Richard Moore

Yep, I think that's my problem. I've been assuming we were talking about the hottest point of the gases where the plastic flue is first allowed to be used, right at the furnace connection, and I believe Chad was talking about somewhere cooler, further downstream (actually up of course for drainage).

My problem with that is that if the circulated air were hotter than the cumbustion gases at some point in the heat exchanger, then wouldn't heat want to transfer the other way...ie the circ air would actually heat the combustion gasses. If the circ blower speed was reduced, then I would expect both the circ air and combustion gasses to increase in temp, not just the circ air. I could see equalibrium being reached, but I'm still having a hard time with actually hotter. No big deal. I'm probably missing something basic here and just having a senior moment.

If I'm reading my "bible" correctly, the size is from table 250.66 and is actually dependant on the size of the largest SEC's, rather than final service size. Assuming you have "normal" SECs for a 100-amp service the bonding conductor should be the minimum size from the table...#8 copper or #6 aluminum. I have a hard time judging size from photos, but that looks a bit bigger than a #10.

I think the circulated air could very well be hotter than the exhaust temps .... Chad, I'm trying to picture that, but keep coming up short in this old head. [:-dunce] Wouldn't that require a heat exchanger to operate at over 100% efficiency? I didn't think that was possible no matter how convoluted the exchanger. I'm seriously curious...could you (or someone else) explain?

Ken, I don't have the definitive answer but it doesn't seem that the circulated air, and therefore the duct, could be any hotter than the gasses being exhausted through the flue, even in a 90+ furnace. For that reason I just can't see the duct doing the plastic flue any harm, or vise versa.

Trying to ignore Mr. “Mossâ€

Mike...it's not that I agree or disagree with this particular piece. I thought I was asked to be a moderator here (not this particular forum) because I have tried to discourage "cheap shots" at ANY org. Hey...I left NACHI a long time ago because I was disenchanted (putting it mildly) with what I considered to be an emphasis on marketing over quality. And, I sure as hell don't like the constant Barnum and Bailey promotions of its owner or the chest thumping of some of the louder "gentlemen" who seem to be close to the leadership. But...there are some good people there, as there are in all orgs. Language like... "Does anyone at the paper know exactly what a certified home inspector is? Is it someone who takes an online test that a 12-year-old can pass and submits the appropriate fees to an association or organization such as the National Association of Certified Home Inspectors to become "certified"? without further explanation is clearly biased. (No...I don't care if some of us know it has some merit). I find the article, as written (poorly), to be just an anti-ORG spin piece (no better than some of Nick's) and, at risk of repeating myself, I'm disappointed to see a link to garbage like it here. I'd expect it of some but not you. Hell...while I'm on the subject, let me shoot my other foot. I had no problem with Chad's posting about the lawsuit. Anyone taking the time to read the documents should have seen the clear facts. I also had no problem with the "ejection" that subsequently took place. The title of the thread did bother me a little though. I would have preferred something along the lines of "NACHI loses again in court" or "NAHI prevails over NAHI". I thought the current title was a little too "gleeful". Maybe it was the 3 !!! at the end. I let it go but, as I now see it is the main news on the TIJ title page, its bugging me again. Am I wrong that the intention of TIJ is to promote excellence in home inspections for ALL? I can see someone who just happens to be a NACHI member, finding this site for the first time, seeing that as a "Go Away" mat rather than "Welcome". "I'm sure that you don't agree with everything published in your local paper, but you read it anyway. Right?" Mike, I like this "paper"...much more than any other, largely because we discourage bashing for bashing's sake. Consider this a letter to the editor!

Mike... with all due respect, the piece hardly seems newsworthy for this forum's average member. I think we are well aware that various "certified" labels are absolutely no indication of competence and, especially, ethics. I like to think that everyone is welcome here and that, whenever possible, we post NEWS and don't deliberately try to piss off the members of any HI org, even if we don't agree with the antics of the leadership. I just don't see the value of your post. Don't we have enough flaming in here without tossing on this particular bit of gasoline?

No idea what you are talking about, Bill... Download Attachment: noseecat.jpg 76.78 KB

I just grabbed a tube from the workshop. It says "Exceeds ASTM C-834" so must be OK although I'm getting the feeling from the posts there is "much more betterer" stuff out there. Jim...this is indoor/outdoor caulk. I've used it for years in other places and it seems to do just fine. The garage and remodel are just over a year old, so too early to tell. I'm sure there is a "lesser" indoor only version, but I've never tried it.

I should point out that I don't do phase inspections, just the finished product, so I only get to see the joints after painting and have no clue what they actually used. But, I do see a lot of hardiplank and I've never seen gunk smeared on like those photos. I've only installed the stuff once myself (on my garage rebuild) and used DAP Alex Plus (35 year). I'm pretty sure the builder who did my upstairs remodel used the same. No good?

Not doubting you Jim, but I had to look up Vulkem. Is that the norm down there? I've never seen anything like that applied to Hardiplank butt-joints around here...just what I have to assume is regular caulk, and applied a whole lot neater than Chris's photos.

Y'know, looking at a close-up I'm not convinced that is caulk. It looks more like they tried to fill the gaps with a wood(?) filler. It has cracked or failed in a fashion that would suggest no flexibility at all. I wonder if that is what the fungus is growing on...especially if it wasn't an exterior grade filler. Image Insert: 43.97 KB

Maybe, but I can't get past picture #1. I mean...how is that even possible outside of a circus act? [:-bigeyes

Yep...which is why I doubt that they are the same manufacturer...but there is this from one of the web sites: IMO, they make for one butt ugly roof and Jason's sure like one of those "similar products". I probably haven't seen more of them just because they are so damn ugly. I know that on one of the occasions my client got a new roof, but I don't know if the seller or Pabco paid for it.

Jason, I've seen similar damage on shingles that look very much like "yours" a couple of times. Your shingles are very similar to PABCO HO-25 or PABCO HZ-25 that had problems leading to a lawsuit (although probably not that particular manufacturer back east). The added dark shadow line is also indicative of these. http://www.ho25settlement.com/product.php3 http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stori ... 082&EDATE= These Pabco shingles basically had overlay patches adhered to regular three tab shingles to give the appearance of architectural laminated shingles. You will notice the cracking is restricted to the overlays while the underlying 3-tabs look OK. I'm not sure what causes that but I suspect it has something to do with the way they are glued. So...you may still have a ventilation issue, but the shingle cracking might be mostly due to a crappy product. If you know a good, experienced local roofer, show him the photos and ask him if there was a "history" with these in your area.

Mike, Did he explain how these got into circulation? I'm having a hard time understanding how no one noticed they were writing checks to Shanghai Fake Breaker Company (or whatever) instead of Schneider.

Post exhibiting my stupidity and limited AC experience deleted! [:-ashamed

Makes as much sense as anything I can come up with! Ok...then on to the next question...had a pair of these hopping around a tree right outside the living room window during the inspection. Should I put them in the wood destroying organism report? [] Image Insert: 90.13 KB

You just never see it all! So...any guesses what this is for? Big fan right at an open eave just to one side of the kitchen/dining area slider to the rear deck. No indication it had ever been connected or ducted to anything else, outside or in the attic. The only thing I could come up with is that they used to barbecue directly beneath this, but then I would expect to see grease and smoke stains on the fan. Never did find a switch for the goofy thing. Image Insert: 32.48 KB Image Insert: 39.1 KB Image Insert: 81.34 KB

While I have the good book open I might as well post the whole relevant section. Note that it's the number of OCPDs that is restricted, not circuits. Assuming you have some 240-volt circuits, that number would actually be less. So, basically, you can count the poles or lugs to get to the 42 (or smaller) number. Doesn't really matter if they are full, tandem or half size. Each lug counts as one "overcurrent device". Before you ask...a Square-D lug that can take two conductors only counts as one.

Branch Circuit: The circuit conductors between the final overcurrent device protecting the circuit and the outlet(s).

John, assuming you are talking about new construction rather than just a new replacement panel, then it makes sense that the panel should be large enough to handle the homes circuits without resorting to half-size or tandem breakers. BUT...if a hard and fast rule actually exists anywhere, I suspect it's a local AHJ thing. I certainly can't find anything in the NEC that would prohibit any particular listed breaker in a listed panel.

Image Insert: 20.04 KB

We all have our own approaches. Mine goes against some of the above posts but it works for me and, no, I don't feel I'm being "soft" on any issue by using "improve". This is what I have in my report preamble... It's "prettier" than that but I can't get my heading boxes to show here. Note that I don't have a "maintain" or "monitor" category and I also don't do summaries (other than punch lists for literacy challenged builders on new homes). Here's how I typically report balusters on older homes...(using two of my category headings) I use "SAFETY CONCERN and REPAIR" for items that should have been there or when I have any doubt about the requirement history.