Richard Moore

Scott, I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not (?), but that looks more like bracing or "blocking" to keep the rafters evenly spaced at midspan until they got the decking on rather than an intended purlin.

If you are talking about the wire sizes at an overhead service drop from the utility pole, then conductors in free air have, very roughly, about twice the amperage rating that we HI's use for the service feed to the panel. The utility company has it's own rules that might even surpass that. It's all about heat dissipation. Anyway, quite normal to see thinner wires connected to thicker SECs entering the masthead.

Hi Mike, OK. I do understand the requirements for a 3 and 4 wire sub-panel installation in a separate building (and even why the 4-wire is the preferred method), it was just that, looking at the wires, it looks like only a 120-volt feed. But it does bring up another question I'm not sure about if they complete the 3-wire installation of a 240-volt panel in the garage using the existing overhead conductors. Let's assume proper grounding at the garage and no metallic path. It's normal for the utility comany to use a bare grounded conductor (with strain relief) in their 3-wire feed to a home's mast-head feeding the meter and service equipment. But...even with insulators at the strain relief, is it allowable to use a bare grounded (neutral) conductor as an overhead "feeder" to a sub-panel?

You plug it in at the beginning of the inspection. It makes neato sounds and flashes lights. You then unplug it at the end of the inspection. Now for the really cool part...you charge extra for "Advanced Noble Gas Lymph" testing. It's very much like mold is gold! Damn! I just got outbid again!

I'm a little confused about all the talk of a fourth wire. Isn't this just a single 120-volt circuit feed? It's certainly screwed up with the exposed THNN, and who knows how it's connected at the other end, but don't we have enough conductors for that purpose. I think Randy hit the nail on the head. Planned a real panel and "temporarily" connected 120-volt power. Needs fixin one way or the other.

Steven, My first question would be how old is the house and/or the EIFS? It is my understanding (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) that the general change from barrier to drainage systems occured in 1997.

Blame the plumbers unions. They hate the simpler fixes they can't charge an arm and two legs for.

I go with... and include the following image... Download Attachment: AAV1.jpg 16.03 KB

Les, Because I do care, and it seems appropriate to this thread... Have you considered gnomes instead? I understand they are very hardy. Download Attachment: gnomes.jpg 37.56 KB

Yes to metal conduit (or a fourth, grounding wire, or even that fence if you had it attached to both panels(???)). IF you had a metallic path between the two panels, THEN you would have the parallel path for neutral current between the two panels (along the grounded conductor and the metallic path). In that case you don't bond at the second panel, BUT the separate house still needs it's own grounding electrodes. I guess I'll repeat myself. I think your set-up is OK the way it is.

Kyle, I don't see anything wrong with set-up the way you describe it. The house is a separate structure from the garage and should have it's own grounding electrodes. With a three wire feed and no other mettalic path it would be correct to bond the grounds and neutral at the house panel. There is no "parallel path" with this. Ground faults at the house would be cleared at the house panel by tripping the breakers there because you are using the grounded (neutral) conductor to carry the current and not the grounding conductor. That part is the same as if you only had a single panel except, in this case, it is kind of waving hello as it passes the first panel. Not quite true in this case. There is an option here...See NEC 250.32(B) and then 250.32(B)(2)

Try 312.8. Yada, yada.....The conductors shall not fill the wiring space at any cross section to more than 40 percent of the cross-sectional area of the space...Yada, yada, yada. I doubt you are using 5% of that space. Lot of air in there. Secure the cover to keep the kiddies out.

Did a liitle 1949 bungalow today, "flipped" by the seller, a realtor. New carpet, paint, updated kitchen and an old, rusty, exterior FPE panel feeding all of the new, ungrounded, three-prong receptacles. Typical, cosmetic only, remodel with all sorts of "hidden" problems. Anyway, there was a stacked washer and dryer (probably "reconditioned"). During the spin cycle the drum didn't move at all but the agitator spun like a banshee! Didn't know you could screw one up like that.

Hmmm... Consumers elect the politicians. Politicians like to enact legislation that purports to protect the consumer, whether it actually does or not. This gives the politician a good sound-bite during the next election. And this "helps the consumer" re-elect the useless bastards.

Cute Gary! For those that don't know, a group of crows living together is called a "murder". Don't know why.

One of my neighbors has this butt-ugly asphalt/fiberboard siding on his otherwise nice 1920's craftsman. Download Attachment: 030429A021x.jpg 153.41 KB The damage is by crows. Not sure if they are using it for nesting or are simply the local taste police.

Not doubting you at all Jim, but do you know where it's being used? Sure don't see it on any new residential construction around here.

Bain, nice photo. In your case the grease is a bit of a giveaway. I can now say I've seen solid #8. Thanks. The more I looked at my photo, the more I'm convinced that they are the field tinned or soldered ends of stranded wire. Download Attachment: 070328Y009xxx.JPG 120.24 KB Even the dull color is more reminiscent of solder than aluminum. Hopefully it is Cu stranded and not Al, so at least they won't have to run new, larger wire to the range when they replace the panel. But, as I'm not certain, I've reported it as an "unknown" that needs to be investigated. I'll let Sparky scrape the conductors to find out one way or the other.

Is answering your own post a sign of madness? Me, If you look very closely at an enlargement of the top wire it appears there are some stryations along the conductor although the end, and the wire below, do look "solid". What you (I) might have here is stranded copper #8 with field soldered ends (not the same as tinned copper), which would be OK. Best to report it as possible undersized aluminum and leave it to the electrician to determine for sure when he "evaluates" (read replaces) the panel. I'm welcome!

Found this today in a 1969 condo. Download Attachment: 070328Y009cropped.JPG 327.85 KB As far as I could tell it was #8 solid AL. They ever make that? Undersized for a 40-amp breaker (range) no matter what, no handle-tie and, oh yes, a nasty Zinsco panel. Sparky recommended, but I don't think I've ever seen solid #8 before.

I also found this... "Miraflex insulation maintains its insulating power over time, will not settle or deteriorate with age and is non-combustible. The new product is also enclosed on three sides with a poly wrap, allowing the insulation to resist the collection of moisture within the wrap. The remaining side uses a standard poly-faced vapor retarder with stapling flanges." From what I can find OC introduced Miraflex in 1994. If you go to their main site there is no mention of any plastic encapsulated batt insulation in their product lists. Anyone know why they discontinued it (assuming they did)? Was there a problem? Even with perforations it still seems like it would tend to trap some moisture in the insulation below, at least more so than unfaced batts or loose-blown.

LOL... It still sounds like paradise compared to Bejing. My wife passed through there last year during her visit to China...an "escape" from our remodel. All the rivers she saw, large and small, were horribly poluted. The worst though was the air pollution. She's convinced they will have to run the 2008 marathon indoors!

I wrote up the panel for the overspray and access (oh, and double-tapped neutrals). On the access, you could open the panel door about 45 degrees and get to the breakers (just) but ,obviously, not good enough. I recommended moving the panel OR getting a low profile fridge. On the yellow grounded conductor...I did not report that. There were zero other electrical problems in this 1980 home other than upgrade to some GFCIs. While it is the wrong color, it is distinctive, sized correctly and not affecting the safety or function to my client. I really can't get excited about it and would be OK leaving it that way with the new panel. I'll let the electrician handle that.

Had to laugh today. On top of all the texture overspray, the previous inspector left his card in the panel. Download Attachment: 0017.JPG 83.44 KB Not really a big deal but I didn't add mine! BTW, that's the back of the fridge. I had to pull the damn thing out to get into the panel. The agent helped.

This was my first brick foundation. A small, single story, 1901 home. Download Attachment: brkfndtn.jpg 113.19 KB Download Attachment: crwlrtngwall.jpg 101.17 KB Probably best described as a potpouri of foundation materials. I was only about 20 inspections into my career but it didn't take a genius to call for a structural or foundation engineer. I think I was actually more concerned about the central beam resting on the "dubious" basement/crawl retaining wall than the damage by the door. I think I found the BIA site very shortly after! The client sent me this photo of the "repair" at the door (I can't remember if he told me what they did about the retaining wall). Download Attachment: therepair.jpg 91.51 KB I've only seen one other since, and that was only partial and short (nasty tight crawl). That one also needed some repair due to loose mortar, but the home had so many other issues my clients walked away. While I'm sure that an un-reinforced brick foundation (in good condition) is great for the vertical forces back east, this is shakey ground and everything I've read before and since seeing this topic strongly recommends doing something about a brick foundation in seismic areas. I believe Portland, OR, is one zone below Seattle, but still at risk. Number one suggestion seems to be replace the foundation, with re-inforcement running a distant, and still very expensive, second. So my questions are... Has anyone seen an older, un-reinforced, brick foundation, in the seismically active zones, actually in good condition? And if so, how do you report it? If I ever have to cross that bridge, I just can't imagine saying "looks fine and is good to go". I know our BrickMeister, Kurt doesn't live here, but I'd be very interested in his opinion too.