hausdok

Hi Douglas, It's good to see you once more stopping by, Old Friend. How's married life treating you? Hope we see more of you. ONE TEAM -ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Are you saying that the following is at the top of the electrical section... and this is at the bottom....? Marc No, There is a fine print paragraph that says: In accordance with the Washington State Home Inspectors’ Standard of Practice pertaining to Electrical Systems, this report describes the amperage and voltage rating of the service, the location of the main disconnect and any sub panel(s), the presence of solid conductor aluminum branch circuit wiring and the absence of smoke detectors. Inspectors are required to inspect the viewable portions of the service drop from the utility to the house, the service entrance conductors, cables and raceways, the service equipment and main disconnects, the service grounding, the interior components of the service panels and sub panels, the conductors, the over-current protection devices (fuses or breakers), ground fault circuit interrupters and a representative number of installed lighting fixtures, switches and receptacles. At the end of the section, before moving into the heating systems section, there is another fine print paragraph that states: Inspectors are NOT required to inspect any remote control devices (unless such device is the only means of control), alarm systems and associated components and controls, low-voltage wiring systems or components or any ancillary wiring, systems or components that are not part of the primary power distribution system. We are also NOT required to measure amperage draw, line voltage or ground impedance. These paragraphs are justified in very small bold arial font and are very innocuous. They are so small, in fact, that four lines of the fine print only takes up the space of two lines of 11 font normal text and they take up about 20% of the space that the size 1 fond takes up in here. One almost doesn't realize they are there; but I think that they will be powerful ammunition if I'm ever in a situation where a client claims not to have known what was inspected or the limitations of the inspection. As Kurt says, I work at it. It's simple risk management done in such a way that a client never complains to a friend that the report was cluttered with disclaimers or that I spent half of my time ducking questions. It needs to start from first contact. I warn them up front on the phone before the inspection to expect to be there a long time 'cuz I only have two speeds - slow and careful. I direct them up front to the state website to confirm my license number and to review our SOP and code of ethics before the inspection. On site I go over the contract with them and explain my take on it before I allow them to read it and sign it; and I make sure they know that they can review the rulebook at any time during the inspection and ask as many questions as they want. I don't hurry when the agents start fretting about their other appointments they need to get to; I simply tell them I'll be done when I get done and not before, and tell them to get on the phone and get someone to cover it for them or leave me and the client alone. Most know better than to argue with me or to try and hurry me; those who don't learn real quick why I'm considered to be somewhat of a curmudgeon. I am, after all, being paid to answer clients' question about the house. Then, once the report is sent over to the client the rules are plainly displayed on an exclusions and limitations page as well as in every section of the report. As I write this, I realize that it sounds like an overwhelming amount of disclaimers and weasely stuff, but the fact is that it's done in such as low key way both in person and in the report that clients don't seem to be aware that their expectations have been managed from the minute they've contacted me. It would be very hard for any client to ever accuse me of not tellling them up front, during the process or after the process what I'll do for them, what I won't do for them, and what to do about it in the event they ever think I've screwed them over. I don't get phone calls asking why I didn't inspect the....... ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHTJ!!! Mike

Hi, I knew of the former lawsuits. I was involved with inspecting 15 homes that Quadrant bought back from their owners as a result of that former suit. They weren't any better or any worse than any other home around here. In that case, the drywall contractor had allegedly put up the ceiling in the garage before the duct feeding heat to rooms above the garage were installed and connected to their boots and the air from the furnace had been blowing through insulated joist bays to those rooms and folks had been breathing fiberglass dust and their lungs had become irritated. The mold claims sensationalize the issue more but don't really add to the merits of the case. Saying there is mold in the air of those homes is like saying there is sand in the desert. This complainant in one of these articles that is not running his furnace and is living in a cold house in one room, because he thinks that the furnace is contributing to the mold growth, is putting his family at more risk than if he used the furnace. By stuffing his family into one stuffy unventilated room he's basically dumping large amounts of moisture into that room and that will cause the mold spore that is already there and ever-present in the air around all of us here to explode in growth. As Bugs Bunny would say, "What a maroon!" ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi, I reference the standards in the contract and have the URL to the state website printed in the footer at the bottom of the contract on both sides. The paragraph referencing them states: The home inspection will be performed in accordance with the scope and standards of the Washington State Home Inspector's Standard of Practice. The standards are viewable on the Washington Department of Licensing website. Any other warranties, expressed or implied are excluded. The note in the footer states: (Got questions about home inspection standards and your rights? - Go to http:///www.dol.wa.gov/business/homeinspectors/) I carry a copy of the home inspection law pamphlet inside my clipboard. I show it to the client before the inspection and tell the client that if he or she has any questions they are welcome to look at it and that they can download their own copy from the state website after the inspection. The SOP is reinforced in every section of the report. There is a fine print note in #8 font at the top of every section that begins, "In accordance with the Washington State Home Inspectors Standard of Practice......," and spells out what I must look at and report on in that section. At the end of the observations part of each section a similar note begins, "Home inspectors are not required to.....," and lists all of the stuff we aren't required to inspect that folks sometimes think we are required to inspect. These notes take up almost no room. I suspect that folks probably skim right past them to the meat of the matter; but from a risk management standpoint I think it's important to have a situation where it's obvious that a customer has multiple opportunities before, during and after the entire process to review the standards, ask questions and get any concerns addressed immediately. Works for me. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

I'm thinking he didn't copy out the month letter and transposed the model and serial number - because the serial number should be 9 digits -, which would make it a 1986 unit. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi, Don't know if any of you have seen them, but we have a few U.S. Army Engineer School correspondence courses in the TIJ library. One is about installing electrical boxes, and the other is about about grounding systems. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Here's damage from blocked weeps in veneer on the house I did yesterday. The one with the falling arches. They'd piled mulch against the bottom of the wall and water was basically trapped and backing up behind the veneer and then overflowed the flashings and caused the sheathing behind the veneer to rot all along the bottom. Click to Enlarge 64.2 KB Click to Enlarge 44.3 KB ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi, It's all original. There are very large beams with substantial posts in the garage carrying the weight of the room above and the roof structures that abut that are trusses. There really isn't any deflection along the top of the door; the brickwork just couldn't hold itself up because there isn't enough arc to let that keystone do what it's supposed to. I think you're right, the veneer would have failed sooner or later without the quake. Hell, for all I know it lasted fine through the Nisqually quake and failed later, but I don't think so, given the other shake damage I found. A mystery; Animal scat of some sort found in the attic in about half a dozen places and it was obvious that whatever it was had been lying down in the insulation. The owners claim to have never had a cat and I couldn't find anyplace on the exterior that a racoon or 'possum could have gotten in there. Tweren't any rat or deer mouse unless it had been the size of a small dog. Hell, I've got a small dog; he's split himself in half creating something that large. Damndest thing I've seen in a while. Hope whatever it was didn't tunnel under that loose fill and expire someplace. I took my mask off and sniffed around, I couldn't detect anything like the smell of a carcass. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

The brick is only supporting it's own weight above the door and I'm certain that part of that weight is born by the wall ties. Nonetheless, if not for that piece of 5/4 that's been forced into a bend beneath the arch, I think this all would have fallen down by now. I'm pretty certain the nisqually quake just sped up the process and that it would inevitably have occurred anyway. I found a nice racking crack over an archway between the family room and kitchen; and the wall of the laundry room, which abuts the garage, had been knocked out of plane far enough, and then bounced back, to leave several nice rows of nail pops and cracked seams between wallboard. Nope, not a car collison; just severe rumba-itis. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Kind of shook my head over this one. Nice home. The mason decided to use actual keystones in the brick veneer. As you can see in the photos, the arches over the windows are not that high but the one's over the overhead doors are ridiculously shallow. Still, our intrepid mason soldiered on. I'm guessing that the Nisqually quake in 2001 jarred this loose. Click to Enlarge 51.13 KB Click to Enlarge 30.11 KB Click to Enlarge 52.94 KB Click to Enlarge 47.1 KB Click to Enlarge 35.57 KB Middle Crack Click to Enlarge 41.28 KB Larger view - middle crack Click to Enlarge 41.95 KB Left Corner Click to Enlarge 34.97 KB Right Corner ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Yeah, I've been writing up cast masonry veneer on every house its installed on and sending copies of that best practices guide to the clients along with the report for a little over a year now. Sure don't get many arguments from 'zoids or builders when they're presented with that document. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi, Well yeah, Jim Simmons does say above that it is legal, just not the best idea in the world. Not in so many words but that's what I take away from it. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

That positive thinking might work. The lady that won half of the mega-lotto in Idaho says that she'd made a point of going to sleep each night while envisioning herself holding the winning ticket. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi Jim, He knows I was going to post his quiz on TIJ; so maybe Jim will stop by to see how folks are responding and he'll chime in. Brandon, I've got a couple ideas. Let me see what I can do about scrounging up a weekly quiz by a plumbing expert. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi All, Amprobe has just posted a short video to this promotion. http://amprobe.gcsmarket.com/amp_ps.asp ... ok@msn.com OT - OF!!! M.

Good morning everyone. OK, here are Jim's answers: There are several issues. 1) The feeder wires (from the breaker in the main panel to the sub-panel) are not in conduit. You can see it by following the 2 wires off the circuit breaker (in the main panel) to the bottom of the panel. This is should always be called out. 2) The wires feeding the sub-panel are not properly grouped (there are 3). They are required to all run together in one conduit or cable. 3) The feeder requires a neutral to be run with the other wires (there should be 4 wires). The neutral is required to be there even though all the circuits are for heat (240v) and don't need the neutral. The neutral (white wire) would be floated in the panel (not connected to the grounds or the enclosure). A two wire feed plus a ground is actually legal if there are only 240v loads (as in this case), but 99.9% of the time the panel is also used for 120v, so it's best not to judge it based on whether it's only a 240v load. The best thing to understand is that the normal way for these circuits to be installed is with a four wire feed. 4) There is a clearance issue with the sub panel (needs 3' of clear space in front of the panel). Not a huge issue for this situation because you do have reasonable access and it is existing. A few notes. 1) No main breaker is required in a sub-panel (as long as it is in the same building). 2) You should always see the 4 wire feed in conduit or in one cable (look at where the wires leave or enter the panel) 3) If you have a question (electrical) while looking at a job give me a call on my cell 360-280-8346 or office 360-705-4225 Happy inspecting! Jim P. Simmons Mr. Electric

Happened to think about this thread today while I was up on a roof and took a few snaps of one of the clamps I described above. It's the most common type of service drop feed-through clamp I see here. Click to Enlarge 56.77 KB Click to Enlarge 63.58 KB Click to Enlarge 41.27 KB Click to Enlarge 36.45 KB ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

OK, Well, I was looking around their site and they do have training partnerships with various entities. I'm not sure that TIJ would count as an entity but perhaps we can figure something out. I noted last week at that other training that they'd alliled with that energy auditor association or whatever it is and that it nets a 20% price reduction on Fluke products. What about a level I IR course taught here by the Snell group - the outfit they contract training to - that included an IR imager? Attendees arrive, get issued their imagers and then go through the 3-4 days of training and head home. If it could be done at a decent price would folks who're thinkinb about making the leap be willing to commit to that? ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi Guys, Look, I'm real sorry about the size of the photos but that's the size he gave me. Here's what I suggest you do; open the photos, right click them and then save them on your own computer, open them and then blow them up to your heart's content. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Screw the factory tour! How's about a training day like at Watts? The Watts thing was, what, 2-1/2 days? They make a product and build a system that we get to inspect. Fluke and Amprobe don't make a product we get to inspect. They do make infrared imagers, though. Is that what you are thinking about? I guess before we approached them about it I'd like to know how many folks would be interested in participating locally and how many would be willing to fly in from other parts of the country, like we did when we went out to Springfield for the Watts gig, and what they'd like to learn. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi, Yeah, I see that. I think I've fixed them. He sent those to me in something called Silverlight and it took me a long time to figure out how to convert them to JPEG. Hope this works. I don't get the Brett Favre reference. Maybe it's because I don't follow football or watch celebrity gossip programs. Maybe it's 'cuz I'm too dim witted. It's probably the latter. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi All, Jim Simmons - user name Mr. Electric - has sent me some photos for the brethren to look at. This is a quiz and is meant to help educate the newer folks. Vets - let's call vets those with more than five years experience - instead of jumping in to flex your muscles and display your electical prowess, how about not responding for a while and give the newer folks time to try and figure this out; say, until about 6:00 pm PST? If by then we haven't had any comments or nobody thinks they've figured it out, then all veteran inspectors can jump in and have at it. I'll publish Jim's answers tomorrow. -------------------------- Question: The sub-panel depicted in the photos below is wrong. Besides the fact that these panels are Zinsco brand panels, what exactly are the issues if any that you can see here? Click to Enlarge 38.06 KB[/size=1 Click to Enlarge 49.56 KB Click to Enlarge 51.33 KB Thanks Jim!!! ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Something I learned at that IR seminar last week - Amprobe was apparently acquired by Fluke. I knew that their manufacturing facilities were both located in Everett, WA but I guess I just didn't make the connection. One of these days I'm going to try and wrangle a factory tour. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Tell her that's fine except that Mike Holmes is not a real home inspector. Point out that the budget for what he does is funded by a television network, not by Holmes' pocketbook, and that you'll be very happy to use an infrared camera if His Majesty, Mr. Holmes, wants to donate one to your company for your use. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Very common in Europe. OT - OF!!! M.