Richard Moore

I'm sure you probably checked these but just in case... Was the off/pilot/on control set to pilot? I also see a wall switch either side. Are you sure you were trying the right one?

I've reported them a few times, but I can't say I know what the final outcome was in any of the cases. This is what I put the last time I found them...

OK...possibly. Even blown up and lightened, it's tough to say whether I'm looking at roof crud (technical term) or worn out felt at the keys. There are some areas with good sized gaps that don't show any indications of "low" felt, so I'm not sure. In any case, I might give the roof a 20 minute certification although that warranty is void if it rains.

I don't see that in Darren's third photo so I wonder if what we are seeing in the first two is a localized...ummm..."repair"? (tough to say that without laughing) Which only proves that "everyone" doesn't have a clue.

Yeah, it doesn't make any sense that supply and return ducts could be connected at the same end of a furnace/air handler. Your diagram must be off. Everything between the two units should be returns. Was the damper at the tee motorized? If so it could be a fresh air intake for the VIAQ system. More photos please.

I made my own when I started to measure pitches from the ground. I stopped using it fairly quickly as I found that I could eyeball a pitch accurately enough for the report in most cases. It's here if anyone wants it (works best on gable roofs). Download Attachment: pitchgauge.pdf 69.64 KB I do use the tape and rule method for taking photos of the (relatively rare) low slope/shingle issues. Click to Enlarge 112.18 KB

OK...I'll start the debate. I realize the 2nd water heater in the series is hooked up backwards but, with both working, I do wonder if that's really an issue. Yes, they are drawing hot water from the bottom of the dip tube, but there would never be a slug of cold water down there like there might be in a single unit. I would suspect that it's been left that way because it hasn't been a problem. It's still wrong, and should be fixed, especially if they ever want to just use the second heater. But, in practical tems, how bad is it with both heaters on? IRC allows PEX to be used as TPR piping so I would assume the same physics apply to the UPC. Are we concerned about the proximity to the draft hood?

Mr Z. See the other thread you started.

Short answer...YES! Longer answer...the ground rods are there mostly for powerful surges, such as lightning. They don't provide a reliable path for lower voltages. The main safety reason that the grounding gets connected to the grounded conductor back to the utility is to provide a good path to clear ground faults. Without that bonding at the service a ground fault/short might not trip the breaker.

Wow! I've never had anything close to that, but I can picture actual steam coming out of my ears a split second before I let loose my own verbal barrage. So...How did you reply to the jerk?

If the shop panel is fed by three wires (no grounding) and there is no other possible metallic path back to the house panel(conduit, fencing, etc) then you would bond the grounds and neutrals (and the panel) at the shop. There must also be a grounding electrode at the shop. Code would now require a 3+grnd system (4 wires or 3 plus metallic conduit) and separated grounds and neutrals (still need the grounding electrode). I don't know when the change was made but it could have been 1997.

Yeah, I was thinking that they were maybe being used as GECs...but who knows?

My take is that it is a bit of an odd set-up. I'm kind of thrown by the bare neutral (grounded) feed to the other two panels from the disconnect. I think by the "rules" the diconnect panel would be considered the service equipment and the bonding should take place there. Then I would normally expect to see a 4-wire feed (with insulated neutral) to each of the "sub" panels where the neutrals would float. BUT...having said that, it's not a configuration I'm at all familiar with and I wouldn't be making any calls without asking questions myself. Jim K...you there? (edit...obviously he was and typing at the same time I was)

Nicer if they were french doors and you could open more than just the half. Actually...talking of that, I built myself a Juliet balcony after our re-model. We usually sit inside with just our feet out the doors. I came up with the idea for the slats to give us some privacy, but still allow us to look down into the back yard. The whole front section comes off with just 4 screws to allow for stuff that won't fit up our narrow stairs. And yes, I know the support system isn't "normal", but the stainless wire, eye-bolts, etc are all rated for a lot more weight than I could ever get up there. Click to Enlarge 80.39 KB another view... Click to Enlarge 69.79 KB

Talking to myself here... Richard, maybe they had planned for actual decks but got turned down due to lot coverage? Yeah, I guess that's possible. Still goofy though. Thanks Richard. You're welcome.

...as far as the NEC is concerned? 2006 townhouse. It’s been my experience that builders aren’t exactly prone to installing extra things where they’re not needed. So I have to wonder if some junior city inspector quoted code and forced them to install a perfectly useless receptacle and light. The Juliet “balconyâ€

Walter, first, you don't need to be gentle with me and, second, I'm really not that confused. Let's take a case in point. I regularly, always, use a Sure-test to test GFCIs (as well as the TEST button). Have been doing so since I started. I had one older GFCI that would consistently trip after 4½ full seconds, yet tripped immediately with the TEST button. Are you suggesting that I ignore this highly unusal result and don't recommend the client get a new device? More often, but still rarely, I've had exterior, fully grounded GFCIs not trip at all with the Sure-test but still react to the TEST button. Once again, that is not the usual result of my GFCI tester and, to me at least, it's an indicator that the GFCI is functioning in a way other than the norm. Now, my Sure-test may not be the prescribed, official, listed, test of a GFCI, but it is a test device not just a gizmo, and when it reacts in a manner such as described above, I have no problem recommending a "dodgy" GFCI be replaced for my client's safety. The REAL test of a GFCI is whether it will work when needed. I quickly found that a toaster tossed into a filled bathtub takes too long to dry out between bathrooms and so, I use a more practical tool.

I've never seen one like that John, but given the details in your last post, plus the buzzing, I'd say it's functionality is suspect and it's time for a new GFCI. On Walter's... I sort of agree with the first two statements but I disagree with the last. If a GFCI tester, 3-light or Suretest, produces something out of the ordinary, then the chances are very good that something other than "working right" is happening. I think, no make that I'm very sure that the "TEST" button and GFCI testers have valid uses in our work.

Jeff, I might be wrong on this and hopefully someone else will confirm this, but... I believe that's really just an old 120-volt receptacle with two 2-hole, non-grounded configurations. There was a time when plugs came in a variety of prong configurations. The "250-volt" you are seeing is just the maximum voltage, it doesn't mean that it can actually take two hots. I could be wrong. It happens!

That's covered in my standard "The house should be completely torn down and rebuilt to conform to the latest codes.' It has shortened my reports to just that single line. []

Rob, I'm betting that what you have there is a double-pole GFCI breaker. The white wire is not actually connected to a pole or lug of the breaker. It's the neutral "pigtail", needed for the GFCI circuitry. I don't see any harm leaving it there. Click to Enlarge 14.17 KB On the other hand, if it was as you described, it would be very exciting turning the breaker on!

http://www.epestsupply.com/smartdisk.php

I don't believe the $680 gets sent up front. The following is from the DOL website at http://www.dol.wa.gov/business/homeinsp ... cense.html . I've already downloaded the application, and have it filled out ready to go. I haven't sent it in yet but there's nothing on the form that says to include any money.

Or which jobsites the owner found that didn't lock up their materials at night. - Jim Katen, Oregon That's what I was trying to say...in a more PC way. Think of "supply house" in the broadest terms. Somehow I just don't see that as the work of someone who would sneak around stealing materials. Too neat, not just the roof, but the house as well. I'd guess it was a deliberate choice, maybe drug induced, but deliberate. It's certainly not my taste, but it does look well executed.

Yeah, but it's a bit like watching a documentary on climbing Everest. I'm always more impressed with the guys who had to lug the camera gear around. []