hausdok

Hi, I probably wouldn't have called that. The hub is the threaded object that connects the panels to the steel conduit. Let me ask you this; would you have called it if it were a split-bus panel and found all of the stuff on that left panel on the lower half of the a split-bus panel? You might if you'd seen that many breakers in one panel but you wouldn't have called to have the EGCs and GC's separated on the lower half, right? The two enclosures are joined together by a large conductive piece of metal, essentially making them one enclosure. The feeder is the same as the feeder from the top of a split-bus panel to the bottom half of a split bus panel. That's my take on it, anyway. I already know that Jim and some others here will disagree with me on this. If I were you, I'd listen to them. After all, electricity is definitely my weakest area. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi, Were the two panels connected by a steel conduit and a myers hub? I've always taken the position that unless there is a myers hub and a steel conduit joining the two within an inch or two of each other that the second panel needs to be configured as a sub-panel. I know that others here have always said that anything past the disconnect must be considered a sub-panel, and I agree with that, it's just that I think that the connection between the two steel boxes via the conduit makes them essentially one box. About two weeks ago, I called a sub-panel that had been installed a foot from the main panel/disconnect but without a conduit and myers hub. The electrician who installed it must have figured it was a sub too, because he's isolated the neutrals and grounds from one another and left the bonding strap disconnected. That was a 30-year old sub-panel. Obviously, the idea of separation isn't new. Anyway, instead of a ground bus, he'd twisted all of the EGC's together into a single large stranded cable and screwed a single large ground terminal to the enclosure to terminate his mondo-EGC cable on. Other than that, it was a pretty nice sub. I'm told that there wasn't a peep out of the electrician that came out to correct it. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi, Lots of folks think we shouldn't be checking for recalls at all. They look at calling recalls as sort of like the citing codes thing. There's this myth out there that if you advise someone of one recall but miss another that you'll get sued because you didn't know about the other recall. More inspectorlore; I've been doing it for nearly 12 years and it's never created a problem for me. As for reel-tours doing it - I've never in all that time walked into a kitchen and begun checking serial numbers and then heard from the reel-tour, "Oh, you don't have to do that, I've already done it." Usually, I hear something like, "Really, how do you know?" at which point I allow them to read the recall. It's really not necessary to check back at the office. You can print out every relevant recall, put them in a loose-leaf binder and leave it in your vehicle. Then you only need to carry the kitchen ones around inside your clipboard. It's the very first thing that Yung and I do after I've completed the pre-inspection briefing and gotten the PIA signed; that way, Yung can get on with her end of the inspection. Don't allow reel-tours to tell you what it is that you do. If there is a reel-tour that wants to check recalls, that's fine for that reel-tour, but it doesn't mean that you shouldn't do it at every inspection that you do for that reel-tour's clients. Who knows? You might find something that's recalled which that reel-tour doesn't bother to tell the client about, in which case you'll have discovered that the reel-tour isn't simply a reel-tour but is a reel-tour-zoid and someone you might not want to accept referrals from. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi, I just added photos to the post. OT - OF!!! M.

Washington, D.C./December 13, 2007 - Release #08-136 The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Venmar Ventilation Inc., of Quebec, Canada, today announced a voluntary recall of approximately 1,100 heat recovery ventilators. According to Venmar, the thermal protector in these units can fail, posing a potential fire hazard to consumers. The ventilators were sold at heating, ventilating and air conditioning wholesale distributors, dealers and contractors, and building supply stores nationwide from October 2006 through December 2007 for between $700 and $2,500. The recall involves heat recovery ventilators made between October 2006 and August 2007, and have the following brand names and model numbers: Brand:.................................Models Venmar:...............................40225 Venmar: AVS 457XX, 16016XX, 43XXX, 451XX, 45400, 45709IEH, C32042 Vane:..................................458XX, 16016XX, 43405, 43828, 45405, 45808 Rheem, Ruud, Protech:.............84-ERVXXX, 84-HRVXXX Carrier:................................ERVCCLHU1200, HRVCCLHA1250, HRVCCSVU1200, ERVCCLHU1150,HRVCCLHA1150, HRVCCLVU1150, HRVCCLVU1200, HRVCCSVU1150 Bryant:.................................ERVBBLHU1200, HRVBBLHA1250, HRVBBSVU1200 Broan: ERV200HC, HRV200H, HRV100H No injuries have been reported. Inspectors finding these units should advise consumers to immediately turn off and unplug their ventilators. Consumers should contact Venmar Ventilation to schedule an inspection and repair. For additional information, contact Venmar Ventilationtoll-free at (866) 441-4645 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday throughFriday, or visit the firm's Web site at www.venmar.ca To see this recall on CPSC's web site, including pictures of the recalled products, please click here. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of serious injury or death from more than 15,000 types of consumer products under the agency's jurisdiction. Deaths, injuries and property damage from consumer product incidents cost the nation more than $700 billion annually. The CPSC is committed to protecting consumers and families from products that pose a fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazard or can injure children. The CPSC's work to ensure the safety of consumer products - such as toys, cribs, power tools, cigarette lighters, and household chemicals - contributed significantly to the 30 percent decline in the rate of deaths and injuries associated with consumer products over the past 30 years.

Apparently, The Villages has some real heartburn with home inspectors, because they don't miss a beat with the following.

That's interesting, because Jeffrey May, author of My House Is Killing Me is someone that I would say is very qualified to be doing mold investigations, but his take on the whole mold thing is that it's a quicksand bog for home inspectors just waiting to suck them down. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Yeah, I did something close to that. I once congratulated a reel-tour that I hadn't seen in about 6 months and asked her when the baby was due. Jeez, the expression on her face would have frozen a lake. Then she answered that she wasn't pregnant and asked what had given me that idea. I turn red as a beet when I'm embarrassed. I had to turn away really quick. Never heard from her again! Imagine that! OT - OF!!! M.

Yeah, I think it is, but isn't that breaker approved for two conductors? Looks like either a Square D or Cutler-Hammer type that is. OT - OF!!! M.

Hi, Yeah, it's probably caused by a weed eater, but there's no requirement for you to know what caused the damage. Report it and move on. OT - OF!!! M.

This article from the Camden Advertiser, an Australian newspaper, tells about two balcony collapses that occurred Down Under this past weekend. To read the article, click here.

Hi, It looks fine to me. OT - OF!!! M.

Hi, Yes, it should be repaired. A couple of pieces of tape and one swipe with some mud and it's done. Don't ever second guess yourself and start worrying about whether you're making mountains out of molehills. Just tell the truth. I've seen folks come on here and say that their ultimate obligation is the to the client - others have come on here and said that their ultimate obligation is to the house, of all things (They get that ridiculous notion from the Carson Dunlop texts). I think that our ultimate obligation is to the truth and nothing else. I won't twist the truth to give the buyer more to use against the seller, and I won't modify the truth to make life easier for the seller or in order for the realtor to sell the home more quickly. If they (buyers, sellers, or reel-tours) want to consider it a mountain made from a molehill I couldn't care less. If I write it, in my mind it's a valid deficiency that needs correcting regardless of how small it is. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

No, The question about the shutoff involves 6 throws or less; not two, and it doesn't apply to a sub-panel. That's a sub-panel. You have a single main disconnect at the meter and there is no requirement for a single main disconnect past that. I can't enlarge that photo very well to be able to see if it's properly configured. Are the grounded (neutral) conductors and equipment-grounding conductors (grounds) isolated from one another on separate buses and was the bonding strap, screw, bar, etc. left off so that the neutrals are isolated from the enclosure and the grounds? The question about the shutoff involves 6 throws or less; not two, and it doesn't apply to a sub-panel. OT - OF!!! M.

Welcome to TIJ, Check the file library, links library, and downloads. Go here. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

I'm guessing that it's an A-frame hooch with metal roofing oriented the wrong way on the roof/walls. OT - OF!!! M.

Give me a brreak! Now they don't allow you to comment about insulation on an internet forum used by home inspectors! You're kidding, right? OT - OF!!! M.

Really? I'd sure like to see the stats on that, 'cuz I've never heard of it happening. In fact, I think that a steel separation plate or guy connected directly to a vent would transmit more heat to the adjacent wood than fiberglass, which is as you say a poor conductor, can. That's a different topic, though. This one is about the insulation. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

OK, I'll take another shot at it. If you install batt insulation on the bottom of the joists you've got a gap between the top of the insulation and the underside of the floors. If any air is leaking into that enclosed joist bay from below the insulation the insulation is useless and the money spent on it was wasted. The only way to make insulation installed on the underside of the joists work is to seal the edges of the insulation 100% where it's attached to the underside of the joists and at the ends of the rafter bay in order to create a large dead air space. To work, no air from the other side of the floor, the ends of the joist bays or below the insulation can be allowed to get in there. What's the likelihood of achieving that? Even if they try to achieve that, they end up bringing the joist bay partly into the conditioned space of the house. Now, moisture-laden air that's moving from warm to cold and moist to dry is going to pass through that joist bay and attempt to move through the insulation. In doing so, that moisture-laden air will cool to dewpoint as it nears the vapor barrier (cold) side of the incorrectly installed insulation and it will condense inside the insulation and drip onto the paper below. Since there's very little air movement there to remove the moisture, you've created an ideal environment for growing mold. Okay, so what's with the 75% effective? Well, if your installer orients the insulation correctly, with the vapor barrier side against the underside of the flooring, but does a poor job and only manages to get 10% of the insulation snug against the underside of the floor, then the insulation will only be 10% effective at doing what it's supposed to be doing. Even that, might do more good than installing insulation upside down on the undersides of joists with a huge air gap between the insulation and the floor above. If he manages to get 75% of it placed correctly, than it's 75% effective. If he does a really good job and ensures that 100% of it is placed neatly and snuggly against the floor, then it will be 100% effective at doing what it's supposed to be doing. However, don't get this confused with R-value and insulating efficiency. I'm talking about installation effectiveness - that's a horse of another color and deals with how efficient the insulation is at resisting heat loss. You could still have only 75% of the floors correctly insulated to, say, R19, and you might still save more energy than an identical home where 100% of the floors are correctly insulated with R11, because the amount of heat saved over that 75% area is greater than the amount saved in the other house. We're only talking about installation technique and the effectiveness of it here. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi Scott, I personally wouldn't be concerned seeing fiberglass wool from batting against K & T. Think about it, the insulation is not flammable; it's fiberglass, it has air circulating around it that will cool it quite quickly. In fact, it will probably draw more heat off the wire than cause the wiring to overheat. I've seen a lot of fiberglass installed against recessed ceiling fixtures and up against exhaust vents over the years and have always touched it to see just how hot it actually gets. It's never more than luke warm because it cools so rapidly with all of the air that moves through it. I'd say the same thing about rockwool. On the other hand, there are other insulations that I think will cause it to overheat, such as SilvaWool and Cellulose and I can't imagine that any foamed-in-place stuff would do it much good either. More than once, I've crawled through attics with blown-in cells, encountered a warm spot on the cells, scraped it back and found a K & T splice that was overheating and had charred the surrounding cells. Thank goodness for the borate that the cells is treated with. Oh, by the way; here's a shocking bit of news - there are literally hundreds of thousands of homes around here with insulation covering the K & T wiring. The PUD even had an inspection program in place when they were soundproofing the homes around the airport. They'd send electrical inspectors out to look at the K & T. Those inspectors would then, depending on its condition, either approve or disapprove covering the K & T with blown-in cells and post a certificate right there in the attic giving the work crews permission to cover it. Pretty bizarre, huh? ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Yes, If the insulation were turned the wiring would be ok. The insulation must be installed with the barrier side against the floor, not just facing the floor. It does absolutely no good to install insulation on the underside of joists unless you can completely seal it around it's entire perimeter so that no air can cycle through the cavity. Short of gluing it in place at 100% of its perimeter; there's no way you can get paper-backed batting sealed at 100% of the edge. So, batts installed on the underside of the floors with the paper facing away from the floor are not only a fire hazard and liable to produce a surface where moisture can condense, they provide almost no insulation, whereas, even if you've only got 75% of the surface of the insulation snug against the floor, it's being 75% effective, isn't likely to trap moisture, and it doesn't present a fire hazard versus almost none with the batts installed on the bottom of the joists. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

John, I could agree with that premise if it wasn't ZD Net that was reporting it. They have some of the best information about computers and the net. Besides, the article didn't say that it's pending - only that these particular groups advocate it and folks need to be aware of that. OT - OF!!! M.

Sure, When he gets around to updating it. He didn't say when that would be. However, I shouldn't think it will be too long. Once Douglas gets a bit in his teeth he's not stopping till he gets there. OT - OF!!! M.

FWIW, I heard from Douglas about this the other night. He's going to update his FPE paper to included the court developments and research that have been done since he first wrote it. Once that's done, I think it will be all a home inspector needs to shine a light on the motives of the pinheads. OT - OF!!! M.

Fixed OT - OF!!! M.