Richard Moore

So...in a modern set-up if they are using buried metallic water pipe as the main electrode, you should also see a supplemental (typically ground rod(s)). But in a house with a plastic water service you would normally see just the one type of electrode (rods or UFERs). Many older houses around here will only have the supplemental ground rods if the panel or service has been upgraded in the last couple of decades (or so). Someone else may know when the supplemental requirement actually came into being.

OK, clearly, your inverter was supplying 240-volts and it looks just like the one in Brandon's photo's. I now have zero idea how he, seemingly, got both buses on the same leg. I'm no expert on this, and might have this wrong, but let's say you had one very fancy 12-volt battery on that cart from which you could actually use 1000 amp-hours. Now let's put that through the ultimate no-loss-at-all inverter to create 2 120-volt legs. At 240-volts we would have 50 amp hours to play with...right? So, yeah, I can see how you could run the AC for 20 minutes and briefly turn on the various range elements, but I suspect you really cut into the useful charge on that battery. I don't see the utility company hooking that up and then telling the homeowner it's OK to do the laundry and cook a roast.

I wonder if there is a break in the underground feed somewhere before it splits off to those two meters. By providing power to the lines feeding the neighbor's meter they would then also be powering the feed to this meter. (that make sense?) It may be a "badass" battery...but it ain't that big. Something that size wouldn't power a regular 240 volt home appliance for very long. So, might it not be a regular 120-volt inverter connected to both legs meant just to provide minimal emergency power to the fridge, the furnace blower, and a few lights in both homes? And...what the hell is up with that deck "framing"?

In that case, the sub panel grounding conductors and neutral conductors were supposed to be isolated. Just like today. My reference is the 1975 NEC, Article 250-61(b). I can personally only trace this back to the 1947 NEC. Douglas has traced it back further, but I'm not sure about the edition. For some reason 1923 sticks in my head. Jim Katen, Oregon Other than GECs, would there be any grounding conductors before 1947?

There's an older thread at https://www.inspectorsjournal.com/forum ... ic_id=9211 . Bill's post (the second) contains a chart of tests done with the "flues" both vertical and horizontal. Frankly, the results from that seem more than a little inconclusive but it does suggest that blocks are/were used in both orientations. I think our Mr Kibbel will have some definitive answers on this.

As the oak floor joists/beams in many, much, much older homes throughout Europe seem to still be doing fine, I would suspect the wood species has a lot to do with it. What did they use?

I wouldn't go so far as to call it ugly, but the large, plain roof does make it look like a glorified Pizza Hut sign. It needs some details... Click to Enlarge 55.51 KB

[:-bigeyes I see BigAssFans makes ceiling fans up to 24' in diameter, but I'm fairly sure that 22' long blades would be something else. Click to Enlarge 28.33 KB Chad, I think we all know how you feel about boilers. So, be honest now, after laying eyes on that beauty did you have to...ummm...adjust your tool belt?

Nope, just the one valve. I dug out a photo of the other unit I did. Same thing. Notice the same oversize(?) TX-tank in both cases. No installer stickers, so I'm guessing the 2003 "renovator" stuck these all in at the same time. Click to Enlarge 35.83 KB

As I'm sure we all know, the TPR valve temperature sensor is supposed to be immersed in the top 6" of the water heater tank. That's basically verbatim for the IRC and to "manufacturers specs" for the UPC. This is the second unit I have inspected in a 1987 condo complex that was extensively renovated in 2003. Both had 2003 water heaters with TPR valves hooked up this way. Click to Enlarge 66.85 KB I'm guessing the whole complex is the same. I don't have pre-1987 codes but I suspect it was wrong then and I know this was wrong in 2003. The set-up in the photo might work for pressure, but it's going to be slower to react to high temps. How much slower I don't know and I don't care. Maybe it's not THE most dangerous thing in the world...but wrong is wrong. And, yeah, it's going to be a bit difficult to fix using the existing in-wall discharge piping. I had explained all this to the client and his agent during the inspection. Then the listing agent dropped in near the end of the inspection. I didn't hear the whole conversation between the two agents but I got the gist. Evidently there had been two other inspections on this unit, neither of those "other inspectors" had mentioned the TPR situation, so the listing agent couldn't understand how it could be wrong. I'm sticking code and links in this report...just for the fun of it!

I thought we weren't going to discuss your accidentally moist era.

I guess I can count myself lucky that I don’t get to see mold like this very often. Click to Enlarge 46.93 KB Click to Enlarge 50.18 KB Click to Enlarge 17.33 KB Click to Enlarge 64.87 KB Click to Enlarge 26.21 KB Click to Enlarge 50.01 KB This was a 1962 duplex. Side by side (front and back) 2br/1ba bungalow units with shared attic and crawl. Baseboard heat only. One unit was occupied and was in very clean condition. The other was newly vacant (with the last 2-weeks according to the client) and was a mess-o-mold. I don’t know any more about the previous tenants. The heaviest mold was mostly at the corners and closets of the two bedrooms (some exterior walls, some interior). Some also at window surrounds and one area at the ceiling/wall juncture. There were a few lighter patches in the living room and kitchen. None of these gave any unusual moisture meter readings, all were dry. In fact, the place didn’t even smell that musty. Stuff that might be related(?)… Both units’ bathroom exhaust fans were not connected to the exterior and were actually buried in added loose-fill insulation. Both units’ kitchen range hoods had ducts that terminated above the attic insulation, but were also venting into the attic. Attic ventilation was good (high) to adequate (low) and no signs of any moisture problems or mold on the exposed lumber or decking, despite the stuff mentioned above. Crawl moisture barrier coverage was probably 95%. Dryer ducting of both units ran through the crawl to exterior dampers. There was a lot of lint under the dryer area, but it looked like newer repairs had addressed that. Oh...and under-floor “insulationâ€

Made me go all nostalgic for a bit there. It's not the same product, but the look is something called pebble-dash in England. Basically gravel thrown at wet plaster over masonry walls. Very, very common on house exteriors where I grew up. Click to Enlarge 66.97 KB Click to Enlarge 10.28 KB

OMG...Zombie Sheep!

That thought crossed my mind too, but it's hard to imagine druggies being that neat or bothering with J-box cover plates. Phillip seems to find the weirdest stuff. I sometimes think that people do things like this just to mess with his head!

I have never seen one like that but I suspect Jim is right regarding it being an older design GFCI. It looks like the lug screw of the U-loop has been filled in at the factory with black goop or plastic. My guess is that the loop is an external hot feed to the GFCI circuitry. Hell, it might be one of the very first GFCI breakers, an original attempt, and worth a small fortune as a collector's item (Fabry will buy anything old). I would have tested it by pushing the button and checking that the tub was then off. And then, to cover my ass, I would likely have reported it as an older design that I have never seen before, and one that was worth replacing to be on the safe side. I had a 50's home today with a bunch of very old style GFCI receptacles. A couple no longer responded to the test button. I'm recommending replacing all of them, including the ones that did work, with new units. Click to Enlarge 15.62 KB

I would call it a "false front". That particular style may have its own name, but it's a false front nonetheless.

I'm not sure what the schematic is showing. Any photos of the whole label? Anyway...I blew up the first photo. I can't see any larger wires coming from a breaker and returning to the panel. The large 30-amp breaker, bottom left appears to be abandoned. The other two sets of breakers with handle ties (30 & 50 amps) looks like they are in use but those wires appear to exit the panel. Based solely on what I can see, I would say that this is not a split-bus panel. And, if so, something wrong here (aside from the doorbell transformer and the access). The panel either breaks the 6-throw rule if it's service equipment, or it's an improperly wired sub-panel. Roy...were there remote service disconnects for the condo?

How old was the house? Don't see that many but it doesn't bother me to report the age of an electric furnace as unknown. If the elements were drawing appropriate amps, the blower wasn't making any odd noises and you were getting heated air at the registers, there's not a lot else to worry about.

With enough fiber in your diet you wouldn't even need to remove the grate. (Perhaps this thread has run its course?)

From one manufacturer of moldings... Or, as a builder, you can save a bunch of money by using regular, interior grade MDF moldings as long as you're willing to skip town before it gets wet.

The last one I got asked to do was for a "flat" roof with tiled parapets that had a new TPO covering. The listing agent/seller had fessed up to my client that the work was not up to snuff but that her roofer wasn't responding to her complaints. Evidently, there had been a previous inspection. So, at the same time as my inspection the agent/seller had another roofing company (a well known one) inspect the roof. I basically just followed him around, reported the more obvious stuff to my client (also an agent), but deferred to the roofer and suggested she get the resulting work order and warranty from him or the seller. We were both under the impression that this new company was going to make the many needed repairs. As it turned out, the agent/seller went back to the original guy, presumably armed with the list, and forced him to do the work. Keep in mind this is the same genius that thought that duct tape was an appropriate way to flash a chimney! Click to Enlarge 47.09 KB A couple of weeks later my client wants me to re-inspect the roof and tells me the story of who did the repairs. She also said that the guy was offering no warranty at all on his work (original or subsequent "fixes"). I had no problem at all turning her down and, instead, recommended she get an independent licensed roofer to do the inspection, preferably the one who had done the original write-up. Re-inspections: I've done very, very few and I certainly don't promote them.

Had something very similar at my own house. It wasn't in the inspection report. Download Attachment: 6253 1st 002x.jpg 56.66 KB It wasn't a bedroom at the time, and I don't have children, so even though I later discovered that it was a no-no, I decided to live with it knowing we would eventually be remodeling. About 3 years ago, or 15 years after we bought the place, it finally got moved. Download Attachment: Sept 7th-052x.jpg 277.56 KB The utility company has since cleaned up the temporary connections. But, yes, potentially very hazardous and a good call.

As long as that is drywall (not fiberboard) I would have no issue with the 15 to 20° for a basic electric baseboard heater.

I agree. I have always thought it a dumb idea to create rules that end up punishing the good guys as much, if not more, than the bad. I have a small handful of good guy agents who refer most of their clients to me, and have done so for many years. I've "killed" my fair share of deals for all of them. I have also lost some agents over the years for reasons unknown. I don't ask. Some may be out of the business for all I know, but I'm sure I've been too picky for others. Tough! I like Marc's "I don't shun agent referrals, I just don't solicit them." It sums it up for me personally. BUT, I'm not totally against other HI's passing out cards, etc, to get their name out there...if they feel the need to. Just so long as they do it ethically by making it quite clear they will report all facts to the clients, regardless of the outcome.