Douglas Hansen

Agreed Jim. Even though these things are more efficient and generally lower wattage today than they were 50 years ago, most will exceed 7.2kW. Freestanding electric ranges of that era typically came with a 50-amp NEMA plug. It's interesting to me that ranges have such a high rating, where the combined rating of an individual counter-mounted cooktop and a wall oven might not add up to anything close to that amount, even with greater cooking capacity. I think Brandon nailed it though - what matters is the rating on this particular one. It's not the sort of information I expect most home inspectors look at. When I was a home inspector, I bought one where the homeowner had replaced a single oven with a double oven on a 30-amp circuit, and the circuit couldn't handle both being on at the same time. It taught me to look at the nameplates. Douglas Hansen

I'm not sure I understand the concern on the range circuit. The way I'm reading it, you only need 8AWG for a range circuit that is 8.75kW or greater. If the nameplate of the range is less than that, you need only match the load. I'm looking at 210-10(b) in the 1959 NEC, and 210.19(A)(3) in the 2008 NEC. In the 1959 NEC, the fine print note to 220-4(i) recommends you use table 220-5 for the calculation on the feeder load even if you are using a smaller range, just in case you later replace it with a larger one. However, that has to do with the feeder load calculation, not the branch circuit size. Likewise, note 5 to table 220-5 says you "may" use table 220-5 to calculate the load for a single range. What that means is you can apply the demand factors of 220-5 for ranges in the 8 to 12 kW size range. Note 5 also says to use the nameplate rating for single wall-mounted ovens or counter-mounted cooking units. I don't think a range qualifies as a continuous load, therefore the circuit ampacity need only be 100% (not 125%) of the load. If the load is 7.2kW or less, a 30-amp circuit should be OK. 30Ax240V=7.2kW. The same is true today as it was in 1959. Douglas Hansen

Yes. What is the specific concern? Douglas Hansen

Hello Rocon It sounds like you agree that the scope of 2301.2 does limit conventional framing to 2304 and 2308, and you are disputing whether the table in 2304 brings diaphragms (2305) into the equation. In case anyone without a CBC cares to follow the conversation, I will quote the scoping section here: 2301.2 General design requirements. The design of structural elements or systems, constructed partially or wholly of wood or wood-based products, shall be in accordance with one of the following methods: 1. Allowable stress design in accordance with Sections 2304, 2305 and 2306. 2. Load and resistance factor design in accordance with Sections 2304, 2305 and 2307. 3. Conventional light-frame construction in accordance with Sections 2304 and 2308. Exception: Buildings designed in accordance with the provisions of the AF&PA WFCM shall be deemed to meet the requirements of the provisions of Section 2308. Table 2304.7(3) gives us allowable spans for roof sheathing. It has two span columns. One is for sheathing “with edge supportâ€

The CBC (2006 IBC) does not require roof diaphragms in conventional light frame construction. Diaphragm requirements are found in section 2305. Section 2301.2 gives the available choices of design methods for wood framing, and the sections which apply for conventional light-frame construction are 2304 and 2308, not 2305. The roof in question is not constructed as a diaphragm. Notice the absence of any edge blocking in the second photo. The provisions of the CBC (2006 IBC) for conventional wood framing (2308) allow for lumber or plank sheathing, as well as structural sheathing. Table 2304.7(3) specifically allows wood panel roof sheathing without edge support, such as at a ridge vent or the other joints which are perpendicular to the rafters. ASCE/SEI 7-05 states, in section 12.11.2.2.3, that the sheathing is not part of the design of any required ties or struts, not that it matters since it doesn't apply here. Douglas Hansen

Welcome aboard Michael Leavitt!

So once again, I'm looking at getting a new digital camera. I've been quite happy with my string of Olympus cameras - current model is the 3040, at 3.3 megapixels, but it's time to get what I'm missing. I'm interested in stuff that shoots in the 5+Megapixal range, is compact, has removable memory (flash card or smart card), and that does a better job on close-ups than my Olympus. Most of all, I'd like something that doesn't take up too much space in my luggage (I'm a road warrior for a living). Any suggestions?

Just replaced the water heater, and the only thing available was one of the new FVIR types for only twice the price. I appreciate the fact that it is less likely to blow up from gasoline spilled on the floor, but since it's in the laundry room and I normally don't keep the lawn mower there, I was a bit less than thrilled at the opportunity to pay for this new "feature." Worse still, I've been informed that should the nice new safety features of my water heater ever activate, they can't be reset, and I'll get another round of the thrilling experience of replacing the thing. Anyone know of a secret stash of old-technology water heaters?