Jim Katen

Those are pellet stoves. Their clearances are far less than those of wood stoves. The data plates are where Mike said, but I disagree about clearances. Most of the ones I see have tiny clearances when compared to wood stoves. For instance, 3" to a combustible wall and 6" hearth extension are common specs. Find and read the data plate or write down the model and google it up. - Jim Katen, Oregon

I just don't see it, what section does this spirit come from? Wow! I disagree. You're method would be a heck of a lot more trouble. How would it be safer or better? - Jim Katen, Oregon

Have you got a source for that? If it's 312.8, you've got to read the whole thing, not just the first part of the sentence. - Jim Katen, Oregon

I look at several every week. Sometimes, I'll go for an entire week and see nothing but heat pumps. They're very effective up here, albiet not the most comfortable heating system. You've seen economizers before. They aren't new. Rooftop units on commercial buildings have used them just about forever. It's just a damper that sometimes opens up to swap outdoor air for return air in the air conditioning mode. Sensors look at the return air and the outdoor air. If the outdoor air is cooler than the return air and if its humidity isn't too high, the system opens dampers to vent the return air outdoors and suck outdoor air in its place. The net effect can mean significant energy savings. It really works, but it isn't new. What they mean is that if a heat pump uses X amount of electricity, it yields 2X or 3X in heat output. This is because the heat pump only uses electricity to move heat. It doesn't use the electricity to actually produce heat. We've had heat pumps that can achieve 300% efficiency for 40 years, but only during mild weather. As the ambient temperature drops, so does the efficiency. Apparently, these folks have figured out how to modulate the compressor functions to achieve high efficiency at very low temperatures. - Jim Katen, Oregon

You can design a heat pump to provide plenty of heat to a house at almost any very cold outdoor temperature. That part's easy. The problem comes when you want to use the same system to cool the house in the summer. Then it's way, way too big to be an effective air conditioner. It looks like this system gets around this problem by using some sort of staged compressor scheme. These have been around a while but are very expensive. - Jim Katen, Oregon

As I see it, they did move the grounds to the sub-panel, they're just spliced at the service panel's terminal bar, yes? They are multi-wire circuits. No handle tie is necessary. Well, clearly if the wires in the first panel are #14, then the 20 amp breakers are too big. But you don't sound too sure of that. Are you certain of the wire sizes? It's easy to tell by bending them between your fingers. Aside from the breaker size issue, I'm not sure I see a problem with that aspect of these panels. 312.8 allows splices in panels, so where's the prohibition? Of course, there are lots of other minor problems in those two pics, but I don't understand why extending two circuits from one panel to another should be a problem here. - Jim Katen, Oregon

Yes. That's a cold joint. - Jim Katen, Oregon

The NEC section would be 110.3(b), the one that says you have to follow the equipment instructions. Like Richard said, RTFM. The attached picture is from my ITE panel. Download Attachment: ITE Ground Term.JPG 51.8 KB As I read it, you can put a #10 a #12 and a #14 under the same lug. - Jim Katen, Oregon

The NEC doesn't specify any minimum height for the required wall receptacles. According to section 210.52, you can put the receptacles at any height from 5'-6" above the floor down to the floor itself. If you stay within 18" of the wall, you can even put them in the floor and they'll count toward the requirement. I don't see anything special about basements. The only minimum height requirement I'm aware of is in the ADA standards (it's 15 inches). Last I checked these don't apply to residential basements. You're local jurisdiction may have additional requirements. - Jim Katen, Oregon

Plastic plugs? Do you mean the wire nuts? There's no problem with using wire nuts to extend wires when you replace a panel. I'm not sure about the wires at the bottom of the panel. If they're unused wires that aren't connected to a power source, I think it's fine to have them just lying there with electrical tape over the ends. If, on the other hand, they're live, then the electrical tape seems inadequate to me. You've noticed, of course, the burned white wire at mid left. - Jim Katen, Oregon

EIFS turds? Actually, every single thing about your description as well as the picture point to UFFI. It's not like other spray foams, such as urethane or icynene. UFFI is pure white and extremely brittle and friable. Your picture could be used in a text book to describe what it looks like. I'd guess that there's UFFI in that house's walls. - Jim Katen, Oregon

I disagree. Bear in mind that I think it's a great idea for home inspectors to read codes, know codes and occasionally cite codes as references or sources of opinion. However, I don't believe it's a good idea for us to feel like we're slaves to codes. There nothing wrong with looking at a given situation and applying a little common sense and educated opinion to it. Otherwise, you're just a robot. - Jim Katen, Oregon

UFFI. - Jim Katen, Oregon

About two years ago, Certainteed changed the construction of their shingles to allow a much wider space for fasteners. Instead of a single line on which the fastener must be placed, there are two lines. The fasteners can go anywhere between the lines. I believe that's what they're referring to by "wide trac." You can see these lines in your pictures. They did this in response to roofers who complained that it was too difficult to hit the line every time. Instead of arguing about it, they changed the product. I think that's pretty smart of them. They sent me a letter boasting about the new product about 2-1/2 years ago. It was actually addressed to me, personally. I have no idea how they got my name. In your pictures I mostly see overdriven nails and missing nails. When I see this on a new roof, I recommend re-nailing the roof. It actually goes pretty quickly, it yields a perfectly good installation and it's way cheaper than replacing the shingles. - Jim Katen, Oregon

Here's how it works. When the builder excavated the site for your house, he cut a hole that's slightly bigger around on all sides than your foundation would be. He had to do this to allow room for forms and workers. After the foundation was completed, he backfilled the "trough" around the house. The backfilled soil is more porous than the surrounding, undisturbed soil. When it rains, the rainwater flows through this porous backfill till it hits the bottom of the excavation. Then it spreads out laterally into the crawlspace. In addition it's common in our clay soils for the foundation excavation to interrupt an underground vein of water that naturally flows beneath the surface of the ground. To repeat: Water under a house is bad. Fixing it involves trenches containing drain tile, rock and filter fabric. It will cost money to fix. By the way, is that house with the stone veneer yours or your neighbor's? Have you been reading up on stone veneer by any chance? - Jim Katen, Oregon

I wouldn't put a french drain around the outside of the house. Too much trouble. Put it along the inside perimeter of the crawlspace at least a foot or two away from the footing. Putting it outside means a lot more excavation because you've still got to place the tile below the level of the footing. That's a question for your lawyer. However, I'm certain that you can open a dispute with the CCB. It's relatively quick and nearly free. Do it. Just be sure to have all your ducks in a row. Make your case brief and cite sources to substantiate your point of view. - Jim Katen, Oregon

The drain to the street is often adequate. For it to work, the crawlspace floor has to be pitched toward a single low point and the drain has to be placed at that low point. It's also important to have a backwater valve on the drain to prevent water from the street from flowing backwards into the crawlspace and to prevent rodent entry. If you've got standing water in your crawlspace the drain, by definition, isn't working. The depth of the water isn't particularly important. It's the surface area. That's what the air in the crawlspace "sees." Standing water in the crawlspace humidifies the air. It causes high moisture levels in the wooden framing. It rises through the house via imperfections in the framing and it follows electrical and plumbing chases to the attic where it condenses on the cold framing and sheathing in winter, particularly on the north side, causing mildew growth and sometimes rot. Also, and this is very important in the Eugene area, standing water reduces the bearing capacity of the soil. In short, water in the crawlspace is bad for the house and it's bad for the occupants. Before you'll be able to make any progress with this builder, you'll have to get him to understand that water under a house is a bad thing. Without that understanding, there will be no forward progress. One of the most persistent myths in our area is that it's normal for there to be water under a house. It's not. It's a bad thing. Another persistent myth is that it's ok to have water under the house as long as it drains away after a day or so. That's a really dangerous myth. Recurrent cycles of flooding and draining are possibly worse for the foundation than consistent flooding is. The cycles tend to "pump" the foundation, causing movement and cracking. Yet another myth is that simply placing a sump pump in a crawlspace will solve a water problem. A sump pump is only one part of a drainage system. I've been evaluating wet crawlspaces and water abatement systems for the past 14 years. I've never yet seen a sump pump, by itself, solve a crawlspace water problem. You need a "drainage system." The sump pump can be a part of that system. Here's what I suggest you do. First, convince the builder that water in a crawlspace is not acceptable. It might help to cite the 2005 Oregon Residential Specialty Code, section 408.5 which says, among other things, that if water doesn't readily drain from the site, then there needs to be an approved drainage system. Another cite that's helpful is from the Residential Construction Performance Guidelines published by the National Association of Homebuilders. (This is your builder's trade organization. Maybe he'll believe them.) In section 2-18, they say that any accumulation of water deeper than 3/4 inch and larger than 36 inches in diameter is unacceptable and needs to be fixed by the builder. Once you get the builder to admit that the water has to go, you've got to convince him that he's got to get rid of it with a drainage system. This means a series of drain tiles in trenches, lined with filter fabric and drain rock. They should be installed well *below* the level of the footings (but not too close to the footings -- to avoid undermining them) and placed in such locations that they interrupt the flow of incoming water before it reaches the surface of the soil. All of the tiles should lead to either a gravity drain (with a backwater valve) or a sump pump. A 6-mil black plastic vapor barrier (ONE LAYER ONLY) should be placed above everything so that the entire system is invisible. Designing systems such as this takes skill and experience. Most builders have no experience with these systems. I know of two companies that excel at this work: John's Waterproofing, 800 810-5883 and Ability Plus Drainage, 503 246-0474. If you were to hire them, expect to pay about $3K. One other thing. If the builder isn't cooperative, you can file a claim against him with the Construction Contractors Board. They're the governmental body that regulates contractors in this state and they provide dispute resolution services for a nominal fee. (I think it's $50.) Visit them at http://www.oregon.gov/CCB/ To file a claim, you first have to notify the builder of your intent to do so via certified mail. So you might want to get on that right away. (You've only got a year to file a claim with them.) - Jim Katen Oregon Certified Home Inspector #15

Good observation from Mark. Clearly, that panel isn't rated for weather exposure. However. . . I've got to wonder why it looks so good. If one of those panels were mounted outdoors, exposed to the to weather, since 1980 in my climate it wouldn't look anywhere near that good. It'd be rusted all to hell. Was it a newer replacement panel or was it under some sort of overhang? - Jim Katen, Oregon

I'm reminded of an inspection I did about 10 years ago. The buyer was a single gal and the house was a magnificent old beast, but it needed serious wiring and plumbing work. She wanted me to help her prioritize the work so I told her that she could probably put off the plumbing work for a year or so but that the electrical work really ought to be done right away. Her response, "Looks like I'll have to start dating an electrician now and switch to a plumber next year." She wasn't joking. Not that this relates to your situation in any way . . . - Jim in Oregon

Jeff, there's no way you or anyone else can tell anything at all about the problems the house has or whether or not this guy's any good at what he does until you look at the house and his report. I mean no offense to your girlfriend, but most homeowners haven't got a clue and tend to mangle the information that the inspector gave them to a terrible degree. (Having said that, I've gotta wonder how a "support" beam is different than any other kind of beam.) - Jim Katen, Oregon

Don't worry buddy, I'm here for ya! Not really. I was just trying to understand what you saw; your description wasn't clear. My questions were - and are - genuine. It's clear to you, because you're accustomed to looking at IR images. But look at it from the perspective of someone, such as your customer, who has no clue what the innards of a pool heater look like, let alone a thermal image of one. He sees blobs of color, something that says it's 170 degrees and the word "FLIR" emblazoned across it. (Man, that's annoying. Is there any way to get rid of that, or are you stuck with it on every picture?) It reminds me of ultrasound pictures of little babies in the womb. The ultrasound techs seem to be able to read all kinds of things in them just fine but I can't tell the kid's face from his butt. Nothing wrong with questioning your judgment or asking silly questions. Confidence comes with time. I'll bet that there was some debris in there that was preventing the other burners from firing and when the tech got there it had cured itself. Why not ask for the tech's e-mail address? Send him the Flirpic and ask him what he thinks might have caused the condition. - Jim Katen, Oregon

The rule applies to any circuit breaker regardless of its purpose (main, branch, etc.). If it's oriented vertically, 'up' has to be on and 'down' has to be off. Ref: NEC 240.81. Since 1978 at least, possibly earlier. - Jim Katen, Oregon

As long as the main breaker is horizontal, it's fine. http://www.squared.com/us/misc/faqInter ... enDocument http://www.squared.com/us/misc/faqInter ... enDocument http://www.squared.com/us/misc/faqInter ... enDocument - Jim Katen, Oregon

I don't understand. What do you mean by "appears"? Did you look at the burners with your eyes as well as the IR toy? If you saw only three of them burning, then for heaven's sake drop the "appears" crap. If you didn't look at them with your eyes, shame on you. As an inspector, your first duty is to look at stuff, not rely on overpriced toys. Have you considered that the burners weren't working when you looked at it, but were working when he looked at it? Stranger things have happened. All it would take is some spider webs in the wrong place that later got brushed away. I'd say that you're missing the forest for the trees. I can think of some good uses for an IR camera in the context of a home inspection, but this isn't one of them. This situation is easily evaluated and documentable with your normal human senses and a plain jane digital camera. In this case, the IR is just clouding up the issue. Don't let the fancy toys take the place of basic technique. - Jim Katen, Oregon

I see that pretty often. Also, sometimes you'll see a coating of tiny, tiny droplets that make me think of Pam cooking spray. It's an easy one to miss. Another version is a collection of tiny crystal-like patterns on the inside surfaces of the glass sort of like snowflakes. It may be that some of these phenomena are the result of the desiccant that's in the aluminum channel. I suspect that the desiccant absorbs moisture up to a point, then when it becomes saturated, it releases some of it again. When this water is released it may contain impurities that it picked up from the desiccant that make it appear different from plain water. Tetley or Lipton? - Jim Katen, Oregon