AHI in AR

Mike, At the risk of stepping in "it" deeper, I'll offer this: First of all, I want to state that I am not "defending" the installation pictured. The way it's done locally varies from that shown in the photo significantly in that what I am describing is done from day one; it's not an add-on. In other words, no exposed unprotected or unsupported wires, etc. I'm sure the electrician I spoke to would be flattered (and most surely amazed) to know that he and his "kin" influenced the hundreds if not thousands of electricians whose work I've seen in ten years of inspecting homes in a good 70 mile radius. (Somehow I assume you'd use the less colloquial term "relatives" instead of "kin" if describing someone in your area.) I'm sure he'd be even more proud to learn that their influence somehow spread all the way to Illinois, where the original post was from. FTR, despite being from Arkansas, his name is not Billy-Bob, Jim-Bob, or Joe-Bob. It isn't a double name at all. It's not even the generic redneck single name, Bubba. The fact is that his name, quite simply, is Daniel. Those of us who know him well call him Danny. There would be damned little to discuss on this forum if tradesmen, or homeowners, or generic repairmen (repairpersons?) from whatever region didn't do boneheaded things. I can understand that if you are not used to seeing this it may seem strange. That doesn't mean that it's wrong, however. First of all, and just to be clear, as installed locally the fuseholder is at the end of a circuit. Nothing that is 120V is fed off of it except the transformer. The neutral goes straight thru to the transformer and the hot lead is fused via the porcelain base. Very simple. Functionally, it's a low amperage inline fuseholder in a porcelain base. It draws way less current than a lightbulb. Obviously, you won't see anything happen if you stick a bulb in the base. So how else do you propose to protect the wiring from the transformer to the doorbell chime itself without this or something similar? Mike, it seems that your position is that the code doesn't require protecting this small gauge wire. Maybe it doesn't; I don't know. But is it a bad idea? Admittedly, I don't have a copy of the code book. (Honestly, how many of you do?) But to be fair, NO version has ever stated all the things you CAN do that exceed minimum requirements. Right? So let's assume that something occurs causing that wire to be hit with something well over 24V, or that a minor short occurs in the electromagnet in the chime itself. What would happen if it didn't have the 3A fuse? Obviously, burnt wiring is a possibility...a fire is another one. Maybe fusing this wire is not regularly done where you are, but does that make fusing it wrong? If so, I can't figure out why. Note that the transformer itself draws a tiny amount of current, and only has a 3A fuse. You're certainly not exceeding the capacity of the porcelain base with that. Sure, you can stick the transformer to the outside of the breaker panel housing, but, again, I ask how the smaller gauge wiring is protected from an overcurrent situation downstream of the transformer that WOULD NOT TRIP a 15 or 20 amp breaker. Keep in mind that around here we normally place the panel boxes on the outside of the home. And before you chime in that that's a "wrong" practice, -- since you're used to seeing it inside -- ask yourself one question: If a fire starts in the box, where would I rather have it...inside or outside? So if you are going to fuse the low voltage wire, just how is a porcelain base inferior to a plastic-bodied inline fuse holder? The bottom line question I ask is simply "What can this hurt?" You may not see it as necessary, but what does it harm? Caution: Side rant follows: You know, it's funny. I see a lot of posts on this forum (and others) where members lurk around without offering an opinion. They seem to be afraid to voice a dissenting opinion for fear of rocking the boat by challenging the powers that be, or perhaps demonstrating their ignorance. Sometimes there appear to be differences based on regional practices alone. In any case, some members only chime in on a really obvious question. Maybe this is one of those times; maybe not. If so, count me as one who will step right up and show my ignorance if I'm wrong. It's possible that I am one of the clueless ones on this issue. But I have a real hard time believing that my city and the surrounding areas that I work are the only places nationally where this is done. While not a large area on a national scale, it's large enough that I doubt the practice is only a local one. I don't have the census figures in front of me but the total population in those areas I work should approach 500,000. I certainly doubt you can write this practice off as being due to the effects of one family of electricians...of whatever duration. If you think I'm out in left field on this, bring it on. I freely admit I could be wrong, and I'll just as freely admit it if I'm shown evidence -- not opinions -- that I am wrong. All I ask is that if you think I'm wrong, provide appropriate references to show why. Oh yeah, add at least one home in Illinois, even if it was done after initial construction, and sloppily. The bottom line is that it's unlikely the practice exists here only.

Rest assured, that set-up is not normal at all around here. As they say, doing it "wrong" for 30 years doesn't make it right... Dom. Seems to me that maybe the "problem" is that it is not done that way in your neck of the woods. THAT doesn't automatically make it wrong. Nor does the fact that it has "always" been done that way around here necessarily make it right -- as I stated that in my earlier post. So I'm not trying to defend the local practice; I'm trying to figure out why it's wrong. If someone can offer a reasonable explanation as to how it's a problem, I'm all ears. "We don't do it that way around here" doesn't count. The worst case scenario I can come up with is that someone would remove the Edison base fuse and replace it with a larger one. Fair enough, but that could also be done with an inline fuse also. And it's sure unlikely that they would borrow the 3 amp fuse to place it elsewhere... The porcelain used as a fuse base is functionally no different from the porcelain single circuit fuse holders used in older homes. Without an additional fuse, you have at least a 15 amp fuse/breaker protecting this 20 gauge or so wire. How is that better?

I don't have a disclaimer in my report about everything we are not obligated to report. The report would get pretty cluttered pretty quickly. Then again, my state has a SOP that we are required to follow that doesn't require reporting recalled items. But if you are in a state that does not regulate HI's, I would consider adding that disclaimer. If it's not excluded from your assumed obligation, it might be that you would have more potential liability. It would be a simple matter to note appliance serial numbers in the report if you do that already. (I don't) But whether you do or not, you could add a comment suggesting that they check the CPSC database out for themselves.

I just asked my electrician about the practice of fusing the doorbell transformer this way. He was surprised that it seemed odd to anyone. He's got 30 years of "official" experience and his father and uncle were electricians. As I said in my earlier post, they've been done that way around here for about 40 years as near as I remember -- I guess about as long as there have been electric doorbells in wide use. Anyway, his sensible response was that it's to fuse the light gauge wire to the doorbell; to accomplish that they put a 3 amp fuse in the socket. Putting a lightbulb in there wouldn't do anything except remove your fuse protection. I suspect that if anyone ever tried it they would realize that they couldn't make it light up and they would put the fuse back in. The only other way I've seen a transformer mounted is on a metal cover plate on a J box with a plastic inline fuse wired in. That type is far less common around here.

I predict they'll now sell the devices as "portable space heaters" in new boxes.

Regarding the issue of domestic vs. Japanese quality, I have a few observations. Chad: I agree with a lot of what you posted, but I have to add this for your consideration: People buying parts to do their own repairs typically aren't working on newer cars; they're doing it because economic necessity forces it on them. Generally speaking, that means they're driving older cars. We all agree that older big 3 cars were largely crap. On the other hand, there are a few tight SOB's like me that make an occasional trip the the parts store simply because we generally don't want to pay someone to do what we can easily do ourselves. Never mind that I've run into some idiot "mechanics" over the years who knew less than I did. Like the one who insisted that a sticking brake caliper on the right side would make the car pull to the left. To determine the REAL quality of current vehicles, you'd have to see what repairs are necessary a few years from now. It's kinda like when someone asks me who makes the best water heater, or A/C, or furnace now. I let them know that I can answer that in twenty years or so. My car experience in the last dozen years or so is like this: 1997 F-150 with 109K on the odometer--replaced both power window motors within the last year. ($120 in parts and a day's labor total.) Also replaced the Pittman arm about 4 years ago due to a squeak. ($200 P&L for a professional repair. I was busy then and feeling relatively wealthy.) Other than those items, I've had zero cost for repairs. Not a single other repair trip except for the recalled cruise control wiring harness. Obviously, I am not including regular maintenance items like hoses, shocks, or the serpentine belt. 2001 Mazda Tribute-- This is a rebadged Ford Escape. The powertrain is Mazda, which Ford currently owns a good chunk of. 124K on the ticker and aside from a worn out set of end link bushings (a wear item), there is only one problem that I've ever had: a temperamental idle air control. Ironically, although I know the issue is simply mileage related, the one item that isn't regular wear is Japanese made. Oh yeah, I almost forgot...the brake booster seems to have a slight leak in the diaphragm or similar issue since it slowly consumes brake fluid but doesn't leave any spots on the garage floor. 1992 Dodge Caravan. Sold with about 77K on the odometer. No real problems that I recall. And I would recall anything over $100. (Remember, I'm cheap.) 2000 Chrysler Town and Country minivan: We kept this until it had 121K on the odometer. I replaced the tensioner for the serpentine belt when it started squeaking. I didn't wait for it to fail and leave my wife stranded. I forget the cost exactly, but I seem to recall $50 or less for the part and less than hour formy labor. There was also a recall for the cruise control or some similar item which we didn't pay for. 2006 Mustang GT: 33K on my "baby" until May 20 of this year when a 19 year old driver sending a text message nearly rear ended the car in front of her on I-40. No, that wasn't me; I was the unfortunate one in the lane to her left. When she realized that she was about to rear end a Lincoln, she locked up her brakes and skidded into me sideways, knocking me into the concrete barrier, rolling my car and totaling it. I, of course, was along for that unpleasant ride. (If any of you don't wear seat belts, WHY THE HELL NOT?) Anyway, in its relatively brief life that car made zero trips to the dealer, and I didn't repair anything myself. (Side note: with a manual trans and carefully considered shifting patterns, I still could get 21-22 MPG in mostly city driving. And I didn't baby it -- if I didn't want to accelerate hard at times, I wouldn't have bought the GT. Get rid of a lot of wasteful automatic sludgeboxes, learn when to shift, and we can all get better mileage.) 1989 Ford Bronco II 4X4. My favorite longevity story. I drove this old girl until she hit 200k. And I USED the 4WD functions, splashing through hub-deep water and clambering up rock-strewn hillsides. Vibration alone should have killed it, but it remained remarkably solid. Original engine and trans. Only replaced the water pump (once) intake gasket set (once) and valve cover gaskets (once) at differing points. I would point out that my brother in law's Chevy Silverado of similar vintage was on transmission number 3 at 90K in year #4 when he finally wised up and sold it. And his truck was strictly a long-distance gentleman's commuter--never any hauling or towing. Anyway, at 200K, there wasn't really anything wrong with my Bronco II, I had just set that as an arbitrary point at which to part with it. I sold it to my best friend who gave it to his 16 year old son. (Against my advice, I would point out, due to rollover issues.) Nevertheless, said 16 Y.O. boy was convinced that if he tore the vehicle up he'd get a newer one. God knows he's tried, but it hasn't happened yet...and he got it 4 years ago. Since then, according to my bud, it has only required a new radiator, new starter, new rear hatch lock/handle and new rollers for the window regulators. Important to note is that I can't stand squeaks/rattles. I don't want to offend any GM fans out there, but my parents had a couple Cadillacs recently that from day one sounded like they were about to fall apart. I never could understand that unless I took into account the fact that your hearing goes as you age. But before that was the '78 V-8 Olds Cutlass that had the plastic-geared, crappy transmission in it that was originally designed for 4 cylinder Chevy Vegas. It failed at 54,000 very gentle miles. My favorite POS story? My dad bought a 1971 Chevy station wagon. New. I secretly suspect that he bought it because the grill looked like a Cadillac. Anyway, 1971 was the first year for the "clamshell" tailgate design where the glass retracted up into the roof and the tailgate descended into the area under the rear cargo floor. It seemed pretty cool. But shortly after purchase, the glass quit working and you had to push it up manually. It was fixed under warranty. Three times. Remember that the warranty then was only a year -- it was fixed 3 TIMES under warranty. After that, we gave up and pushed it up manually. More importantly, at only a couple years' age, the left rear door fell off into traffic on one of the busiest streets in the city. Just driving down the road, minding our own business...and the damn door falls off. As the comedian Ron White said in describing his tire repair at Sears, "it fell the f@#$ off." My dad eventually sold/gave the wagon to a lawn maintenance man for about a fourth of its book value. And that was not really considering that it had about 30,000 miles on it at the time. Given these experiences, I'll admit I have a historical bias against a lot of GM products. (That said, I would really love to have a new Cadillac CTS-V. Definitely not your father's Caddy.) The point to this long-winded post? I'm not sure. I simply had too much time to kill since my wife is out with a friend and I've got little to do. If you read all this, you only have yourself to blame!

Jim-- They've been done around here that way for at least 40 years or so. I am so used to seeing them I always accepted that they are OK. Not that it necessarily means anything, but the AHJ's in the 6 cities or so that I regularly work in apparently don't (and haven't) made an issue of it. During all that time, that's a lot of different guys interpreting the code. They are still done that way in brand new homes. In new homes, of course, the wiring is run thru the wall cavity. With a porcelain Edison base fixture that accepts a fuse, what's the problem? Are they not listed for that use?

You guys are kidding, right? Right? That's a doorbell transformer attached to the porcelain keyless base. The power is fed from the receptacle TO the transformer, and then to the doorbell via the small gauge wires. The Romex is only exposed because it was added after construction.

Very true that perception vs. reality is an issue. But most (if not all) of those cost of ownership calculations work off of MSRP; they don't take into account the fact that deeper discounts or rebates lower the initial purchase price of the US branded cars. But then again, those same discounts/rebates hurt the profit margin of the manufacturers. It's a mess. I'm not a fan of a bailout based on what I've seen , but if done, any bailout needs to come with very strong strings. I doubt that'll happen. That's the part that scares me.

At the risk of getting even closer to politics, I would point out that it's not as simple as who has cars of better quality. The fact is that there is no across-the-board superiority of Japanese cars anymore. Individual models any given domestic manufacturer compete well. Admittedly, there are still some less than stellar offerings, but the Japanese have had a few bloody noses from quality lapses in the past few years also. I will publicly thank the Japanese manufacturers for building better cars and forcing American manufacturers to do likewise. If not for their pressure, we'd still be driving the crap Detroit produced in the 70's and 80's. Yuck. Keep in mind that a lot of those Japanese (and Korean) cars are built in the USA, with designers and engineers -- of whatever nationality -- who were to a large extent educated here. The real issue here is the ability to compete on a level playing field, and that means union labor issues. The average hourly rate, including benefits, of a big three worker is over $73 an hour. Union, of course. Japanese cars built in the USA do it for about $45 an hour. Non union. $45 still sounds generous to me for manufacturing work. That makes it impossible to go on competing under the current labor contracts. I'll agree that unions were needed at the time they came into play. However, in my opinion, they wield too much control now.

Why is it that when I look at that, I automatically hear "Oh no, Mr. Bill!!!"

The washer was not running at the time I was there. I did not check the receptacle since it was floor mounted behind the washer, and I didn't want to scar up the recently painted wood floor moving the washer out 3' to get to the receptacle. I did tell' em to essentially rewire the whole place if possible since fixing all the above issues and the others I found would be about equivalent to a total re-do anyway. I expected the usual 80 years of wear, poorly done add-ons, rodent gnawed wires and the like. I was just curious about why I could get the sniffer to light up a foot or more from the appliances. Thanks for the replies.

Why would a gas water heater give off a magnetic field? And the washer was the issue, not the dryer.

I inspected an 80 year old home this afternoon and encountered an odd result with my voltage sniffer. The home had an enclosed rear porch with a 50 year old or so water heater (Clayton Lambert Alumilux, but that's another story), a fuse box, and a clothes washer and dryer. As I turned on the tester and swung it over to check for voltage at the fusebox housing before opening it, it alerted when I got it within about a foot from the water heater vent. I then checked it near the other metal items in the room. It did the same near the washer, but not the dryer. If I touched either item, it quit alerting. For the record, the washer had braided stainless steel hoses. The home had a crawlspace door that was locked, so I couldn't get under there. But inside the home, I could see that a lot of the water distribution lines were now cpvc. Those in the laundry room porch were copper. The grounding method appeared likely to be only the water lines as there was no ground rod visible. I could not tell what the water service material was where it entered the crawlspace since I couldn't get under there, so I don't know if the water lines were truly grounded. I have seen more than one home this age with a newer plastic water supply line and the ground wire still clamped to an orphaned copper pipe downstream. The grounds and neutrals were mixed at various places downstream of the service panel, and there was a lot of amateur wiring. There was also some active knob and tube, although it was hard to see much with 14" of insulation in the attic. My guess is that there was some voltage on the water lines from the mixed grounds and neutrals. But I didn't get a tingle when I touched the water heater or the washer, nor did I read any voltage when I tested from the hot on the fusebox to the water heater housing or the washer housing. Any of you electrical geniuses know what's going on?

With an H clip, the entire expansive force of the 4X8 sheet is concentrated on that one small spot...about 5/8" wide or less. Being softer than the metal clip, the waferboard or plywood will compress around it. I'm sure you know that the clip is there mainly to limit vertical movement as the material swells. As for the raised center lip on this new product, I'd guess that it is somehow "sacrificial" and compresses partially or is sorta extruded into the gap above and below it. But that's just a guess. I've not see one of these joints up close after a hot, humid summer. But if you think about a "traditional" T&G waferboard roof or floor deck, the tongue is longer than the groove is deep, leaving room for expansion. Obviously, the greater gaps above and below the tongue allow for expansion. I'm assuming that the lack of H clips also is a reflection of the moisture resistance of the material from the exterior. The product obviously does not absorb much water on the exposed side. In other words, if you limit the penetration of moisture from the exterior side, the material won't expand much past the current size -- which assumes that the material is at a moisture content level consistent with ambient levels. Since these materials are typically stored in outdoor sheds, this would seem to be a safe assumption. Is this new material OK? Time will tell. As a builder, in 25 years of experience I made it a practice to be neither the first nor the last to adopt any new product/technique proclaimed as the "next great thing." I firmly believe in letting someone else be the guinea pig. First and foremost, you have to realize that a profit motive is the primary reason for any new product...NOT the advancement of building science. Of course, I do believe in adopting "new" techniques that are proven to work...after at least a couple decades or so. After all, if building knowledge didn't evolve, we would be living in log cabins. Or perhaps caves...

I think what you are hearing is the collective and random gasping for breath of the thousands of hamsters running on their little treadmills to provide the power for the heating elements. Or maybe they have a bug zapper installed inline. But those are both just WAG and most likely completely erroneous. Seriously, I've never heard anything like that. Maybe some sort of a contact issue? I'm sure someone with a real answer will let us know.

I didn't pay enough attention to recognize that Home Inspector Pro was a paid advertiser. My bad.

I'd just like to add my observation that it's pretty generous for our site hosts to allow this sort of competing product advertising. FREE. I haven't checked out the competing product yet, but I assume that Mike, et al must be either very confident or feeling generous.

Looks like an all day job to me even if you don't spend an inordinate amount of time "sightseeing". Totally cool. I'm jealous.

I'd guess someone learned how to operate one of those showers...

Just when I thought my day (actually, my week) couldn't get any more funked up, this comes along...

Around here it has traditionally been slow from around Thanksgiving to right at the first of the year. Like clockwork, it picks right up after Jan 1. Unfortunately, I expect a different pattern this year.

Not to sound snotty -- in fact, merely offering an observation -- I'd venture that work is slow around Mike's neck 'o the woods. Seems to have a lot of time to post info these days...[] Then again, I took an inspection Thursday that requires an hour and a half drive each way, so I can't say things are exactly hopping around here, either. (I'll have my choice of a couple good BBQ joints on the way home, so it's not an entirely wasted trip.)

Uhhh, Mike --I seem to remember that YOU'RE the one who got really descriptive about a WD-40 enema![]

Of course it's wretched. I'm sorry to say, though, that it's about on par with 90% of the inspection reports that come across my desk these days. I can also tell you, with certainty, that the person who wrote that worked hard on it and is very proud of it. He thinks that it makes him sound professional. - Jim Katen, Oregon C'mon, Jim... Let's raise the linguistic bar a little higher here. I seem to recall that you used the word "execrable" in an earlier post. Maybe a lot earlier. Of course, I could be wrong. (Sorry, WJ) But even if I am wrong, I'm in favor of promoting the use of perfectly good words that should be known by all HI's. (But not necessarily used in a report.) After all, we're supposed to be more knowledgeable than those we work for, right? Oh, yeah, I almost forgot... Chad's sample disclaimer from a (mercifully) unknown source is crap. [] Everyone knows what that means.