hausdok

Hi, Nope, I guess it's as right as any other. Have any of you ever approached an overhead door guy and asked him innocently, "Say, I'm having a debate with a couple of guys I know, could you tell me what the rule is in regard to secondary entrapment devices in 16CFR1211?" Try it sometime, the, "16CFR.....? What the hell is that," response along with the deer in the headlights expression is kind of comical. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Kewl! It kinda looks like a remuddled bungalow. 162 miles one way? Phew! That would have been a $240 distance surcharge if I'd done it. Are there really so few inspectors in USNY? OT - OF!!! M.

Mystery solved, I contacted the client and asked him if he remembered the name of the company on the document. He told me what he thought it was and then I looked for anything similar in the phone book. I found a company by that name and called them. I told the lady that answered who I was, explained the situation and asked if she could tell me whether they'd installed that boiler. When I gave her the address, she said, "Hold on a minute," and put me on hold. After a minute or so, a lady's voice came on the line that said, "Hi, Mike, this is ___________ _____________; I'm the owner of that home. I work here at ________________ and that was a boiler that we'd had sitting in our warehouse for years. It had never been used at the time we installed it." Most of their work is forced-hot-air and they rarely work on hydronic systems. It was a 15-year old boiler - just one that had never been used - and the reason that it cost so little was that she got everything at cost because she's an employee. So, the client gets an older tech boiler but he has the benefit of knowing that the company that installed it was very careful to dot every i and cross every t when they'd installed it for one of their co-workers. What a weird sequence of events. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Nope, Didn't check the date on the control valve and I didn't write down the installer info. I'd meant to write down the installer's info but it slipped my mind. Then on the drive home last night I remembered it and mentally kicked myself in the ass. This morning I called the company that I my memory was telling me had installed it, but they said that it wasn't their job so I guess my memory was deficient in that respect. It was kind of surreal. Taking off the cover and looking up into that cabinet it looked like it had just rolled off an assembly line someplace but the cabinet said, "Look at me, I'm a teenager!" Anyone know if these serial number correspond with a gas-burning Bryant boiler? I probably shouldn't be obsessing over the thing; the system was functioning fine and it's probably going to last longer than I'll be left on this planet - it's just been nagging at me ever since yesterday, I hate it when square pegs seem to fit in round holes. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi All, Had a strange one yesterday and I'm looking for some ideas from the brethren to help me figure it out. The house I did yesterday was built in 1952 and is heated by a hydronic heating system using baseboard convectors. The system had originally been fittted with an oil-burning boiler but a couple of years ago they brought gas to the house from the street, installed a meter, and then replaced the boiler with a gas-burning boiler. So far so good. This is where it gets interesting; the homeowner left documents out to show that the boiler had been installed in 2007. The “gutsâ€

Nope, It's a dark stain, you can't peel it off or scrape it off; about all you can do is treat it with a diluted bleach solution to lighten it. The weather pattern comes from the southwest here but the south side doesn't typically wear out first - the north side does. Harsh weather? Not here. It only occasionally goes well below freezing in winter here and in summer it's pretty rare to see a day above 90°F - that's why folks were freaking out three weeks ago when it topped 100. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Todays house, a Cape Cod, was oriented east west so the front surface of the roof gets sun all day long. The front slope is free of fungi and the back is all covered with a dark gray algae but no moss. The difference in the conditions of the shingles was dramatic. On the front slope where the sun kills any alga spore, the roof is showing its age but the tab slots were consistent in width, the shingles lay flat and they actually look pretty good although it's definitely time to replace them. On the back slope, the shingles are literally shriveling up. the protective granule coating is sloughing off and the shingles are covered with random cracks. The only difference front to back is the alga. The difference is so dramatic that the realtor thought I must be mistaken and began talking about how they'd have to see what an FHA appraiser says. I told him that they do not need to see what the FHA appraiser says because I'd just told him what the condition of the cover was - there isn't any if, ands or buts about it, the roof is completely shot and should have been replaced years ago. The client "got" it. But it's just a little bit of algae!! ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Comp or wood shingle? Here I see that happening with shakes and wood shingle but not with comp. Here, it seems to work for 3 -4 feet and then peters out on a comp roof but will keep the roof clear to the eaves on shakes and wood shingles. I think it's got to do with absorbency; the wood cover absorbs the stuff leaching off the copper or zinc but the comp doesn't - at least not what I've been seeing here. I suppose there can be different varieties of mosses and alga that are adapted to various regions that react differently. If there are, I can't imagine what it takes for a roofing manufacturer to reach an acceptable balance. Still convinced the stuff does damage roof covers. Bill, for the record, I hate roof cleaning companies. If I were King of the Planet, the state would issue home inspectors seasonal hunting licenses and allow them to thin out the roof cleaner herd once a year. Every inspector would have a 2-kill limit. Inspectors would be lauded as heroes for doing a service to humanity. [:-devil] ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hmm, Bill, something in my gut tells me you meant that sardonically. I agree, I think that requiring that kind of specificity is more than a little goofy. When we worked on the SOP here in Washington State, we had to deal with the same question of what was enough to ensure that the inspector has produced a record that is good enough to protect the consumer, as well as provide the inspector sufficient information such that the inspector can, if necessary, form a pretty good mental picture of the home and the home's systems in court years later. We all pretty much agreed that knowing the type of material that the supply and waste systems were plumbed with was more important than stuff like faucets and fixtures because faucets and fixtures get changed and replaced easily whereas an entire plumbing system is not so easily replaced. All we require is "The inspector will describe the visible water supply and distribution piping materials; drain, waste and vent materials; water-heating equipment." We left it up to the inspector how he or she describes it. If an inspector is so anal that the inspector wants to describe every single fixture and faucet in detail, so be it, but all that's required is to describe the piping materials and the water heating equipment. OT - OF!!! M.

Various other opinions on this topic. Apparently the alga is a bacteria and not a fungi. One article talks about how bacterie a stimulated by limestone. Interesting stuff - lots of different opinions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloeocapsa_magma http://www.askthebuilder.com/082_Black_ ... gles.shtml http://www.gaf.com/Content/Documents/111115.pdf http://horace.wikidoc.org/index.php/Gloeocapsa_magma http://www.inspect-ny.com/roof/Shingle_Algae_Stains.htm http://ezinearticles.com/?Natural-Ferti ... id=1459239 All you have to do is examine a roof with severe alga streaking on it out here to understand what I'm talking about. There is most certainly a difference in the flexibility of the shingles and the granule coating is almost always thinner where the alga is concentrated - even without moss. Still convinced the alga, moss and lichen does damage roof covers here - don't know how it performs elsewhere. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi, Zinc straps are a waste of money. They work for a few feet but after that their effectiveness weakens. If you want them to be effective, you need to install them every few feet. Moss and algae, like humans, use acid to consume their meal - oxalic acid - the same stuff one would use to clean concrete. If it's powerful enough to etch concrete....? There are alga that literally eat limestone and some roof manufacturers use limestone granules in their protective granular coatings. If moss and alga couldn't harm roofs, why would roof manufacturers go to the extent of developing alga-resistant shingles? Surely not just to keep the roof looking pretty - anyone can do that with a roof cleaning solution; it's not necessary to spend untold millions developing alga resistant formulations. I'm not a chemist, but after many years of looking at what moss and alga do to asphalt covers, I'm convinced there is good cause to get both off the roof. Where moss grows and is ignored, the granules easily separate from the shingles along with the moss when the roof is eventually cleaned. I've noticed that there is a noticeable corresponding hardening or brittleness of the shingle material where the moss grows. I've noticed the same hardening where alga stains are left unattended for extended periods of time. Roofing shingle manufacturers can call it "cosmetic" all they want - my experience has shown that it's not just cosmetic and I'm convinced it's bad for the cover. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

On August 7th, some proposed rule changes to the Illinois Home Inspector License Act (68 Ill. Adm. Code1410) were published in the the 2009 Illinois Register (Rules of Government Agencies). According to the preamble to the proposed changes: "the proposed amendments are intended to further clarify various aspects of the original rules, including: Standards of Practice, Grounds for Discipline, Education Provider Application; Requirements, and Pre-License Course Curriculum. Section 1410.10 is amended by adding additional definitions pertaining to education. Section 1410.100 was made consistent with the operation for other agency professions and the Licensing Division relating to exam time frames being only 1 year to make application after examination. Section 1410.160 is amended to provide mandatory courses and elective courses for continuing education practices. Section 1410.200, Standards of Practice, is amended for clarification purposes regarding residential components of inspections. Section 1410.300 was amended for the safety of the general public by allowing a Licensee to share any crucial information stemming from a home inspection that may pose a danger. The amendments also include numerous non-substantive changes, including changing references throughout the entire Part from "OBRE" to "IDFPR" "OBRE" to "Division" and "Commissioner" to "Director" to reflect the consolidation of agencies into the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation and the creation of the Division of Professional Regulation. To see the proposed changes, click here. Interested parties have 45 days from publication to respond if they wish for their comments to be considered. Comments should be sent to: Department of Financial and Professional Regulation Attention: Craig Cellini 320 West Washington, 3rd Floor Springfield, IL 62786 Phone: 217/785-0813 Fax: 217/557-4451

Yeah, Even here where the oldest house is only 109 years old we have toilets in basements - usually basements of homes where there is an estate sale and lots of evidence that grandpa was a do-it-yourselfer and plunked that toilet square over what had been the basement floor drain. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi, I had an ufer yesterday where the rebar extends up through a hole drilled in the sill and the SGC is clamped to the SGE just above the sill in the crawlspace. First one I've had of those. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi, The file name looks wrong. There are gaps and apostrophes there. Kurt, go into your files, rename them without the gaps and special symbols and then go into that post, edit it and replace the current links with the renamed ones. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

March and July of '07? OT - OF!!! M.

Common Sense? I dunno, If we started writing stud cavity and floor joist return plenums out here we'd have to write them up on about 95% of new construction. That doesn't seem to make any sense, let alone be common sense. I can understand recommending upgrades that will fix stuff that's a violation of the code that we'd consider dangerous; but I don't understand why we'd want to start trying to impose our own quality standards on stuff that complies with the codes - no matter how loopy we think the thing they've done is. As long as there is blocking there and it's in compliance, it's allowed and I wouldn't call it. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Cite the NEC, chapter and verse and prove that it is a nationwide rule and not just a local rule. So far, you've failed to do that when requested. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi John, Haven't a clue, really. I ran into it a few years ago when a code guy gigged the panel in one of my clients' homes. The client called to tell me about it. I remember calling someone downtown to confirm it was true 'cuz I didn't believe my client had the right information and 'cuz I see them spliced all the time. I don't call them. As far as I'm concerned, they're allowed by the NEC and I'm not a code enforcement guy. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

OK, Maybe ;you can in Springfield, IL. That doesn't mean that one "rarely" sees #14 in new builds for the rest of the country. In fact, that would be an outright lie here. Show it to me in the NEC and please cite it chapter and verse. Let me give you an example of why I'm skeptical and why I'm being so insistent on this: The NEC does not prohibit splicing grounded (neutral) conductors inside the panel, however, the city of Seattle does. Now, if I see neutrals spliced in a panel in the a house on the north side of N. 145th St. which is Shoreline (houses on the other side of that street are Seattle) and I make the blanket statement that "most jurisdications" don't allow neutrals to be spliced inside the panel, or I say that one "rarely" sees grounded conductors spliced in panels, and I do it based on what the City of Seattle says, then I'm spreading inspectorlore. I'm essentially lying to my client because I'm basing it on one little segment of what I've seen and I don't know for a fact that what I'm alleging is actually true. I think this is what you are doing. I don't think you're doing it intentionally, but I think you're doing it nonetheless and it's simply not good form. Since you say it's there, please show it to us chapter and verse from the NEC. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

I don't see a service grounding conductor anywhere below that meter. If it's configured as a sub, the main disconnect and service grounding conductor and electrode should all be at the same place, no? Where does the lateral originate? Is it possible that it's a rural property with a single main disconnect on the side of a pole far from the meter and the sub-panels? The plastic case in the second photo looks like a telephone interface. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Huh? You "peel" back the siding? How do you do that? OT - OF!!! M.

It might be some kind of form oil residue that's organic and is discoloring. I'd have them clean the concrete wall with a diluted (1:20) muriatic acid/water solution, neutralize it with TSP, rinse it down with water and then I'd wait to see if the spots reappear. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Do you have any documentation to back up that assertion? - Jim Katen, Oregon Yes, the NEC allows for only, and only #14 to be protected by no greater then a 15 amp breaker. Um, not that part, the part about how #14 can only be used for lighting and not for outlets. - Jim Katen, Oregon Most jurisdictions are going that route, to allow for not overloading the circuit, and to set a standard. With everything being used in homes these days, #14 should not even be on a circuit going to receptacles.Now I've got a problem with the "most" jurisdictions part. Where did you get that from? I've never heard it and I can't remember ever hearing it from Doug Hansen. Is this something you learned in some home inspector school? Might you be fostering another unsubstantiated piece of inspectorlore? Please elaborate. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

How about 400-4 Romex not suitable as flexible cord? OT - OF!!! M.