hausdok

Picky, picky, Add 2ft. to the chord you end up with 180" or 15' Add 13" to either end of that 50' structure and you end up with 52'2". Round it up to 52.25' or 627 inches long. 180" x 627" = 112860" on one side. Multiply it by the two planes and you've got 225,720 inches or 1567.5 sq. ft. (raw). Toss the vents - negligible. Figure the area taken up by the chimney at the ridge by calculating the chord: run = 12 inches rise = 4 you get 12.649 inches. Round it up to 13" times the length, which is 36", and you get 468 sq. in. or 3.25 square feet. Double that and you end up with 7.5 sq. ft. Deduct the 7.5 sq.ft. from the raw roof area of 1567.5 and you get exactly 1560 square feet of roof area. Multiply the area of the roof by the amount of rainfall during the time that you want to calculate, then multiply that by 623 and divide by 1000. For the example above I used .4 inch over the past hour. 1560 x .4 = 624 624 x 623 = 388752 Divided by 1000 and ignoring evaporation, you get 388 gals and 3 quarts of water, give or take a few ounces. I ain't even gonna bother trying to re-figure the other one, 'cuz you gotta figure worst case. You're evil Les. I can see that now. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi, There's a mathematical formula used to calculate roof runoff for cisterns. It's based on a simple formula and some givens. The givens being 1 inch of water on a 1,000 square foot roof will produce 623 gallons of water. Calculate the yield of your roof by multiplying the square footage of your roof by 623 and divide by 1000. For Les's 1300 square foot home, you need to know the width and length of the home, in addition to the rise and run, and then the amount of rainfall during the period you want to measure (something you can get from the local weather guy.). Use the length and width of the house and the rise to calculate the total square footage of the cover. Let's say the house is 50ft. long by 26ft. wide to get the 1300 square feet. To keep it simple, we'll assume there are no overhanging eaves. To get the total area of the roof you either get up there and measure it or you calculate it using the rise (52 inches) and run (13ft) for each half. Convert them both to inches and you get a 52 inch rise by a 156 inch run. Take the square of the rise (24336), add it to the square of the run (2704) and you get 27,040. Take the square root of that and you get 164.43 inches or 13.7ft or 13ft. 8.4 inches. Round that up to 13'9" or 13.75ft. and you've got the chord of one half of the roof from the eave to the ridge. Multiply the length (50) by the width (13.75) and then double it to get your total roof area (1375 ft.). Now take the area of the cover (1375) and multiply it by the amount of rainfall. Lets say for our example that it rained .4 inches over the past hour and we want to know how much water that produced. 1375 x .4 = 550. Now multiply that number by 623 to get 342,650 and then divide it by 1,000 and you should have the amount of water that drains off the roof during the past hour, which is 342.65 gallons. Another formula that I have assumes that 12 inches of rain produces 5 gallons of water per square foot and you have to measure the roof across the flat - not the pitched surface. So, assuming 1300 sf at 5 gallons per square foot, you've got 6500 gallons for a foot of rainfall or 541.66 gallons per inch of rainfall. Since only .4 inches fell in the past hour, you're looking at 541.66 x .4 = 216.66 gallons. So, which one would you guys go with? Les, what's the length and width of that 1300 square foot rambler and how far does the roof overhang extend beyond the exterior walls? Warning, I'm a math idiot and calculations of any sort just make my head explode. Don't be surprised if someone whose better at math than I am finds these calcs rife with errors. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

It happens from time to time. I do them, charge what I would for the normal inspection, because the liability is increased, and I exclude anything that I needed to have the power on to check and couldn't. If they want me to come back after the power is on, I consider it a reinspection. Since I charge by the hour at twice my normal hourly rate for reinspections, including travel time to and from site and for any additional paperwork that needs to be done, that can easily cost as much as a full inspection. Given the traffic snarls we have around here, I don't get called for a lot of reinspections. Suits me fine. I'm not very sympathetic to their plight when this happens, because the agent should have done his or her job, coordinated with the listing agent, and made sure the home was fully prepared for inspection before I was ever called. I always make sure to impress this upon my clients beforehand, and more than once the agents have borne the cost of the reinspections. This is a professional discipline - not a service trade. All you've got to sell is your time and knowledge. Don't sell it too cheaply and don't let it slide when other professionals involved in the transaction fail to do their part for the client. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi, Just got home. I'll continue poking around tonight and tomorrow and see if I can find it. By the way Bill, the CPSC ban was on lead paint for residential use. That's probably why you're not seeing a ban on production. OT - OF!!! Mike

Al, User names are one way of keeping track of visitors and preventing spammers from accessing one's site. We do it and how much stuff do you receive from TIJ sponsors? If you suspect they're going to do that, why not write them an email and ask them whether that's the case before you scare inspectors away from what could be a great resource for them? OT - OF!!! M.

Hi, Yeah, tomatoes have high levels of phosphates don't they? Planting sunflowers, which have a high level of phosphates, around a home was one of the methods taught in that course to clean up the soil. Seems they will pull the lead right out of the soil somehow because the phosphate and lead molecules bind to one another. Apparently, 2 - 3 years after planting them around a home the lead level in soil will substantially drop. It's also why TSP and rags soaked in TSP are the preferred cleaning agent. ToO complicated for my pea-sized brain but I'll accept it until someone tells me it's hogwash and can prove it to be inaccurate. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi, Still digging around. In all of my lead stuff I found a 4-page informational paper entitled Lead Issues that, close as I can tell, I wrote in 1997. Danged if I can remember writing it, but it reads like I wrote it. I'd cited a few sources that are here in my office and I'd included a paragraph in there about what I would charge for lead inspections, along with my name and phone number, so it was definitely written by me. It's apparent that I'd written it to be used as a handout, so I guess it's something that I used to hand out to clients, but I can't remember writing it. Jeez, and I just turned 55. Man, if that isn't a sign of early onset Alzheimer's, what is? Looks like I'll have the intellect of a turnip by the time I'm 65. Oh well, some of my teachers in high school were convinced I was that way back in the 60's, so what's the dif? I'd turn it into an article or a download document at TIJ, except that, since I can't remember writing it, I can't be sure that 100% of it is written in my own words and I don't want anyone to later accuse me of plagiarism. Tell you what, I'll re-write it, update a couple of paragraphs and eliminate the paragraph that explains what I'll charge for lead inspections, and e-mail it to anyone that thinks they'll have a use for it. Just PM me to let me know that you want it and I'll try to get it re-written in a day or two. While doing this digging, I have noticed a common thread - that the federal register and just about every government document cites the CPSC banning of lead paint in 1978 but also states that the odds of finding lead in homes built before 1980 are high, which tells me that I definitely didn't dream this up. There has to be a basis for those statements, or else the feds would be saying before 1978. Still on the hunt. The guy who taught the course was a fellow named Derek Lynn from a company called Enviro-Vision Inc. He's an Environmental Engineer, and OSHA approved instructor and an accredited trainer with the State of Illinois. Maybe the best way to track this down would be to shoot him an email. I'll do that and let you guys know what I get. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi Bill, I found it. It comes from the Basic Guide To Environmental Inspections, a publication of the Environmental Assessment Association. It's 2 lines on page 43. "Lead paint regulations were not issued until 1977 and any paint manufactured after that date should not contain harmful amounts of lead. However, the use of lead paint was not prohibited until 1980." I still don't know where I read the discussion about existing inventories but it's indelibly printed on my memory, so it must have come from somewhere. I'll keep looking. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi Bill, I've got that somewhere here. About 8 years ago, while I was still a member of the Environmental Assessment Association, I took a lead inspection class put on by some fellow from Kurt's state that certified me for doing lead inspections in Illinois of all places. I've still got that literature someplace around here. I'll see if I can't dig it up tomorrow. PM me your fax number and when I find it I'll shoot it to you. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi, Manufacturing was banned in 1978 but paint suppliers were allowed to continue selling it until the end of 1980, in order to deplete stocks. It's entirely possible to have a home built in the early 1980's which has some lead containing paint if a painting contractor, taking advantage of the cheap cost of lead paint, stockpiled paint in late 1980. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi, Guess you didn't see this: http://www.tijonline.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2869 Lots of stuff in the archives guys. You just have to poke around a little bit to find it, using the search feature. OT - OF!!! M.

Darn! And here I thought that television drama where all the balls of light fell to earth was fiction! We're being invaded! To the bunkers! OT - OF!!! M.

Oh! You mean like this gal? Whoooooeeeeeeeeooooooooooooeeeeeeee!!![:-ghost][:-jump][:-ghost][:-jump2][:-ghost][:-jump][:-ghost][:-jump2] OT - OF!!! M.

September 18, 2006; Release #06-259 The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Canon Inc. of Japan, announced a voluntary recall of approximately 800,000 Canon Desktop Copiers. Importer: Canon U.S.A. Inc., of Lake Success, N.Y. Hazard: An improperly fitting electrical connection inside the copiers can cause overheating, smoking and fire. Incidents/Injuries: Canon U.S.A. has received six reports of NP1020 model copiers starting to smoke or catching on fire due to the problem with the electrical connection. No injuries were reported. Description and Models: The repair recall includes only the following model Canon copiers: PC6, PC6RE, PC65, PC7, PC7RE, PC8, PC11, PC11RE, PC12, NP1010 and NP1020. The model number is on the front panel of the unit. The recalled copiers were manufactured between 1987 and 1998. Sold by: Dealers, national retailers and office supply stores nationwide from January 1987 through December 1999 for between $1,500 and $2,300. Manufactured in: Japan and Thailand Remedy: Users should stop using the recalled copiers immediately and contact Canon U.S.A. to receive a free repair. Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Canon U.S.A. at(800) 828-4040 anytime, or visit the firm's web site. To see this recall on CPSC's web site, including pictures of the recalled desktop copiers, 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. To report a dangerous product or a product-related injury, call CPSC's hotline at (800) 638-2772 or CPSC's teletypewriter at (800) 638-8270, or visit CPSC's web site at www.cpsc.gov/talk.html. To join a CPSC email subscription list, please go to www.cpsc.gov/cpsclist.asp. Consumers can obtain this release and recall information at CPSC's Web site at www.cpsc.gov.

Here, Show these to the contractor and tell him/her to pull his/her head out of his/her backside.

No question, The roof-to-wall in both cases should be flashed all the way to the end of the roof with step flashings and there should have been a kickout used at the end where the gutter is. OT - OF!!! M.

Wow, Poor little belt! I never got into the competition because I was unsure about what I'd be doing this month. Still am. Two years ago I dropped 62lbs between June 1st and September 1st and had gained it all back again. About a month ago, my belt just about looked like that one and I had to get the weight off. So, out came the NordicTrack and I've done an hour on it every night except for only 2 nights over the past 4 weeks. I'm down two pants sizes and nearly to the third and I've got one more set of holes before I'll have to switch to my smaller belt. I figure I'll be there in 2 to 3 more weeks. This time I don't stop until total weight loss puts me at the height/weight ratio that I'd have to be at if I were still in the army - 175. OT - OF!!! M.

Huh? That wasn't a reality show where there were two or three groups making a bed was it? I seem to remember seeing something like that and thought it was sort of like the Home Depot version of junkyard wars. OT - OF!!! M.

Hmmm Does anyone know if Jim Katen has ever lived in Knoxville? OT - OF!!! M.

Sorry, Just realized that this was posted to the wrong forum and wasn't showing up. OT - OF!!! M.

It's hard to tell from those photo's, because they're kind of far from the surface material, but it looks like it's a fully-adhered APP modbit torchdown. Not a whole lot of lap there. I'd like to see about 18 to 19 inches but almost nobody does that. What are they patching it with. Was that black goop they used petroleum-based mastic by any chance? I find them doing that all the time around here and that's a huge no-no 'cuz it'll soften up the modbit and cause it to eventually break down. Is that roof crowned so that it drains to both sides or does it drain from only one side? Those are some pretty cheezy parapets and copings at the end of the roof. Don't you get any high winds and rain there? When they do them like that around here they're sure to leak. OT - OF!!! M.

Boston - September 21st The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) is looking for those interested in becoming presenters for its NFPA World Safety Conference & Exposition that will be held in Boston June 3rd through June 7th 2007. The 2007 conference will include educational tracks on: Building and Life Safety necforumâ„¢ Codes & Standards Detection & Suppression Fire and Emergency Response Public Education Disaster Preparedness/Business Continuity Industrial Fire Safety and Security Research Premises Security Home inspectors who have a story, a case study, or a practical method they use that relates to fire, security, electrical, building, or life safety can share their expertise, gain recognition as a thought leader in their field and will have the opportunity to network with more than 4,000 inspection and fire safety professional and be part of the most well-known conference in the fire safety industry. All speakers will receive complimentary registration to the Conference. Those interested in applying need to work fast, because applications must be in by COB on September 15th to be considered for this event. To submit a proposal online, click here or download a PDF of the submission form (411KB). For additional information, contact NFPA via email at nfpa@nfpa.chtah.com or telephone at: 617-770-3000. ####

Someone took a 1990 gas furnace cabinet and made it into a heat pump.Got to love it! Many thanks to Jack Feldman Clayton Inspection Services Inc. Knoxville, TN

Hi Brian, I read another article about this last week. It seems some municipal inspectors in Mississippi are recommending that their municipalities reject permits for these when they don't have the requisite details needed for manufactured home installations. Things like tie-downs and the like when they aren't required. This is because they don't understand what they are and consider them to be manufactured homes. Basically, it's that old mindset that sees modulars as the same thing as double-wides and this causes so much delay and frustration among builders that they can't be bothered with the modular industry. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Atlanta - September 5th With a focus on ease of navigation and new technology, the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) has unveiled its redesigned Web site, www.ASHRAE.org. An improved web site is a cornerstone of fulfilling the Society's new Strategic Plan, which calls for sustainability leadership, world-class educational programs, a raised public profile and global access to technical information.A refined Google-powered search engine has been added, and site visitors will benefit from the site’s 100% uptime and increased speed. The new, simpler design incorporates a technology that will integrate with the new member database that goes live this fall, allowing members to easily access subscription management tools for eLists and newsletters, and account history for events, purchases and dues. "The ASHRAE web site is the key component of the Society's strategy to provide membership service and technical information to the industry,â€