mthomas1

At one point a bought a pair of dielectric gloves, but gave up on them, the clumsiness was more of a hazard than a help. Even a tight fitting pair of thin leather gloves is a reasonable insulator if dry, that's what I use now.

None. It's 100% narrative. However.... Most of the straight "descriptive" stuff required by my state SOP goes in a separate section at the end of the report, so the client gets to skip learning (for example) the material(s) of his or her supply plumbing or the manufacturer of their boiler, or its input BTUs, or from where it draws its combustion air, or how many gallons the water heater holds unless they want to read that final section. (I know, however, that *I* have observed and thought about these things, as my inspection and reporting protocol forces me to do so) In front of that is an "FYI" section, with FYI items (ex:, "Why you *really* should put a pan under that washer in the utility area off the hallway with the hardwood floor, though it's not "required" that you do so"). I know from experience that my clients DO read this section. In front of that is a section were I identify gas, water and electric shut-offs per the SOP. I know that clients do read that one as well. In front of that is the "meat" of the report: limitations and observed defects, essentially, I am "Reporting by Exception" in this section of the report. This information gets supplied in two forms: 1) A "full report" which contains all pertinent observations, all disclaimers, and pictures, diagrams and other relevant information, with the "descriptive" SOP requirements fulfilled in the final section of the report. 2) A "Summary Report of Potential Action Items", which contains limitations and suggested further investigation and defects and recommendations for remediation from the main report. This reproduces the first section of the report sans pictures and the supplemental material - and this is what the attorneys usually work off. I like this method, my clients like this method (Angie's List Super Service Award), I'm convinced it lowers my liability, and it insures that I'm almost never fielding calls for additional information after the inspection and report (though I encourage clients to ask a any question at any time). It produces the kind of referral from previous clients where I'm often not even asked what the inspection will cost, and surprisingly it has not killed my referral business from a certain kind of agent even after I've killed a deal or two - they know I have reasonable reasons for what I report, document them thoroughly, and then let the client decide what to do about it. And frankly, I don't have to go around trying to scare clients to prove I'm doing my job - if the house is scary, the report makes it very clear why. It can take 4 hours or more to write such a report, but I do not do more that one full HI a day (I might do two condos or a HI and a water intrusion or IR on the same day if I absolutely must, but I try not to) - my goal is to give clients a day of my life, and get paid appropriately. Before I settled on this method I tried others, but this was the one that ended up working for me - my inspection and reporting styles sort of evolved together, and continue to do so. YMMV.

It's more work in a narrative format, for example you end up describing the heating system, instead of just checking a box that says "GFAH". Even if you have highly automated the process, that's still more time. The result, as I've seen reviewing other's narrative reports, is that inspectors often end up "reporting by exception" and don't for example meet the state SOP for the required "inspect" and "describe" of many items. But the bigger problem is the way many inspectors are using commercial "narrative" reporting software. You (I'm quite sure) have carefully read the SOP, and thought through how to make sure your reports meet it. Heck, you have written your own report writing software. I've done pretty much the same by writing a IL SOP compliant template in Homeguage, and writing 4.6Mb (to date) of pre-formatted comments - there is little resemblance to any other HG report, and none of the original comment language remains. However, many of the inspectors I know who are producing narrative reports are still using mostly the generic boilerplate that came with the software, and have never set their report side-by-side with the state SOP and reworked the templates to insure that they are meeting even minimum state requirements. Probably, your attention to detail is typical of contributors here, and as a result there is likely a world of difference between reports produced by most contributors here - whatever their reporting style and method - and many of the reports produced by inspectors reporting with narrative software run in a pretty much "out of the box" configuration.

Hey. I think I have I been inspired to invented a useful new work: "snarkcasm".

I reference state SOP the standards in the contract, which is provided to the client by e-mail as soon as possible after the inspection is scheduled, but not in the report. However... the report layout reflects the state SOP, and my reporting method automatically enforces compliance (at a minimum) with the SOP - there is a section of the report that maps directly to each requirements of the SOP. For example the state SOP requires that I report on the presence of a heating source in each habitable room. So the Heating section of the report has a section that does exactly that - I'm forced to either report that I found them everywhere they are required, or report where they are missing. (BTW, I read my competitions reports every chance I get, and *very* few of them are sufficient to demonstrate that the inspection met the minimum requirements of the SOP- likely because it's actually quire a bit of work to so. Its also the case that "narrative" reports I've seen *rarely* do so - I believe narrative reports are inherently superior to their "check-list" counterparts in a number of important ways, but they are a more work to complete in full compliance with a typical SOP.)

I tried to find an answer to this question a while back, and did not quite believe the answer I was getting - perhaps someone else can do better. What I learned was: The thermal trip element of a conventional (thermal-magnetic trip) circuit breaker is rated at a reference (ambient panel) temperature of 40° C (104° F). Above 104° F it must be derated per the manufacturers specifications. (TM breakers must also be derated when used above 6600 ft ASL.). There is an explanation of how the ambient temperature and the trip element current heating interact starting on page 9 here: stevenengineering.com/tech_support/PDFs/45CBTHER.pdf An example (Siemens) of the derating charts for both factors is here: http://paragoninspects.com/articles/pdf ... rating.pdf But... that's not "how hot is the breaker allowed to get?" There seem to be two answers to that: 1) The UL 489 Standard, which in turn allows for two types of ratings: 1a) Standard circuit breakers cannot exceed a maximum of 50°C (122° F) temperature rise at the wire terminal connection at 100% current in 40°C open air. 1b) 100% rated circuit breakers may have a temperature rise of 60°C at the wire terminal connection in the smallest allowable enclosure if the circuit breakers are connected with wire rated at 90°C wiring insulation sized to the 75°C chart (Table 310-16, National Electric Code®Ã¢â‚¬â€NEC®). 2) The ANSI C37 Standard, which requires a maximum of 55°C temperature rise at 100% in the smallest allowable enclosure and a maximum of 85°C temperature rise on the contacts. So it appears that per (1a) there is an allowable 122° F temperature rise from 104° F ambient, which would be 226° F at the the wire terminal connection(!) I also found a (unsourced) statement that breakers should be "should be operated at 20C (68° F) below the maximum temperature specified" here: http://www.interfacebus.com/circuit-bre ... lines.html , which would be (158° F). Of course, we typically never see (apparently) properly functioning TM breakers running anywhere near 226°. One possibility is that as actually designed and built, a properly functioning TM breaker does not reach these 158° F / 226° F temperatures even under 100% load, and when we see a 180° F breaker (as in the OP's example), it's *because* it's defective. In which case the question is not "how hot is a 20A TM breaker allowed to be per spec" but rather "outside of what operating temperature range is it suspect"? In which case the 158° F number might be the limit. And that's as far as I was able to get.

Perhaps it's a Chicago thing, but in the water intrusion end of my business I see the same things as Kurt: that in conventional brick veneer construction it's possible for there to be significant moisture intrusion through the veneer and sometimes the structural backing wall, causing damage to interior structures and finished surfaces, even when the veneer appears to be properly installed when closely observed at the exterior. And the water intrusion can happen fast and in quantity, especially if there are missing or incorrect flashings and/or mortar bridging between the veneer and the structural wall: I've had occasion to spray test such walls when they have been opened at the interior for investigation, and even when exterior RILEM spot testing appeared to demonstrate that at least a small section of the veneer's brick and mortar was adequately sealed and no gross defects were visible at the exterior, water passed through the entire wall to the interior. At one test water was running down the interior of the veneer with 3 min of the start of spray testing (perhaps through minute cracks in the mortar, though I could not establish this cause as a fact) and rapidly penetrating across to the structural wall across mortar bridges, and then within 20 min through the mortar at the CMU's junctions and to the interior of the structural walls - where it was causing damage at the top floor baseboard level that was the original reason for the investigation. (The spray testing was performed with the wall tarped off to below the level of the parapet, to insure that the penetrations was in fact through the wall below this level). So it's unquestionably the case that penetration through apparently intact veneer and then through structural backing walls is possible, and based on my experience IMO it's likely sometimes causing considerable "hidden" damage that cannot be observed at a non-destructive home inspections.

Yup, "Surge Protective Device (SPD)", prior to 2009, when the UL listings were substantially revised, used to be called a "Transient Voltage Surge Suppressor (TVSS)" The "Cliff Notes" version of information on the changes is here: http://www.sea.siemens.com/us/internet- ... evised.pdf Detailed information is here: http://www.sea.siemens.com/us/internet- ... ection.pdf

Randy, It seems I'm misinformed, and the cellular voice functionality cannot be supplied by the WiFi connection (which does provide data functionality such as web browsing) - an assumption I have been making based on what seems to be better voice functionality (primary, fewer dropped calls) when I am connected to WiFi. (The difference is pretty striking, and I assume that it most have something to do with the lower load on the cellular radio when the data connection is via WiFi, but that's just guess.) BTW, before I switched from Verizon to Sprint I installed a Verizon Cellular Access Point connected to my local network in an attempt to solve various problems in my house's low-signal location. 1) It provided only a voice (not data connection) connection and 2) it resolved none of my problems with Verizon, which according to one of their "senior technicians" were the result of known but apparently unfixable problems with the software that handed off signals from tower to tower, and which gets hopelessly confused if you are right on the boundary of two towers and are not moving (for example, my house's location).

Also, there are various ways to access GOOGLE voice over WiFi from Android based phones, but they are too tough to set up from most users.

Turn on WiFi, and log into a WiFi network. After the first login, it automatically re-connects when in range. BUT... now that we are discussing it, I've just been assuming that it's smart enough to be routing voice over the WiFi, the same way it switches net access over when WiFi is available - Sprint's signal is usually problematic at my location, and I've never dropped a call with the phone connected to WiFi, which happens from time to time on the straight cell radio. Now that I think it through, that's unlikely, so I may have spoken in error, I'll have to check.

Currently, I'm on a Sprint Evo 4G w/ an extended battery (there is a slide-out keyboard version with better battery life as well), for me the big plus of any of the Android phones for business use is the seamless integration with the GOOGLE web apps and thus with your PC - you can achieve the same result w/ other phones, but it's a lot more work. On of the slick things about the Evo (and as I understand it, with most of the new Android phones) is how well they do WiFi; the instant I pull up to the house and before I even get out of the vehicle the phone grabs an IP on my home net and switches off the cell radio, so I have an A+ voice signal and a very fast net connection plus greatly extended battery life, in fact I find that I use the phone to check e-mail etc. rather than bothering to walk over to the PC. And once I have logged into any hot spot (for example, at my local coffee shop) the phone remembers the connection and reestablishes it if a signal is available.

I've given this one a lot of thought, and ended up keeping specific disclaimers of things like lawn sprinkler systems in the body of the report - IMO the more explicit the disclaimer and the "readily visible" it is, the better both your practical and legal position if the client "overlooks" it. Explaining to clients why these disclaimers are there and why it's important to pay attention to the recommendation attached to each is part of a 5 min verbal " "How to get the most value from your inspection" presentation I give to clients present at the inspection, and also of a printed hand-out of the same name I provide when I send the inspection contract for pre-inspection review. Also, a disclaimer is a good reason to follow up in e-mail a few days after the inspection to inquire if the follow-ups were performed and what was found. I use "receipted" e-mail system, and can provide a verified copy of the e-mail and proof of receipt even if the recipient does not reply, which additionally covers me if for example an inaccessible roof is never inspected and later found to be defective. All part of both "client relations" and liability control, as I see it. YMMV.

As for battery life, I had to buy an extended battery for my HTC Evo 4G - just as I did for my BB Tour, and for every "smart" phone I've ever owned - it's just the nature of the beast, and 4G only makes things worse.

For the last few years, I've just given up and given my life to GOOGLE - used their e-mail, contact, calendar and to-do lists, backed up locally. Each of the GOOGLE apps is unquestionably inferior to some other application I've used in terms of that module's individual functionality, and there are things about each GOOGLE app that are *really* annoying. BUT.... In that time I've gone through a variety of phones running Palm, Blackberry and now Android, and moved from Verizon to Sprint. 1) All the information moves seamlessly between my desktop and my phone. 2) All the information has moved seamlessly between various phones and carriers when I upgrade . 3) I keep a spare phone, and WHEN (not if) my phone is lost or damaged I turn on the spare, move the number over, and everything is there. For me, the key has been: 1) To keep existing e-mail addresses and forward them to a central GOOGLE mail account while never giving out that e-mail address. (G-Mail replies from my choice of personal and business addresses). GOOGLE serves as a sort of "communications hub" and I screw around with it as little as possible - any "experimentation" is with other apps (ex: visual voice mail) pointed toward GOOGLE. 2) Making use of a *limited number*of third-party add-ons to add critical functionality to the base GOOGLE applications (for example, a POP checker, so that G-Mail checks mail every three minutes), and then dropping them as GOOGLE adds functionality. I'm pretty sure that in five years most all of my business communication and record keeping functions will be integrated into GOOGLE - that I'll set up a contact, insert it into the scheduler along with the inspection address, set the phone on the dashboard, and have the GPS guide me to the inspection while keeping track of the mileage and inserting it into GOOGLE's version of Quicken, etc. And that I'll finally be able to concentrate almost entirely on inspection and reporting rather than fooling around with a half dozen vendors and applications trying to cobble up a reliable small-business communications and record keeping system. Sure, it's only going to be "good enough", and I'm going to wish that it had the better ability to do this or that as some previous version of some software I used back in the Late-Neolithic "PDA" era. But it's gonna' be good enough, and I'm gonna' love it compared to the previous alternatives.

The thing about on-site reporting and multiple inspections per day (someone above mentions three) that bothers me is this: what happens when you encounter a property that needs more time than budgeted? (Several recent REO nightmares come to mind). Hard to believe that anyone is going to postpone/cancel the next inspection, seems to me what is going to happen is the the inspector is going to triage, hit high liability items, "do the best job they can", and move on to the next inspection. Likely, the resulting inspection is "good enough" in the sense the the client will be made aware of major issues and the inspector's liability will not be greatly increased - and perhaps the inspection was "good enough" compared to the competition that the client received reasonable value for the money. And likely, the client will be unaware that under other circumstances they would have received a "better" inspection from the same inspector. But speaking just for myself, I would sure hate to have insufficient time to complete my normal inspection routine without cutting corners, plus the pressure of having a client standing there tapping their feet while I finished the report for on-site delivery, worrying all the while about the traffic between this inspection and the next one as the clock ticked on. YMMV.

Re: Multiple grounded conductors under a single terminal: http://paragoninspects.com/articles/pdf ... utrals.pdf

Having tried many alternatives, I finally settled on a combination of Syncplicity and Genie Timeline.

In just show clients this, and let them make up their own minds about whether poorly controlled runoff can erode roofs. Click to Enlarge 56.37 KB

I love my TK45. But in part, I have to admit, cause it's... well... so COOL looking...

I use syncplicity: http://www.syncplicity.com/ which not only provides a backup on their servers but allows me to keep several PCs in sync - I can start a report at a coffee shop with a WiFi connection, seamlessly finish it on my office PC, and have it constantly updating to my backup office PC so that if the primary PC goes down I can finish on the backup. I also have an arrangement with a client in a suburb about 25 miles where we use Syncplicity to mirror each others data to a PC in our respective offices - if either of or offices burns down or there is an extended power outage, we can work immediately on the PC in the other office to keep our businesses up and running. In addition, I also use Genie Timeline locally, so that I have the ability to quickly restore previous versions of my data. So for around $250 a year I have a "Corporate Level" disaster recovery plan, complete with a off0-site "Shadow Data Center".

I've used an X&C for four years with no problems. I do try to make it a habit to hold down each rung as I extend the section above, and try to make sure its fully extended and locked before extending the section below. The slippery feet on the X&C IMO are significant hazard on some surfaces, and one to which I've not found a solution.

I asked Markus Keller about this at lunch yesterday, and he says that this is common in older homes in parts of Germany - and that there was a low slatted fence at the bottom of the slope to hold back the coal. Went back and took a look at the photographs and sure enough, you can still see the bottom plate: Click to Enlarge 42.47 KB

In that part of Evanston, everyone's castle is built on sand - literally. There was no garage present, or curb cut, but there could easily have been one there in 1890, and if so it would likely have been on that side. It's possible, I suppose ,that the builders excavated a shallow foundation, and then dug a slope down lower into the center of the basement, where there was clearly a gravity furnace at one time. I expect Kurt will be along eventually, to lift the vail.

Today's inspection, Evanston IL. South end of the basement is sloped downwards 42" in 10 feet. The sloped portion extends half way down the east side of the basement (see panorama). In the center of the sloped area on the east wall is a ramp in the center extending down from a window located 4" above current grade. The rest of the basement is conventional. My first thought was "coal bunker", but it would have been an enormous ""L" shaped area around 24' on each side. And why slope the floor (feed an "iron fireman?"... but to build an entire end of the basement that way? The ones I've seen abandoned had a square or rectangular bunker a with a horizontal screw at the bottom.) The house has grown like Topsy and now has a 2nd floor and rear addition, but there was a plate hanging on the wall which I assume depicts the original configuration. Click to Enlarge 50.17 KB Click to Enlarge 28.12 KB Click to Enlarge 58.65 KB