Richard Moore

I have used pdf995 since 2002. 2 things: If you find the page numbers get screwed up (1 of 1, 2 of 2, 3 of 3, etc) turning off background printing solves it. When selecting pdf995 as the printer, I always click the properties tab, then advanced, and change the "use substitute font" to "download as softfont". This stops any weird reformatting due to font problems on the client's computer. Other than that, no issues at all. Pay the $9.95!!!

So far I've got... "it would be a place for critters to nest" I don't see that would be any different than a near horizontal pipe. "or a wet place for scum to grow" I don't believe there would be sufficient nutrients for a large biomass. And algae needs light. "...we'd need to know what would happen if the TPR valve opened and the hot water/steam hit the bend in the flex. The flex might fail," I did say "aside from the flex" and I wasn't really talking about the flex, but just a trap in the location shown. But, I don't see steam or water being particularly "concerned" about a curve in any piping even if it was a full blown release. I also think that the flex is rated to easily handle the maximum possible pressure. I'm going to repeat that I would report it, regardless of my suspicions it's not a big deal. However, on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being simply reporting it as being "incorrect and in need of repair" and 10 being "evacuate the house immediately and call the bomb squad", I'm still not convinced this is anything but a 1. I think that codes can't anticipate every circumstance and therefore have to be fairly simple, occasionally resulting in "violations" that really don't affect safety. I have no problem erring on the side of safety, but I also like to think out the reasoning behind the rules. It's a bit like someone replacing one of the 6 double pole breakers, serving as the disconnect in a split-bus panel, with a couple of single poles. Assuming good labeling, etc, I now have 7 toggles or throws, which is wrong and should be repaired. But I feel that is more because the next HI will call it than 7 is suddenly that much more deadly than the legal 6. (Yeah, like most here, I would actually prefer a single main breaker...but that's another story)

First let me state that I am in no way suggesting that the trap in Phillip's photo should not be called...rules are rules after all. But, simply for the sake of discussion, what would be the actual safety hazard of that trap, if it was at an interior location as opposed to an unheated garage? I can see that a trap located where the standing water could be frozen would be a huge no-no, but I've never quite got my head around the issues involved in one like Phillip's. So, aside from the flex, can someone convince me why this particular trap poses a threat?

"Al Gore lives right up the road. Maybe I'll go ask him..." Walter, you might want to wait until tomorrow. The man obviously likes his food and I would imagine that he is currently in a deep, tryptophan induced, coma. That's my own "activity" plan for later today.

I'll toss in one other WAG. The wall staining, lack of mold, etc, would suggest a lot of water at a single time rather than a slow insiduous leak. Might someone have hosed down the inside of the garage? It's awful clean looking for its age.

Yeah, why would they need the notches and blocking if there was an actual rim joist. It definitely looks like hardboard when I blow the photo up and I don't think anyone ever was stupid enough to make a joist out of that stuff. I'm also interested if you metered the stains on the "wood". The stains on the concrete below would indicate at least one session of water running, almost pouring, down the concrete, but if it was active and an ongoing thing I'd expect a lot more rust on those tools. No conclusions really, but I wonder if the area was left exposed to a rainstorm at some time during construction, siding, etc?

I prefer yours, Chad, but I have a question regarding this... "It's difficult to estimate the cost for properly repairing the roof on this house but it's well into a "new Volvo" category." Do you use a sliding scale? Maybe starting at a "rusty Yugo" and running up to a "matched pair of Bugatti Veyrons"? BTW...Happy Thanksgiving all.

From an HI POV, I find the article a deplorable invasion of privacy. What’s next? Are they going to spy on the city inspectors while they are on the job? This whole thing is a slippery slope to the public demanding they spend more time on site, actually looking at stuff, rather than the normal few minutes just schmoozing with the contractors. If that happens, it could lead to Austin’s home inspectors having the spare (sorry) time for bowling. As for taking the city vehicles home at night…how else are they expected to safely siphon gas into the wife’s car?

[:-jump] [:-bonc01] [:-jump2] [:-bouncy] [:-jump] Thanks...I needed that!

"A rose by any other name, etc, etc, etc" Thanks Mike, you smell sweet!

Hi again Jeremy, I just took a look at the old report to refresh my memory. The home was built in 1965 and so it seemed very likely that it was the original heater. I don't know when (or why) they started or stopped making "glas" lined water heaters, but as your label has the same Retro look as the Congress, I'd guess it's from the same period. Aside from the funky TPR, mine was still working and showed no signs of leaks. Yours?

I saw one of these in 2003, on a Congress Beauty-Glas water heater. I remember posting the pictures back then (at IN I think). Never did figure out the exact age of the water heater, but the general consensus seemed to be '60s or early '70s. In other words...OLD!!! Image Insert: 100.54 KB I suspect that Jeremy's client also needs a new water heater.

I don't think the auto industry should be treated any different from any other company, large or small when it comes to seeking a loan...NOT a "bail-out". There is a difference in the amount of money of course, and the places that it can come from. I just read that GM, for instance, loses something like $1200 on each vehicle it makes, that laid off workers continue to receive 96% of pay and benefits for up to two years while they produce nothing, and then, as Mike points out, there are the outrageous corporate salaries and "parachutes" for the execs while they run the companies into the ground. I say let them have the money but only if, like anyone seeking a loan, they can produce a believable and enforcable business plan that makes sense. One that clearly shows how they intend to cut costs, how they will make a product that will sell, and sell for a profit, how they will be able pay us back. That will require a good deal of sacrifice by the unions as well as some much smarter and less greedy management. Frankly, I just don't see that happening. It's a mess, and I suspect it will get worse before it finally turns around. The left and the right used to be close and reasonable enough to recognize and appreciate each others arguments. It seems no longer. Working compromise is a lost art. I am, probably naively, optimistic that the new admimistration will eventually build a solid middle ground as a foundation to regrow the economy (and my retirement funds). I hope he's given the chance to do that, but I know there will be chest-thumping resistance from both sides of the aisle, the country "fringes" and especially the media. Buckle up. There's a long rocky road ahead and we are all going to have to submit to a few more bruises before it smoothes out.

Shouldn't that read "Message to Bush: Send loans fast"? I know I'm a "ferriner" and all that, but I'm fairly certain that the President Elect can't actually make any funds available to anyone until January 20th. On Amy Rhodes...as the owner of a Scuba store myself, in a previous life, I can feel for her. Folks are worrying about their jobs and savings and the available "discretionary" dollars become fewer and fewer. It's tough enough running a normal business in these times. A Scuba store starts out with a very limited potential clientele base and I can only see that shrinking until confidence in the economy (national AND global) returns. I'm hoping for the best but that is going to take some time even if, somehow, all the right strings get pulled and, in reality, when has that ever happened? I do have to say that originally financing her business on her personal credit cards does not sound like the smartest move. I also have to question her wanting to finance an expansion into a bigger space when sales are down and she's having trouble paying her mortgage. I imagine any banker would have the same questions.

Hard to lay blame without knowing what that "pointing" amounted to.

Well then...off the top of my head I really can't see anything wrong or hazardous with just using the 3 insulated cables in a 4 wire assembly for the service feeders assuming, of course, they are an appropriate size. That's just my head though. Mr K has a better one. It may be hidden by the wires, but I don't see a bonding screw or strap?

Is this the service equipment (feed from the meter) or is it a remote "sub" panel with the service disconnect elsewhere? It may be OK for the former but would be the wrong way to wire the latter. Got a photo of the whole panel?

Me again... The point I was trying to make (clumsily as usual) was that my client has the right to expect his new home to be constructed according to a set of engineered plans. It may not turn out to be a big deal but, when structural components have been obviously hacked like this, it's not my job to either give it a blessing or to design the solution. When the house re-sells in 10 years time, and the new HI has the same WTF?! moment, it would nice for my client to have some paperwork signed off by a PE.

With all due respect Mike, pictures 2 and 3 show some hefty laminated strand lumber chopped into separate pieces, as an afterthought! I don't think I'd be comfortable making any recommendations other than telling my client to get an engineer and/or the architect involved.

I realize you are kidding Brandon, but I'll go ahead and answer... No. Dry as a bone in the attic and, apart from the dips, the shingles looked OK. My guess is the roof was 8-10 years old and I don't know how much the installation will actually affect it's longevity. But, as I pointed out to my clients, it's wrong according to both the manufacturer (warranty) and the codes (IRC 905.2.1) presumably for good reason and, even if it would last as long, it will incur the extra expense of adding decking next time. As a bonus, of course, the homeowner also neglected to improve the ventilation. As it was only about 4 blocks from where I live, and if the deal still goes through, I might get to find out how they (everybody but me) handled this one.

"There should be plywood over..." Exactly! I'm sure some have seen this before, but it was a first for me. "Should have been real easy to walk though" Actually not. The first photo doesn't show it but the lower 3rd of both sides was wet and mossy. Plus the 9 (or so) 12 pitch, and the fact it was a very simple gable roof, I stuck to my ladder at the eaves. My wife likes me in one piece. Image Insert: 135.15 KB The tall chimney was cracked through (4th course up in photo), obviously had no mortar crown, and was "caulked" for flashing, so I didn't feel I was missing much there.

Not on the lens...probably the asbestos from the vermiculite floating in the air. Image Insert: 84.38 KB For those not familiar with our area, I should probably point out that homes from this era almost invariably had cedar shingle (not shake) roofs with no roofing felt. After seeing the roof from the exterior, I was fully expecting to see the underside of those shingles, not the newish looking felt that I found.

1927 home. Image Insert: 119.13 KB Image Insert: 109.72 KB

"The inspector (the new one) went through an access hole in the ceiling of a hallway closet and checked the attic, where he found eight attic trusses that had various degrees of damage from fire." The HI in trouble supposedly "did not provide an evaluation on the beams, saying they were “not seen.â€

Shudder!!! [:-yuck]