Tim H

These guys coulda used a better line of cat defense. There were at least 25 tails down there. Click to Enlarge 35.01 KB Click to Enlarge 33.37 KB

Your memory serves you well. 2006 IRC G2427.6.4 (503.6.4) Gas vent termination. A gas vent shall terminate in accordance with one of the following: 1. Gas vents that are 12 inches (305 mm) or less in size and located not less than 8 feet (2438 mm) from a vertical wall or similar obstruction shall terminate above the roof in accordance with Figure G2427.6.4. 2. Gas vents that are over 12 inches (305 mm) in size or are located less than 8 feet (2438 mm) from a vertical wall or similar obstruction shall terminate not less than 2 feet (610 mm) above the highest point where they pass through the roof and not less than 2 feet (610 mm) above any portion of a building within 10 feet (3048 mm) horizontally. Tim

Before I targeted agents, I would do something like drive around (or use the intergore), get the addresses for listed houses, write a nice bit about yourself and the value of a listing inspection, drop a couple of cards in the envelope, and mail to the seller. I think that you would get just as many leads doing something along those lines as you would if you target reeltors. Another note; think long term. Don't market a listing inspection as replacing the need for the buyer to have their own inspection. Not only does it potentially reduce the number of inspections out there, it does not serve the best interests of the home buying public. A buyer needs to have their own inspection performed by their own inspector. There are plenty of good reasons for a seller to have an inspection performed. Eliminating a buyers inspection is not one of them. Tim

The bottom line here is when there are yellow pine or other sap wood species floor structures in a crawl which has been very wet for an extended period; drying this crawl down is very likely to result in differential downward movement as the wood structures dry & shrink. This is more at the beams! id="black"> The crawlpace I was concerned with had not been "very wet".id="blue"> This is the second time I have heard this (not completely covering on purpose). Sounds like folklore to me. Anyone ever heard this?id="blue"> It's making a lot of sense to me!id="black"> Still makes no sense to me to install a barrier incorrectly. If the decision has been made to install one (after considering the relevant factors), it needs to be done right. id="blue"> 100% coverage is optimal not necessary in most situations. Several other people down the thread have affirmed this logical statement.Keep things in perspective & call it a ground moisture barrier.id="black"> I'm sorry, but I don't see it that way. To say that an optimal installation is not necessary in 'most' situations is not all that logical. If a detail were not necessary, it wouldn't be optimal; it would be extraneous. What difference would it make to call it a ground moisture barrier rather than a crawlspace vapor barrier? What is the difference in perspective?id="blue"> Timid="blue">

Mike, The statement is reworked boiler plate from Inspect Express. I shortened it and verified it for accuracy, using multiple sources. I understand that you helped with this software, so it is more than likely your statement. Tim

Thanks for responding, Walter, Well, sure. First, there's the decision regarding whether or not the crawl needs a plastic cover at all. A hundred-year-old house that was built before poly sheeting existed could be just fine without the cover. I've seen hundreds of such houses. They needed nothing.id="blue"> I have seen the same thing hundreds of times. I was reporting on a particular house that had recently had a barrier installed. I was trying to describe how to correct it. The decision to install a barrier had already been made. As noted in other posts, there are many ways to skin the poly cat, so to speak. One need not specify a color for the poly, nor a given thickness.id="blue"> I agree that I should not have described a color (and do not any longer), but I still report that 6 mil is the minimum thickness that should be used. I can cite sources, but it is really common sense that anything thinner won't have the puncture resistence needed to withstand things like inspectors crawling around on the barrier. Your description contains a glaring logic flaw: "The vapor barrier in the crawlspace is inadequate, as it doesn't cover 100% of the soil under the home." If you're going to use an absolute such as "inadequate," you should cite one or more reputable sources. Sooner or later, you'll run into somebody who'll challenge your recommendations. Failure to cover the whole crawl doesn't mean the barrier is "inadequate;" nor does it mean that the crawl needs a poly barrier "immediately." That's hyperbole. Pardon my saying so, but that's where the text starts sounding like a sales job. "Crawl space plastic half-price if you buy today!"id="blue"> Failure to cover the entire crawl is inadequate per recommendations found at buildingscience.com (and others). It is also illogical to think that a barrier does not have to have complete coverage. Without complete coverage it can not be a barrier. Per Webster a barrier is something material that blocks or is intended to block passage. Cant do that if you dont have complete coverage. If I reported the same thing now, I would likely state something like "the barrier is not installed in accordance with recommedations made by xyz.....". Immediately was another poor word choice, and I am not sure why I included it (It wasn't an attempt to take advantage of anyone, as you implied). I certainly don't agree that calling an improperly installed barrier inadequate is a "glaring flaw in logic" (if it is, a couple of thousand people read it and didn't notice. Not saying it wasn't a logical flaw, but 'glaring' is hyperbole). In my opinion it is not as glaring a flaw in logic as saying someone "sounds like a guy trying to get himself hired for a Larry-Daryl-and-Daryl job", based on the fact that the guy descibed a method for installing a vapor barrier differently than you would have described it . Pardon my saying so, but that's where the text starts sounding like a sales job. "Crawl space plastic half-price if you buy today!"id="blue"> Quite an inference for someone so devoted to the rules of logic. Just so you know, I am not a thief, I am not a con artist and I am not some backwards assed Larry, Darly and Daryl looking to take advantage of people. I am also not someone who publicly implies such things about others based on such a paucity of information. Home training and stuff. You use another absolute: the sheeting "must be applied from wall to wall," etc. There are lots of ways to seal up a crawl space. If you think the method you describe is the only way to seal a crawl space, you'd better be ready to cite reputable sources.id="blue"> Again, I am using recommendations that can be found at the web site you cited below. Building science.com (among others) recommends a continuous barrier mechanicaly attached to the walls and sealed at the penetrations. Are you recommending unreliable sources? As an aside, how do you seal a crawlspace without going wall to wall? This MUST be done. The rest of the description illustrates what is ideal and what should be done. Not absolutes. A proper vapor barrier consists of black, 6-mil polyethylene sheeting and must be applied from wall to wall of the foundation. It should cap the footer and lay tightly against the sidewalls, overlapping at least a foot at all adjoining sheets and be tightly sealed around the base of support piers. Ideally, the barrier is secured to the foundation walls, and overlaps at adjoining sheets are sealed with waterproof tape. Additionally, the barrier should be applied with some slack so that it can float free without separating and still inhibit evaporation if minor flooding occurs. In short, you get in way over your head by dictating certain materials and methods, and telling your reader that there's only one way to seal up a crawl -- and it's your way. By citing no reputable sources, you take on all of the responsibility for the materials and methods, and how they'll perform in the future. In short, I would agree. But why do you assume that I could not or did not cite reputable sources? I only posted a small section of the report. No offense to bug men, but taken as a breed, they are as full of folklore as home inspectors. Where does this info come from? Is the guy who taught you this educated? What are his credentials? What are his sources?id="blue"> That is why I didn't believe the bug man and came hear to see if my doubts were well founded. I had no confidence in the bug mans info, so I didnt really look into his sources. My doubt as to the veracity of his information prompted my original question. My humble suggestion: Verify your statements and be ready to cite sources. You might want to take a look at www.buildingscien ce.comid="blue"> Again, I am not sure why you assume that I can't cite sources. I wasn't seeking advice on how to properly cover a crawl, or even whether or not this house needed a barrier. I was looking for feedback on the 'new barrier/old house/ wood shrinkage thingy. I look at buildingscience.com frequently. Thanks. Tim

Well, that most likely means folklore. HI "trainers," taken as a breed, are folklore geysers. The italicized "info" in the original post sounds like a guy trying to get himself hired for a Larry-Daryl-and-Daryl job. FWIW, having crawled a few thousand crawl spaces in Middle Tennessee, I can say that many were 100% dirt, and quite a few were dusty dry. House ages ranged from 100+ years old to newish. Most had no problems. The ones with problems were the newish houses with "positive drains, " which of course routed water to the foundation walls. Do these folklorists ever walk into a bookstore? WJ This info from the original post? The vapor barrier in the crawlspace is inadequate, as it doesn't cover 100% of the soil under the home. I recommend that this be corrected immediately. This is important because the barrier limits the amount of moisture that can evaporate out of the soil into the crawlspace. A proper vapor barrier consists of black, 6-mil polyethylene sheeting and must be applied from wall to wall of the foundation. It should cap the footer and lay tightly against the sidewalls, overlapping at least a foot at all adjoining sheets and be tightly sealed around the base of support piers. Ideally, the barrier is secured to the foundation walls, and overlaps at adjoining sheets are sealed with waterproof tape. Additionally, the barrier should be applied with some slack so that it can float free without separating and still inhibit evaporation if minor flooding occurs. If so, I am not really sure what you mean by "sounds like a guy trying to get himself hired for a Larry-Daryl-and-Daryl job". I was describing the proper way to install a barrier. There is obviously some legitimate debate regarding the necessity for barriers, but is there any doubt about the correct way to install one? Tim

That's good information John. Are you a member of a local chapter to one of the big national/international groups, a local/regional group, or both? Tim

I was thinking the same thing. I could get 4 of those for 800K, on lots that are three times larger, and we have a steadily growing population and a solid economy. I don't know how folks on the west coast manage to buy homes (they don't make 4 times the income that they could make here for comparable jobs).

On the other hand, I have inspected crawls of all ages that had no barriers/improper barriers installed, that have had siginficant moisture related issues. I have found that the environments of crawlspaces that are not properly capped by barriers are extermely hard on ductwork, air handler cabinets and furnaces. One thing I have yet to see is a non plumbing related moisture issue in a crawl with a properly installed barrier. Tim

I have never seen this before and I can't figure out what they were trying to accomplish. Any ideas? Thanks-Tim Click to View 38.57 KB

I believe that Jerry's comment about current in the chimney was a humorous reference to another, recurring, thread about blackening of copper pipe and whether or not it has to do with current in the pipe. - Jim Katen, Oregon Thanks Jim, I was beginning to wonder if my question was just too dumb to be answered. I guess it was. Whole thing went right over my head.

I have to disagree. Telling his client that the WH would last many more years is pretty much an implied warranty. There is a standard of care involved. The HI is the expert; his client relied on his opinion. You can disclaim anything you want; a judge could care less. A judge could also care less about a HI limiting his liability to the amount of the inspection fee, or how much the HI saved the buyer on other issues. The issue is the WH and the damage caused by the WH. If the bottom of the tank was in fact rusty, and if the HI did in fact erroneously tell his client that the WH would last for 'many more years' (which would be black hole stupid), the HI is going to pay for the water heater, the installation, and the damages caused by the water. He should just pony up and save himself the legal fees and court costs. He blew it and should pay for his mistake(s).

Combining sulphur dioxide and water produces what is commonly called acid rain. I am wondering where the current comes in to play, and how the current acts on the flue tile (failure mode). If the damage is caused by electrolysis, there would still have to be a source for the current, wouldn't there? Tim

Jerry, I am guessing that the current would be carried by the moisture? Is this something you have seen (measured) with a meter? How does the current act as a destrucutive force on the tile? Thanks, Tim

Hey Mike, I have been using IE for about 4 years now and I like it. A lot. Did you have a hand in writing the boilerplate? I have had to modify most of the boilerplate that I use (to accommodate regional differences, grammatical errors etc.), but it was worlds better than the other software that I test drove. Tim

D'oh. As they say around this part of the country; "if it was a snake, it would have bit me". Tim

Hi John, It is possible that water penetrated the cracks in the crown, and then froze (and expanded). The expansion moved the crown, and the crown then crushed the flue liner. Tim

Tough position. You've got to approach him with your hat in your hand and then point out that the situation is wrong for a different reason. He'll react badly because, in his mind, you already lost credibility. Yes. In a single family dwelling, there's no question that all of the main disconnects are supposed to be grouped in the same location. I've seen situations where the AHJ allowed this if each disconnect had a permanently mounted sign explaining where the other disconnect was, but that was in commercial buildings. There's really no excuse for this kind of gaffe in a house. The proper solution would probably be to install a main disconnect at the meter. - Jim Katen, Oregon Jodi, I am guesing that the homeowner is the seller and you did the inspection for a buyer? Is the homeowner your client? If not, should you tell him about the problem with 225.33. before telling your client about the error(s) and sending them an ammended report (and letting them decide whether to mention it or not)? I can see talking to the homeowner about the findings on your original report (assuming the client released the report to him), but wouldn't you need your clients permission to mention the 225.33. issue? Or, I am overthinking the entire thing? Good luck. Screwing up sucks, but we have all done it. Tim

Wow, Phillip, I don't feel as bad about missing the meeting now. I'll pile on and agree with everyone else about this. When possible, I try to follow the example that Katen shared on this site several years ago; "at the left whatchamacallit, I found that the doohickey was broken". In almost five years of inspecting, I have yet to have the first call asking me for clarification about what I found and where the finding was located (thank you Mr. Katen). I can't see how precision can be a bad thing. I test every accessible receptacle in the house anyway, so that part of his argument is moot to me. Tim

Thanks Les, Any idea or opinion on why roofers do not install underlayment on pent roofs (I couldn't resist using my new word)? Is there some convoluted roofer logic involved, or just laziness? Tim

Yes, I would. If there was an issue with a pent roof, before receiving the report, my clients would know exactly what it is from our discussion on-site. There would also be a picture with an arrow pointing to it in the report. Why make something up, if there's a word for it? If home owners don't know what the name of a house part is, why not tell them? I'd rather educate them then "dumb down" a report. If folks want to gather more information or discuss an issue with other professionals, I think the correct names for house parts would serve them better. For example, let's say they go to do some research, like Googling "little slopey-roof thingie". I'd think they'd find less than if they searched with the correct term. Thanks Bill - I had a feeling that you would know. I agree with you on using the proper terminology when known. I should have asked a long time ago. Now that I know what it is, looking in the glossary of 'American Houses-A field Guide To The Architecture Of The Home' gives me a good definition, and I now know what a pent eave and a penthouse are as well. Good stuff to know. Thanks again, Tim

That's pretty much how I have been describing it as well. I'm just trying to be as precise as I can. Any doubt that felt should be installed? No one has argued with me yet for calling it out, but I'm sure it's coming. Tim

What is the proper terminology for the area circled in the photo? I am also wondering if anyone else Image Insert: 64.18 KB is finding that the roofers are not installing felt under the shingles in these areas? I am finding that no underlayment is installed in this area on the majority of the homes that I inspect. Thanks, Tim

I think AU is over ranked and MSU has a vey good defense. The QB play is just not there for Auburn. The defense is very good, and might end up being very, very, good; but the O stinks. MSU did play an inspired game on defense, and the punter was unreal. I think we will see USC/Mizzou in the Mythical National Championship. Good teams with easy schedules. Tim