roadguy

HI, I have replaced many of the fixtures in my home with compact fluorescents (CF). I started replacing first in high usage areas. They do save a noticeable amount of energy (as reflected in utility bills), but... 1)Turning them on/off on a daily basis drastically shortens the life, 2) the light is "different" (my wife's word) and you may need to go up a size in replacing (e.g. using a CF that compares to a 75 watt instead of a 60 watt), and 3) check out the "disposal method". Many CF's contain levels of mercury that require them to be disposed of at a proper facility. We could be trading one environmental problem for another. [:-crazy]

Kinda depends on the model/type of heat pump. Some manufacturers use one motor to turn both fans (there is a window unit in my office that is that way). If that is the case, even though the resistance heating is working, there won't be any air moving across the coils. Bad situation, either way. Needs immediate attention.

Hi, Les said... Amen, Brother Les. And why, praytell, has this come about? Well, Chris said... Righteous, Brother Chris, absolutely righteous. And why is it that Joe Homeowner would be concerning themselves with such things? Could it be that they do not perceive any uniformity in the practice of the profession (if they even look upon it as a profession)? Could it be that they have not perceived any value in the esoteric "standards" of organizations such as ASHI, NACHI, et al? And, the biggest question of all, will the focus of this profession be to 1)take the path of least resistance and simply "fall back" on standards/codes/instructions established by others, reciting them ad nauseum, or 2)actually evaluate the home/building in a systematic manner, using the s/c/i's as guidelines to ascertain whether or not these various systems are "functioning as intended", and then communicate that evaluation in a professional manner? And the congregation says...?

Hi, I think maybe what Scott was trying to say is that there is a difference between "inspecting" to code/standards versus "enforcing" those codes/standards. The difference between those two concepts should mean a difference in the language/tone used in the report (which contains advice, using words such as "should" and "ought") as compared to a code inspection (which will contain mandates, using words such as "shall" and "must"). Is that somewhere close, Scott?

Hi Chad, My sincere apologies if you felt I somehow intended that comment for you. That was not the case at all. It was actually intended for any who might be new or just looking for some clarification. The explosive use of the WWW as a research tool has, unfortunately, not been accompanied by a corresponding push to maintain ethics regarding the use of the vast amount of information found there (although I do see some progress being made). There is a whole crop of young folks coming out of school (high school and college alike) who don't seem to comprehend the difference between repeating a concept and out-right plagiarism. Again, I don't believe that applies at all to you, or the process that you have described, and apologize for any implication of such. [:-paperba Glad to hear that you're not having to tunnel out of your house with a spoon right now! [:-slaphap

Mike, Thanks for the clarification. That's kinda what I figgered. Just wanted to emphasize... that Copy/Paste does not satisfy either of those concepts, convenient as it may be when one is rushing to complete the report.

Chad, Oh, man. Now you've done it. [xx(] Actually, though, in all seriousness, I've been kinda wondering how much that legal notice (in the HOME dropdown menu above) applies to paraphrasing on answers given here on TIJ. Mike, any thoughts/clarifications?

Yes. As in "It is spelled consequences, not consequenses". I was attempting to parry a "98 No" response with a gentle admonition to use the (free!!) spell-check function. [:-slaphap

Jim, Thanks for making yourself perfectly clear. I wasn't advocating that point of view; I was trying to explain it to a person unfamiliar with the situation. And it's consequences. Clear enough?

Really. I don't dispute the latter portion of that statement; a cursory glance at the Table of Contents of the book is enough to convince me of that. I do, however, feel there is a need of a technical guide that pertains to this particular profession. Consider the following, please: That deliberate bit of misinformation survived exactly 1h:31m:47s on this forum (BTW, thanks, Bob), and I'm very confident that he wasn't the first/only to catch it. It's not simply a matter of grammar/spelling/punctuation; the inspection report is a document that needs to survive factual, logical, and, at times, even legal scrutiny. The inspector is required to write like a lawyer (without the benefit of using "legalese"), an engineer (without using so much techno-jargon that the client doesn't comprehend), a reporter (who can't simply print a "retraction" in case of a factual error), and, all the while, write in an "interesting" active voice (without resorting to the out-right lies of political pundits). Given the litigious nature of our society, it is no wonder, then, that most choose to employ proven "boilerplate" language delivered in a (very) passive voice, and I sincerely doubt that there will be a great number who will be willing to give up that security for the sake of being more "interesting".

I'm tellin' ya, man. The crucial ingredient missing from HI reports is some entertainment value. People might actually read the damn things if Chris's photo was captioned with that kind of text. Imagine what goes through the clients mind: No mamby-pamby passive voice whimpering here. H-a-e-l no! Let's read on!

Bonnie, dear Bonnie, If all the folks who desperately need to respond to your invitation actually do so, I hope, for your sake, you have a very, very large e-mail server. [:-bigeyes Maybe you could work on a technical writing manual/guide that is in the same vein as your well-reviewed "...Missing Modifier". Is this a possibility?

Agree wholeheartedly. However, a continuation of that sentence could read "but, professionals do set/make standards". IMHO, this should apply to the writing/communication skills as much as it does to technical ability/knowledge. Exactly how to go about accomplishing that is beyond the scope of this inspector []. I believe it is a widespread, society encompassing problem; not sure HI's are more/less afflicted than any other segment of our society.

[:-slaphap And that right there, folks, is the epitome of concise. Just two letters...speaking volumes. Love it. I'll check out your book based simply on that response. And, no...I'm not being a facetious @$$.

I have decided to utilize this description ASAP, with your permission, of course... And I hope to Gawd no one ever asks me to clarify ...they'd have to come back the next day to see if I was done laughing. [:-slaphap[:-slaphap[:-slaphap

Hi Bonnie, So you have a BA in BS, then?[] ASTM is an organization that attempts to provide standardized test methods (American Standard Test Methods) for a wide range of engineering/construction-related fields. The purpose is to, hopefully, give some kind of assurance that the materials/methods of construction employed meet a consensus standard that can be measured/evaluated by these tests. You are correct. Some adhere to a standard of practice (SOP) that the particular national association they belong to has outlined, others have state-mandated requirements, etc., but the actual content of the report is the responsibility of each individual. The problem is that, although there is/are building code(s) in most locales, there are literally thousands of contractors/builders/"do-it-yourself"ers who come up with their own ways of tackling various construction problems/details. This makes it virtually impossible to come up with standardized wording to address these situations when found in an inspection. You see where this is going regarding the need to communicate effectively?

Hi Gary, I did not intend to imply that standardization alone would do so. It was more in the context of getting Mike's vision of better educated HI's via a well-planned curriculum thing. I see it this way: If national standards are published (be it by ASTM or another), and states adopt those standards, then only those who are able to understand/utilize those standards will be able to practice. Presto, instant barrier to entry. That is a blanket condemnation, Gary, and not at all the type of response I would say is typical of you. You know as well as I that many times the ONLY way to tell if something is legitimate is to compare it to some kind of recognized standard. I can only assume that your response is tainted by the concern that a bunch of "know-nothings-but-think-they-know-it-alls" are going to produce these standards. My experience with ASTM is that this is not usually the case, but...the only way to ensure that it doesn't happen is this: we're going to have to get in there and do some scrappin', bud.

Hi, Bonnie What you are attempting to "fix" is not really a problem, per se, as it is a basic philosophical difference, and is as ongoing as the debate over which type of degree is "better": Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Science. Those who lean toward a BS prefer the security of the concrete (read: boilerplate) language contained in a pre-packaged software program, whereas those who are more BA inclined prefer to look at it as each inspection is a document of their own creation, one that provides a little more insight than a simple "check-the-box" thing. You savvy?

Au contraire, Gary. I offer as evidence, on another thread in this very forum, the fact that one of the national organizations (NAHI, I believe) has sought out the ubiquitous ASTM International for aid in standardization. That, my friend, be it for the good or the bad, will definitely get the ball rolling. Standardized test methods are what separate technicians from opinion spouters. Will that improve writing/communication skills? Read anything written by the average engineer to answer that question yourself. I think not. But perhaps the inclusion of a Reporting 101 or Technical Writing class as part of HI education/continuing education requirements would do so. Folks would be more inclined to invest in that sort of education if the profession was not treated as the proverbial "red headed step-child" of the technical fields. That kind of legitimisation begins with standardization. [:-wiltel]

"There's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza"... Catchy little ditty disguising a circular reference. My favorite example of such. This thread is a close second, though.

Thanks Les and Mark, Excellent responses from both of you. Let me try to state "in my own words" what I believe you are both saying (for my own clarity): 1)Report on the existence/operating status of the floor furnace. 2)Report facts relating to its (lack of)operating efficiency/potential hazards/etc. 3)DO NOT, in any way, influence how this information is put to use with regard to the actual transaction (offering opinion regarding use as a bargaining chip, estimate cost to "upgrade", etc.). So, stating that X feature is "less desireable than..." or "should be replaced with..." is not appropriate, whereas stating that X feature is "less efficient than..." ,"has more intensive maintenance requirements than...", or "poses these potential hazards as compared to..." would be OK Is that the "bare bones" of it?

Hmmmm... Les, I guess I agree with you, for the most part, regarding objectivity , except ... I think there are times when an inspector should give the client something more than a simple "statement of condition" of the property. Now, just how far beyond that simple statement of condition should be determined by the individual inspector, based on knowledge/confidence level, and will be somewhat determined by the client. I think it is obvious that clients pay for (and will continue to do so only if they see the value in) the "above and beyond average homeowner knowledge" that an HI should possess, and they have a right to expect you to give your opinion regarding some aspects of the property. Being objective does not preclude an HI from stating an opinion that has been arrived at by a rational examination of facts, nor should it keep one from including bits of "school of hard knocks" information (that would not be as evident to an inexperienced homeowner) in the report. Am I wrong in that thinking? Should the report simply state that there "is a floor furnace and it is/isn't functioning properly"? I mean, sure, you can still buy the things and, maybe, they are still being installed in new homes somewhere...but they aren't what I would say the typical homeowner would be familiar with, especially if they are, say, a young couple buying their first home. I don't think I would feel comfortable giving just the mere statement of fact above. I would want to give them the benefit of both my personal experience and the logical downsides (less efficient, hot floor register) that would not be the case if the home had a more typical (modern) installation. Is that really beyond the scope of a professional home inspection? Is the inspector really not supposed to function in any kind of advisory capacity? That's a real question, BTW.

[:-yuck]Hate those things!![:-yuck][:-thumbd] I have a chipped front tooth from when I was a youngster (about 6 yrs) and one of my Hot Wheels went off my improvised drag strip and got hung up on the register. Scrambled over on my hands and knees to retrieve it. Placed my right hand on the register as I extended my left to pick up the car...[:-weepn]. IMO, the dumb-[:-taped] manufacturers should have been forced to replace every last one of them. Don't know how many babies in their roll around walkers have got hung up on them and dang near toasted. There. I feel a little better now.

Hi All, Mike- I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of the organization(s) and with the ways that they could increase their relevance to the profession. I understand what you mean regarding the economics, Scott, but, the simple fact is, it has been the professional associations that have performed this function with most other professions, and it simply has to be that way with HI's. I know that seems to go counter to intuition, but it's simply a matter of a profession having the self-respect to begin policing itself. When you look at most other professions that require state licensing/certification of some sort, they generally use a national organization's guidelines when setting the minimum standards to practice that profession. If you hand that control over to an "unbiased" third party, I can guarantee you that there will be biases formed, usually based on political agendas. That is not a situation we want, is it?

Hi Mike, No worries. [:-taped] Hi Kevin, Steel sharpens steel, n'est-ce pas? Your latest posts here and on other recent topics show me that you have already accomplished, on your own, what I was attempting to do here. My apologies for my method choice; the engaging taunt was meant to be purposefully irreverent, not disrespectful. The goal was to make sure that the obviously valuable contributions that you can make to this forum were not constantly discounted due to the perception of "stuffy" language and tone. Welcome to the world where a duck is called simply "a duck". Relax the carefully guarded language and talk shop with the fellas. As to the original issue: there was none.