Richard Moore

Found this today in a mid 70's home. Download Attachment: 080215T090x.jpg 129.8 KB 1 rain shower head, 2 movable heads, about 50 separate jets, and a jetted footwell. What I really liked was the right hand panel; a built-in combo TV/radio/intercom system because you really need all that when showering! [:-boggled There may have also been a microwave drying function but I didn't find it!!! All with no GFCI protection of course.

"Sorry you asked?" Not at all Walter. Very cool, proud papa, sort of thing to do. I will resist asking about the Colonel Sanders statue. [:-bigeyes

"...the one that turns on the scoreboard lights (don't ask) in the backyard,..." Nuh-uh! You can't get away with that. Enquiring minds need to know.

Bonnie, First off, it sounds like an older wall switch that is only providing power to the unit and probably only has one hot wire (originally for a ceiling light). You probably couldn't just install a new dual function switch without running some addittional wiring, and the ease of that would depend on access. Having said that, I find it a little "odd" that turning off power at the wall switch and then turning it back on again doesn't just return to the previous settings. I imagine that has to do with the fan's circuitry. Let's assume that can't be changed... The easiest option might be a new fan. Many now come with "remote" style wall switches that don't require re-wiring. Alternatively, you might be able to electrically separate the light from the existing fan and change the way the light works from the wall switch but that would likely involve pulling some new wire and installing a double wall switch. And then...maybe someone just installed the darn thing wrong! Sorry, but tough to really say what's going on without seeing the wiring and reading the manual.

John, I guess I'd have some more questions first. How old is the house? How much, if any, reframing did they do a year ago when they put in the new windows? Did the new window get a proper header? Is the grading at that side towards the house and/or is the trench supposed to be draining the back yard? Or, is it just the gutters causing the "river"? "Who would I call for the next step to confirm my thoughts and suggest a repair?" I realize this is family but I'd be careful about diagnosing this too much further. Obviously, you have some drainage issues and if you didn't have suspicions about the foundation, I'd recommend a drainage contractor. In this case, with the old CMU repairs and the "sagging" bit, etc, etc, it sounds like your cousin needs a well qualified foundation contractor for a full and professional evaluation of the existing foundation and underlying soil and to design improvements or repairs, including the drainage. I'd stay involved for the education and to, perhaps, prevent the contractor taking your cousin for a ride, but you may have done all you can already.

Just some nice cherry and cherry ply. I'm not into staining so some has darkened more than others.

I'm not sure what "within reason" is, but we went with Fisher & Paykel double dish drawers when I did our kitchen remodel. (see http://www.fisherpaykel.com/dishwashing/ ) The convenience of two, effectively, seperate and independant dishwashers is such that I don't think we could ever go back to a "normal" single model. Not cheap, but money well spent IMO. I bought the "integrated" model and fitted matching drawer fronts so they almost disappear but they're under the draining area about the middle of the photo. Download Attachment: Kitchen-interior005.jpg 74.88 KB

Thanks again! Looks much better. I do have one issue (actually many...but most are personal and have nothing to do with this forum). That asssumes the board will be in place by then(???) and set the rules for acceptable "proof". Even if that somehow happens, the board will then initially be flooded with applications and I'd have to doubt they will have the time or resources to do any effective checking. Not really an objection, but I have to wonder about the practicality.

Thanks Mike, I was just wondering as the bill in the link to 6606 still seems to be the original (as far as I remember it). I'm hoping some changes were made and there is actually a substitute. BTW...I really appreciate you taking the time for your lengthy replies to my simplistic questions. Garrulous, but not bloviated! []

Nope. Not if you've made your mind up. I made the "mistake" of thinking I was going to be very high tech (read on-site) when I first started and bought an Acer tablet PC for that purpose even before my training course. By the time I got to my first paid inspection I had abandoned the whole idea of on-site reporting. Nothing necessarily wrong with it...just not for me. Now word/pdf/upload/e-mail. My bigger mistake was not selling the tablet before it became an $2000 obsolete paper weight (albeit a tax write-off). 5+ years later, I've still got it. It gets used, maybe, 2 or 3 times a year to watch slide shows on TV!!! I like my desk-top with a widescreen 21" monitor and, fortunately, only have to compete with the wife. I also like a full size key-pad and would probably add a wireless one to a lap-top if I went that way. Good luck on E-bay.

LOL...Neat concept. "Fujitsu just unveiled a few futuristic concept gadgets, the most interesting of which is probably a fabric laptop. Sure, there's no word on just how they'll make a computer that's "soft, pliable, and can comfortably be carried like portfolio of paper," but it sure is a neat idea." I've ordered one to take with me in my conceptual flying car.

John, what are they "alleging" you did wrong?

A few more thoughts on the 40 hours of "supervised" inspections requirement... While I'm in favor of the concept, for new inspectors, I do wonder about the real world mechanics of that. No problem for someone wishing to join a multi-inspector company but how would that work for someone wishing to start off with their own independant business? Especially in more rural areas, I can see a natural reluctance for existing businesses to facilitate increased competition. I don't see how you could force an existing HI to provide the supervision. There's also the problem of being responsible for a "stranger" in an occupied house. I've done a little "mentoring" but I already knew and trusted the gentleman very well. And then there's the possible distraction from the job at hand. While you could set ground rules for the newbie, and even enforce them by refusing future supervision, I worry that just one disrupted inspection is way too much for for that particular client. The only solution I can think of off hand is to increase the initial training hours to 160, 40 of which should be supervised inspections (with critiqued reports) of actual houses. It would then be up to the schools to find the test homes. (???)

Hi Mike, First, let me thank all, including yourself, who braved the conditions to drive down to Olympia. I wimped out after getting up, seeing my street covered and noticing that no one was attempting the nearby hill. The mini just doesn't do snow well. So...I went back to bed. I did watch the entire video. I'm really not sure what I could have added in the limited time allowed but I do still have some thoughts that I will attempt to organize and e-mail to the senator and others concerned. Most of that has to do with the vaguries of the senate bill over the house bill regarding SPIs. I will also point out the impracticality of the licensing requirements without some type of grandfathering. I.E. If every HI, including all existing His, are required to complete the 40 hours of "supervised" inspections to be licensed, I would have to assume the "supervisor" would be required to be a licensed inspector...otherwise it's meaningless. The catch-22 is that there wouldn't initially be any licensed inspectors to supervise. It seems such an obvious and impossible "chicken and egg" situation that I'm surprised Sen. Spanel's bill didn't address it. So what happens next? When does the (much better) house bill come up? Did I really hear $600 to $800 for the license? Why do I have to find out about the activities of my legislators here?

So Mike...aside from no "peer review" or 4-year degree, what d'ya think? I think HB-3132 is better thought out than the 6606. I particularly like the inclusion in section 6 of "( Proof of having passed the Washington state department of agriculture's pest inspection exam." along with the exemptions for a seperate license in section 15 (and 30 (4)). If I'm reading that right, we would still be "qualified" to report conducive conditions, damage, active rot and infestation and make appropriate recomendations for FE and repair without jumping through the hoops required for a separate SPI license and "complete" WDO report. "A separate examination module will be developed to test applicants on the specific Washington state laws, adopted standard of practice, and code of ethics." That's probably gonna stick in the various associations' craw a bit but it really shouldn't assuming the states SOPs are decent. Those who wish to can simply advertise that they meet both the state's standards and their org's. Does it assure a good, honest inspector? Not necessarily, but at least there's enforcable requirements that are far more than we currently have, without being prohibitive. There would also be a board for clients to complain to that actually has the teeth to revoke a license when deserved. I also notice that there would be no agents on that particular board. Good! Nothing's perfect but this is far better than nothing. I really can't find anything in HB-3132 that I don't like. 6606, in my mind, is less clear, especially on the SPI reporting (only conducive conditions?). So now what happens? Do the Senators and the Representatives arm wrestle for bragging rights? Is it at all possible that Spanel and Kohl-Welles could put their pride aside and adopt the better written proposal. Can pigs fly?

As funny as the whole article is... EG: "We also have a computerized tool (that I don't actually know the name of) that can detect moisture levels inside a home. If there is a water stain on a ceiling, I can hold up the meter (anywhere, I think?) and (by magic) it will detect whether the water stain is old or whether there is moisture in the attic. (It's a really cool looking gizmo and I can't wait to use it for the first time.)â€

Tough to tell if there's any merit in the suit but the agent in this case does seem to lack a little tact... In a brief phone interview, Mr. Little called the case “ridiculous,â€

Ahhh. I've never come across one. Thanks, Kevin.

No argument that it would be wrong. But, I can't remember ever seeing a drain from a refrigerator ice-maker...only the supply feed. Am I missing something?

I sure hope the drains in India are better organized than some of the electrical connections! Download Attachment: indiaelectrical.jpg 175.47 KB Download Attachment: indiaelectrical2.jpg 74.73 KB Download Attachment: indiaelectrical3.jpg 56.09 KB Is that OSHA approved PPE in that 3rd photo?

Must be an optical illusion, but it sure looks bigger than 1½" when compared to the bricks. Anyway...I'd still guess a clean-out, but for what, I don't know.

What were the downspouts draining to? If they were also new PVC, I'd guess a clean-out or possibly a drain that never got used by a corresponding downspout. As for your heading question..."Why am I here?"...that's a little metaphysical for me, but, everyone has to be somewhere!

Chris, If the switch controls a receptacle under the sink that the disposal is then plugged into, then the plug/receptacle is the disconnecting means. But...even if it was hard-wired, I'm just not going to get excited about (or report) it not being labeled unless it was upside down. Same thing with single light switches. BTW...all light and receptacle switches are down for on in New Zealand (all receptacles have a built-in switch).

Chris, My guess would be a leaking wax seal. Maybe no actual damage...YET! I don't see how you could ignore the meter. So...I'd report what I found, what I suspected, and recommend the toilet be pulled, the floor checked and a new wax-ring installed.