Jerry Simon

We used to perforate them when first installing so they wouldn't rise/shift out of proper position (from ground water pressure) before the basement floor was poured and held them in place; ground water could thus seep into the pit instead of shifting the pit. After that, the perforations, while not really necessary, would still help water from under the slab more readily enter the pit, especially when only exterior foundation drain tiles were installed versus interior & exterior tiles.

Could be your memory's faulty, but maybe not. It's been a looong time... I pointed that out glaring error to a lot of people, including my good friend Charlie Wood, one of the smartest HIs I've ever met, and the guy who hired me to edit 10,000 boilerplate comments for his then-company's comment library. That whole "contaminates" thing had been inserted into the software of who-knows-how many HI reports. It had become more HI folklore. Worse, it referred to deadly toxic mold, which was all the rage at the time. Frankly, this error (it's not a typo) made a lot of HIs look kinda foolish, since "contaminate" is a verb and "contaminant" is a noun. You are absolutely correct that this is the kind of thing that annoys me. I'm bothered knowing that reasonably-well-educated people will think that the great mass of home inspectors need remedial education. I don't remember bringing it up to Cramer, because, frankly, Cramer is a 99.9% right kind of guy. I don't correct 99.9% guys. They self-correct. And I like having 99.9% guys for buddies. Truth be told, I don't think Cramer had the contaminate/contaminant error in his software, which I used for many years. I would've noticed, and I would've pointed it out to Cramer, who would've appreciated the heads-up. Go in peace, WJ As always, you make some good points. Thank you for those. None-the-less, I corrected Mark's software boilerplate after you *gently* pointed it out. Phillip might want to, as well. (Perhaps Cramer corrupted both our software editions and not yours just to be a meanie. I wouldn't put it past him.)

Anyhow, being right or wrong takes care of itself. WJ No, it doesn't. Not with Walter, anyway. I just read some of Phillip's sample report, and noticed the part about "Mold and other contaminates...". Walter jumped on me about that word "contaminates" a couple years back after he read one of my sample reports. Claimed I was borderline illiterate and had resorted to making up words, or some such criticism. When I *gently suggested* the "made-up" word (contaminates) was included in boilerplate written by and supplied by Mark Cramer in his inspection software, all of a sudden it was a non-issue. Walter wouldn't even acknowledge that such a mistake could be made by Cramer. Walter picks and chooses. If Cramer, or another bossum buddy of his makes a mistake, it's surely the fault of evil fairies or gnomes. If an inspector that hasn't "earned" Walter's respect makes a mistake, they should (in his mind apparently) be doomed to forever trying to properly check-off a check-list report. I've learned a lot from Walter...yadda, yadda, yadda. I still wanna bitch-slap him, though.

Supersede, or perhaps supercede is like mold/mould. Dang, that Jowers' crap is catchy.

Well said, John. I hope Troy listens to you.

Troy, What Jim said...and let me stress the part about arrows/circles in your pictures highlighting the problem spots. That being said, I like your layout. It's not hard on the eyes (as I find the majority of computer reports to be). Not a bad start...

What is it with Seattle's adoration of dead junky musicians - Hendrix, Cobain, Jackson - anyway? Only one musician in that group, IMHO.

Inspected a 1950's era house last year. No signs of termites in the house. Owner/my client calls today...he was clearing away mulch from outside around the house and found bugs underground. Local pest guy says they're termites. Local guy didn't find any infestation signs in the house. Should owner do anything? Would poisoning soil potentially drive termites into house? Would removing mulch help eradicate soil infestation? What's a mother to do?

Jim, Thanks for the links. They are sure convincing. Nice to learn. No, my books don't mention tinning in relation to soldering; they all stress getting the wires hot enough, not just the soldering iron, and like you say, to get the copper clean; also acid free flux, etc., but no tinning words. (They also mention neat-o gasoline fueled torches in lieu of electric soldering irons.) Hate to say it, though, my 382 page copy of the 1947 National Electric Code plainly states on page 408 that this new-to-the-scene Katen chap should not be relied upon regarding tinning & soldering information. Click to Enlarge 55.62 KB Perhaps you have a newer, revised edition?

The tinning was done for a different reason. Tinning a wire does make soldering it easier, but tin coated copper wire was to prevent corrosion. I hear ya. Really. I even read my old Wire in Electrical Construction, published in 1900, and put out by John A. Roebling's Sons Co. (anyone else recognize the name? Mitenbuler did, the old son-of-a-gun). Click to Enlarge 64.62 KB Anyway, the book mentions household wire was first tinned before rubber cement, then rubber, was applied, but not why it was first tinned. And the reason I mention this book is 'cause I got lots and lots of old electrical books...dozens, all published before 1925. I went through most of them last night and found all sorts of references to wire tinning, but not "why" it was tinned. I don't mean to beleaguer this point, but the only references on the web I can find about tinning wire say it was done to help soldering. I can't find a gol-darn thing about it being done to prevent wire corrosion. However, I ain't one to doubt Mr. Katen, and I'm not saying anyone else don't know what they're talking about, but I was just wondering if anyone has a written reference for such. Also, what started me thinking this way years ago about soldering wiring was an old-timer electrician telling me why (he believed) wire was tinned. Heck, I believed him, too. As always, thanks so much.

This I did not know. Good info, Kyle. I didn't know it, either. Thanks. There's quite a bit of info on the web that says tinning was (also?) done to make soldering wires easier. Tinning a wire for soldering is a bit different than tin coated copper for home wiring. How so? I ask, because in the book Old Electrical Wiring written by David Shapiro (1998 McGraw-Hill), which is written entirely about old house wiring, on page 403 it says "Old splices, (those installed before, say, World War II) were done up differently-some better, a few worse. They were almost always bulkier, and they took longer to create. Splicing, or "making up joints", was done by first twisting the wires together (not necessarily clock-wise), then soldering them (underline is mine), then taping them with self-annealing rubber tape, and over that applying friction tape." It goes on to say that after that, solderless connectors became quite popular, eliminating the need for soldering. From page 406... Click to Enlarge 70.2 KB So again, what's the difference you speak of?

This I did not know. Good info, Kyle. I didn't know it, either. Thanks. There's quite a bit of info on the web that says tinning was (also?) done to make soldering wires easier.

You haven't even seen the property, nor do you know what the inspector said or wrote in his report. Incompetent and negligent? Pretty rash accusation without knowing all the facts. You related to Barry Stone?

Elaborate a bit, if you will, on what sort of basement seepage problem you have. A visible wall crack leaking? Wet carpet in a finished basement? Grading might not be the entire answer.

This is a common belief however it's not based on any fact. One of the things I (we) see is home owners putting protective covers over the outdoor unit (condensing unit) to keep the snow off them. No one goes up on a roof to wrap the HVAC units in a protective cover and they do just fine. In case you're thinking about it save your money. [] I cover mine in the fall to keep leaves, twigs, and other debris out, and that's a fact. Money well-spent. [] FYI...I cover the top half of the condensing unit only, so it can still breathe and not promote corrosion.

Actually, there were a couple huge (human-size) unused bags of the stuff in the crawl space, but I didn't bother to read any labeling. I was doing a structural inspection only, and when checking the attic framing, that's when I saw the stuff. Again, later on down in the crawl space, I didn't even think to read the stupid labeling. I'm such a maroon sometimes. Thanks for all the helpful info, though.

Few days ago, saw a house where you had to go through a bedroom to get to the basement door. Wrote it up as odd at best. Old vacation house up on the Fox river, and as all around these parts know, that's pretty darn innocuous for the area. Next day, did a house where you had to go through the finished basement's bedroom to get to the laundry room, same laundry room containing a closet for the water heater & furnace. Okay... We're not on the IRC around here...local codes rule. But what do the national codes say about such cases? And, aside from being unusual and stupid, what problems might such layouts pose? As always, thanks for any insight.

Those packaging styrofoam peanuts... Added to an attic I just saw. Kosher, or a fire hazard, or??? Thanks for any thoughts.

If you're gonna say that, might as well tell them to buy a brand new house, one built by them new-fangled robots. Ain't household dust something like 80% dead skin cells? Then you gots your sneezin', coughin', droolin' ('specially down south), puking, poor piss aiming, poor I-don't-want-to-mention-here aiming, adceteranauseam. That, though, would probably really be over the top.

No appliance ground, I would imagine.

It's like when I did a job for a gentleman a few years back...his job was selling composite deck materials. I asked him how the stuff will hold up over time. He replied "We'll find out". Now I hear composite deck materials are starting to have problems...

It's just not fair Kris won.

Somebody obviously has a really tiny wee-wee.

How about shortening to the above...?

Now I got ya. You know, I read that post, and it didn't stick with me. I still think "save for" sounds okey-dokey. "Except for" might have worked better. Thanks for trying to give me credit, though, for thinking I was smart enough to play with the posts like that.