mgbinspect

I've found a whole bunch of leaking showers that seem to have been leaking for years with absolutely no outward indications. With these slow leaks, a couple of 10-minute showers (normal use) just aren't long enough for these leaks to show up on the bottom side of the drywall. The wetting time/drying time ratio just isn't great enough. Keep the shower wet for an hour or two, though, & the leaks become abundantly clear. - Jim Katen, Oregon Similarly, I used to use one of those little rubber collars, at the shower drain, to flood and test shower pans. I finally concluded it was counter-productive. Several times there was no manifestation of a shower pan failure until I was off site and it then became something I allegedly missed, after I had suggested the pan appeared to be functioning as intended.

I have no idea whatsoever. I can only think there was enough pitch to take the water down the seam to the exterior wall, where it sheeted down into the (finished) basement. All I know is what the picture shows, and the drips out of the pinholes when I put the Protimeter to it. I know it would show up eventually in the form of nail pops, delam'ed tape, sags, or something. It'd have to. Couldn't it be that the leaks are so slight that an average shower would never produce enough water to actually flow, and rather just dampen the drywall? Sometimes the problem isn't the integrety of the pan material, but rather the pan installation - turned up edges of pan not tall enough.

What he said. Not a vent. We used to be a representative for Morton Metal buildings.

The crazy part about this subject is that I'd have to call this condition out four out of five times., In fact, I've started calling it out, but wondering why it's been permitted by the local building departments right up until pretty much this year. It's frustrating.

If only it could pull back insulation and probe framing...

Ah, the candles remind me of a Monty Python episode where the older than dirt character announced a birthday. When one of the other cast members asked if he blew all the candles out, he replied, "I tried to, but the heat drove me back." [:-party] Happy Birthday Marc!

For anyone that might be interested: The outstanding document Charlie put up, points out that the double check-valve system backflow preventer is no longer permitted on residential lawn irrigation systems. I had the good fortune of speaking with an irrigation guy today, and learned why those units are no longer approved. The reason is actually a pretty big deal to HIs, so getting familiar with that unit might be prudent. I see them often. The double check-valve system worked fine, but when it fails, there is no visible or apparent sign of failure. It simply becomes an instant undetectable cross-connection! And, since it was designed to permit the introduction of chemicals to the sprinkler system, this can be a REAL problem. The newer reduced pressure system, has a relief valve that begins to dribble or flow when the unit fails. (brief minor intermittent flow is normal, but constant dribble or flow indicates failure).

Boy does that take me back... [:-propell Now if I can only find my Dark Side of the Moon album. When the fog finally lifted, I came to the conclusion that actually, it's NOT "cleaner than alcohol, man... " [:-graduat

Boy does that take me back... [:-propell

I suppose some good came of the thread - the unit that is installed all over the country that is no longer approved. I didn't realize that the code would get so specific, regarding types of backflow units approved based upon being above or below sprinkler heads. If that's the case, you're probably right - there's no point in making TIJ a resourse for information that is readily available. I'll try to keep that in mind regarding future posts, Jim.

Thanks for that link, Charlie. Good work! I went to that site and had a live chat with a representative. Here is that chat: "Please wait for a site operator to respond. You are now chatting with 'Celia' Celia: Thank You for contacting Sprinkler Warehouse. How may I assist you today? you: Hi! I'm assuming that Series 800M4QT Anti-Siphon Pressure Vacuum Breakers are not acceptable installed below the sprinkler heads. Is that correct? I've found one installed a good ten feet below the highest heads. It needs to be changed out for a different unit. Correct? Celia: That is correct. you: Thanks! Celia: My Pleassure. Have a great day! Celia: Is there anything else that I can help you with? you: no thanks" I've modified the thread subject line to make it easy to find for future reference. Again, good work Charlie. Have a great day and weekend.

Hmm... that link suggests that EVERY style must be above the sprinkler heads. Can that be right? I see them below the heads, quite often - just not the design in the photo... On second look, I see that what you posted is PERFECT! I didn't notice that the reference point on some of the devices was the earth and not the heads. And, what is equally invaluable - I see "DOUBLE CHECK VALVE ASSEMBLY (DCVA)" units all the time. I had no idea that they're no longer allowed. And, since many areas of the country require an annual inspection of the device, we should probably be calling out the presence of such units. A report modification is in order! THANK YOU CHARLIE! YOU ROCK!

That's what I'm thinking, but there is a device that could be installed in that location, Yes? My biggest problem is that I'm going on probably twelve year old info from a lawn sprinkler guy I spoke to on site...

Yet, there is a style of backflow preventer that is suitable when installed below the heads. So, it's not an all inclusive rule. I take it you are referring to the design I have in my photo, as opposed to a different design?

Greetings all! I'm calling on the brain-trust for a little help. Last week, I called out a backflow prevention device on a lawn sprinkler system as being the wrong design for the application. My opinion was based upon some old (dusty) information. And, the relocation company is refusing to "further evaluate" unless I can give them more definitive information regarding my opinion. I've been googling to find information to support my opinion/suspicion. I'm pretty sure I'm right, but not yet thoroughly convinced. So, I'm teeing this subject up for a couple of reasons: 1. To get confirmation that I'm on target 2. So information on the subject is available to others Here is the backflow prevention device in question: Click to Enlarge 52.79 KB This particular unit is located in a crawl space - considerably below over half of the sprinkler heads - by as much as ten feet in some cases. Now, it is my understanding that this style of backflow prevention device (with an apparent air gap design) is NOT to be used below sprinkler heads, and must be a minimum of 12" above the highest head. Here is a link to "similar" unit, but not the exact unit. Unfortunately, the system is an hour and a half away and I didn't realize I might need to have the actual unit manufacturer and model number. I actually don't think it will be necessary, as "air gap' style units, in general, fall under this restriction (I think... that's why I'm here... to find out for sure). Here is a great general information link from the EPA that might be useful in our library. In short, it's my understanding that when the device is below the heads, "Pressure Vacuum Breakers" are not suitable. In such cases, "Reduced Pressure Principle Assembly", or possibly the "Double Check Valve" design, is required. But, the EPA document doesn't clearly spell that out. (The first link above, however, does). So there you have it. What I'm hoping for is that one of you guys is intimately familiar with lawn irrigation systems and can nail this one down for time and eternity. A simple confirmation will be nice, but I think that, if anyone is so versed, a thorough educational response about this subject, in detail for the sake of readership, would be FANTASTIC! As always, thanks in advance for your assistance and I hope the general readership benefits from the thread. All the best, Mike

Oh, yes, we're in agreement, it will eventually burn, and when it goes, there doesn't seem to be any middle ground. It just falls apart. But, often when I used to do take-offs on these fires, the firefighters were still hanging and would tell me some of the fires I was looking at were so hot that just standing up, in such a room, would instantly melt the skin right off of you and sear your lungs - pretty much instant death. Yet, the drywall did pretty good. I had never honestly realized the importance of staying low in a fire - alwasy assuming it had more to do with breathable air - not understanding the extreme stratification going on.

Yeah, thanks Darren. Oddly enough, during my time in disaster restoration, I never really saw anything that resembled the surface of drywall actually burning. Many times I worked on projects in which rooms got unbelievably hot. Yet, the drywall came through it, OK. Due to convection, after these fires, you could see where every stud and nail was behind the drywall, as if you had xray vision. The latent heat in the framing kept the surface of the drywall warmer longer where the studs were, which permitted more soot to be deposited to those surfaces. Bottom line: drywall actually fares amazingly well in a fire - even one so hot that if you stood up in the room you'd fry. It actually does take a TON of heat before it finally gives up the ghost.

My most amazing new home blunder: I inspected a four year old home. The sellers had the home built. The attic was almost impossible to get into. It had to be entered from a hatch in the garage ceiling, which was up about sixteen feet in the air. Then, the main attic could only be accessed through a hole from the garage attic. An inspection of both attics revealed that the poor home owners had been heating and cooling a 4000 SF house for four years with no ceiling insulation - just a half inch of Sheetrock between them and unconditioned space. I was stupefied, and the home sellers were furious.

One thing I find a little bit humorous, is that the drywall (considered to be a firestop in this application) needs to be held back an inch from the outside surface of B Vent... Huh? That's a part of why I teed up the question - it seems that it shouldn't matter if the drywall is snugged up against the B vent.

I suppose it appears that the clearance may have been provided after original installation...

Click to Enlarge 12.29 KB OK, this question isn't about this particular situation, but more about the use of this collar in relationship to drywall in a garage: Does anyone have a clear understanding of the intended use of this collar? Is the drywall only supposed to go over the collar, but stay back from the vent pipe? Or Is the drywall supposed to go over the collar and seal tightly against the pipe? Most of the time I see it back from the pipe, and assume that's why the collar is so wide - to permit the drywall to stay back from the pipe and yet provide a seal. But, typically, the drywall doesn't end up laying nicely over the collar - leaving gaps which could permit flames a path. Opinions?... or better yet, specs? PS. If you have the proper name of this collar, I'll modify the Subject so the thread can be properly searched in the future.

Check out www.sugarsync.com it's amazing and affordable. I've had a couple others over the years, but this one beats them hands down, for pretty much doing anything you could ever wish an onlne backup service did. Another HI here is a fan of it as well.

Mike, I need an education here. Where did you grab the URL link for that topic so you could paste in your posting? I've been searching, but can't seem to find it. I went to the home page for TIJ and searched "interlocking shingles", but the list of threads that came up was too large, so I went to my own profile and searched "all non-archived posts" and dropped down a bunch of posts until I found it. It did not show in the address bar as anything that I could copy and paste, so I went back to the home page and typed the exact thread name in. Then it came up with a address I could cut and paste. In short, it's wasn't easy, but doable. Where there's a will, there's a way.

Here's that previous thread on these shingles: https://inspectorsjournal.com/forum/top ... IC_ID=2974

a Actually, I used to see that shingle quite often here, and posted it in 2006. It lasts better than any other shingle I've ever seen - usually a legitimate thirty to forty years - maybe more. Back when I made the original inquiry, Les came through with the most insightful info about it. I believe he identified it as more a farm product? But, it's some die hard stuff.