Brandon Chew

In addition to concerns about moisture and termite damage to that untreated below-grade wood, I hope (but doubt) that the concrete foundation wall was engineered to restrain the top of the concrete wall from pushing inward. You have a depth of unbalanced fill greater than the wall height, which is outside the realm of the prescriptive building code. This needs to have an engineered design. The foundation is going to want to hinge at the sill plate.

If you haven't done so yet, pick up a copy of Genius by James Gleick. It's a great read about the life & times of Richard Feynman and the guys he hung out with. He took great pride in his ability to explain complex subjects in a way that was easy for others to grasp. He often said that if a person was unable to do this, then that person really did not fully understand what they were talking about.

I would believe that for flooring but not for framing. In response to changes in moisture content, wood swells and shrinks the most in a direction that runs across the grain, and very little in the direction running with the grain. I think he has it backwards. Drying out the crawl could cause the flooring to open gaps between the boards. Getting flooring too wet causes it to buckle.

My wife and I traveled by bicycle in two weeks from Anchorage to Homer during one summer before we had kids. We carried everything we needed with us: food, clothing, & camping gear. Alaska is awe inspiring! I've traveled around a bit but I never had a sense of how big the world really is, and how small of a part of it I really am, until I went there.

It is clear to me from the schematic provided in the manufacturer's installation instructions that when the instructions say "2. Install the coupler into a suitable workbox or equivalent enclosure using the two mounting holes" and they describe the unit as "the PPC-1 is designed to install in a suitable junction box and wire to two phases (circuits) of the circuit breaker panel", they are talking about an enclosure that is separate from the circuit breaker panel.

Hi Don, welcome to TIJ. These guys bark and sometimes they bite, but it's usually done with the intent to help the person who made the post, and anyone who reads it, become better inspectors.

The codes folks are taking a second look at not requiring structural sheathing on the gable ends at the attic. After the barrage of hurricanes with Katrina and the ones that hit Florida a few years ago, they found that lack of structural sheathing on the gable ends was a key failure point in a structure that would have otherwise survived the hurricanes with minor damage. Wind tore a loose piece of siding off, which let more wind in, tearing more siding off. When the hole was big enough, lots of wind-blown rain came in causing extensive water damage to the occupied areas of the building below the attic, and in some cases the wind tore whole portions of the roof framing away. Chad Fabry did a stint as a disaster inspector down there after Katrina. I bet he saw a lot of buildings with damage that I described. Is it required? - depends on your local code Do I recommend it? - I think it's cheap enough to put on the home before you install the siding that it's a wise thing to do. Should you retrofit if it's not required and not there? - depends on your location, and how you balance risk and the cost to do it.

I haven't had to go on a hunting trip for the GFCI yet, but when I do, this thread's been a big help. (adds extension cord to box in car that holds extra towels, mini vac, roll of toilet paper, extra batteries, etc.)

Yep, I got all that. Like Steven, when I first started looking at it, I made an initial assumption (because the pic was cut off at the top) that the bus bars were jumpered. If they were jumpered, feed would be from the lower left but as I followed the way the current would go in that arrangement, I realized the assumption about a jumper was either wrong or that power had never been applied to the panel. Once I had figured out there was no jumper I knew what was going on. About that time, Steven posted the comment about the jumper and I chimed in with my exploding head comment. Chad, I'm wondering how many conductors the manufacturer called for on those machines. If those were 120V work lights and not 240V, I bet it was four...or was this a DIY motor & light wiring job?

I started typing a reply several posts above yours. I was following the wires until I hit that jumper. Then my brain froze and my head exploded.

They were probably afraid of phthalates.

And no more than six degrees of separation between anyone and Kevin Bacon! [:-slaphap You knew someone was going to post that.... [:-paperba Good post Tim.

Agreed, but then you run into this problem: Yep, as I was reading down the thread, when I came to your post I was thinking "what happens if there is a fire in the garage?" Since I can't find anything in the code that says you are required to have a return in the same room as a supply duct, I'd go with IRC §R309.1.1 as was noted above. The supply register is a great big honking opening in the duct in the garage.

I'm leaning toward noninvasive or nondestructive. Noninvasive has a good parallel to the medical field, and I think more and more people are becoming familiar with that term and have an intuitive grasp of what it means -- to examine without breaking the skin or penetrating a body cavity. Nondestructive is similar but not quite the same, and comes from the engineering world. When you go to the doctor, the doctor wants to learn as much as possible about you without causing damage to your body. The doctor runs you through a battery of noninvasive tests and examinations: looks you over, pokes and probes, measures your temperature and weight, listens to your heart and breathing, measures your pulse and blood pressure, looks in your ears and throat, checks your vision, tests your reflexes, etc. Beyond that there are a whole host of noninvasive diagnostic tools available for use: x-ray, ECG/EKG, MRI, radiology, ultrasound, and yes, infrared imaging. The doctor might order some minimally invasive tests such as drawing blood, a biopsy, or even a colonoscopy -- although those who have had that last one might disagree that it is "minimally invasive"! Thankfully, technology has pushed "let's grab the scalpel and see what's going on in there" way down the list! Over in the engineering world, many of those same techniques and technologies are being used on physical objects in a process called NDE or nondestructive evaluation. NDE refers to methods used to examine and evaluate an object, material or system without impairing its future usefulness. A small amount of damage is permissible as long as the usefulness is maintained. A house is a bunch of objects and materials that are assembled into various systems. I think nondestructive is better than noninvasive as a description of the kind of inspection that HIs do. It's that "examination without impairing future usefulness" part that is the key. Using a pin-type moisture meter, probing for wood damage, or dismantling equipment in order to get a better look are all invasive methods but they are still considered nondestructive techniques. When I am working to define and shape the client's expectations of the inspection, I don't say "I'm going to do a limited visual inspection of the readily accessible areas of the home". I say "I'm going to spend several hours here trying to find out everything I can about the condition of this home without damaging it." Then I'll mention some of the things that might limit my inspection (e.g., not visible, not accessible, not safe).

I understand where you are going with the qualitative vs quantitative thing. I think your logic breaks down somewhere between the tester being "not quantitative" (with which I agree) and then from this you draw the conclusion that it is a "visual inspection" of the receptacle wiring (with which I do not agree). The standard of care that is routinely set by many inspectors goes not only beyond being a visual inspection, but it also frequently crosses that line between qualitative and quantitative. Ever use a tape measure to actually measure something before calling it out as a defect? My point with all this is that home inspections have evolved into something more than a "visual inspection" and they involve some degree of quantitative analysis. What that thing should be called, I really don't know. Supply and demand, my brother. Uh, now, can anyone tell me where Katens at? I heard he just got on a plane to Mexico.[:-wiltel] Chris, Oregon There is an endless supply of new home inspectors pricing their services below the level which is necessary for them to remain viable as a business. There is certainly a demand for home inspections at that price. Neither the supplier nor the purchaser of those services may be making a wise decision. That we see the same thing now happening with IR is probably the biggest reason why I don't already own an IR camera. At this point in time I can't justify a capital outlay of that size when there are guys springing up that are willing to give that capital, and the value of their own time (because as you and others have observed the IR cam adds a significant amount of time to your inspection process), away for free.

A comment and a (rhetorical) question. We need to stop calling what we do a "visual" inspection. It may have been a visual inspection at one time, but the standard of care that is routinely set by many inspectors goes beyond being a visual inspection. I'll use the moisture meter as an example since we are all familiar with its use. If I see something that looks like a water stain or some other sign of a current or past moisture problem, or even a bad flashing job on a roof, and then I use the moisture meter as a tool to provide more information to me about the thing that I observed, then I think we are still in the realm of doing a visual inspection. But if I start routinely scanning the walls below windows or the floor around toilets in the bathroom, because this is where I find a lot of leaks at houses I inspect and not because I observed something at this house that lead me to believe there may be moisture present in these locations at this home, then I'm no longer doing a visual inspection. Here's another example. When I open up an electrical panel and report my findings, I'm doing a visual inspection. When I stick a three light tester into a receptacle and report my findings, I'm not doing a visual inspection on this portion of the electrical system. If, instead of using the tester, I remove the cover plate and report on how the receptacle is wired, I'm doing a visual inspection. In this case, the cost of the tool is cheap and it speeds up my inspection process, because I can use the tester to decide which cover plates I want to pull for a visual inspection, instead of pulling every one of them or relying on a "representative sample". With an IR camera, I see two different ways of using it in HI work. The first way is that you see something, such as a water stain, with your eyes. You pull out your IR camera and you find a "thermal anomaly" around the stain. You pull out your moisture meter and scan around the stain and confirm that the thermal anomaly is due to moisture. You use the IR pic to communicate to your client information about the location and extent of the leak. You could switch the order of grabbing the camera or the moisture meter; I don't think it matters because each tool is being used to provide you with more info about what you originally observed with your eyes. In this case, the cost of the tool is large and time added to the inspection is small. The other way is to use the IR camera as a primary inspection and diagnostic tool, much the same as using the three light receptacle tester or the moisture meter to scan areas of the home that have no visible signs of moisture. In this case the IR camera is being used as a tool to find problems that you cannot normally see with your eyes during the course of a typical home inspection, or maybe, as in the case with the three-light tester you use it to help you more quickly zero in on areas that you want to conduct a more thorough visual examination. You are using the camera to hunt for thermal anomalies and then conducting further investigations to nail down their cause. Now for the question. You make a considerable investment in money and time to add and learn how to properly use a new tool (IR camera) in your routine inspection business. Using this tool adds a significant amount of your time to each inspection. It adds considerable value to your inspection for your client. Why give all of that away for free?

I use this: DOE R-Value Recommendations

Video inspection of the sewer between the house and the street Well yield, water quality, and well equipment installation Household water treatment systems (disinfection, softeners, filters, R/O systems, etc.) Septic or other on-site wastewater disposal systems Solar water heating systems Geothermal heat pumps Fire sprinkler systems Lawn sprinkler & irrigation systems Look at the things that inspectors are not required to inspect in the plumbing & general exclusion sections of the various HI SOPs . If you are qualified to do so, start inspecting them.

I don't think the roofer stayed in a Holiday Inn Express.

I've been following this thread and Caoimhín has been doing so well I thought there was not a lot I could add to the discussion until now. Having worked as an environmental engineer in a government regulatory agency for more than twenty years, I've witnessed a lot of sausage being made. Even when you begin with "good science", what comes out of the other end of "the machine" in the name of good policy can be barely recognizable. Sure, if you take the time to read the label, it will usually truthfully list the ingredients, but ...

Thanks Richard. My 2006 IRC is the paper version and that was too much for me to type with one hand.

For asphalt shingle roofs, drip edge flashing at the eaves and gables (rakes) is required in the building code (IBC) but not in the residential code (IRC). Most shingle manufacturer installation instructions recommend it but do not require it. On a house, roofers building to "code minimum" do not install it, while roofers using "best practices" install it. Or as Les said "lack of metal edge indicates cheap = poor installation". It's a signal to keep my eyes open because I'm likely to find problems elsewhere on the roof -- especially at places where flashing is required. The purpose of drip edge is to provide edge support to the shingles that overhang the eaves and rake, and to protect the edge of the roof decking and fascia from moisture damage. If it is missing, I look for damage to the shingles at the overhang and damage to the decking and fascia. In my report, I just state that drip edge is not present, explain its purpose, and report whether or not I found damage. If I find damage I tell them the damage needs to be fixed.

Good tip Chad. That's something I plan to do when I get my website up. BTW, I need to add Fabry to my spell checker. It keeps suggesting that I replace it with 'fairy'. [:-slaphap I always click 'ignore', but one of these days...

That is not correct. 2006 IRC P2803.6.1 says the discharge may be to the floor, to an indirect waste receptor, or to the outdoors. There must be an air gap in the same room as the water heater.

Ok, I'm beginning to come around. From the article: According to a survey done by Domestic Engineering Magazine, approximately one of every three T & PR vales is frozen shut and non-operational. Does anyone have access to this survey or know anything about it? - Jim Katen, Oregon Mitchell linked to a reprint of the article in post #13. T&P Valve article in May 1986 issue of Domestic Engineering magazine The On The House website mis-interprets what the article says. Lopp works(ed?) at Modern Electric Co., a water utility in Spokane, WA. They sent info to their customers about how to do a self-inspection of their TPR and asked them to report the results. Results were: 18 percent, no T & P valve installed two percent, T & P valve incorrectly installed four percent, pressure only relief valve one percent, T & P valve would not discharge less than one percent, T & P valve plugged. "However, Lopp says that 15 percent of the T & P valves inspected by his company would not discharge, leading them to believe that the figure for unprotected hot water heaters in their area is closer to 30 percent." My analysis: The 30 percent figure for unprotected water heaters comes from adding the 18 percent with no TPR reported by customers to the 15 percent reported by his company that would not discharge, and then rounding off. Regarding "On The House", "one in three" is another way of saying 33 percent. They are referring to the "closer to 30 percent" figure in the DE article that that I quoted above. They incorrectly state that as the number for TPRs being "frozen shut". The correct number that should be attributed to Lopp for stuck TPR valves is 15 percent, not one in three, and this is based on the utility's experience from doing their own inspections and not from the customer survey.