be insurers made their money on investing the
>premiums,
Actually the ability of insurers to invest premiums is controlled by
regulations. Insurers most assuredly do make their money by
collecting premiums and selling product. There is an investment
component but it is not the major source of income. Note that that is
not a guess on my part--I do these calculations for a living.
>and paid out losses from the investment income. That
>investment income has pretty much evaporated at the same time claim
>costs have sky-rocketed.
What leads you to believe that claim costs have "sky-rocketed"?
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 16:41:50 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sunday, December 29, 2019 at 6:50:01 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 14:32:21 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 15:00:01 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 21:20:09 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>> >>wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 20:55:45 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>> >>>wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 13:38:18 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>> >>>>wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 14:30:51 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>> >>>>>wrote:
>> >>>>>> Well I INTIMATED it here:"
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
>> >>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Snyder wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>An additional question: This is for a treadmill. It will be in a room right next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (unused). Will the electrician be able to use that connection to create an outlet for the treadmill, or will he/she have to run a totally new connection for the 17A from the fusebox?
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>Thanks for the help!
>> >>>>>>Any electrician worth his salt will be able to give you at least one,
>> >>>>>>and likely 2, 20 amp circuits drom that wire (after changing to a 20
>> >>>>>>amp braker)
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> And I guess it was a different thread where I said if he had to ask
>> >>>>>>the question he shouldn't be doing it and should get an electrician.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>I've said that MANY times on both the woodworking and home.repair
>> >>>>>>groups.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Good to that you INTIMATED it, but I said get an electrian to look at
>> >>>>>it. Because from here I can not see whether it is a grounded dryer
>> >>>>>device or just a 2 hot and a neutral device.
>> >>>> Or more likely a 2 hot and GROUND
>> >>>
>> >>> I have seen both, but then there are still houses that have knob tube
>> >>>that are functioning. That is just 2 wires no ground.
>> >> Getting fewer and fewer up here. as soon as they change hands the
>> >>knob and tube has to go. Almost impossible to get new insurance on a
>> >>house with knob and tube or a 60 amp or smaller service up here - and
>> >>no insurance means no mortgage
>>
>> My son recently bought a house in Vermont with a mix of romex and K&T.
>> I certainly wouldn't have but he didn't ask me (and I didn't offer an
>> opinion).
>
>Was the K&T the only reason you wouldn't have bought the house? I certainly
>would have put that on the con side of the ledger, but there may have been
>enough pros to offset it. I've seen some old Vermont mansions that I'd consider
>buying even if they had *no* electricity. ;-)
Not but a long shot but it was a huge negative. The wiring in the
walls had (mostly) been redone but the ceilings were all K&T. They
don't have the money to rewire the rest (or do the rest of the needed
repairs on an old house). I could do much of it but they're 1200mi
from here and I've seen enough snow for this lifetime. ;-)
>
>The first time I ever saw K&T was in my God-parents house. They lived on
>Narragansett Blvd. Why do I tell you what street they lived on? Here's why:
>
>Many years later, when I bought my first house, they reached under the
>mattress and pulled out a wad of cash to help with the down payment. When I
>started to upgrade the wiring in the house they helped me buy, the first thing
>I noticed was that some of the cloth covered "romex" was made by the
>Narragansett Wiring Company. God does things like that every now and then. :-)
Too funny. Was the mattress from the Bank of Narragansett?
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 17:11:43 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sunday, December 29, 2019 at 7:29:18 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 14:32:21 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 15:00:01 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 21:20:09 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>> >>wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 20:55:45 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>> >>>wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 13:38:18 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>> >>>>wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 14:30:51 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>> >>>>>wrote:
>> >>>>>> Well I INTIMATED it here:"
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
>> >>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Snyder wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>An additional question: This is for a treadmill. It will be in a room right next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (unused). Will the electrician be able to use that connection to create an outlet for the treadmill, or will he/she have to run a totally new connection for the 17A from the fusebox?
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>Thanks for the help!
>> >>>>>>Any electrician worth his salt will be able to give you at least one,
>> >>>>>>and likely 2, 20 amp circuits drom that wire (after changing to a 20
>> >>>>>>amp braker)
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> And I guess it was a different thread where I said if he had to ask
>> >>>>>>the question he shouldn't be doing it and should get an electrician.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>I've said that MANY times on both the woodworking and home.repair
>> >>>>>>groups.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Good to that you INTIMATED it, but I said get an electrian to look at
>> >>>>>it. Because from here I can not see whether it is a grounded dryer
>> >>>>>device or just a 2 hot and a neutral device.
>> >>>> Or more likely a 2 hot and GROUND
>> >>>
>> >>> I have seen both, but then there are still houses that have knob tube
>> >>>that are functioning. That is just 2 wires no ground.
>> >> Getting fewer and fewer up here. as soon as they change hands the
>> >>knob and tube has to go. Almost impossible to get new insurance on a
>> >>house with knob and tube or a 60 amp or smaller service up here - and
>> >>no insurance means no mortgage
>> >
>> >So a cash buyer could.
>
>> He could buy but he could not insure.
>
>You know what they say about blanket statements...
>
>From the WireChief Electric Ltd in Vancouver, BC. Their website says
>Copywrite 2010-2019, so I guess the following is still current.
>
>https://www.wirechiefelectric.com/knob-tube-wiring-homeowner-insurance
>
>*** Begin Copied Text ***
>
>However, you may still be able to get homeowners insurance if your K&T
>system for lighting and power outlets is upgraded to meet the following
>conditions:
>
> - Exposed conductors must be in good condition.
>
> - Circuits must be protected by a circuit breaker or appropriate fuse.
>
> - No further outlets are added to the original system.
>
> - Not used ungrounding plugs in laundry rooms or bathrooms or
> outdoors for even a lower risk level.
>
>Knob-and-Tube wiring repairs may be a good option if budget is a concern.
>
>*** End Copied Text ***
>
>The following was written by a US based insurance agent, also with website
>dated 2019. Note the words "nearly impossible" and "will consider", as opposed
>to "impossible" and "won't consider".
You better quote that in context:
Why Insurance Companies Dont Like Knob and Tube Wiring
Many insurance companies wont cover homes with Knob-and-Tube wiring
on the basis of absence of a ground wire. Another issue is difficulty
of access to inspect wiring buried within walls or ceilings.
Insurance providers will also be concerned that Knob-and-Tube wiring
may be a safety hazard due to the addition of building insulation. For
example, additional thermal insulation installed in an attic can
smother the wiring and prevent access to the air it needs for cooling.
Most insurance companies say your home has to have a 100-amp service/
breaker panel. Knob-and-Tube systems run on a 60-amp service.
Other reasons insurance providers are wary about Knob-and-Tube wiring
include concerns over:
General wear and tear because the wiring is so old.
Damage the ceramic knobs and tubes can crack.
Frayed wires.
Fragile insulation K&T insulation can become brittle and flake with
time.
Dangerous modifications.
Overheating and fire risks.
Modern technology exceeding original supply design.
Upgrading Knob-and-Tube Wiring Systems
To make it easier to get insurance for a home with Knob-and-Tube
wiring, youll probably need to have the system updated to meet
todays electrical safety codes.
This can be tricky, particularly if the original wiring wasnt
installed properly or its been tampered with over the years by
amateurs in a misguided attempt to make it safer or more effective.
However, you may still be able to get homeowners insurance if your
K&T system for lighting and power outlets is upgraded to meet the
following conditions:
Exposed conductors must be in good condition.
Circuits must be protected by a circuit breaker or appropriate fuse.
No further outlets are added to the original system.
Not used ungrounding plugs in laundry rooms or bathrooms or outdoors
for even a lower risk level.
Knob-and-Tube wiring repairs may be a good option if budget is a
concern.
A better alternative for many homes, though, may be to replace the K&T
system with brand-new electrics.
>
>https://www.regencyinsurance.net/blog/knob-tube-wiring--is-it-making-your-home-uninsurable.aspx
Better look closely at this one too - - -
The insurance industry is taking a hard stance on homes with Knob &
Tube wiring.
This is a controversial subject, and it affects anyone who owns, or is
considering the purchase of an older home in Northeast Ohio. Keep in
mind, I'm not aware of any company cancelling existing policies
because of Knob & Tube wiring at this time. However, the insurance
industry has been quietly restricting underwriting guidelines to the
point where it is nearly impossible to find a standard company willing
to issue a new policy on a home that contains this type of wiring.
Let me be clear; I realize many electricians consider this a safe and
effective means of wiring. I'm not arguing for the position insurance
companies are taking. In fact, I'm sometimes frustrated by the
approach. I just think it's time to share what I know, so you are
informed of the challenges this issue is causing.
So what is "Knob & Tube" (K&T) wiring? This form of wiring was
installed in homes from the 1880's and into the 1930's for most of the
country. However, it continued to be installed for another 30 years
in parts of Northeast Ohio (I've seen homes in our area with Knob &
Tube that were built as late as 1963).
It consists of two wires, a black "hot wire" and another white or
neutral colored wire to create a circuit. There is no ground wire.
The individual wires were run spaced apart at least 2 1/2 inches. As
they passed through walls and floors, they were run through porcelain
"insulating tubes". These were meant to stop arcing that might cause
a fire.
The main concerns are:
The wiring is old. The insulation is subject to drying and cracking
and may not be intact, leaving bare wires.
It's not grounded, making it more hazardous, especially in areas
where it can come into contact with water such as kitchens and
bathrooms.
In the past, many older homes had loose fill insulation blown into
attics and walls. This material covers the wiring and creates a
potential fire hazard.
Although I have no statistics regarding fires caused specifically by
Knob & Tube wiring, according to a March 2017 report on electrical
fires by The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), there was an
average of over 45,000 home fires per year between 2010 and 2014 that
involved some type of electrical failure as a factor contributing to
ignition. Nearly half of these were caused by wiring and related
equipment.
This has caused companies to view Knob & Tube wiring as an
unacceptable risk. I've contacted other insurance agents in my area,
and have found only a few who have markets that will consider homes
with limited K&T wiring (in basements or attics) if a licensed
electrician will provide a written statement attesting to its safety.
AND TAKE NOTE OF THE BIG IF!!!!!
" I've contacted other insurance agents in my area, and have found
only a few who have markets that will consider homes with limited K&T
wiring (in basements or attics) IF a licensed electrician will
provide a written statement attesting to its safety"
Good luck getting an eklectrician to stick his kneck out on THAT!!!!!
ANd EXACTLY WHAT did "I" say???
I said "almost impossible" - didn't I???
Show me a home where all of the following apply:
- Exposed conductors must be in good condition.
- Circuits must be protected by a circuit breaker or appropriate
fuse.
- No further outlets are added to the original system.
- Not used ungrounding plugs in laundry rooms or bathrooms or
outdoors for even a lower risk level.
Possibly a restored historically significant home - but "restored"
pretty much eliminates " No further outlets are added to the original
system." and rewiring with current technology is MUCH cheaper!!!!!!!
Not to mention you would be hard pressed to get a permit to do ANY
modification/restoration from the ESA - since you are using a Canadian
refference.
Just converting an old knob and tube to a breaker panel is a huge
undertaking - particularly if it was wired with a "Ring Topography"
which WAS common - with 2 or 4 circuits operating the whole house.
Knob and Tube was "virtually never" connected to more than a 60 amp
service - which was FUSED - which eliminates the chance as NO
insurance company in Canada for sure - don't know about the USA - will
insure a home with a 60 amp grid connected electrical service and
fewer and fewer will even write a home with a fuse panel
I'll up the ante from "almost impossible" to "virtually impossible"
for the purposes of this discussion.
Also note I didn't say an insurance company will niot renew a policy -
but the extra cost is often enough to make it financially advantageous
to rewire the house even if the home does not change hands, or
insurance companies.
Not sure what would happen when an insurance company is purchased by
another company - they MAY re-assess at that point and require
upgrades.
On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 08:42:49 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 20:59:13 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 13:41:06 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:24:27 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 12:45:53 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >The point is that you simply can not admit to being wrong.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Your blanket statement that a cash buyer of a house with K&T could not insure
>>>>> >is just not true 100% of the time.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >You can post a million words about known examples where it would be difficult if not
>>>>> >impossible to insure, but that still doesn't eliminate the ability in every single case.
>>>>> And YOU mr Derby, have to nit-pick at everything - You sure can't be
>>>>> wrong - you are an AMERICAN for cripes sake!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES a house with K&T wiring IS uninsurable.
>>>>> Mabee not in some backwater bayou where a house with electricity is a
>>>>> luxury even if it's wired with fencewire using old bud bottles as
>>>>> insulators - but then how many of those hovels are insured???
>>>>> Or where if you know the cheif inspector and drink with him every
>>>>> night and go target shooting with yout AK every weekend with him you
>>>>> can get anything passed - - - -
>>>>>
>>>>> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - look in the mirror!!!
>>>>
>>>>Man, you do get worked up, don't you?
>>>>
>>>>All caps, multiple punctuation marks, misspellings galore.
>>>>
>>>>Wouldn't it be easier to just say. "Sorry, I misspoke"?
>>>>
>>>>That has to be better for your blood pressure than your way of
>>>>handling things.
>>>
>>>As far as better way of handling things, tracing a circuit in conduit.
>>>Try a circuit tracer, you disconnect the hot lead at the breaker (or
>>>fure box) hook the tracer up go find all the devices on that circuit.
>> That DOES let you trace the power - sort of - when the circuit does
>>not have a problem - but does not do a good job of tracing neutrals.
>>When not in a conduit a "fox and hound" tracer works but they are
>>almost useless in a metal conduit.
>> Generally finding what is ON a circuit isn't too much of a problem.
>>Finding what circuit it is SUPPOSED to be on when it has "fallen off"
>>for some reason is the fun part - in a building with 4 panels in it,
>>where there appears to be no rhyme or reason to what is on what panel.
>>
>>One building in particular - where I spent a LOT of time was built as
>>a 4 unit commercial building which was developed as the office
>>headquarters of a notorious financial planning fraudster locally (and
>>foreclosed on before he opened the doors for business) was then
>>redeveloped as the offices of the insurance company that was my major
>>client for 17 years. Lots of changes were made by the developer.
>>Then more changes were made as time went on - and I ended up
>>trobleshooting a lot of issues. A real pain in the butt!! Complicating
>>matters was the way some of the creditors removed equipment that was
>>unpaid for when they came back to reclaim it - - - - - - (from the
>>original tennant.)
>
>So no matter what I come up with you are going to trash the idea,
>right?
No. There are many devices that can be used to make tracing and
troubleshooting individual conductor circuits in conduit and raceway
easier - but NOTHING will make it as simple as following cable.
On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 3:15:03 AM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 22:38:00 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 23:06:46 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> No - you are wrong - because a "240 volt breaker" is a common trip 2
> >>pole 120 volt breaker. It is basically 2 120 volt breakers on opposite
> >>sides of the panel wired in series with the center-tap being the
> >>shared neutral.
> >>
> >>Don't spout off about things you OBVIOUSLY have no knowlege of.
> >
> >So my advice to the original poster is get an electrician rather than
> >depend upon the myriad of thoughts expressed here.
> >
> >Any thoughts on that sir?
> I said a few days ago if he had to ask the question perhaps he should
> have an electrician do the job. Nowhere did I say HE should do the
> job. I just said it could be done, without a subpanel, and without
> replacingthe wire. I dissagree with running an external ground - which
> would NOT pass inspection here in Ontario Canada. - 4 wire will give
> him 2 circuits - 3 wire will give him one. At least that's what would
> pass here and what a qualified electrician would agree to here. My Dad
> was an electrician and he taught me a lot.
Assuming the OP is working within the US NEC arena, why would you disagree
with a code-compliant external ground?
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 16:37:25 -0500, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 15:10:06 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 21:55:55 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 22:22:02 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 18:27:55 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 9:04:24 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 16:13:40 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 2:22:12 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>> >> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 06:35:25 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>>>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> >On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 3:15:03 AM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>> >> >> On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 22:38:00 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>> >> >> wrote:
>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>> >> >> >On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 23:06:46 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>>> >> >> >wrote:
>>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>>> >> >> >> No - you are wrong - because a "240 volt breaker" is a common trip 2
>>>>>> >> >> >>pole 120 volt breaker. It is basically 2 120 volt breakers on opposite
>>>>>> >> >> >>sides of the panel wired in series with the center-tap being the
>>>>>> >> >> >>shared neutral.
>>>>>> >> >> >>
>>>>>> >> >> >>Don't spout off about things you OBVIOUSLY have no knowlege of.
>>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>>> >> >> >So my advice to the original poster is get an electrician rather than
>>>>>> >> >> >depend upon the myriad of thoughts expressed here.
>>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>>> >> >> >Any thoughts on that sir?
>>>>>> >> >> I said a few days ago if he had to ask the question perhaps he should
>>>>>> >> >> have an electrician do the job. Nowhere did I say HE should do the
>>>>>> >> >> job. I just said it could be done, without a subpanel, and without
>>>>>> >> >> replacingthe wire. I dissagree with running an external ground - which
>>>>>> >> >> would NOT pass inspection here in Ontario Canada. - 4 wire will give
>>>>>> >> >> him 2 circuits - 3 wire will give him one. At least that's what would
>>>>>> >> >> pass here and what a qualified electrician would agree to here. My Dad
>>>>>> >> >> was an electrician and he taught me a lot.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> >Assuming the OP is working within the US NEC arena, why would you disagree
>>>>>> >> >with a code-compliant external ground?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> If it is accepted in his jurisdiction, OK - and if it is an external
>>>>>> >> GROUND - but a lot of old drier 3 wire plugs were on 2 wire plus
>>>>>> >> ground - which would mean in most cases only 2 insulated wires -
>>>>>> >> requiring an external NEUTRAL which IS verbotten.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> If the cable contains red, black, and white you may (in some cases) be
>>>>>> >> allowed to run an external ground and use the white for the common
>>>>>> >> neutral.
>>>>>> >> If it has black and red or black and white with either green or bare
>>>>>> >> you can not use the green or bare as the neutral - it is GROUND ONLY -
>>>>>> >> and you can NOT run an external neutral wire. ( to the best of my
>>>>>> >> knowlege)
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >I asked a very simple question to which you provided an answer with a lot of unrelated stuff (unrelated to my question, that is).
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >You said: "I dissagree [sic] with running an external ground"
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >I asked: "...why would you disagree with a code-compliant external ground?"
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >You could have stopped right after "If it is accepted in his jurisdiction,
>>>>>> >OK"
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >Bottom line, it appears that you *don't* disagree with running an code-
>>>>>> >compliant external ground, which (your disagreement) is the only thing I
>>>>>> >asked about.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >Now I'm curious as to why you said you disagree, when in fact, you do not.
>>>>>> "I" dissagree - code may not. Here I can't get away with it. (unless
>>>>>> it is strapped to the cable for the full length making it
>>>>>> "effectively" part of the cable). If you can get to the cable the full
>>>>>> lenth to strap on the ground you may as well pull out the deficient
>>>>>> cable and pull in the proper 3 wire plus ground cable.
>>>>>> It USED to be acceptable to connect the safety ground to a water
>>>>>> pipe. That is no longer kosher. (for good reason) Also USED to be able
>>>>>> to use EMT conduit as safety ground. Also no longer allowed.
>>>>>
>>>>>You still haven't explained *why* you disagree. I didn't ask whether it was
>>>>>compliant in Ontario. I didn't ask what installation method might make it
>>>>>compliant in Ontario. I didn't ask about old code language related to water
>>>>>pipes.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm not sure why you keep answering questions that I'm not asking.
>>>>>
>>>>>In fact, I'm not even sure that you actually disagree. Earlier you said "OK".
>>>>>
>>>>>So which is it? Do you disagree with using a code-compliant external ground
>>>>>or not? If you do, tell us why. Nothing else, just *why* you disagree with
>>>>>using a code-compliant external ground.
>>>> No I don't agree with it because it's a dumb-ass redneck hack. Just
>>>>because the fools who write code in the USA allow it doesn't mean it
>>>>is right or safe. The reason we use "cable" instead of individual
>>>>wires is to ensure all conductors for a given circuit are kept
>>>>together so unidentified or separate conductors don't get "lost" down
>>>>the way. A safety ground is for "safety" and it is meant to be an
>>>>"integrated" safety solution.
>>>>Another reason I can't figure out why some American jurisdictions
>>>>require conduit and wire instead of cable for residential use. Bad
>>>>enough trying to sort out the spiderweb in industrial and commercial
>>>>premises after a dew electricians have had their fingers into it.
>>>
>>>The reason why conduit was require is money, the unions and
>>>contractors had enough influence to get it in as the code. Cook County
>>>Illinois, also required cast iron DVW above ground, til recently when
>>>the reduction in cost of PVC and ABS was realized.
>> Crook county is a totally different UNIVERSE.
>>
>>Cast iron has been basically DEAD up here for over 30 years - and like
>>knob and tube wiring is virtually uninsureable. Copper DVW is just
>>about as bad (for good reason)
>> Insurance companies are NOT in the business of taking risks - no
>>matter WHAT you may believe.
>
>One of the requirements for issuance of insurance is that there be an
>"insurable risk". If there were no risks there would be no need for
>insurance.
>
>> With water damage claims becoming the MAJORITY of insured losses -
>>including mold damage from "incipient leaks", insurers are getting
>>REALLY gun-shy. Used to be insurers made their money on investing the
>>premiums,
>
>Actually the ability of insurers to invest premiums is controlled by
>regulations. Insurers most assuredly do make their money by
>collecting premiums and selling product. There is an investment
>component but it is not the major source of income. Note that that is
>not a guess on my part--I do these calculations for a living.
>
>>and paid out losses from the investment income. That
>>investment income has pretty much evaporated at the same time claim
>>costs have sky-rocketed.
>
>What leads you to believe that claim costs have "sky-rocketed"?
How's 17 years in the general insurance industry????
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 19:00:59 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 16:11:47 -0500, J. Clarke
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 11:17:28 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 11:58:21 -0500, J. Clarke
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 10:37:24 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 20:40:52 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 18:45:12 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
>>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>An additional question: This is for a treadmill.
>>>>>>>>It will be in a room right next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (unused).
>>>>>>>>Will the electrician be able to use that connection to create an outlet for the treadmill,
>>>>>>>>or will he/she have to run a totally new connection for the 17A from the fusebox?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Thanks for the help!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>An electrician could set up sub panel from that outlet, question is do
>>>>>>>you want that. Questions to ask the are in your quoted text above,
>>>>>>>they can do what you want the limiting factor is what it costs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Where is your fuse/circuit breaker box for the house, are there open
>>>>>>>circuit in the box?
>>>>>> Sub panel not required No open circuits required, location of panel
>>>>>>immaterial.
>>>>>
>>>>>Really you live in a fantasy world with no building codes?
>>>>
>>>>OK, tell us the specific provision of code that forbids splitting an
>>>>existing 240v circuit into two 120v circuits by replacing the
>>>>receptacle ******----->>>>>and the breaker<<<<<-----*****.
>>>
>>>Well if you run a 120v circuit off a 240v breaker you are asking for a
>>>fire, commom sense not code. If you replace the 240v breaker with 2
>>>120v breakers it will work.
>>
>>See emphasis above.
>>
>>>But then Mr. Clarke is alway just looking for an argument.
>>
>>You're the one who asserted that such a thing could be done only in a
>>fantasy world with no building codes.
>>
>Just fuck off and die, you ass
Temper, temper.
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 19:00:59 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 16:11:47 -0500, J. Clarke
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 11:17:28 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 11:58:21 -0500, J. Clarke
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 10:37:24 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 20:40:52 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 18:45:12 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
>>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>An additional question: This is for a treadmill.
>>>>>>>>It will be in a room right next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (unused).
>>>>>>>>Will the electrician be able to use that connection to create an outlet for the treadmill,
>>>>>>>>or will he/she have to run a totally new connection for the 17A from the fusebox?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Thanks for the help!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>An electrician could set up sub panel from that outlet, question is do
>>>>>>>you want that. Questions to ask the are in your quoted text above,
>>>>>>>they can do what you want the limiting factor is what it costs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Where is your fuse/circuit breaker box for the house, are there open
>>>>>>>circuit in the box?
>>>>>> Sub panel not required No open circuits required, location of panel
>>>>>>immaterial.
>>>>>
>>>>>Really you live in a fantasy world with no building codes?
>>>>
>>>>OK, tell us the specific provision of code that forbids splitting an
>>>>existing 240v circuit into two 120v circuits by replacing the
>>>>receptacle ******----->>>>>and the breaker<<<<<-----*****.
>>>
>>>Well if you run a 120v circuit off a 240v breaker you are asking for a
>>>fire, commom sense not code. If you replace the 240v breaker with 2
>>>120v breakers it will work.
>>
>>See emphasis above.
>>
>>>But then Mr. Clarke is alway just looking for an argument.
>>
>>You're the one who asserted that such a thing could be done only in a
>>fantasy world with no building codes.
>>
>Just fuck off and die, you ass
Now THAT is constructive . NOT.
12 year old????
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 11:58:21 -0500, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 10:37:24 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 20:40:52 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 18:45:12 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>An additional question: This is for a treadmill.
>>>>>It will be in a room right next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (unused).
>>>>>Will the electrician be able to use that connection to create an outlet for the treadmill,
>>>>>or will he/she have to run a totally new connection for the 17A from the fusebox?
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks for the help!
>>>>
>>>>An electrician could set up sub panel from that outlet, question is do
>>>>you want that. Questions to ask the are in your quoted text above,
>>>>they can do what you want the limiting factor is what it costs.
>>>>
>>>>Where is your fuse/circuit breaker box for the house, are there open
>>>>circuit in the box?
>>> Sub panel not required No open circuits required, location of panel
>>>immaterial.
>>
>>Really you live in a fantasy world with no building codes?
>
>OK, tell us the specific provision of code that forbids splitting an
>existing 240v circuit into two 120v circuits by replacing the
>receptacle and the breaker.
Well if you run a 120v circuit off a 240v breaker you are asking for a
fire, commom sense not code. If you replace the 240v breaker with 2
120v breakers it will work.
But then Mr. Clarke is alway just looking for an argument.
On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 10:22:14 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 18:27:55 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 9:04:24 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
> >> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 16:13:40 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 2:22:12 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 06:35:25 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 3:15:03 AM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
> >> >> >> On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 22:38:00 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 23:06:46 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
> >> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> No - you are wrong - because a "240 volt breaker" is a common trip 2
> >> >> >> >>pole 120 volt breaker. It is basically 2 120 volt breakers on opposite
> >> >> >> >>sides of the panel wired in series with the center-tap being the
> >> >> >> >>shared neutral.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>Don't spout off about things you OBVIOUSLY have no knowlege of.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >So my advice to the original poster is get an electrician rather than
> >> >> >> >depend upon the myriad of thoughts expressed here.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Any thoughts on that sir?
> >> >> >> I said a few days ago if he had to ask the question perhaps he should
> >> >> >> have an electrician do the job. Nowhere did I say HE should do the
> >> >> >> job. I just said it could be done, without a subpanel, and without
> >> >> >> replacingthe wire. I dissagree with running an external ground - which
> >> >> >> would NOT pass inspection here in Ontario Canada. - 4 wire will give
> >> >> >> him 2 circuits - 3 wire will give him one. At least that's what would
> >> >> >> pass here and what a qualified electrician would agree to here. My Dad
> >> >> >> was an electrician and he taught me a lot.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Assuming the OP is working within the US NEC arena, why would you disagree
> >> >> >with a code-compliant external ground?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> If it is accepted in his jurisdiction, OK - and if it is an external
> >> >> GROUND - but a lot of old drier 3 wire plugs were on 2 wire plus
> >> >> ground - which would mean in most cases only 2 insulated wires -
> >> >> requiring an external NEUTRAL which IS verbotten.
> >> >>
> >> >> If the cable contains red, black, and white you may (in some cases) be
> >> >> allowed to run an external ground and use the white for the common
> >> >> neutral.
> >> >> If it has black and red or black and white with either green or bare
> >> >> you can not use the green or bare as the neutral - it is GROUND ONLY -
> >> >> and you can NOT run an external neutral wire. ( to the best of my
> >> >> knowlege)
> >> >
> >> >I asked a very simple question to which you provided an answer with a lot of unrelated stuff (unrelated to my question, that is).
> >> >
> >> >You said: "I dissagree [sic] with running an external ground"
> >> >
> >> >I asked: "...why would you disagree with a code-compliant external ground?"
> >> >
> >> >You could have stopped right after "If it is accepted in his jurisdiction,
> >> >OK"
> >> >
> >> >Bottom line, it appears that you *don't* disagree with running an code-
> >> >compliant external ground, which (your disagreement) is the only thing I
> >> >asked about.
> >> >
> >> >Now I'm curious as to why you said you disagree, when in fact, you do not.
> >> "I" dissagree - code may not. Here I can't get away with it. (unless
> >> it is strapped to the cable for the full length making it
> >> "effectively" part of the cable). If you can get to the cable the full
> >> lenth to strap on the ground you may as well pull out the deficient
> >> cable and pull in the proper 3 wire plus ground cable.
> >> It USED to be acceptable to connect the safety ground to a water
> >> pipe. That is no longer kosher. (for good reason) Also USED to be able
> >> to use EMT conduit as safety ground. Also no longer allowed.
> >
> >You still haven't explained *why* you disagree. I didn't ask whether it was
> >compliant in Ontario. I didn't ask what installation method might make it
> >compliant in Ontario. I didn't ask about old code language related to water
> >pipes.
> >
> >I'm not sure why you keep answering questions that I'm not asking.
> >
> >In fact, I'm not even sure that you actually disagree. Earlier you said "OK".
> >
> >So which is it? Do you disagree with using a code-compliant external ground
> >or not? If you do, tell us why. Nothing else, just *why* you disagree with
> >using a code-compliant external ground.
> No I don't agree with it because it's a dumb-ass redneck hack. Just
> because the fools who write code in the USA allow it doesn't mean it
> is right or safe. The reason we use "cable" instead of individual
> wires is to ensure all conductors for a given circuit are kept
> together so unidentified or separate conductors don't get "lost" down
> the way. A safety ground is for "safety" and it is meant to be an
> "integrated" safety solution.
Finally...a direct answer to my very simple question. Man, it took a lot of
work to drag that out of you.
On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 18:27:55 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 9:04:24 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 16:13:40 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 2:22:12 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 06:35:25 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 3:15:03 AM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>> >> >> On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 22:38:00 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 23:06:46 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>> >> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> No - you are wrong - because a "240 volt breaker" is a common trip 2
>> >> >> >>pole 120 volt breaker. It is basically 2 120 volt breakers on opposite
>> >> >> >>sides of the panel wired in series with the center-tap being the
>> >> >> >>shared neutral.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>Don't spout off about things you OBVIOUSLY have no knowlege of.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >So my advice to the original poster is get an electrician rather than
>> >> >> >depend upon the myriad of thoughts expressed here.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Any thoughts on that sir?
>> >> >> I said a few days ago if he had to ask the question perhaps he should
>> >> >> have an electrician do the job. Nowhere did I say HE should do the
>> >> >> job. I just said it could be done, without a subpanel, and without
>> >> >> replacingthe wire. I dissagree with running an external ground - which
>> >> >> would NOT pass inspection here in Ontario Canada. - 4 wire will give
>> >> >> him 2 circuits - 3 wire will give him one. At least that's what would
>> >> >> pass here and what a qualified electrician would agree to here. My Dad
>> >> >> was an electrician and he taught me a lot.
>> >> >
>> >> >Assuming the OP is working within the US NEC arena, why would you disagree
>> >> >with a code-compliant external ground?
>> >
>> >
>> >> If it is accepted in his jurisdiction, OK - and if it is an external
>> >> GROUND - but a lot of old drier 3 wire plugs were on 2 wire plus
>> >> ground - which would mean in most cases only 2 insulated wires -
>> >> requiring an external NEUTRAL which IS verbotten.
>> >>
>> >> If the cable contains red, black, and white you may (in some cases) be
>> >> allowed to run an external ground and use the white for the common
>> >> neutral.
>> >> If it has black and red or black and white with either green or bare
>> >> you can not use the green or bare as the neutral - it is GROUND ONLY -
>> >> and you can NOT run an external neutral wire. ( to the best of my
>> >> knowlege)
>> >
>> >I asked a very simple question to which you provided an answer with a lot of unrelated stuff (unrelated to my question, that is).
>> >
>> >You said: "I dissagree [sic] with running an external ground"
>> >
>> >I asked: "...why would you disagree with a code-compliant external ground?"
>> >
>> >You could have stopped right after "If it is accepted in his jurisdiction,
>> >OK"
>> >
>> >Bottom line, it appears that you *don't* disagree with running an code-
>> >compliant external ground, which (your disagreement) is the only thing I
>> >asked about.
>> >
>> >Now I'm curious as to why you said you disagree, when in fact, you do not.
>> "I" dissagree - code may not. Here I can't get away with it. (unless
>> it is strapped to the cable for the full length making it
>> "effectively" part of the cable). If you can get to the cable the full
>> lenth to strap on the ground you may as well pull out the deficient
>> cable and pull in the proper 3 wire plus ground cable.
>> It USED to be acceptable to connect the safety ground to a water
>> pipe. That is no longer kosher. (for good reason) Also USED to be able
>> to use EMT conduit as safety ground. Also no longer allowed.
>
>You still haven't explained *why* you disagree. I didn't ask whether it was
>compliant in Ontario. I didn't ask what installation method might make it
>compliant in Ontario. I didn't ask about old code language related to water
>pipes.
>
>I'm not sure why you keep answering questions that I'm not asking.
>
>In fact, I'm not even sure that you actually disagree. Earlier you said "OK".
>
>So which is it? Do you disagree with using a code-compliant external ground
>or not? If you do, tell us why. Nothing else, just *why* you disagree with
>using a code-compliant external ground.
No I don't agree with it because it's a dumb-ass redneck hack. Just
because the fools who write code in the USA allow it doesn't mean it
is right or safe. The reason we use "cable" instead of individual
wires is to ensure all conductors for a given circuit are kept
together so unidentified or separate conductors don't get "lost" down
the way. A safety ground is for "safety" and it is meant to be an
"integrated" safety solution.
Another reason I can't figure out why some American jurisdictions
require conduit and wire instead of cable for residential use. Bad
enough trying to sort out the spiderweb in industrial and commercial
premises after a dew electricians have had their fingers into it.
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 14:57:28 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 21:17:18 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 21:04:18 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 16:13:40 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 2:22:12 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 06:35:25 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 3:15:03 AM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>> >> On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 22:38:00 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>> >> wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> >On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 23:06:46 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>> >> >wrote:
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >> No - you are wrong - because a "240 volt breaker" is a common trip 2
>>>>> >> >>pole 120 volt breaker. It is basically 2 120 volt breakers on opposite
>>>>> >> >>sides of the panel wired in series with the center-tap being the
>>>>> >> >>shared neutral.
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >>Don't spout off about things you OBVIOUSLY have no knowlege of.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >So my advice to the original poster is get an electrician rather than
>>>>> >> >depend upon the myriad of thoughts expressed here.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >Any thoughts on that sir?
>>>>> >> I said a few days ago if he had to ask the question perhaps he should
>>>>> >> have an electrician do the job. Nowhere did I say HE should do the
>>>>> >> job. I just said it could be done, without a subpanel, and without
>>>>> >> replacingthe wire. I dissagree with running an external ground - which
>>>>> >> would NOT pass inspection here in Ontario Canada. - 4 wire will give
>>>>> >> him 2 circuits - 3 wire will give him one. At least that's what would
>>>>> >> pass here and what a qualified electrician would agree to here. My Dad
>>>>> >> was an electrician and he taught me a lot.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Assuming the OP is working within the US NEC arena, why would you disagree
>>>>> >with a code-compliant external ground?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If it is accepted in his jurisdiction, OK - and if it is an external
>>>>> GROUND - but a lot of old drier 3 wire plugs were on 2 wire plus
>>>>> ground - which would mean in most cases only 2 insulated wires -
>>>>> requiring an external NEUTRAL which IS verbotten.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the cable contains red, black, and white you may (in some cases) be
>>>>> allowed to run an external ground and use the white for the common
>>>>> neutral.
>>>>> If it has black and red or black and white with either green or bare
>>>>> you can not use the green or bare as the neutral - it is GROUND ONLY -
>>>>> and you can NOT run an external neutral wire. ( to the best of my
>>>>> knowlege)
>>>>
>>>>I asked a very simple question to which you provided an answer with a lot of unrelated stuff (unrelated to my question, that is).
>>>>
>>>>You said: "I dissagree [sic] with running an external ground"
>>>>
>>>>I asked: "...why would you disagree with a code-compliant external ground?"
>>>>
>>>>You could have stopped right after "If it is accepted in his jurisdiction,
>>>>OK"
>>>>
>>>>Bottom line, it appears that you *don't* disagree with running an code-
>>>>compliant external ground, which (your disagreement) is the only thing I
>>>>asked about.
>>>>
>>>>Now I'm curious as to why you said you disagree, when in fact, you do not.
>>> "I" dissagree - code may not. Here I can't get away with it. (unless
>>>it is strapped to the cable for the full length making it
>>>"effectively" part of the cable). If you can get to the cable the full
>>>lenth to strap on the ground you may as well pull out the deficient
>>>cable and pull in the proper 3 wire plus ground cable.
>>> It USED to be acceptable to connect the safety ground to a water
>>>pipe. That is no longer kosher. (for good reason) Also USED to be able
>>>to use EMT conduit as safety ground. Also no longer allowed.
>>
>>Boy that could get the electricians in Cook County a lot of sidejobs
>>pulling ground wires in conduit.
> Bet they can't use EMT for ground on new construction even in "crook
>county" today.
Have not checked as I have not lived there for 20 years.
On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 23:05:33 -0500, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 21:17:18 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 21:04:18 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 16:13:40 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 2:22:12 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 06:35:25 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 3:15:03 AM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>> >> On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 22:38:00 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>> >> wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> >On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 23:06:46 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>> >> >wrote:
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >> No - you are wrong - because a "240 volt breaker" is a common trip 2
>>>>> >> >>pole 120 volt breaker. It is basically 2 120 volt breakers on opposite
>>>>> >> >>sides of the panel wired in series with the center-tap being the
>>>>> >> >>shared neutral.
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >>Don't spout off about things you OBVIOUSLY have no knowlege of.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >So my advice to the original poster is get an electrician rather than
>>>>> >> >depend upon the myriad of thoughts expressed here.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >Any thoughts on that sir?
>>>>> >> I said a few days ago if he had to ask the question perhaps he should
>>>>> >> have an electrician do the job. Nowhere did I say HE should do the
>>>>> >> job. I just said it could be done, without a subpanel, and without
>>>>> >> replacingthe wire. I dissagree with running an external ground - which
>>>>> >> would NOT pass inspection here in Ontario Canada. - 4 wire will give
>>>>> >> him 2 circuits - 3 wire will give him one. At least that's what would
>>>>> >> pass here and what a qualified electrician would agree to here. My Dad
>>>>> >> was an electrician and he taught me a lot.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Assuming the OP is working within the US NEC arena, why would you disagree
>>>>> >with a code-compliant external ground?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If it is accepted in his jurisdiction, OK - and if it is an external
>>>>> GROUND - but a lot of old drier 3 wire plugs were on 2 wire plus
>>>>> ground - which would mean in most cases only 2 insulated wires -
>>>>> requiring an external NEUTRAL which IS verbotten.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the cable contains red, black, and white you may (in some cases) be
>>>>> allowed to run an external ground and use the white for the common
>>>>> neutral.
>>>>> If it has black and red or black and white with either green or bare
>>>>> you can not use the green or bare as the neutral - it is GROUND ONLY -
>>>>> and you can NOT run an external neutral wire. ( to the best of my
>>>>> knowlege)
>>>>
>>>>I asked a very simple question to which you provided an answer with a lot of unrelated stuff (unrelated to my question, that is).
>>>>
>>>>You said: "I dissagree [sic] with running an external ground"
>>>>
>>>>I asked: "...why would you disagree with a code-compliant external ground?"
>>>>
>>>>You could have stopped right after "If it is accepted in his jurisdiction,
>>>>OK"
>>>>
>>>>Bottom line, it appears that you *don't* disagree with running an code-
>>>>compliant external ground, which (your disagreement) is the only thing I
>>>>asked about.
>>>>
>>>>Now I'm curious as to why you said you disagree, when in fact, you do not.
>>> "I" dissagree - code may not. Here I can't get away with it. (unless
>>>it is strapped to the cable for the full length making it
>>>"effectively" part of the cable). If you can get to the cable the full
>>>lenth to strap on the ground you may as well pull out the deficient
>>>cable and pull in the proper 3 wire plus ground cable.
>>> It USED to be acceptable to connect the safety ground to a water
>>>pipe. That is no longer kosher. (for good reason) Also USED to be able
>>>to use EMT conduit as safety ground. Also no longer allowed.
>>
>>Boy that could get the electricians in Cook County a lot of sidejobs
>>pulling ground wires in conduit.
>
>250.118: The equipment grounding conductor run with or enclosing the
>circuit conductors shall be one or more or a combination of the
>following . . . (2) Rigid metal conduit (3) Intermediate metal conduit
>(4) Electrical metallic tubing
>
Just because it is legal doesn't make it right, proper, or safe.
MINIMUM CODE to me means "almost good enough"
Rigid conduit? Yes - I'll agree with that. Even IMC - which is also a
THREADED connection. EMT? Not on MY watch. The safety ground may be
"ok" when installed, but corrosion and settling over time can disrupt,
or at the very least increase the resistance of the ground return
circuit. ANd that's ASS U ming the installer used proper bonding
bushings and properly tightened EVERY conduit connection, and NOBODY
shifted a box or bumped a conduit run to cause a connection to loosen.
Add environmental influences such as humidity - even from
condensation, and the RISK increases dramatically. So - like I said
with the external ground wire - "I" dissagree - and for the same
reason. Not running the saferty ground wire in EMT is a cheap-assed
redneck hack job. Pure and simple. Zinc plated steel slip-on
connectors with #8 steel "set screws" on .042 or .049
electro-galvanized steel tubing does not give me ANY confidence in
providing a low-resistance fault current return. A tapered pipe thread
bushing on .075 to .090 (1/2 inch to 1 inch diameter) imc gives me a
bit more confidence (but "I" still like to see a dedicated ground wire
bonding each outlet box or device - a "contiguous ground" that is
easily checked and verified.
Check with the electricians talk site and you will find the majority
agree with me.
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 15:00:01 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 21:20:09 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 20:55:45 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 13:38:18 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 14:30:51 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>> Well I INTIMATED it here:"
>>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>An additional question: This is for a treadmill. It will be in a room right next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (unused). Will the electrician be able to use that connection to create an outlet for the treadmill, or will he/she have to run a totally new connection for the 17A from the fusebox?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks for the help!
>>>>>Any electrician worth his salt will be able to give you at least one,
>>>>>and likely 2, 20 amp circuits drom that wire (after changing to a 20
>>>>>amp braker)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And I guess it was a different thread where I said if he had to ask
>>>>>the question he shouldn't be doing it and should get an electrician.
>>>>>
>>>>>I've said that MANY times on both the woodworking and home.repair
>>>>>groups.
>>>>
>>>>Good to that you INTIMATED it, but I said get an electrian to look at
>>>>it. Because from here I can not see whether it is a grounded dryer
>>>>device or just a 2 hot and a neutral device.
>>> Or more likely a 2 hot and GROUND
>>
>> I have seen both, but then there are still houses that have knob tube
>>that are functioning. That is just 2 wires no ground.
> Getting fewer and fewer up here. as soon as they change hands the
>knob and tube has to go. Almost impossible to get new insurance on a
>house with knob and tube or a 60 amp or smaller service up here - and
>no insurance means no mortgage
So a cash buyer could.
On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 13:51:02 -0500, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 12:45:45 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>>The point is that you simply can not admit to being wrong.
>>>
>>>Your blanket statement that a cash buyer of a house with K&T could not insure
>>>is just not true 100% of the time.
>>>
>>>You can post a million words about known examples where it would be difficult if not
>>>impossible to insure, but that still doesn't eliminate the ability in every single case.
>> And YOU mr Derby, have to nit-pick at everything - You sure can't be
>>wrong - you are an AMERICAN for cripes sake!!!
>>
>> FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES a house with K&T wiring IS uninsurable.
>>Mabee not in some backwater bayou where a house with electricity is a
>>luxury even if it's wired with fencewire using old bud bottles as
>>insulators - but then how many of those hovels are insured???
>> Or where if you know the cheif inspector and drink with him every
>>night and go target shooting with yout AK every weekend with him you
>>can get anything passed - - - -
>>
>> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - look in the mirror!!!
>
>In the US, the insurer may conduct their own inspection. If it is an
>older building that is not currently insured they will likely insist
>on doing so, and can refuse to insure regardless of what the
>government inspector says.
True here too. Insurance company can set their own rules on what they
will or will not insure, and to a certain extent what they will
charge. Less so on life health and dissability or automotive insurance
which are both HIGHLY regulated.
Generally there is a questionaire asking about roof age, furnace age,
water heater age, plumbing age and materials, condition and age of
windows, etc as well as history of modifications. Pictures are also
generally required and supplied. If the insurer has any questions
raised by, possibly, discrepencies between appearance and description,
they may require inspection.
When I changed insurers they were not happy with my fuse panel - which
I intended to switch to breakers anyway,and required an ESA-Safe
inspection because the house has aluminum wiring -
Passed with flying colours.
On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:24:27 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 12:45:53 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>> >
>> >The point is that you simply can not admit to being wrong.
>> >
>> >Your blanket statement that a cash buyer of a house with K&T could not insure
>> >is just not true 100% of the time.
>> >
>> >You can post a million words about known examples where it would be difficult if not
>> >impossible to insure, but that still doesn't eliminate the ability in every single case.
>> And YOU mr Derby, have to nit-pick at everything - You sure can't be
>> wrong - you are an AMERICAN for cripes sake!!!
>>
>> FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES a house with K&T wiring IS uninsurable.
>> Mabee not in some backwater bayou where a house with electricity is a
>> luxury even if it's wired with fencewire using old bud bottles as
>> insulators - but then how many of those hovels are insured???
>> Or where if you know the cheif inspector and drink with him every
>> night and go target shooting with yout AK every weekend with him you
>> can get anything passed - - - -
>>
>> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - look in the mirror!!!
>
>Man, you do get worked up, don't you?
>
>All caps, multiple punctuation marks, misspellings galore.
>
>Wouldn't it be easier to just say. "Sorry, I misspoke"?
>
>That has to be better for your blood pressure than your way of
>handling things.
I have repeatedly qualified my statements,and you have repeatedly
insisted on being a jerk about it.
Says a lot more about you than me.
No all caps. No extra punctuation marks. No spelling mistakes. No
high blood pressure.
And from you, no admission that the typical house with knob and tube
wiring would be virtually uninsurable most anywhere in the USA or
Canada.(particularly any house that would be purchased for cash)
In most cases these houses would be bought by those who cannot afford
anything better, so would be unlikely to have the cash to buy them
outright - and if the price was low enough for that typical buyer to
pay cash, in all likelihood the condition of the house and it's wiring
would not meet the requirements of most if not all insurers in the
north American market to qualify for insurance.
Also in most cases the cost of rewiring would be less than the cost
of bringing the old wiring up to standard, if that would even be
possible and allowed under either national or local code requirements
- whichever applied.
I think I qualified all of my statements adequately and have nothing
to apologize for
You want to be a jerk about it, fine, go ahead - I don't know what
you think you are gaining by it. Being the schoolyard bully doesn't
gain you any stature and it isn't helping anyone else on the newsgroup
either.
Have a happy new year (or a grouchy one if THAT makes you happy.)
(mandatory all caps included for your enjoyment)
On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:24:27 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 12:45:53 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>> >
>> >The point is that you simply can not admit to being wrong.
>> >
>> >Your blanket statement that a cash buyer of a house with K&T could not insure
>> >is just not true 100% of the time.
>> >
>> >You can post a million words about known examples where it would be difficult if not
>> >impossible to insure, but that still doesn't eliminate the ability in every single case.
>> And YOU mr Derby, have to nit-pick at everything - You sure can't be
>> wrong - you are an AMERICAN for cripes sake!!!
>>
>> FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES a house with K&T wiring IS uninsurable.
>> Mabee not in some backwater bayou where a house with electricity is a
>> luxury even if it's wired with fencewire using old bud bottles as
>> insulators - but then how many of those hovels are insured???
>> Or where if you know the cheif inspector and drink with him every
>> night and go target shooting with yout AK every weekend with him you
>> can get anything passed - - - -
>>
>> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - look in the mirror!!!
>
>Man, you do get worked up, don't you?
>
>All caps, multiple punctuation marks, misspellings galore.
>
>Wouldn't it be easier to just say. "Sorry, I misspoke"?
>
>That has to be better for your blood pressure than your way of
>handling things.
As far as better way of handling things, tracing a circuit in conduit.
Try a circuit tracer, you disconnect the hot lead at the breaker (or
fure box) hook the tracer up go find all the devices on that circuit.
On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 20:46:42 -0500, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 19:43:20 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 18:30:03 -0500, J. Clarke
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 17:06:38 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 17:24:23 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:27:36 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:55:11 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 08:42:49 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 20:59:13 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 13:41:06 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:24:27 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>>>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 12:45:53 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >The point is that you simply can not admit to being wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >Your blanket statement that a cash buyer of a house with K&T could not insure
>>>>>>>>>>>> >is just not true 100% of the time.
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >You can post a million words about known examples where it would be difficult if not
>>>>>>>>>>>> >impossible to insure, but that still doesn't eliminate the ability in every single case.
>>>>>>>>>>>> And YOU mr Derby, have to nit-pick at everything - You sure can't be
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong - you are an AMERICAN for cripes sake!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES a house with K&T wiring IS uninsurable.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mabee not in some backwater bayou where a house with electricity is a
>>>>>>>>>>>> luxury even if it's wired with fencewire using old bud bottles as
>>>>>>>>>>>> insulators - but then how many of those hovels are insured???
>>>>>>>>>>>> Or where if you know the cheif inspector and drink with him every
>>>>>>>>>>>> night and go target shooting with yout AK every weekend with him you
>>>>>>>>>>>> can get anything passed - - - -
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - look in the mirror!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Man, you do get worked up, don't you?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>All caps, multiple punctuation marks, misspellings galore.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Wouldn't it be easier to just say. "Sorry, I misspoke"?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>That has to be better for your blood pressure than your way of
>>>>>>>>>>>handling things.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>As far as better way of handling things, tracing a circuit in conduit.
>>>>>>>>>>Try a circuit tracer, you disconnect the hot lead at the breaker (or
>>>>>>>>>>fure box) hook the tracer up go find all the devices on that circuit.
>>>>>>>>> That DOES let you trace the power - sort of - when the circuit does
>>>>>>>>>not have a problem - but does not do a good job of tracing neutrals.
>>>>>>>>>When not in a conduit a "fox and hound" tracer works but they are
>>>>>>>>>almost useless in a metal conduit.
>>>>>>>>> Generally finding what is ON a circuit isn't too much of a problem.
>>>>>>>>>Finding what circuit it is SUPPOSED to be on when it has "fallen off"
>>>>>>>>>for some reason is the fun part - in a building with 4 panels in it,
>>>>>>>>>where there appears to be no rhyme or reason to what is on what panel.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>One building in particular - where I spent a LOT of time was built as
>>>>>>>>>a 4 unit commercial building which was developed as the office
>>>>>>>>>headquarters of a notorious financial planning fraudster locally (and
>>>>>>>>>foreclosed on before he opened the doors for business) was then
>>>>>>>>>redeveloped as the offices of the insurance company that was my major
>>>>>>>>>client for 17 years. Lots of changes were made by the developer.
>>>>>>>>>Then more changes were made as time went on - and I ended up
>>>>>>>>>trobleshooting a lot of issues. A real pain in the butt!! Complicating
>>>>>>>>>matters was the way some of the creditors removed equipment that was
>>>>>>>>>unpaid for when they came back to reclaim it - - - - - - (from the
>>>>>>>>>original tennant.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>So no matter what I come up with you are going to trash the idea,
>>>>>>>>right?
>>>>>>> No. There are many devices that can be used to make tracing and
>>>>>>>troubleshooting individual conductor circuits in conduit and raceway
>>>>>>>easier - but NOTHING will make it as simple as following cable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I have found just following the cable simple way to figure out where
>>>>>>the conduit runs. Unless you have a situation where you should just
>>>>>>tear it out and start over because of others incompetence.
>>>>> Follow what cable? The wires run through conduit from the panel to
>>>>>the outlet - through numerous "pull boxes" through a virtual GRID of
>>>>>conduit.
>>>>
>>>>If you put the tracer on the hot lead you can follow it at the outlet
>>>>and switch boxes, conduit does not act like a faraday cage.
>>>
>>>In conduit that only tells you where the "hot lead" is going. You
>>>seem to have the impression that the normal procedure is to pull
>>>multiconductor cable through conduit. That is something that is
>>>sometimes done where a multiconductor cable has to pass through an
>>>exposed area and needs protection, but the norm is separate,
>>>independent conductors.
>>
>>In house wiring. You are over thinking it.
>
>Conduit is not the norm in house wiring.
Was where I grew up.
On Wed, 01 Jan 2020 01:38:22 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 19:43:20 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 18:30:03 -0500, J. Clarke
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 17:06:38 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 17:24:23 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:27:36 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:55:11 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 08:42:49 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 20:59:13 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 13:41:06 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:24:27 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>>>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 12:45:53 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >The point is that you simply can not admit to being wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >Your blanket statement that a cash buyer of a house with K&T could not insure
>>>>>>>>>>>> >is just not true 100% of the time.
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >You can post a million words about known examples where it would be difficult if not
>>>>>>>>>>>> >impossible to insure, but that still doesn't eliminate the ability in every single case.
>>>>>>>>>>>> And YOU mr Derby, have to nit-pick at everything - You sure can't be
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong - you are an AMERICAN for cripes sake!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES a house with K&T wiring IS uninsurable.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mabee not in some backwater bayou where a house with electricity is a
>>>>>>>>>>>> luxury even if it's wired with fencewire using old bud bottles as
>>>>>>>>>>>> insulators - but then how many of those hovels are insured???
>>>>>>>>>>>> Or where if you know the cheif inspector and drink with him every
>>>>>>>>>>>> night and go target shooting with yout AK every weekend with him you
>>>>>>>>>>>> can get anything passed - - - -
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - look in the mirror!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Man, you do get worked up, don't you?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>All caps, multiple punctuation marks, misspellings galore.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Wouldn't it be easier to just say. "Sorry, I misspoke"?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>That has to be better for your blood pressure than your way of
>>>>>>>>>>>handling things.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>As far as better way of handling things, tracing a circuit in conduit.
>>>>>>>>>>Try a circuit tracer, you disconnect the hot lead at the breaker (or
>>>>>>>>>>fure box) hook the tracer up go find all the devices on that circuit.
>>>>>>>>> That DOES let you trace the power - sort of - when the circuit does
>>>>>>>>>not have a problem - but does not do a good job of tracing neutrals.
>>>>>>>>>When not in a conduit a "fox and hound" tracer works but they are
>>>>>>>>>almost useless in a metal conduit.
>>>>>>>>> Generally finding what is ON a circuit isn't too much of a problem.
>>>>>>>>>Finding what circuit it is SUPPOSED to be on when it has "fallen off"
>>>>>>>>>for some reason is the fun part - in a building with 4 panels in it,
>>>>>>>>>where there appears to be no rhyme or reason to what is on what panel.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>One building in particular - where I spent a LOT of time was built as
>>>>>>>>>a 4 unit commercial building which was developed as the office
>>>>>>>>>headquarters of a notorious financial planning fraudster locally (and
>>>>>>>>>foreclosed on before he opened the doors for business) was then
>>>>>>>>>redeveloped as the offices of the insurance company that was my major
>>>>>>>>>client for 17 years. Lots of changes were made by the developer.
>>>>>>>>>Then more changes were made as time went on - and I ended up
>>>>>>>>>trobleshooting a lot of issues. A real pain in the butt!! Complicating
>>>>>>>>>matters was the way some of the creditors removed equipment that was
>>>>>>>>>unpaid for when they came back to reclaim it - - - - - - (from the
>>>>>>>>>original tennant.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>So no matter what I come up with you are going to trash the idea,
>>>>>>>>right?
>>>>>>> No. There are many devices that can be used to make tracing and
>>>>>>>troubleshooting individual conductor circuits in conduit and raceway
>>>>>>>easier - but NOTHING will make it as simple as following cable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I have found just following the cable simple way to figure out where
>>>>>>the conduit runs. Unless you have a situation where you should just
>>>>>>tear it out and start over because of others incompetence.
>>>>> Follow what cable? The wires run through conduit from the panel to
>>>>>the outlet - through numerous "pull boxes" through a virtual GRID of
>>>>>conduit.
>>>>
>>>>If you put the tracer on the hot lead you can follow it at the outlet
>>>>and switch boxes, conduit does not act like a faraday cage.
>>>
>>>In conduit that only tells you where the "hot lead" is going. You
>>>seem to have the impression that the normal procedure is to pull
>>>multiconductor cable through conduit. That is something that is
>>>sometimes done where a multiconductor cable has to pass through an
>>>exposed area and needs protection, but the norm is separate,
>>>independent conductors.
>>
>>In house wiring. You are over thinking it.
>
>
> Thank GOD in Ontario in single unit and all stick framed residential
>units we don't have to use the infernal stuff!!!!
Helped rewire some houses that had aluminum wire, you might think it
is not that bad when rewiring a whole house. Tract houses the layout
is all the same too.
Markem <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 20:46:42 -0500, J. Clarke
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>Conduit is not the norm in house wiring.
>
> Was where I grew up.
>
Chicago?
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 8:07:22 PM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 7:19:12 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 13:48:08 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > #4 certainly looks like it would cover it. I'm really surprised
> > because future modifications could disconnect the safety ground.
>
> Actually I would have gone with #3, assuming that was physically possible.
>
> Single ground wire from the receptacle back to the panel. BTDT
I forgot to mention that I labeled both ends of the ground wire cuz I ain't
gonna be around forever. That should cover your safety concern somewhat.
On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 3:43:07 PM UTC-5, DJ Delorie wrote:
> Michael <[email protected]> writes:
> > Can I use a converter to make this plug work in a regular household outlet?
>
> That's a standard 20A plug. It plugs into a standard 20A household outlet.
Actually, that's a standard 20A, 125 VAC, 3 wire, 2 Pole plug.
There are many different types of 20A plugs so the term "standard" doesn't
really work without the rest of the details.
>
> https://www.homedepot.com/s/20a%20outlet
>
> If you try to adapt it to a standard 15A outlet, you might blow a
> circuit breaker.
>
> If the circuit *is* 20A (15A outlets are used on 20A circuits in USA
> houses), you're still better off replacing the 15A outlet with a 20A
> outlet; an adapter would let you plug into a 15A *circuit* without
> realizing it.
Markem <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> Well if you run a 120v circuit off a 240v breaker you are asking for a
> fire, commom sense not code. If you replace the 240v breaker with 2
> 120v breakers it will work.
>
> But then Mr. Clarke is alway just looking for an argument.
2 120V breakers may be MORE dangerous than a 240V breaker. That dryer line
will have 2 hots and both need to be shut down in the case of service or
fault. You either have to handle tie the two 120V breakers or use a 240V
breaker.
If you'd like to verify what I've said, look for "Multiwire branch
circuit." That's the basic idea we're working with.
Just a homeowner,
Puckdropper
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 11:17:28 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 11:58:21 -0500, J. Clarke
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 10:37:24 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 20:40:52 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 18:45:12 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>An additional question: This is for a treadmill.
>>>>>>It will be in a room right next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (unused).
>>>>>>Will the electrician be able to use that connection to create an outlet for the treadmill,
>>>>>>or will he/she have to run a totally new connection for the 17A from the fusebox?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks for the help!
>>>>>
>>>>>An electrician could set up sub panel from that outlet, question is do
>>>>>you want that. Questions to ask the are in your quoted text above,
>>>>>they can do what you want the limiting factor is what it costs.
>>>>>
>>>>>Where is your fuse/circuit breaker box for the house, are there open
>>>>>circuit in the box?
>>>> Sub panel not required No open circuits required, location of panel
>>>>immaterial.
>>>
>>>Really you live in a fantasy world with no building codes?
>>
>>OK, tell us the specific provision of code that forbids splitting an
>>existing 240v circuit into two 120v circuits by replacing the
>>receptacle ******----->>>>>and the breaker<<<<<-----*****.
>
>Well if you run a 120v circuit off a 240v breaker you are asking for a
>fire, commom sense not code. If you replace the 240v breaker with 2
>120v breakers it will work.
See emphasis above.
>But then Mr. Clarke is alway just looking for an argument.
You're the one who asserted that such a thing could be done only in a
fantasy world with no building codes.
On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 18:45:12 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>
>>An additional question: This is for a treadmill.
>>It will be in a room right next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (unused).
>>Will the electrician be able to use that connection to create an outlet for the treadmill,
>>or will he/she have to run a totally new connection for the 17A from the fusebox?
>>
>>Thanks for the help!
>
>An electrician could set up sub panel from that outlet, question is do
>you want that. Questions to ask the are in your quoted text above,
>they can do what you want the limiting factor is what it costs.
>
>Where is your fuse/circuit breaker box for the house, are there open
>circuit in the box?
Sub panel not required No open circuits required, location of panel
immaterial.
On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 9:04:24 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 16:13:40 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 2:22:12 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
> >> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 06:35:25 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 3:15:03 AM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 22:38:00 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 23:06:46 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> No - you are wrong - because a "240 volt breaker" is a common trip 2
> >> >> >>pole 120 volt breaker. It is basically 2 120 volt breakers on opposite
> >> >> >>sides of the panel wired in series with the center-tap being the
> >> >> >>shared neutral.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>Don't spout off about things you OBVIOUSLY have no knowlege of.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >So my advice to the original poster is get an electrician rather than
> >> >> >depend upon the myriad of thoughts expressed here.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Any thoughts on that sir?
> >> >> I said a few days ago if he had to ask the question perhaps he should
> >> >> have an electrician do the job. Nowhere did I say HE should do the
> >> >> job. I just said it could be done, without a subpanel, and without
> >> >> replacingthe wire. I dissagree with running an external ground - which
> >> >> would NOT pass inspection here in Ontario Canada. - 4 wire will give
> >> >> him 2 circuits - 3 wire will give him one. At least that's what would
> >> >> pass here and what a qualified electrician would agree to here. My Dad
> >> >> was an electrician and he taught me a lot.
> >> >
> >> >Assuming the OP is working within the US NEC arena, why would you disagree
> >> >with a code-compliant external ground?
> >
> >
> >> If it is accepted in his jurisdiction, OK - and if it is an external
> >> GROUND - but a lot of old drier 3 wire plugs were on 2 wire plus
> >> ground - which would mean in most cases only 2 insulated wires -
> >> requiring an external NEUTRAL which IS verbotten.
> >>
> >> If the cable contains red, black, and white you may (in some cases) be
> >> allowed to run an external ground and use the white for the common
> >> neutral.
> >> If it has black and red or black and white with either green or bare
> >> you can not use the green or bare as the neutral - it is GROUND ONLY -
> >> and you can NOT run an external neutral wire. ( to the best of my
> >> knowlege)
> >
> >I asked a very simple question to which you provided an answer with a lot of unrelated stuff (unrelated to my question, that is).
> >
> >You said: "I dissagree [sic] with running an external ground"
> >
> >I asked: "...why would you disagree with a code-compliant external ground?"
> >
> >You could have stopped right after "If it is accepted in his jurisdiction,
> >OK"
> >
> >Bottom line, it appears that you *don't* disagree with running an code-
> >compliant external ground, which (your disagreement) is the only thing I
> >asked about.
> >
> >Now I'm curious as to why you said you disagree, when in fact, you do not.
> "I" dissagree - code may not. Here I can't get away with it. (unless
> it is strapped to the cable for the full length making it
> "effectively" part of the cable). If you can get to the cable the full
> lenth to strap on the ground you may as well pull out the deficient
> cable and pull in the proper 3 wire plus ground cable.
> It USED to be acceptable to connect the safety ground to a water
> pipe. That is no longer kosher. (for good reason) Also USED to be able
> to use EMT conduit as safety ground. Also no longer allowed.
You still haven't explained *why* you disagree. I didn't ask whether it was
compliant in Ontario. I didn't ask what installation method might make it
compliant in Ontario. I didn't ask about old code language related to water
pipes.
I'm not sure why you keep answering questions that I'm not asking.
In fact, I'm not even sure that you actually disagree. Earlier you said "OK".
So which is it? Do you disagree with using a code-compliant external ground
or not? If you do, tell us why. Nothing else, just *why* you disagree with
using a code-compliant external ground.
On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 13:38:18 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 14:30:51 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> Well I INTIMATED it here:"
>>
>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>
>>>An additional question: This is for a treadmill. It will be in a room right next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (unused). Will the electrician be able to use that connection to create an outlet for the treadmill, or will he/she have to run a totally new connection for the 17A from the fusebox?
>>>
>>>Thanks for the help!
>>Any electrician worth his salt will be able to give you at least one,
>>and likely 2, 20 amp circuits drom that wire (after changing to a 20
>>amp braker)
>>
>>
>>
>> And I guess it was a different thread where I said if he had to ask
>>the question he shouldn't be doing it and should get an electrician.
>>
>>I've said that MANY times on both the woodworking and home.repair
>>groups.
>
>Good to that you INTIMATED it, but I said get an electrian to look at
>it. Because from here I can not see whether it is a grounded dryer
>device or just a 2 hot and a neutral device.
Or more likely a 2 hot and GROUND
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 23:13:06 -0500, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 22:56:23 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 22:44:46 -0500, J. Clarke
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 22:27:24 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 17:11:43 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sunday, December 29, 2019 at 7:29:18 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 14:32:21 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 15:00:01 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>>> >wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 21:20:09 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>> >>wrote:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 20:55:45 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>>> >>>wrote:
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 13:38:18 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>> >>>>wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 14:30:51 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>>> >>>>>wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>>> Well I INTIMATED it here:"
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
>>>>>> >>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>An additional question: This is for a treadmill. It will be in a room right next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (unused). Will the electrician be able to use that connection to create an outlet for the treadmill, or will he/she have to run a totally new connection for the 17A from the fusebox?
>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>Thanks for the help!
>>>>>> >>>>>>Any electrician worth his salt will be able to give you at least one,
>>>>>> >>>>>>and likely 2, 20 amp circuits drom that wire (after changing to a 20
>>>>>> >>>>>>amp braker)
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>> And I guess it was a different thread where I said if he had to ask
>>>>>> >>>>>>the question he shouldn't be doing it and should get an electrician.
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>I've said that MANY times on both the woodworking and home.repair
>>>>>> >>>>>>groups.
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>Good to that you INTIMATED it, but I said get an electrian to look at
>>>>>> >>>>>it. Because from here I can not see whether it is a grounded dryer
>>>>>> >>>>>device or just a 2 hot and a neutral device.
>>>>>> >>>> Or more likely a 2 hot and GROUND
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> I have seen both, but then there are still houses that have knob tube
>>>>>> >>>that are functioning. That is just 2 wires no ground.
>>>>>> >> Getting fewer and fewer up here. as soon as they change hands the
>>>>>> >>knob and tube has to go. Almost impossible to get new insurance on a
>>>>>> >>house with knob and tube or a 60 amp or smaller service up here - and
>>>>>> >>no insurance means no mortgage
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >So a cash buyer could.
>>>>>
>>>>>> He could buy but he could not insure.
>>>>>
>>>>>You know what they say about blanket statements...
>>>>>
>>>>>From the WireChief Electric Ltd in Vancouver, BC. Their website says
>>>>>Copywrite 2010-2019, so I guess the following is still current.
>>>>>
>>>>>https://www.wirechiefelectric.com/knob-tube-wiring-homeowner-insurance
>>>>>
>>>>>*** Begin Copied Text ***
>>>>>
>>>>>However, you may still be able to get homeowners insurance if your K&T
>>>>>system for lighting and power outlets is upgraded to meet the following
>>>>>conditions:
>>>>>
>>>>> - Exposed conductors must be in good condition.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Circuits must be protected by a circuit breaker or appropriate fuse.
>>>>>
>>>>> - No further outlets are added to the original system.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Not used ungrounding plugs in laundry rooms or bathrooms or
>>>>> outdoors for even a lower risk level.
>>>>>
>>>>>Knob-and-Tube wiring repairs may be a good option if budget is a concern.
>>>
>>>Not seeing DerbyDad's post so commenting here. Repairing knob and
>>>tube may not be allowed under code--many localities require that any
>>>repair be brought up to current code, which for knob and tube may mean
>>>a complete rewiring job.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Don't know about the USA, but "repairing" knob and tube wiring in
>>Canada would NOT be allowed in most cases. Perhaps on a case by case
>>basis you MIGHT get ESA approval - but I highly doubt it. Mabee the
>>last of Knob and Tube wiring where boxes were actually used you MAY be
>>allowerd to leave K&T wiring in uninsulated ceilings for overhead
>>lighting - but definitely NOT the common K&T that used surface mount
>>devices.
>
>In the US each jurisdiction has its own code and inspectors. The town
>I live in may have a different electrical code that the town over.
>
>And then there's the quality of inspection.
>
>My parents had the knob and tube in their house in Florida
>replaced--the spec included "must be compliant with NEC except where
>NEC is in conflict with local code local code prevails".
>
>Wiring was permitted, performed, signed off, and done. Then I took a
>look at it and ended up redoing half of it because it was such a
>Godawful wiring job--two inches of exposed conductor outside of the
>box, no strain reliefs, one place I found half a dozen cables going
>into a huge blob of electrical tape with the blob hanging in mid-air
>by the cables and God-knows-what in the middle (turned out to be a
>bunch of connections made by twisting ends together with pliers and
>then taping. Note that this would have been in the '80s.
>
>If it had been my house I would have called a lawyer, but my parents
>didn't want to go that route.
Let me guess - they took the lowest bid??
On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 16:13:40 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 2:22:12 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 06:35:25 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 3:15:03 AM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 22:38:00 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 23:06:46 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> No - you are wrong - because a "240 volt breaker" is a common trip 2
>> >> >>pole 120 volt breaker. It is basically 2 120 volt breakers on opposite
>> >> >>sides of the panel wired in series with the center-tap being the
>> >> >>shared neutral.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Don't spout off about things you OBVIOUSLY have no knowlege of.
>> >> >
>> >> >So my advice to the original poster is get an electrician rather than
>> >> >depend upon the myriad of thoughts expressed here.
>> >> >
>> >> >Any thoughts on that sir?
>> >> I said a few days ago if he had to ask the question perhaps he should
>> >> have an electrician do the job. Nowhere did I say HE should do the
>> >> job. I just said it could be done, without a subpanel, and without
>> >> replacingthe wire. I dissagree with running an external ground - which
>> >> would NOT pass inspection here in Ontario Canada. - 4 wire will give
>> >> him 2 circuits - 3 wire will give him one. At least that's what would
>> >> pass here and what a qualified electrician would agree to here. My Dad
>> >> was an electrician and he taught me a lot.
>> >
>> >Assuming the OP is working within the US NEC arena, why would you disagree
>> >with a code-compliant external ground?
>
>
>> If it is accepted in his jurisdiction, OK - and if it is an external
>> GROUND - but a lot of old drier 3 wire plugs were on 2 wire plus
>> ground - which would mean in most cases only 2 insulated wires -
>> requiring an external NEUTRAL which IS verbotten.
>>
>> If the cable contains red, black, and white you may (in some cases) be
>> allowed to run an external ground and use the white for the common
>> neutral.
>> If it has black and red or black and white with either green or bare
>> you can not use the green or bare as the neutral - it is GROUND ONLY -
>> and you can NOT run an external neutral wire. ( to the best of my
>> knowlege)
>
>I asked a very simple question to which you provided an answer with a lot of unrelated stuff (unrelated to my question, that is).
>
>You said: "I dissagree [sic] with running an external ground"
>
>I asked: "...why would you disagree with a code-compliant external ground?"
>
>You could have stopped right after "If it is accepted in his jurisdiction,
>OK"
>
>Bottom line, it appears that you *don't* disagree with running an code-
>compliant external ground, which (your disagreement) is the only thing I
>asked about.
>
>Now I'm curious as to why you said you disagree, when in fact, you do not.
"I" dissagree - code may not. Here I can't get away with it. (unless
it is strapped to the cable for the full length making it
"effectively" part of the cable). If you can get to the cable the full
lenth to strap on the ground you may as well pull out the deficient
cable and pull in the proper 3 wire plus ground cable.
It USED to be acceptable to connect the safety ground to a water
pipe. That is no longer kosher. (for good reason) Also USED to be able
to use EMT conduit as safety ground. Also no longer allowed.
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 23:56:25 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 12/22/2019 3:03 PM, Michael wrote:
>> Can I use a converter to make this plug work in a regular household outlet?
>>
>> 120 voc/60hz
>> Current 17a
>>
>> https://ibb.co/G0Bkh7j
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>You should only use 80% of the rated capacity or 16A You should not put
>it on a `5A breaker at all.
>
>If it is a one time deal for 10 minutes, no biggie but if it is a steady
>load you may be asking for trouble. Big trouble.
With a 20 amp plug it is designed for a 20 amp circuit - and the 17
amp will be max power dissipation - likely runs below that MOST of the
time. - but definitely NOT to be used on a circuit wired for 15 amps,
no matter WHAT breaker and outlet is installed.
On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 03:14:59 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 22:38:00 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 23:06:46 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> No - you are wrong - because a "240 volt breaker" is a common trip 2
>>>pole 120 volt breaker. It is basically 2 120 volt breakers on opposite
>>>sides of the panel wired in series with the center-tap being the
>>>shared neutral.
>>>
>>>Don't spout off about things you OBVIOUSLY have no knowlege of.
>>
>>So my advice to the original poster is get an electrician rather than
>>depend upon the myriad of thoughts expressed here.
>>
>>Any thoughts on that sir?
> I said a few days ago if he had to ask the question perhaps he should
>have an electrician do the job. Nowhere did I say HE should do the
>job. I just said it could be done, without a subpanel, and without
>replacingthe wire. I dissagree with running an external ground - which
>would NOT pass inspection here in Ontario Canada. - 4 wire will give
>him 2 circuits - 3 wire will give him one. At least that's what would
>pass here and what a qualified electrician would agree to here. My Dad
>was an electrician and he taught me a lot.
Really you said it in this thread, you may have thought it but where
did you type it out?
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 22:27:24 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 17:11:43 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sunday, December 29, 2019 at 7:29:18 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>> On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 14:32:21 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 15:00:01 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>> >wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 21:20:09 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>> >>wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 20:55:45 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>> >>>wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 13:38:18 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>> >>>>wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 14:30:51 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>> >>>>>wrote:
>>> >>>>>> Well I INTIMATED it here:"
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
>>> >>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>An additional question: This is for a treadmill. It will be in a room right next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (unused). Will the electrician be able to use that connection to create an outlet for the treadmill, or will he/she have to run a totally new connection for the 17A from the fusebox?
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>Thanks for the help!
>>> >>>>>>Any electrician worth his salt will be able to give you at least one,
>>> >>>>>>and likely 2, 20 amp circuits drom that wire (after changing to a 20
>>> >>>>>>amp braker)
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> And I guess it was a different thread where I said if he had to ask
>>> >>>>>>the question he shouldn't be doing it and should get an electrician.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>I've said that MANY times on both the woodworking and home.repair
>>> >>>>>>groups.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>Good to that you INTIMATED it, but I said get an electrian to look at
>>> >>>>>it. Because from here I can not see whether it is a grounded dryer
>>> >>>>>device or just a 2 hot and a neutral device.
>>> >>>> Or more likely a 2 hot and GROUND
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I have seen both, but then there are still houses that have knob tube
>>> >>>that are functioning. That is just 2 wires no ground.
>>> >> Getting fewer and fewer up here. as soon as they change hands the
>>> >>knob and tube has to go. Almost impossible to get new insurance on a
>>> >>house with knob and tube or a 60 amp or smaller service up here - and
>>> >>no insurance means no mortgage
>>> >
>>> >So a cash buyer could.
>>
>>> He could buy but he could not insure.
>>
>>You know what they say about blanket statements...
>>
>>From the WireChief Electric Ltd in Vancouver, BC. Their website says
>>Copywrite 2010-2019, so I guess the following is still current.
>>
>>https://www.wirechiefelectric.com/knob-tube-wiring-homeowner-insurance
>>
>>*** Begin Copied Text ***
>>
>>However, you may still be able to get homeownerâs insurance if your K&T
>>system for lighting and power outlets is upgraded to meet the following
>>conditions:
>>
>> - Exposed conductors must be in good condition.
>>
>> - Circuits must be protected by a circuit breaker or appropriate fuse.
>>
>> - No further outlets are added to the original system.
>>
>> - Not used ungrounding plugs in laundry rooms or bathrooms or
>> outdoors for even a lower risk level.
>>
>>Knob-and-Tube wiring repairs may be a good option if budget is a concern.
Not seeing DerbyDad's post so commenting here. Repairing knob and
tube may not be allowed under code--many localities require that any
repair be brought up to current code, which for knob and tube may mean
a complete rewiring job.
>>*** End Copied Text ***
>>
>>The following was written by a US based insurance agent, also with website
>>dated 2019. Note the words "nearly impossible" and "will consider", as opposed
>>to "impossible" and "won't consider".
>
> You better quote that in context:
>
>Why Insurance Companies Donât Like Knob and Tube Wiring
>
>Many insurance companies wonât cover homes with Knob-and-Tube wiring
>on the basis of absence of a ground wire. Another issue is difficulty
>of access to inspect wiring buried within walls or ceilings.
>
>Insurance providers will also be concerned that Knob-and-Tube wiring
>may be a safety hazard due to the addition of building insulation. For
>example, additional thermal insulation installed in an attic can
>smother the wiring and prevent access to the air it needs for cooling.
>
>Most insurance companies say your home has to have a 100-amp service/
>breaker panel. Knob-and-Tube systems run on a 60-amp service.
>
>Other reasons insurance providers are wary about Knob-and-Tube wiring
>include concerns over:
>
>General wear and tear â because the wiring is so old.
>
>Damage â the ceramic knobs and tubes can crack.
>
>Frayed wires.
>
>Fragile insulation â K&T insulation can become brittle and flake with
>time.
>
>Dangerous modifications.
>
>Overheating and fire risks.
>
>Modern technology exceeding original supply design.
>
>Upgrading Knob-and-Tube Wiring Systems
>
>To make it easier to get insurance for a home with Knob-and-Tube
>wiring, youâll probably need to have the system updated to meet
>todayâs electrical safety codes.
>
>This can be tricky, particularly if the original wiring wasnât
>installed properly or itâs been tampered with over the years by
>amateurs in a misguided attempt to make it safer or more effective.
>
>However, you may still be able to get homeownerâs insurance if your
>K&T system for lighting and power outlets is upgraded to meet the
>following conditions:
>
>Exposed conductors must be in good condition.
>
>Circuits must be protected by a circuit breaker or appropriate fuse.
>
>No further outlets are added to the original system.
>
>Not used ungrounding plugs in laundry rooms or bathrooms or outdoors
>for even a lower risk level.
>
>Knob-and-Tube wiring repairs may be a good option if budget is a
>concern.
>
>A better alternative for many homes, though, may be to replace the K&T
>system with brand-new electrics.
>
>>
>>https://www.regencyinsurance.net/blog/knob-tube-wiring--is-it-making-your-home-uninsurable.aspx
> Better look closely at this one too - - -
>
>The insurance industry is taking a hard stance on homes with Knob &
>Tube wiring.
>
>This is a controversial subject, and it affects anyone who owns, or is
>considering the purchase of an older home in Northeast Ohio. Keep in
>mind, I'm not aware of any company cancelling existing policies
>because of Knob & Tube wiring at this time. However, the insurance
>industry has been quietly restricting underwriting guidelines to the
>point where it is nearly impossible to find a standard company willing
>to issue a new policy on a home that contains this type of wiring.
>
>Let me be clear; I realize many electricians consider this a safe and
>effective means of wiring. I'm not arguing for the position insurance
>companies are taking. In fact, I'm sometimes frustrated by the
>approach. I just think it's time to share what I know, so you are
>informed of the challenges this issue is causing.
>
>So what is "Knob & Tube" (K&T) wiring? This form of wiring was
>installed in homes from the 1880's and into the 1930's for most of the
>country. However, it continued to be installed for another 30 years
>in parts of Northeast Ohio (I've seen homes in our area with Knob &
>Tube that were built as late as 1963).
>
>It consists of two wires, a black "hot wire" and another white or
>neutral colored wire to create a circuit. There is no ground wire.
>
>The individual wires were run spaced apart at least 2 1/2 inches. As
>they passed through walls and floors, they were run through porcelain
>"insulating tubes". These were meant to stop arcing that might cause
>a fire.
>
>The main concerns are:
>â¢The wiring is old. The insulation is subject to drying and cracking
>and may not be intact, leaving bare wires.
>â¢It's not grounded, making it more hazardous, especially in areas
>where it can come into contact with water such as kitchens and
>bathrooms.
>â¢In the past, many older homes had loose fill insulation blown into
>attics and walls. This material covers the wiring and creates a
>potential fire hazard.
>
>Although I have no statistics regarding fires caused specifically by
>Knob & Tube wiring, according to a March 2017 report on electrical
>fires by The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), there was an
>average of over 45,000 home fires per year between 2010 and 2014 that
>involved some type of electrical failure as a factor contributing to
>ignition. Nearly half of these were caused by wiring and related
>equipment.
>
>This has caused companies to view Knob & Tube wiring as an
>unacceptable risk. I've contacted other insurance agents in my area,
>and have found only a few who have markets that will consider homes
>with limited K&T wiring (in basements or attics) if a licensed
>electrician will provide a written statement attesting to its safety.
>
>
>AND TAKE NOTE OF THE BIG IF!!!!!
>
>" I've contacted other insurance agents in my area, and have found
>only a few who have markets that will consider homes with limited K&T
>wiring (in basements or attics) IF a licensed electrician will
>provide a written statement attesting to its safety"
>
> Good luck getting an eklectrician to stick his kneck out on THAT!!!!!
>
> ANd EXACTLY WHAT did "I" say???
> I said "almost impossible" - didn't I???
>
>Show me a home where all of the following apply:
>
>- Exposed conductors must be in good condition.
>
> - Circuits must be protected by a circuit breaker or appropriate
>fuse.
>
> - No further outlets are added to the original system.
>
> - Not used ungrounding plugs in laundry rooms or bathrooms or
> outdoors for even a lower risk level.
>
> Possibly a restored historically significant home - but "restored"
>pretty much eliminates " No further outlets are added to the original
>system." and rewiring with current technology is MUCH cheaper!!!!!!!
>
> Not to mention you would be hard pressed to get a permit to do ANY
>modification/restoration from the ESA - since you are using a Canadian
>refference.
>
>Just converting an old knob and tube to a breaker panel is a huge
>undertaking - particularly if it was wired with a "Ring Topography"
>which WAS common - with 2 or 4 circuits operating the whole house.
>
>Knob and Tube was "virtually never" connected to more than a 60 amp
>service - which was FUSED - which eliminates the chance as NO
>insurance company in Canada for sure - don't know about the USA - will
>insure a home with a 60 amp grid connected electrical service and
>fewer and fewer will even write a home with a fuse panel
>
> I'll up the ante from "almost impossible" to "virtually impossible"
>for the purposes of this discussion.
>
>
>Also note I didn't say an insurance company will niot renew a policy -
>but the extra cost is often enough to make it financially advantageous
>to rewire the house even if the home does not change hands, or
>insurance companies.
>
> Not sure what would happen when an insurance company is purchased by
>another company - they MAY re-assess at that point and require
>upgrades.
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 20:40:59 -0500, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 19:00:59 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 16:11:47 -0500, J. Clarke
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 11:17:28 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 11:58:21 -0500, J. Clarke
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 10:37:24 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 20:40:52 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 18:45:12 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
>>>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>An additional question: This is for a treadmill.
>>>>>>>>>It will be in a room right next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (unused).
>>>>>>>>>Will the electrician be able to use that connection to create an outlet for the treadmill,
>>>>>>>>>or will he/she have to run a totally new connection for the 17A from the fusebox?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Thanks for the help!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>An electrician could set up sub panel from that outlet, question is do
>>>>>>>>you want that. Questions to ask the are in your quoted text above,
>>>>>>>>they can do what you want the limiting factor is what it costs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Where is your fuse/circuit breaker box for the house, are there open
>>>>>>>>circuit in the box?
>>>>>>> Sub panel not required No open circuits required, location of panel
>>>>>>>immaterial.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Really you live in a fantasy world with no building codes?
>>>>>
>>>>>OK, tell us the specific provision of code that forbids splitting an
>>>>>existing 240v circuit into two 120v circuits by replacing the
>>>>>receptacle ******----->>>>>and the breaker<<<<<-----*****.
>>>>
>>>>Well if you run a 120v circuit off a 240v breaker you are asking for a
>>>>fire, commom sense not code. If you replace the 240v breaker with 2
>>>>120v breakers it will work.
>>>
>>>See emphasis above.
>>>
>>>>But then Mr. Clarke is alway just looking for an argument.
>>>
>>>You're the one who asserted that such a thing could be done only in a
>>>fantasy world with no building codes.
>>>
>>Just fuck off and die, you ass
>
>Temper, temper.
No it is contempt, not temper.
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 03:33:08 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 10:42:39 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 20:39:17 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
>> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Snyder wrote:
>> >>
>> >>An additional question: This is for a treadmill. It will be in a room right next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (unused). Will the electrician be able to use that connection to create an outlet for the treadmill, or will he/she have to run a totally new connection for the 17A from the fusebox?
>> >>
>> >>Thanks for the help!
>> >Any electrician worth his salt will be able to give you at least one,
>> >and likely 2, 20 amp circuits drom that wire (after changing to a 20
>> >amp braker)
>>
>> IFF it's a 4-wire circuit.
>
>If it's currently a 3 wire circuit, a ground could be run back to the panel, couldn't it?
I don't believe that meets code.
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 10:37:24 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 20:40:52 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 18:45:12 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>An additional question: This is for a treadmill.
>>>>It will be in a room right next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (unused).
>>>>Will the electrician be able to use that connection to create an outlet for the treadmill,
>>>>or will he/she have to run a totally new connection for the 17A from the fusebox?
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for the help!
>>>
>>>An electrician could set up sub panel from that outlet, question is do
>>>you want that. Questions to ask the are in your quoted text above,
>>>they can do what you want the limiting factor is what it costs.
>>>
>>>Where is your fuse/circuit breaker box for the house, are there open
>>>circuit in the box?
>> Sub panel not required No open circuits required, location of panel
>>immaterial.
>
>Really you live in a fantasy world with no building codes?
OK, tell us the specific provision of code that forbids splitting an
existing 240v circuit into two 120v circuits by replacing the
receptacle and the breaker.
On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 21:17:18 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 21:04:18 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 16:13:40 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 2:22:12 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 06:35:25 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 3:15:03 AM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>> >> On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 22:38:00 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> >On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 23:06:46 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>> >> >wrote:
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >> No - you are wrong - because a "240 volt breaker" is a common trip 2
>>>> >> >>pole 120 volt breaker. It is basically 2 120 volt breakers on opposite
>>>> >> >>sides of the panel wired in series with the center-tap being the
>>>> >> >>shared neutral.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >>Don't spout off about things you OBVIOUSLY have no knowlege of.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >So my advice to the original poster is get an electrician rather than
>>>> >> >depend upon the myriad of thoughts expressed here.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >Any thoughts on that sir?
>>>> >> I said a few days ago if he had to ask the question perhaps he should
>>>> >> have an electrician do the job. Nowhere did I say HE should do the
>>>> >> job. I just said it could be done, without a subpanel, and without
>>>> >> replacingthe wire. I dissagree with running an external ground - which
>>>> >> would NOT pass inspection here in Ontario Canada. - 4 wire will give
>>>> >> him 2 circuits - 3 wire will give him one. At least that's what would
>>>> >> pass here and what a qualified electrician would agree to here. My Dad
>>>> >> was an electrician and he taught me a lot.
>>>> >
>>>> >Assuming the OP is working within the US NEC arena, why would you disagree
>>>> >with a code-compliant external ground?
>>>
>>>
>>>> If it is accepted in his jurisdiction, OK - and if it is an external
>>>> GROUND - but a lot of old drier 3 wire plugs were on 2 wire plus
>>>> ground - which would mean in most cases only 2 insulated wires -
>>>> requiring an external NEUTRAL which IS verbotten.
>>>>
>>>> If the cable contains red, black, and white you may (in some cases) be
>>>> allowed to run an external ground and use the white for the common
>>>> neutral.
>>>> If it has black and red or black and white with either green or bare
>>>> you can not use the green or bare as the neutral - it is GROUND ONLY -
>>>> and you can NOT run an external neutral wire. ( to the best of my
>>>> knowlege)
>>>
>>>I asked a very simple question to which you provided an answer with a lot of unrelated stuff (unrelated to my question, that is).
>>>
>>>You said: "I dissagree [sic] with running an external ground"
>>>
>>>I asked: "...why would you disagree with a code-compliant external ground?"
>>>
>>>You could have stopped right after "If it is accepted in his jurisdiction,
>>>OK"
>>>
>>>Bottom line, it appears that you *don't* disagree with running an code-
>>>compliant external ground, which (your disagreement) is the only thing I
>>>asked about.
>>>
>>>Now I'm curious as to why you said you disagree, when in fact, you do not.
>> "I" dissagree - code may not. Here I can't get away with it. (unless
>>it is strapped to the cable for the full length making it
>>"effectively" part of the cable). If you can get to the cable the full
>>lenth to strap on the ground you may as well pull out the deficient
>>cable and pull in the proper 3 wire plus ground cable.
>> It USED to be acceptable to connect the safety ground to a water
>>pipe. That is no longer kosher. (for good reason) Also USED to be able
>>to use EMT conduit as safety ground. Also no longer allowed.
>
>Boy that could get the electricians in Cook County a lot of sidejobs
>pulling ground wires in conduit.
Bet they can't use EMT for ground on new construction even in "crook
county" today.
On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 21:17:18 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 21:04:18 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 16:13:40 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 2:22:12 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 06:35:25 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 3:15:03 AM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>> >> On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 22:38:00 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> >On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 23:06:46 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>> >> >wrote:
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >> No - you are wrong - because a "240 volt breaker" is a common trip 2
>>>> >> >>pole 120 volt breaker. It is basically 2 120 volt breakers on opposite
>>>> >> >>sides of the panel wired in series with the center-tap being the
>>>> >> >>shared neutral.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >>Don't spout off about things you OBVIOUSLY have no knowlege of.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >So my advice to the original poster is get an electrician rather than
>>>> >> >depend upon the myriad of thoughts expressed here.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >Any thoughts on that sir?
>>>> >> I said a few days ago if he had to ask the question perhaps he should
>>>> >> have an electrician do the job. Nowhere did I say HE should do the
>>>> >> job. I just said it could be done, without a subpanel, and without
>>>> >> replacingthe wire. I dissagree with running an external ground - which
>>>> >> would NOT pass inspection here in Ontario Canada. - 4 wire will give
>>>> >> him 2 circuits - 3 wire will give him one. At least that's what would
>>>> >> pass here and what a qualified electrician would agree to here. My Dad
>>>> >> was an electrician and he taught me a lot.
>>>> >
>>>> >Assuming the OP is working within the US NEC arena, why would you disagree
>>>> >with a code-compliant external ground?
>>>
>>>
>>>> If it is accepted in his jurisdiction, OK - and if it is an external
>>>> GROUND - but a lot of old drier 3 wire plugs were on 2 wire plus
>>>> ground - which would mean in most cases only 2 insulated wires -
>>>> requiring an external NEUTRAL which IS verbotten.
>>>>
>>>> If the cable contains red, black, and white you may (in some cases) be
>>>> allowed to run an external ground and use the white for the common
>>>> neutral.
>>>> If it has black and red or black and white with either green or bare
>>>> you can not use the green or bare as the neutral - it is GROUND ONLY -
>>>> and you can NOT run an external neutral wire. ( to the best of my
>>>> knowlege)
>>>
>>>I asked a very simple question to which you provided an answer with a lot of unrelated stuff (unrelated to my question, that is).
>>>
>>>You said: "I dissagree [sic] with running an external ground"
>>>
>>>I asked: "...why would you disagree with a code-compliant external ground?"
>>>
>>>You could have stopped right after "If it is accepted in his jurisdiction,
>>>OK"
>>>
>>>Bottom line, it appears that you *don't* disagree with running an code-
>>>compliant external ground, which (your disagreement) is the only thing I
>>>asked about.
>>>
>>>Now I'm curious as to why you said you disagree, when in fact, you do not.
>> "I" dissagree - code may not. Here I can't get away with it. (unless
>>it is strapped to the cable for the full length making it
>>"effectively" part of the cable). If you can get to the cable the full
>>lenth to strap on the ground you may as well pull out the deficient
>>cable and pull in the proper 3 wire plus ground cable.
>> It USED to be acceptable to connect the safety ground to a water
>>pipe. That is no longer kosher. (for good reason) Also USED to be able
>>to use EMT conduit as safety ground. Also no longer allowed.
>
>Boy that could get the electricians in Cook County a lot of sidejobs
>pulling ground wires in conduit.
250.118: The equipment grounding conductor run with or enclosing the
circuit conductors shall be one or more or a combination of the
following . . . (2) Rigid metal conduit (3) Intermediate metal conduit
(4) Electrical metallic tubing
On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 21:20:09 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 20:55:45 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 13:38:18 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 14:30:51 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>> Well I INTIMATED it here:"
>>>>
>>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>An additional question: This is for a treadmill. It will be in a room right next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (unused). Will the electrician be able to use that connection to create an outlet for the treadmill, or will he/she have to run a totally new connection for the 17A from the fusebox?
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks for the help!
>>>>Any electrician worth his salt will be able to give you at least one,
>>>>and likely 2, 20 amp circuits drom that wire (after changing to a 20
>>>>amp braker)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And I guess it was a different thread where I said if he had to ask
>>>>the question he shouldn't be doing it and should get an electrician.
>>>>
>>>>I've said that MANY times on both the woodworking and home.repair
>>>>groups.
>>>
>>>Good to that you INTIMATED it, but I said get an electrian to look at
>>>it. Because from here I can not see whether it is a grounded dryer
>>>device or just a 2 hot and a neutral device.
>> Or more likely a 2 hot and GROUND
>
> I have seen both, but then there are still houses that have knob tube
>that are functioning. That is just 2 wires no ground.
Getting fewer and fewer up here. as soon as they change hands the
knob and tube has to go. Almost impossible to get new insurance on a
house with knob and tube or a 60 amp or smaller service up here - and
no insurance means no mortgage
On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 12:45:45 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>>
>>The point is that you simply can not admit to being wrong.
>>
>>Your blanket statement that a cash buyer of a house with K&T could not insure
>>is just not true 100% of the time.
>>
>>You can post a million words about known examples where it would be difficult if not
>>impossible to insure, but that still doesn't eliminate the ability in every single case.
> And YOU mr Derby, have to nit-pick at everything - You sure can't be
>wrong - you are an AMERICAN for cripes sake!!!
>
> FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES a house with K&T wiring IS uninsurable.
>Mabee not in some backwater bayou where a house with electricity is a
>luxury even if it's wired with fencewire using old bud bottles as
>insulators - but then how many of those hovels are insured???
> Or where if you know the cheif inspector and drink with him every
>night and go target shooting with yout AK every weekend with him you
>can get anything passed - - - -
>
> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - look in the mirror!!!
In the US, the insurer may conduct their own inspection. If it is an
older building that is not currently insured they will likely insist
on doing so, and can refuse to insure regardless of what the
government inspector says.
On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 18:45:12 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>
>>An additional question: This is for a treadmill.
>>It will be in a room right next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (unused).
>>Will the electrician be able to use that connection to create an outlet for the treadmill,
>>or will he/she have to run a totally new connection for the 17A from the fusebox?
>>
>>Thanks for the help!
>
>An electrician could set up sub panel from that outlet, question is do
>you want that. Questions to ask the are in your quoted text above,
>they can do what you want the limiting factor is what it costs.
>
>Where is your fuse/circuit breaker box for the house, are there open
>circuit in the box?
If the dryer outlet is a 4-wire outlet (220v outlets can be wired as 3
wire--two hots and a ground, or 4 wire--two hots, neutral, and ground)
then as long as (a) you're willing to give up the dryer outlet and (b)
whatever code is in force allows it to be removed, it should be
possible to put a 20 amp 120v receptacle on that circuit--the breaker
will also have to be replaced with a 20A breaker.
Beyond that, too many details--get an estimate.
On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Snyder wrote:
>
>An additional question: This is for a treadmill. It will be in a room right next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (unused). Will the electrician be able to use that connection to create an outlet for the treadmill, or will he/she have to run a totally new connection for the 17A from the fusebox?
>
>Thanks for the help!
Any electrician worth his salt will be able to give you at least one,
and likely 2, 20 amp circuits drom that wire (after changing to a 20
amp braker)
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 18:24:59 +0000, Spalted Walt
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Markem <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 11:58:21 -0500, J. Clarke
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 10:37:24 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 20:40:52 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>> >>wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 18:45:12 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>> >>>wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
>> >>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Snyder wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>An additional question: This is for a treadmill.
>> >>>>>It will be in a room right next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (unused).
>> >>>>>Will the electrician be able to use that connection to create an outlet for the treadmill,
>> >>>>>or will he/she have to run a totally new connection for the 17A from the fusebox?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Thanks for the help!
>> >>>>
>> >>>>An electrician could set up sub panel from that outlet, question is do
>> >>>>you want that. Questions to ask the are in your quoted text above,
>> >>>>they can do what you want the limiting factor is what it costs.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Where is your fuse/circuit breaker box for the house, are there open
>> >>>>circuit in the box?
>> >>> Sub panel not required No open circuits required, location of panel
>> >>>immaterial.
>> >>
>> >>Really you live in a fantasy world with no building codes?
>> >
>> >OK, tell us the specific provision of code that forbids splitting an
>> >existing 240v circuit into two 120v circuits by replacing the
>> >receptacle and the breaker.
>>
>> Well if you run a 120v circuit off a 240v breaker you are asking for a
>> fire, commom sense not code. If you replace the 240v breaker with 2
>> 120v breakers it will work.
>>
>> But then Mr. Clarke is alway just looking for an argument.
>
>Ah, residential circuit breakers are *AMP* rated.
>
><https://images.homedepot-static.com/productImages/0e6c65bf-cdda-4e8d-968e-c2fb8027410a/svn/square-d-1-pole-breakers-hom120cp-64_1000.jpg>
>
>HTH
All this helps answer the original posters question how?
My advice get an electrician in and ask the questions of a pro. Get a
price on options.
Which if you read my first reply is in there.
On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 19:19:35 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Markem <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>> Well if you run a 120v circuit off a 240v breaker you are asking for a
>> fire, commom sense not code. If you replace the 240v breaker with 2
>> 120v breakers it will work.
>>
>> But then Mr. Clarke is alway just looking for an argument.
>
>2 120V breakers may be MORE dangerous than a 240V breaker. That dryer line
>will have 2 hots and both need to be shut down in the case of service or
>fault. You either have to handle tie the two 120V breakers or use a 240V
>breaker.
>
>If you'd like to verify what I've said, look for "Multiwire branch
>circuit." That's the basic idea we're working with.
>
>Just a homeowner,
>
>Puckdropper
2 separate 120 volt breakers in this case would be illegal. I believe
even linkeed handles would be illegal - need to be "common trip"
I COULD be wrong on this one - but I doubt it.
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 13:48:08 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
<[email protected]> wrote:
#4 certainly looks like it would cover it. I'm really surprised
because future modifications could disconnect the safety ground.
On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 20:39:17 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>
>>An additional question: This is for a treadmill. It will be in a room right next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (unused). Will the electrician be able to use that connection to create an outlet for the treadmill, or will he/she have to run a totally new connection for the 17A from the fusebox?
>>
>>Thanks for the help!
>Any electrician worth his salt will be able to give you at least one,
>and likely 2, 20 amp circuits drom that wire (after changing to a 20
>amp braker)
IFF it's a 4-wire circuit.
On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 11:53:11 AM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 07:13:13 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 11:59:45 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
> >> On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 17:13:45 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 8:07:22 PM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> >> >> On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 7:19:12 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
> >> >> > On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 13:48:08 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
> >> >> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > #4 certainly looks like it would cover it. I'm really surprised
> >> >> > because future modifications could disconnect the safety ground.
> >> >>
> >> >> Actually I would have gone with #3, assuming that was physically possible.
> >> >>
> >> >> Single ground wire from the receptacle back to the panel. BTDT
> >> >
> >> >I forgot to mention that I labeled both ends of the ground wire cuz I ain't
> >> >gonna be around forever. That should cover your safety concern somewhat.
> >>
> >> That doesn't necessarily cover it. If the outlet you're scabbing the
> >> ground off of may be abandoned upstream of the scabbed outlet,
> >> removing the ground from the split circuit.
> >>
> >
> >Something's not grammatically correct there, so I'm missing your point.
> >Perhaps you could clarify.
>
> 1 - scab the ground off another circuit
> 2 - at some time in the future an upstream outlet of the scabbed
> outlet is abandoned (along with its downstream outlets.
> 3 - ground on your circuit is now gone. Your tag saying what you did
> was never read.
> >
> >I'm suggesting using 250-130(C)-3. The current 3-wire receptacle would be
> >replaced with a junction box and a ground wire would be run from the new
> >junction box back to the panel.
>
> No, the NEC sections you quoted allow the ground to be from another
> box/circuit. Abandoning that box, or one upstream loses the ground on
> your new box not knowing that the change affected another circuit
> (your new, split outlet).
I now see why you and I aren't on the same page. Let's see if I can fix
that.
Yes, some of the NEC sections that I quoted allow the ground to be from
another box/circuit, but remember that I have specifically mentioned that
I am applying 250-130(C)-3. (see my post from Friday, December 27, 2019 at
8:07:22 PM UTC-5)
"(3) The equipment grounding terminal bar within the enclosure where
the branch circuit for the receptacle or branch circuit originates"
The "enclosure where the branch circuit... originates" in my application
is the panel. If the external ground is connected to the equipment grounding terminal bar in the panel, then your abandonment issue is removed.
In fact, I don't see how C-3 has any abandonment potential at all. C-3
mentions the "equipment grounding terminal bar" which you aren't going to
have in a junction box. IOW, there is no scabbing involved when C-3 is
applied. I interpret C-3 to be referring to a panel only based on the use of
the words "equipment grounding terminal bar".
>
> >Any properly wired receptacles run from that junction box would thus be
> >properly grounded. I'm not sure what you think might be "abandoned" in that
> >situation.
>
> See above.
IFF you are scabbing, yes. If you are applying C-3, I think not.
>
> >I did something very similar except that I wasn't replacing a receptacle. I
> >had an un-grounded Edison circuit running to a junction box, so I simply
> >added a ground wire. The 2 branch circuits that come from that box were run
> >with 14/2 w/ground Romex. I labeled the ground wire at the panel and junction
> >box just to avoid confusion at either end.
>
> But you did a home-run, with the ground next to the wire, right?
Yes, because, again, I am applying C-3, which I interpret to involve the
panel. Where else do you find a "equipment grounding terminal bar"?
> >
> >> Fortunately, I have an unfinished basement (~2000 ft^2 of shop ;-) so
> >> running everything the right way is pretty easy. The second story is
> >> a bit problematic but there're just two bedrooms and a bath upstairs
> >> so little need for wiring changes.
> >
> >My 1955 house was wired in a way that made upgrading fairly easy. The first
> >floor was wired in a "up-down" manner such that almost all of the wiring
> >goes up to a receptacle or switch then comes back down to the basement, over
> >to the next,up-down, etc.
>
> Mine isn't, unfortunately, though it's hard to imagine why I'd want to
> split an outlet off a circuit. I just add them when needed.
How about splitting *multiple* receptacles off a circuit?
When I moved in, there were fewer than a half dozen circuits. Almost the
entire first floor was on one circuit and almost the entire second floor
was on one. As a simple example, pulling one run of Romex up to the attic
allowed me to split the second floor in half. That's just an example, I
actually split it up more than that. Bedrooms, attic, bathroom, etc. Attic
accessibility to almost all the wires made that fairly easy.
Further, putting the attic on it's own circuit allowed me to add receptacles
for cable TV amplifiers, drop one down into the hallway for vacuuming, etc.
First floor now has separate circuits for kitchen, living room, office,
garage, etc.
> >
> >On the second floor they reversed the process by using down-up into the attic.
> >Tracing all the wires was pretty easy. Adding ceiling fixtures in the bedrooms
> >was a breeze because all of the wiring was easily accessible.
>
> Yeah, not all of my attic is accessible (or, in fact an attic at all).
> >
> >What I never understood is why they were willing to use so much wire with
> >all of the up-down, down-up runs and then chose to save a small amount of
> >wire by running that single Edison circuit. It would have been just as easy
> >to run 2 cables from the panel as it was to run the single 3 wire cable. It's
> >a fairly short run, fully exposed in the basement.
>
> Wire (and labor) used to be cheap.
Yes, which explains the down-up, up-down installation, but not the single
Edison circuit. Edison circuits could have been used elsewhere in the house,
but for some reason they only used one short one in the basement.
>
> >Maybe it was a teaching moment between a master electrician and his
> >apprentice.
> >
> My father would have done that. He was somewhat of a nut when it came
> to wiring (he did all of the wiring in the house).
On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 07:13:13 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 11:59:45 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 17:13:45 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 8:07:22 PM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>> >> On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 7:19:12 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
>> >> > On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 13:48:08 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>> >> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > #4 certainly looks like it would cover it. I'm really surprised
>> >> > because future modifications could disconnect the safety ground.
>> >>
>> >> Actually I would have gone with #3, assuming that was physically possible.
>> >>
>> >> Single ground wire from the receptacle back to the panel. BTDT
>> >
>> >I forgot to mention that I labeled both ends of the ground wire cuz I ain't
>> >gonna be around forever. That should cover your safety concern somewhat.
>>
>> That doesn't necessarily cover it. If the outlet you're scabbing the
>> ground off of may be abandoned upstream of the scabbed outlet,
>> removing the ground from the split circuit.
>>
>
>Something's not grammatically correct there, so I'm missing your point.
>Perhaps you could clarify.
1 - scab the ground off another circuit
2 - at some time in the future an upstream outlet of the scabbed
outlet is abandoned (along with its downstream outlets.
3 - ground on your circuit is now gone. Your tag saying what you did
was never read.
>
>I'm suggesting using 250-130(C)-3. The current 3-wire receptacle would be
>replaced with a junction box and a ground wire would be run from the new
>junction box back to the panel.
No, the NEC sections you quoted allow the ground to be from another
box/circuit. Abandoning that box, or one upstream loses the ground on
your new box not knowing that the change affected another circuit
(your new, split outlet).
>Any properly wired receptacles run from that junction box would thus be
>properly grounded. I'm not sure what you think might be "abandoned" in that
>situation.
See above.
>I did something very similar except that I wasn't replacing a receptacle. I
>had an un-grounded Edison circuit running to a junction box, so I simply
>added a ground wire. The 2 branch circuits that come from that box were run
>with 14/2 w/ground Romex. I labeled the ground wire at the panel and junction
>box just to avoid confusion at either end.
But you did a home-run, with the ground next to the wire, right?
>
>> Fortunately, I have an unfinished basement (~2000 ft^2 of shop ;-) so
>> running everything the right way is pretty easy. The second story is
>> a bit problematic but there're just two bedrooms and a bath upstairs
>> so little need for wiring changes.
>
>My 1955 house was wired in a way that made upgrading fairly easy. The first
>floor was wired in a "up-down" manner such that almost all of the wiring
>goes up to a receptacle or switch then comes back down to the basement, over
>to the next,up-down, etc.
Mine isn't, unfortunately, though it's hard to imagine why I'd want to
split an outlet off a circuit. I just add them when needed.
>
>On the second floor they reversed the process by using down-up into the attic.
>Tracing all the wires was pretty easy. Adding ceiling fixtures in the bedrooms
>was a breeze because all of the wiring was easily accessible.
Yeah, not all of my attic is accessible (or, in fact an attic at all).
>
>What I never understood is why they were willing to use so much wire with
>all of the up-down, down-up runs and then chose to save a small amount of
>wire by running that single Edison circuit. It would have been just as easy
>to run 2 cables from the panel as it was to run the single 3 wire cable. It's
>a fairly short run, fully exposed in the basement.
Wire (and labor) used to be cheap.
>Maybe it was a teaching moment between a master electrician and his
>apprentice.
>
My father would have done that. He was somewhat of a nut when it came
to wiring (he did all of the wiring in the house).
On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Snyder wrote:
>
>An additional question: This is for a treadmill.
>It will be in a room right next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (unused).
>Will the electrician be able to use that connection to create an outlet for the treadmill,
>or will he/she have to run a totally new connection for the 17A from the fusebox?
>
>Thanks for the help!
An electrician could set up sub panel from that outlet, question is do
you want that. Questions to ask the are in your quoted text above,
they can do what you want the limiting factor is what it costs.
Where is your fuse/circuit breaker box for the house, are there open
circuit in the box?
On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 14:22:05 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 06:35:25 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 3:15:03 AM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 22:38:00 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 23:06:46 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>> >wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> No - you are wrong - because a "240 volt breaker" is a common trip 2
>>> >>pole 120 volt breaker. It is basically 2 120 volt breakers on opposite
>>> >>sides of the panel wired in series with the center-tap being the
>>> >>shared neutral.
>>> >>
>>> >>Don't spout off about things you OBVIOUSLY have no knowlege of.
>>> >
>>> >So my advice to the original poster is get an electrician rather than
>>> >depend upon the myriad of thoughts expressed here.
>>> >
>>> >Any thoughts on that sir?
>>> I said a few days ago if he had to ask the question perhaps he should
>>> have an electrician do the job. Nowhere did I say HE should do the
>>> job. I just said it could be done, without a subpanel, and without
>>> replacingthe wire. I dissagree with running an external ground - which
>>> would NOT pass inspection here in Ontario Canada. - 4 wire will give
>>> him 2 circuits - 3 wire will give him one. At least that's what would
>>> pass here and what a qualified electrician would agree to here. My Dad
>>> was an electrician and he taught me a lot.
>>
>>Assuming the OP is working within the US NEC arena, why would you disagree
>>with a code-compliant external ground?
> If it is accepted in his jurisdiction, OK - and if it is an external
>GROUND - but a lot of old drier 3 wire plugs were on 2 wire plus
>ground - which would mean in most cases only 2 insulated wires -
>requiring an external NEUTRAL which IS verbotten.
>
>If the cable contains red, black, and white you may (in some cases) be
>allowed to run an external ground and use the white for the common
>neutral.
>If it has black and red or black and white with either green or bare
>you can not use the green or bare as the neutral - it is GROUND ONLY -
>and you can NOT run an external neutral wire. ( to the best of my
>knowlege)
The current National Electrical Code (NEC) can be found online at
<https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/all-codes-and-standards/list-of-codes-and-standards/detail?code=70>.
You have to register but access is free (note--it's not _good_
access--the free version is not searchable and doesn't seem to be
indexed--but you can generally find what you need if you put enough
effort into it).
Note that local codes may or may not bear any resemblance to the
NEC--some localities just reference NEC, others have local addenda,
and others are completely home-grown. Also if you have any doubt
whether a particular method will pass inspection, talk to the
inspector. It's generally easier to do it his (or her) way the first
time than to have to fix it later.
NEC requires that the equipment grounding conductor be "bare, covered,
or insulated" and if they are covered or insulated they "shall have a
continuous outer finish that is either gree or green with one or more
yellow stripes" then adds some details (250.119). 250.119(B) also
allows one or more conductors in a multiconductor cable to be
permanently identified as equipment grounding conductors, with the
acceptable methods of marking listed. 250.130(C) gives rules for
providing equipment grounding in circuits that did not have it at
installation (i.e. branch circuits installed before an equipment
ground was required).
The neutral wire also has have a "continuous outer finish" which can
be white, gray, or striped with white or gray. All the details are in
200.6.
There is however an exception in 200.10(E)--"Conductors within
multiconductor cables shall be permitted to be re-identified at their
terminations at the time of installation by a distinctive white or
gray marking or other effective means".
Ungrounded conductors can be marked with tape, tagging, or other
approved means. There is no color code defined by NEC for ungrounded
conductors.
If the existing cable has black, white, and green or bare then there
should be any real issue at all--just connect the new single-phase
breaker and receptacle with black hot and white neutral and you should
be set. Note that strict compliance with NEC may also require a GFCI
and/or AFCI depending on where the receptacle is located.
If it has black, red, and green or bare then according to the
exception above it should be OK to tag the red wire as
neutral--personally I'd cover the whole exposed length with white
heat-shrink but I believe UL listed white electrical tape will be OK.
On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 14:30:51 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Well I INTIMATED it here:"
>
>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>
>>An additional question: This is for a treadmill. It will be in a room right next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (unused). Will the electrician be able to use that connection to create an outlet for the treadmill, or will he/she have to run a totally new connection for the 17A from the fusebox?
>>
>>Thanks for the help!
>Any electrician worth his salt will be able to give you at least one,
>and likely 2, 20 amp circuits drom that wire (after changing to a 20
>amp braker)
>
>
>
> And I guess it was a different thread where I said if he had to ask
>the question he shouldn't be doing it and should get an electrician.
>
>I've said that MANY times on both the woodworking and home.repair
>groups.
Good to that you INTIMATED it, but I said get an electrian to look at
it. Because from here I can not see whether it is a grounded dryer
device or just a 2 hot and a neutral device.
On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 00:51:08 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 19:57:35 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sunday, December 29, 2019 at 10:27:31 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
<...>
>>
>>> ANd EXACTLY WHAT did "I" say???
>>> I said "almost impossible" - didn't I???
>>
>>I replied to, and quoted, *exactly* what you said in the post I responded
>>to.
>>
>>"He could buy but he could not insure."
>>
>>Look upwards...it's there.
> For all practical purposes what I said is 100% true.
>You show me ONE instance of a house meeting the very stringent
>requirements required to POSSIBLY be insured with knob and tube wiring
>TODAY.
My son's house?
> I know of MANY that have not been insurable - one or two totally
>unmolested - time capsules if you like - which came as close as
>possible to meeting all the requirements stated above. The main
>disqualifier was the 60 amp service - which COULD NOT be replaced
>without modifying the K&T wiring - for which a permit could NOT be
>issued.]
The kid's house has been modified with a "new" panel but it's half
Romex and half K&T, so the K&T has been "upgraded".
>The only possibility would have been to install a new service (100
>amp or more) and convert the existing panel to a sub-panel to power
>the K&T system - but they could not get a permit to connect the old
>panel without an extensive inspection of the K&T wiring which could
>NOT be made to comply with current code - what with surface mounted
>non-approved switches and other devices, no grounds, no junction boxes
>and all kinds of inaccessible connections. MUCH simpler (and cheaper)
>to re-wire completely.
But it happens. There is no requirement for grounded outlets in
existing structures (grand fathered). There may be a requirement to
mark them as ungrounded and/or put a GFCI on the circuit.
>
> My brother's house still has a couple ceiling lights on K&T - but
>with boxes. The boxes were installed when the house was originally
>wired (house was originally lit by "lighting gas" from the coalgas
>plant about a mile away.) My brother is the third owner and the house
>is, IIRC, about 112 years old and double brick so NO wires in the
>outer walls.
No boxes[*] in the ceiling of the kid's joint. I didn't much like it
either but that's that.
>
>This may be a problem when he goes to sell the house - - - - He's been
>there about 35 years with the same insurance company.
Kid just bought the joint two years ago.
The light over the vanity in my VT house had no box either. In fact
the romex came up one stud bay, then crossed over a stud, through a
notch cut in the sheetrock into the next bay where it was fished
through the metal fixture. No bonding to the fixture, no strain
relief, no insulation protection at all. The house was built in '85
and this was original wiring. Retarded electricians aren't rare.
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 22:56:23 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 22:44:46 -0500, J. Clarke
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 22:27:24 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 17:11:43 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sunday, December 29, 2019 at 7:29:18 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 14:32:21 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 15:00:01 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>> >wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 21:20:09 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>> >>wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 20:55:45 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>> >>>wrote:
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 13:38:18 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>>> >>>>wrote:
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 14:30:51 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>>> >>>>>wrote:
>>>>> >>>>>> Well I INTIMATED it here:"
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
>>>>> >>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>An additional question: This is for a treadmill. It will be in a room right next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (unused). Will the electrician be able to use that connection to create an outlet for the treadmill, or will he/she have to run a totally new connection for the 17A from the fusebox?
>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>Thanks for the help!
>>>>> >>>>>>Any electrician worth his salt will be able to give you at least one,
>>>>> >>>>>>and likely 2, 20 amp circuits drom that wire (after changing to a 20
>>>>> >>>>>>amp braker)
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>> And I guess it was a different thread where I said if he had to ask
>>>>> >>>>>>the question he shouldn't be doing it and should get an electrician.
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>I've said that MANY times on both the woodworking and home.repair
>>>>> >>>>>>groups.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>Good to that you INTIMATED it, but I said get an electrian to look at
>>>>> >>>>>it. Because from here I can not see whether it is a grounded dryer
>>>>> >>>>>device or just a 2 hot and a neutral device.
>>>>> >>>> Or more likely a 2 hot and GROUND
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> I have seen both, but then there are still houses that have knob tube
>>>>> >>>that are functioning. That is just 2 wires no ground.
>>>>> >> Getting fewer and fewer up here. as soon as they change hands the
>>>>> >>knob and tube has to go. Almost impossible to get new insurance on a
>>>>> >>house with knob and tube or a 60 amp or smaller service up here - and
>>>>> >>no insurance means no mortgage
>>>>> >
>>>>> >So a cash buyer could.
>>>>
>>>>> He could buy but he could not insure.
>>>>
>>>>You know what they say about blanket statements...
>>>>
>>>>From the WireChief Electric Ltd in Vancouver, BC. Their website says
>>>>Copywrite 2010-2019, so I guess the following is still current.
>>>>
>>>>https://www.wirechiefelectric.com/knob-tube-wiring-homeowner-insurance
>>>>
>>>>*** Begin Copied Text ***
>>>>
>>>>However, you may still be able to get homeownerâs insurance if your K&T
>>>>system for lighting and power outlets is upgraded to meet the following
>>>>conditions:
>>>>
>>>> - Exposed conductors must be in good condition.
>>>>
>>>> - Circuits must be protected by a circuit breaker or appropriate fuse.
>>>>
>>>> - No further outlets are added to the original system.
>>>>
>>>> - Not used ungrounding plugs in laundry rooms or bathrooms or
>>>> outdoors for even a lower risk level.
>>>>
>>>>Knob-and-Tube wiring repairs may be a good option if budget is a concern.
>>
>>Not seeing DerbyDad's post so commenting here. Repairing knob and
>>tube may not be allowed under code--many localities require that any
>>repair be brought up to current code, which for knob and tube may mean
>>a complete rewiring job.
>>
>
>
>Don't know about the USA, but "repairing" knob and tube wiring in
>Canada would NOT be allowed in most cases. Perhaps on a case by case
>basis you MIGHT get ESA approval - but I highly doubt it. Mabee the
>last of Knob and Tube wiring where boxes were actually used you MAY be
>allowerd to leave K&T wiring in uninsulated ceilings for overhead
>lighting - but definitely NOT the common K&T that used surface mount
>devices.
In the US each jurisdiction has its own code and inspectors. The town
I live in may have a different electrical code that the town over.
And then there's the quality of inspection.
My parents had the knob and tube in their house in Florida
replaced--the spec included "must be compliant with NEC except where
NEC is in conflict with local code local code prevails".
Wiring was permitted, performed, signed off, and done. Then I took a
look at it and ended up redoing half of it because it was such a
Godawful wiring job--two inches of exposed conductor outside of the
box, no strain reliefs, one place I found half a dozen cables going
into a huge blob of electrical tape with the blob hanging in mid-air
by the cables and God-knows-what in the middle (turned out to be a
bunch of connections made by twisting ends together with pliers and
then taping. Note that this would have been in the '80s.
If it had been my house I would have called a lawyer, but my parents
didn't want to go that route.
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 23:06:46 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
wrote:
> No - you are wrong - because a "240 volt breaker" is a common trip 2
>pole 120 volt breaker. It is basically 2 120 volt breakers on opposite
>sides of the panel wired in series with the center-tap being the
>shared neutral.
>
>Don't spout off about things you OBVIOUSLY have no knowlege of.
So my advice to the original poster is get an electrician rather than
depend upon the myriad of thoughts expressed here.
Any thoughts on that sir?
On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 23:08:23 -0500, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 22:22:02 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 18:27:55 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 9:04:24 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 16:13:40 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 2:22:12 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>> >> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 06:35:25 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> >On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 3:15:03 AM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>> >> >> On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 22:38:00 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>> >> >> wrote:
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 23:06:46 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>> >> >> >wrote:
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> No - you are wrong - because a "240 volt breaker" is a common trip 2
>>>> >> >> >>pole 120 volt breaker. It is basically 2 120 volt breakers on opposite
>>>> >> >> >>sides of the panel wired in series with the center-tap being the
>>>> >> >> >>shared neutral.
>>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >>Don't spout off about things you OBVIOUSLY have no knowlege of.
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >So my advice to the original poster is get an electrician rather than
>>>> >> >> >depend upon the myriad of thoughts expressed here.
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >Any thoughts on that sir?
>>>> >> >> I said a few days ago if he had to ask the question perhaps he should
>>>> >> >> have an electrician do the job. Nowhere did I say HE should do the
>>>> >> >> job. I just said it could be done, without a subpanel, and without
>>>> >> >> replacingthe wire. I dissagree with running an external ground - which
>>>> >> >> would NOT pass inspection here in Ontario Canada. - 4 wire will give
>>>> >> >> him 2 circuits - 3 wire will give him one. At least that's what would
>>>> >> >> pass here and what a qualified electrician would agree to here. My Dad
>>>> >> >> was an electrician and he taught me a lot.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >Assuming the OP is working within the US NEC arena, why would you disagree
>>>> >> >with a code-compliant external ground?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >> If it is accepted in his jurisdiction, OK - and if it is an external
>>>> >> GROUND - but a lot of old drier 3 wire plugs were on 2 wire plus
>>>> >> ground - which would mean in most cases only 2 insulated wires -
>>>> >> requiring an external NEUTRAL which IS verbotten.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> If the cable contains red, black, and white you may (in some cases) be
>>>> >> allowed to run an external ground and use the white for the common
>>>> >> neutral.
>>>> >> If it has black and red or black and white with either green or bare
>>>> >> you can not use the green or bare as the neutral - it is GROUND ONLY -
>>>> >> and you can NOT run an external neutral wire. ( to the best of my
>>>> >> knowlege)
>>>> >
>>>> >I asked a very simple question to which you provided an answer with a lot of unrelated stuff (unrelated to my question, that is).
>>>> >
>>>> >You said: "I dissagree [sic] with running an external ground"
>>>> >
>>>> >I asked: "...why would you disagree with a code-compliant external ground?"
>>>> >
>>>> >You could have stopped right after "If it is accepted in his jurisdiction,
>>>> >OK"
>>>> >
>>>> >Bottom line, it appears that you *don't* disagree with running an code-
>>>> >compliant external ground, which (your disagreement) is the only thing I
>>>> >asked about.
>>>> >
>>>> >Now I'm curious as to why you said you disagree, when in fact, you do not.
>>>> "I" dissagree - code may not. Here I can't get away with it. (unless
>>>> it is strapped to the cable for the full length making it
>>>> "effectively" part of the cable). If you can get to the cable the full
>>>> lenth to strap on the ground you may as well pull out the deficient
>>>> cable and pull in the proper 3 wire plus ground cable.
>>>> It USED to be acceptable to connect the safety ground to a water
>>>> pipe. That is no longer kosher. (for good reason) Also USED to be able
>>>> to use EMT conduit as safety ground. Also no longer allowed.
>>>
>>>You still haven't explained *why* you disagree. I didn't ask whether it was
>>>compliant in Ontario. I didn't ask what installation method might make it
>>>compliant in Ontario. I didn't ask about old code language related to water
>>>pipes.
>>>
>>>I'm not sure why you keep answering questions that I'm not asking.
>>>
>>>In fact, I'm not even sure that you actually disagree. Earlier you said "OK".
>>>
>>>So which is it? Do you disagree with using a code-compliant external ground
>>>or not? If you do, tell us why. Nothing else, just *why* you disagree with
>>>using a code-compliant external ground.
>> No I don't agree with it because it's a dumb-ass redneck hack. Just
>>because the fools who write code in the USA allow it doesn't mean it
>>is right or safe. The reason we use "cable" instead of individual
>>wires is to ensure all conductors for a given circuit are kept
>>together so unidentified or separate conductors don't get "lost" down
>>the way.
>
>I thought we used it because it was easier to pull a cable than a
>conduit.
That too - but did you ever try to trace out circuits in a conduit
installation that (a) does not have "as built" circuit diagrams , OR
(B) where the as-built diagrams and construction are not properly
"documented" with location numbers and circuit number ID tags, OR (C)
where modifications and additions or deletions have been made and not
added to the "as built" diagrams???? Following a Romex or BX (Type AC
Armoured cable) run is a piece of cake compared to identifying and
following strands of THHN or THWN through a mess of conduit. How is it
even POSSIBLE to ensure neutral and line conductors stay "paired"???
Raceways are bad enough - but conduit???? Fergetaboutit!!!!
>
>>A safety ground is for "safety" and it is meant to be an
>>"integrated" safety solution.
>>Another reason I can't figure out why some American jurisdictions
>>require conduit and wire instead of cable for residential use. Bad
>>enough trying to sort out the spiderweb in industrial and commercial
>>premises after a dew electricians have had their fingers into it.
>
>However conduit is harder to damage in exposed locations.
Protection IS required for Romex (NMSC) in exposed or vulnerable
areas. BY CODE, and is the only time pulling NMSC through conduit is
allowed. - At least anywhere I've been involved.
Conduit in steel stud (sardine can) construction does make sense as
IBs (insulating bushings) are VERY likely to pop out of the holes when
pulling cable through, and a "snag" is liable to dis-assemble an
entire wall if the wire is pulled before drywall is installed on at
least one side of the structure. Don't get me started on steel stud
construction - - - - - - -
On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 21:55:55 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 22:22:02 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 18:27:55 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 9:04:24 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 16:13:40 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 2:22:12 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>> >> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 06:35:25 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>>>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> >On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 3:15:03 AM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>> >> >> On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 22:38:00 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>>>> >> >> wrote:
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 23:06:46 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>> >> >> >wrote:
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> No - you are wrong - because a "240 volt breaker" is a common trip 2
>>>> >> >> >>pole 120 volt breaker. It is basically 2 120 volt breakers on opposite
>>>> >> >> >>sides of the panel wired in series with the center-tap being the
>>>> >> >> >>shared neutral.
>>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >>Don't spout off about things you OBVIOUSLY have no knowlege of.
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >So my advice to the original poster is get an electrician rather than
>>>> >> >> >depend upon the myriad of thoughts expressed here.
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >Any thoughts on that sir?
>>>> >> >> I said a few days ago if he had to ask the question perhaps he should
>>>> >> >> have an electrician do the job. Nowhere did I say HE should do the
>>>> >> >> job. I just said it could be done, without a subpanel, and without
>>>> >> >> replacingthe wire. I dissagree with running an external ground - which
>>>> >> >> would NOT pass inspection here in Ontario Canada. - 4 wire will give
>>>> >> >> him 2 circuits - 3 wire will give him one. At least that's what would
>>>> >> >> pass here and what a qualified electrician would agree to here. My Dad
>>>> >> >> was an electrician and he taught me a lot.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >Assuming the OP is working within the US NEC arena, why would you disagree
>>>> >> >with a code-compliant external ground?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >> If it is accepted in his jurisdiction, OK - and if it is an external
>>>> >> GROUND - but a lot of old drier 3 wire plugs were on 2 wire plus
>>>> >> ground - which would mean in most cases only 2 insulated wires -
>>>> >> requiring an external NEUTRAL which IS verbotten.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> If the cable contains red, black, and white you may (in some cases) be
>>>> >> allowed to run an external ground and use the white for the common
>>>> >> neutral.
>>>> >> If it has black and red or black and white with either green or bare
>>>> >> you can not use the green or bare as the neutral - it is GROUND ONLY -
>>>> >> and you can NOT run an external neutral wire. ( to the best of my
>>>> >> knowlege)
>>>> >
>>>> >I asked a very simple question to which you provided an answer with a lot of unrelated stuff (unrelated to my question, that is).
>>>> >
>>>> >You said: "I dissagree [sic] with running an external ground"
>>>> >
>>>> >I asked: "...why would you disagree with a code-compliant external ground?"
>>>> >
>>>> >You could have stopped right after "If it is accepted in his jurisdiction,
>>>> >OK"
>>>> >
>>>> >Bottom line, it appears that you *don't* disagree with running an code-
>>>> >compliant external ground, which (your disagreement) is the only thing I
>>>> >asked about.
>>>> >
>>>> >Now I'm curious as to why you said you disagree, when in fact, you do not.
>>>> "I" dissagree - code may not. Here I can't get away with it. (unless
>>>> it is strapped to the cable for the full length making it
>>>> "effectively" part of the cable). If you can get to the cable the full
>>>> lenth to strap on the ground you may as well pull out the deficient
>>>> cable and pull in the proper 3 wire plus ground cable.
>>>> It USED to be acceptable to connect the safety ground to a water
>>>> pipe. That is no longer kosher. (for good reason) Also USED to be able
>>>> to use EMT conduit as safety ground. Also no longer allowed.
>>>
>>>You still haven't explained *why* you disagree. I didn't ask whether it was
>>>compliant in Ontario. I didn't ask what installation method might make it
>>>compliant in Ontario. I didn't ask about old code language related to water
>>>pipes.
>>>
>>>I'm not sure why you keep answering questions that I'm not asking.
>>>
>>>In fact, I'm not even sure that you actually disagree. Earlier you said "OK".
>>>
>>>So which is it? Do you disagree with using a code-compliant external ground
>>>or not? If you do, tell us why. Nothing else, just *why* you disagree with
>>>using a code-compliant external ground.
>> No I don't agree with it because it's a dumb-ass redneck hack. Just
>>because the fools who write code in the USA allow it doesn't mean it
>>is right or safe. The reason we use "cable" instead of individual
>>wires is to ensure all conductors for a given circuit are kept
>>together so unidentified or separate conductors don't get "lost" down
>>the way. A safety ground is for "safety" and it is meant to be an
>>"integrated" safety solution.
>>Another reason I can't figure out why some American jurisdictions
>>require conduit and wire instead of cable for residential use. Bad
>>enough trying to sort out the spiderweb in industrial and commercial
>>premises after a dew electricians have had their fingers into it.
>
>The reason why conduit was require is money, the unions and
>contractors had enough influence to get it in as the code. Cook County
>Illinois, also required cast iron DVW above ground, til recently when
>the reduction in cost of PVC and ABS was realized.
Crook county is a totally different UNIVERSE.
Cast iron has been basically DEAD up here for over 30 years - and like
knob and tube wiring is virtually uninsureable. Copper DVW is just
about as bad (for good reason)
Insurance companies are NOT in the business of taking risks - no
matter WHAT you may believe.
With water damage claims becoming the MAJORITY of insured losses -
including mold damage from "incipient leaks", insurers are getting
REALLY gun-shy. Used to be insurers made their money on investing the
premiums, and paid out losses from the investment income. That
investment income has pretty much evaporated at the same time claim
costs have sky-rocketed.
On 12/22/2019 2:47 PM, Markem wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 12:03:43 -0800 (PST), Michael
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Can I use a converter to make this plug work in a regular household outlet?
>>
>> 120 voc/60hz
>> Current 17a
>>
>> https://ibb.co/G0Bkh7j
>>
>> Thanks!
>
> It is a 240 volt plug, why would you want to?
...
No. It's NEMA 5-20 20A 125V.
<https://www.stayonline.com/product-resources/nema-straight-blade-reference-chart.asp>
The text below the OP's pic refers to an exercise machine of some
variety so the 20A is likely needed.
OP needs to discover if has any 20A circuits where would want to use
this and swap out a plug to match on one of those if has...
--
Markem <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 11:58:21 -0500, J. Clarke
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 10:37:24 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 20:40:52 -0500, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 18:45:12 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:59:25 -0800 (PST), Michael
> >>>><[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-6, Clare Snyder wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>An additional question: This is for a treadmill.
> >>>>>It will be in a room right next to the washer/dryer, which has a 30 A dryer outlet (unused).
> >>>>>Will the electrician be able to use that connection to create an outlet for the treadmill,
> >>>>>or will he/she have to run a totally new connection for the 17A from the fusebox?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Thanks for the help!
> >>>>
> >>>>An electrician could set up sub panel from that outlet, question is do
> >>>>you want that. Questions to ask the are in your quoted text above,
> >>>>they can do what you want the limiting factor is what it costs.
> >>>>
> >>>>Where is your fuse/circuit breaker box for the house, are there open
> >>>>circuit in the box?
> >>> Sub panel not required No open circuits required, location of panel
> >>>immaterial.
> >>
> >>Really you live in a fantasy world with no building codes?
> >
> >OK, tell us the specific provision of code that forbids splitting an
> >existing 240v circuit into two 120v circuits by replacing the
> >receptacle and the breaker.
>
> Well if you run a 120v circuit off a 240v breaker you are asking for a
> fire, commom sense not code. If you replace the 240v breaker with 2
> 120v breakers it will work.
>
> But then Mr. Clarke is alway just looking for an argument.
Ah, residential circuit breakers are *AMP* rated.
<https://images.homedepot-static.com/productImages/0e6c65bf-cdda-4e8d-968e-c2fb8027410a/svn/square-d-1-pole-breakers-hom120cp-64_1000.jpg>
HTH
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 14:03:09 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 3:43:07 PM UTC-5, DJ Delorie wrote:
>> Michael <[email protected]> writes:
>> > Can I use a converter to make this plug work in a regular household outlet?
>>
>> That's a standard 20A plug. It plugs into a standard 20A household outlet.
>
>Actually, that's a standard 20A, 125 VAC, 3 wire, 2 Pole plug.
>
>There are many different types of 20A plugs so the term "standard" doesn't
>really work without the rest of the details.
>
>>
>> https://www.homedepot.com/s/20a%20outlet
>>
>> If you try to adapt it to a standard 15A outlet, you might blow a
>> circuit breaker.
>>
>> If the circuit *is* 20A (15A outlets are used on 20A circuits in USA
>> houses), you're still better off replacing the 15A outlet with a 20A
>> outlet; an adapter would let you plug into a 15A *circuit* without
>> realizing it.
And most 20 amp 120 volt outlets are "iniversal" and will allow you
to plug standard 15 amp cords into the 20 amp outlet too.
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 12:03:43 -0800 (PST), Michael
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Can I use a converter to make this plug work in a regular household outlet?
>
>120 voc/60hz
>Current 17a
>
>https://ibb.co/G0Bkh7j
>
>Thanks!
It is a 240 volt plug, why would you want to?
Now you could wire a 240 receptacle with 120 volts and it would work.
Sorry but makes no sense to me with minimal info from your side.
Michael <[email protected]> writes:
> Can I use a converter to make this plug work in a regular household outlet?
That's a standard 20A plug. It plugs into a standard 20A household outlet.
https://www.homedepot.com/s/20a%20outlet
If you try to adapt it to a standard 15A outlet, you might blow a
circuit breaker.
If the circuit *is* 20A (15A outlets are used on 20A circuits in USA
houses), you're still better off replacing the 15A outlet with a 20A
outlet; an adapter would let you plug into a 15A *circuit* without
realizing it.