mthomas1

As anyone who has ever walked up a steep roof with the assistance of a safety line knows, it's far easier and safer than without. Just about any kind of device which provides that sort of assistance is going to be a huge help even if it does not provide full "fall protection".

Well, at least he didn't suffer the indignity of falling onto a "hot water heater".

(IMO, code ought to require a permanent anchor at the top of every combination of roof planes. I would certainly do a better inspection if fall protection was readily available, and I suspect this is true of most others as well, irrespective of their opinion absent the opportunity.)

While I admire your gecko-like adhesion.... I think I'm pretty aggressive about roofs (as do some people who have worked with me), but the only way I even consider roofs at that pitch is in dry weather, with Cougar Paws, on shingles in good condition - at that slope you can have an entire shingle detach at one corner and pivot right out from under your foot (ask me how I know this). The other thing is, do that often enough in the summer, and sooner or later your left hand is going to find the hornet's nest hidden behind the rake board. At that slope, any aggravating condition, and it's inspection from the ground and eaves; as my wife likes to point out: "Dead inspectors write no reports."

When I researched this, everybody who understood patent litigation eventually got around to asking "Don't you guys have a trade association to fight this for you?".

The only two suits I'm aware of were: Homesafe vs Harris, but in that case Harris was a Homesafe franchisee, and failed to make franchise payments: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/di ... /28810/20/ and as a result got dinged for the unpaid payments and court costs. And, Homesafe Inspection, Inc. v. Mark Gibson, filed about the same time, but I can't determine the status of that one. The FLIR suit was a product defamation suit, it's been settled. Unlike a lot of people, still believe this could be a *big* problem: once HS was granted the patents, the legal presumption is that they are valid, and demonstrating they are not would be a crushing burden for any individual user of IR equipment.

The problem with these guys is, they are too greedy. They could probably have gotten a few thousand inspectors to pay them $100 a year to go away, and IMO $200K a year for sending a bunch of letters would have been a pretty good rate of return.

I GOOGLE for further information on this issue every few months, and just did so again, there has been no further action by Homesafe, at least that has turned up in my searches.

That's "Apophis" "Apophis... previously known by its provisional designation 2004 MN4) is a near-Earth asteroid that caused a brief period of concern in December 2004 because initial observations indicated a small probability (up to 2.7%) that it would strike the Earth in 2029. Additional observations provided improved predictions that eliminated the possibility of an impact on Earth or the Moon in 2029. However, a possibility remained that during the 2029 close encounter with Earth, Apophis would pass through a gravitational keyhole, a precise region in space no more than about 600 meters across[6], that would set up a future impact on April 13, 2036. This possibility kept the asteroid at Level 1 on the Torino impact hazard scale until August 2006, when the probability that Apophis will pass through the keyhole was determined to be very small. Apophis broke the record for the highest level on the Torino Scale, being, for only a short time, a level 4, before it was lowered." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99942_Apophis

Human nature being what it is, it's sometimes hard for people to get their minds wrapped around the fact that several things can be happening at once. That for example: 1) For well understood reasons, humans can have substantial, measurable effects on global climate, over periods as short as a few decades. 2) For (usually) less well understood reasons, various non-human factors have substantial, measurable effects on global climate over periods as short as a decade or two, and as long as tens of millions of years. 3) Because 1) is happening, this does does not mean that 2) has stopped happening. 4) Because 2) is ongoing, that does not mean that 1) can't/isn't happening.

$25 would work for me.

I believe they are also roofing contractors here in Chicago.

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.