Jim Katen

1. If you join a national organization, you can bitch about the members of the other organizations. 2. If you join a national organization, you can bitch about the members of your own organization. 3. If you join a national organization, you can bitch about the inspectors who chose not to join any organization. Anyway, that's why I joined. - Jim Katen, Oregon

Good point. I hadn't considered that. In AZ, I'll bet you could have a fist-size hole in a window and still show no condensation. BTW, I always note the temperature and relative humidity at the start of every inspection. During the winter, it's frequently 99% rh up here. If I ever visit AZ, my skin would just dry up and blow away. - Jim Katen, Oregon

I've been doing that for years. I even thought of patenting the technique. After thousands of windows I have some insights: The process is harmless. At first I thought the stresses might crack the glass. Haven't cracked one yet. The test will definitely show every insulated glass panel that has clear visible signs of a failed seal. However, it also causes a reaction in panels that have never shown visible signs of a failed seal. This presents the inspector with a dilemma. Do you test every single insulated panel in the house? If not, why not? If the test shows 30 failed panels, do you recommend replacing them all? For me, it's a huge can of worms. For a while I tested every single window and was finding anywhere from 4 or 5 up to dozens of failed windows in any given home. When a seller would challenge me, I'd cite the industry standard "cold puck test" which is similar, but not quite the same; the stuff in the can brings the window surface to -50 degrees and the cold puck test only calls for a -40 degree puck. In either case, the seal might be failed, and there might be enough moisture between the panes to condense behind the spray, but there might not be enough moisture to condense during normal conditions for several years. If so, is it really failed? After all that experimenting, I now only use it to test the occasional window that seems borderline, just as you described. Even then, if a client sees me doing it, he wants me to test all the other windows. And that invariably leads to a bunch of dilemmas. - Jim Katen, Oregon

If we lived in a perfect world, the foundation contractor would be informed of the location of the service entrance equipment, would then extend a specific segment of the rebar out of the footing @ that location, and tag it w/an orange indestructible plastic marker indicating it as the Ufer connection. The tag would read "Electrical System Grounding Connection: Do Not Tamper w/or Destroy". IOW, build it into the process of home building; simple, cheap, effective. That's pretty much how it's done here. During the pre-pour inspection, the building inspector makes sure that a stub of rebar is extended up above the top of the foundation for the Ufer ground. It usually isn't labeled. Everyone knows what it is. - Jim Katen, Oregon

Yes. It's true. Under the 2005 NEC, in new construction, if there's rebar in the footing or foundation it's required to be connected to the grounding system. Section 250.52 lists seven types of grounding electrodes -- the Ufer ground is one. Just before that section, 250.50 tells us that all of the electrodes that are present at each building are supposed to be bonded together to form the grounding electrode system. As for impedance, Scott, you'll be interested to know that up here even with our heavy clay soils and constant drippy rain, driven rods have lousy impedance. The explanation I've heard (strictly rumor, mind you) is that the constant rain leaches minerals from the soil and make it a poor conductor. (Remember that pure water doesn't conduct electricity, it's the minerals in the water that do it.) This explanation doesn't sound right to me, but I haven't heard a better one. - Jim Katen, Oregon

Yes, it's possible to add weep holes after the fact. Of course, it's necessary to also add the through-wall flashing at the same time. Go to the Brick Industry Association web site at www.bia.org then click on "Technical Notes" then choose technical note #46. Near the bottom it will outline how to install flashing retroactively. It's very similar to Darren's method. The cost is prohibitive. - Jim Katen, Oregon

I think it would be a good start to have them uphold the present standards. - Jim Katen, Oregon

www.dictionary.com As far as I know, there's no such word as "soffet." - Jim Katen, Oregon

Yes. It's a basic requirement that's been in the NEC at least since 1944. Believe it or not, I think that qualifies as accessible. If they replace the panel, they should take out a permit. When they do that, I'll bet that the muni inspector requires them to relocate the panel. He's not about to crawl. - Jim Katen, Oregon

G2427.6.5 says that gas vents have to terminate above a roof surface. Is that a roof or a deck? What's the listing sheet call it? If that's a deck, I'd say that the vent's in the wrong place. - Jim Katen, Oregon

Looks like a Honeywell. If they're of help, here're some pics of a similar one. There's a filter hidden in there that the owners don't usually even know about. It gets really filthy. The one in my pictures didn't work properly. The core wouldn't turn, so it was pretty useless. Download Attachment: HRV_Core.JPG 60.44 KB Download Attachment: HRV_Filter.JPG 61.9 KB Download Attachment: HRV_Honeywell.JPG 44.46 KB Download Attachment: HRV_Label.JPG 69.77 KB - Jim Katen, Oregon

She told me it was what you had done to remove the hair from your ears. - Jim Katen, Oregon

Is this the service panel or another panel downstream from the service? Are you sure that it's the grounding bar and not the neutral bar? Is the screw there and not attached or is there no screw? If the grounding terminal really isn't bonded to the enclosure, then the enclosure won't be very well grounded, that's all. It might cause problems with arcing if a fault develops somewhere in the system. Electrolysis shouldn't be a concern. - Jim Katen, Oregon

Yes. 1985. - Jim Katen, Oregon

Tyvek says 120 days. Personally, I'd go with felt. - Jim Katen, Oregon

Nope, it isn't. That's a gross oversimplification. 210.52(A) spells out which rooms are subject to the within-6-foot rule. (Richard posted them.) It's not "all walls". Personally, I'd interpret the foyer as a hall. As such, if it's more than 10 feet long, it would require one receptacle per 210.52(H) You might also check the plans. - Jim Katen, Oregon

I count three white wires per red wire nut. At each one, two come in from the left and one goes out to the right. I don't see a problem with this, do you? Oh! I missed that. When I saw the split bolt, I immediatly thought it was the grounding electrode conductor. Of course there's also the bundle of NM coming in through the single knock out. That's wrong too. Back to the splices in the panel. They're allowed to be there, really. If anyone here is of the opinion that they can't be there, please post a reference. Here's my reference: NEC 312.8 Enclosures for Switches or Overcurrent Devices. Enclosures for switches or overcurrent devices shall not be used as junction boxes, auxiliary gutters, or raceways for conductors feeding throuch or tapping off to other switches or overcurrent devices, unless adequate space for this purpose is provided. The conductors shall not fill the wiring space at any cross section to more than 40 percent of the cross-sectional area of the space, and the conductors, splices, and taps shall not fill the wiring space at any cross section to more than 75 percent of the corss-sectional area of that space.id="blue"> I've never seen a panel that was filled to 75% of its cross sectional area with conductors, splices and taps. It seems to me that you'd need a hydraulic press or something similar to cram that much stuff into a panel enclosure. Certainly the enclosure in BlackJack's picture doesn't even come close. If someone has a reference that contradicts this, please post it. If the TREC standards require reporting this, please post the applicable section. - Jim Katen, Oregon

Ha! That's only because you make your poor mother cut it, haul it, split it and stack it. - Jim Katen, Oregon Where dead trees are free, but firewood is dear.

You're wrong about the wire nuts on the branch circuit conductors. There's no problem with making such necessary splices in the panel enclosure. I suggest you revise your reporting. The spliced grounding wire is wrong. There should either be a new full-length grounding conductor or the splice has to be of the non-reversible type. As for the GFCIs, local codes will generally dictate how much upgrading is necessary before the requirement for GFCIs kicks in. Regardless, I think you're smart to call for them even if there hasn't been any upgrading. I'd tell him that the basis of your recommendation regarding GFCIs is one of safety for the new occupants, not the requirements of the code. Personally, I think that asking trades people to certify things in writing is kind of useless. It does nothing to serve the customer's best interest. - Jim Katen, Oregon

Sorry, I don't have that one. Here's everything I've got on Weil Mclain -- PCG isn't in there. Oh, yeah. I've now gone a little over a year without seeing a boiler. (Except for none-working late 1800s monster.) - Jim Katen Download Attachment: Weil Mclain Boilers Round.pdf 34.76 KB Download Attachment: Weil Mclain Boilers Gas.pdf 43.9 KB Download Attachment: Weil Mclain Boiler Oil.pdf 35.88 KB

I agree. It's likely that these go to a CT enclosure. Was there a bigger than normal box around the meter or perhaps an unexplained box near the meter? It'd also be easy to tell just by looking at the face of the meter. I doubt that a homeowner put these wires here because I can see them crimped onto the service wires with nicopress connectors. Most homeowner's don't have a nicopress tool. - Jim Katen, Oregon

Many years ago, I used the old "Voice-It" recorders. They worked fine. However, I didn't like using them because people would listen in while I was talking. I found this very annoying. Like Chris, I once dropped the thing in water -- a nasty, muddy sump. Interestingly, it continued to work, but everything I played back sounded like, "gar, gar, gar, gar, gar, gar." My wife said it sounded better than my real voice. Witty one, she. - Jim Katen, Oregon

Here's another approach. What would you say about this one? - Jim Katen, Oregon Download Attachment: GDO_Vertical.JPG 40.8 KB

He never said that it was moisture damaged. What's "moisture damaged" mean anyway? - Jim Katen, Oregon

Oh great! Now I've got to spend the rest of the day with *that* image in my brain. Woof. - Jim Katen, Oregon