Richard Moore

It looks like the 3 insulated conductors supported by a bare wire carrier..yes? How was that carrier wire connected to the structures? If it's not on insulators then there is a metal pathway between the buildings. Also...how was the sub-panel set up? Ground rod at the garage? Floating or bonded neutrals, etc?

I think the model number is the "3E104J" bit. I would guess that the complete serial number is actually "8522 131174" made up of two parts...the 8522 being year and week, and the 131174 being a "we've made this many" number. BTW...I tried the ANSI at various magnifications. It's easiest to read at 150% and is almost definitely 1983.

Was the crack inside the TC flue? Not that I could see. In other words, not in the top few feet. That's as good a guess as an excessively large fire. I would think that something other than our occasional quakes made it crack in a straight line like that. And, yes, inspection called for.

1963 home. CMU chimney had a straight, vertical, hairline crack from the top to about 2/3 the way down. No offset, etc. No crack on the other side or at the mortar crown. Footing looked solid. Serves two woodburning fireplaces. Download Attachment: 0109.jpg 171.63 KB Two questions... 1: How did this happen? (Excessive heat from a large fire?) 2: How much of an issue? The chimney appeared to be solid otherwise.

Geat Stuff doesn't go so far as to say the foam actually requires paint or coating, but it does seem like a "best practice".

It seems to me that the horizontal gaps between the tabs would encourage water under those shingles and also direct water under the neighboring laminated shingles. I suspect it is only working, so far, because of the felt. "I couldn't find anything specific in install manuals stating this isn't allowed." As with most codes and manuals, they just can't anticipate all things stupid. They tend to stick with what IS allowed. I would call it because it screams wrong to me...and leave it up to the roofer to prove me wrong.

the existing premise wiring exception is for branch circuit wiring for receptacles. You are allowed to replace receptacles on a 2 wire ( ungrounded) circuit IF you use the proper devices. When replacing receptacles on 2 wire circuits you need to use either a non grounding receptacle or a gfci receptacle and label it as no equipment ground. Tha exception does not cover feeders to a sub panel as there is a real life threatening situation created by doing so. Huh? 250.32 Buildings or Structures Supplied by Feeder(s) or Branch Circuit(s). That is not "for branch circuit wiring for receptacles". The exceptions do apply to feeders to a sub-panel, even if they may not be applicable in this particular case. The OP asked a specific question and I pointed him to code that MIGHT apply depending on the location of the sub-panel and if other conditions were met. Clearly they are not (no GEC, etc), but he stated there were other known issues in the box.

There are exceptions for "existing premises wiring systems only" that might apply. See 250.32(B)(1). I don't think you have to replace old existing wire just because the sub-panel itself is newer. But it depends on some conditions. Now if they did run new wire, then definitely, they would need 4-wires. (I don't know when that became code.)

I won't argue with the rest of your post. You and Jim are probably right about replacement. But...that bus bar lug is protected by the main breaker. Power comes in from the SECs to the main breaker lugs and doesn't go anywhere else until it passes through that "backfed" breaker.

There was a grab bag of other issues (panel and other stuff) so I was able to punt. I reported it as "unlikely to be a current problem" but that they should have the electrician contracted to fix the other stuff confirm that.

Direct short from the neutal lug to bus bar. I don't know how someone managed to do this, or what with (screwdriver?), but I'll bet it was quite exciting at the time. Download Attachment: 0061x.jpg 191.31 KB

Tinned stranded copper wire is commonly used, pretty much required, in marine environments (read boats). It prevents the copper from corroding from the harsh elements. The flexability stops it coming loose from vibration (along with crimp connectors). The whole wire comes like that. IE...no one just tinned the ends. I suspect the homeowner just had some lying around. No harm using it as far as I can see.

What is the grate thingy in the photo? Window well to the basement...or drain? Is that another towards the truck? Was there a similar grate/well at the "tipping" at the adjacent wall? It may be an optical illusion, but it looks like the driveway is sloped away from the house(?). I sure don't see any disturbance of the leaf debris that would suggest runoff towards the grating. My best advise would be to hire someone named Chad to look at it in person.

The $680 is for the initial fee for all new licences and it's for two years (or at least until your 2nd date of birth). After that it's $375 for each 2 year renewal. We have state laws that basically require any new program such as this to pay for itself, hence the high initial fee. Unfortunately, the fees might even increase as the number of inspectors in the state, or at least those applying for the licence, seems to be way below the expected. We'll have to wait and see about that. One way of looking at it...'cos I'm all for the silver lining...is that just one inspection a year that might have gone to someone who, for whatever reason, doesn't or can't get licensed, more than pays my fees.

Also...that reverse corbelling is stupid and sort of defeats the purpose of the mortar cap.

I use yymmddI for the report number (I = last name initial unless I or O, then first name) + -lastname for storing my docs and + pppp (last 4 digits of client phone number) for the link to the pdf EG: An inspection for me today would be... Report number: 100322M Word doc name: 100322M-Moore "Code" for the link to the pdf report: 100322M7730 It keeps my folders in date order and I can still quickly find a recent report by scanning for last name. If I had started before 2000 I probably would have used yyyymmdd...but I didn't and I'm hoping to retire before 2100. []

I see flashing running from the top of the trim going to the right. My guess, and it's just that, is that this used to be a fairly standard dining room(?) bump-out and the second story was later added (or modified) flush with the bump-out wall. Is the whole house 4 years old or was it a major re-model/addition to an older existing home? Either that or covered ski storage! I really have no idea. [:-propell

"As utility costs rise everyone is looking for ways to save on their energy bills." Bill, that's just a couple of typos. Hardly the same thing as the gobbleygook Mike linked to.

Ah! See, there you go, India. It must be some sort of language class exercise. I tried to e-mail Michael Boeger from his site, as I thought he might be amused, but his contact e-mail page seems to be totally screwed up. I got a thank you page from some company in England. Odd!

I doubt that. It just doesn't match the site at equityinspections.com. I can't quite figure out what PR-USA is, but my money is on the piece being written by someone on the Indian subcontinent to promote or, more likely, practice their English writing skills. We've had some of those here.

Hi Mike, I xxx'd out the address. Client confidentiality and all that. But, yeah, same place. Funny, I also had a previous appointment for a pre-offer on this same house, yet another different client. They cancelled as they didn't think the bank would care about removing contingencies. Did you notice a partition wall will have to be removed to change out the 14½ year old water heater? Click to Enlarge 36.49 KB I took a look at online photos of the Monier and Cemwood. Different patterns. I think Jim has it right. I'm not going to be too specific...probably state that they MAY be Cemwood. BTW, the moss may have contributed but the damage seemed more like spalling from trapped moisture freezing. Doesn't really matter at this point. It's FUBAR!

Those used to be Cemwood Shakes. - Jim Katen, Oregon Thanks Jim. I see that there was a class action settlement (2000 & 2003) regarding Cemwood shakes. Evidently you can still make new claims up until 2/7/2015. I'll pass that on to the client, but its not clear if it would help a new owner. This $500,000+ 1967 bank-owned home had 15 offers (things looking up?). Great view property. The house is solid and dry (despite the roof) but basically hasn't been touched or upgraded inside since new. Typical 60's...plain ugly. Location, location, and, in this case, only location.

What is this in the first two photos? Click to Enlarge 12.19 KB Click to Enlarge 20.16 KB I'll take "whole house fan", "powered attic ventilator", or any combination of those. OK. I know. That was easy! Now try this, In this situation, what is its purpose? Click to Enlarge 40.21 KB Click to Enlarge 27.45 KB Click to Enlarge 42.79 KB Don't expect grades on this one. I have no idea. Final question. Name this roofing material. Hint..."Toast" is not acceptable even if true. Click to Enlarge 55.08 KB Click to Enlarge 53.77 KB Click to Enlarge 57.22 KB Click to Enlarge 75.93 KB

Jerry, before you go any further, you might try unscrewing the case, pull it apart as much as possible and check the soldered conections from the male cord-plug pins to the circuit board. I've had a couple of Suretests go bad or touchy on me and found cracked solder on both of them. A quick touch up with a soldering iron and solder fixed them. I haven't had any more trouble since I got rid of the fairly stiff cord the unit comes with and replaced it with a softer and slightly longer one I found somewhere(?). The old cord would dangle from my pouch and occasionally get caught on things, which may have led to the damage. The new one I am able to wrap around the unit itself and the whole thing fits, better protected, in a tool belt pouch. Or...you might just have a bad unit.