Jim Katen

16 hours ago, Chris Jackson said:

Do I need to hire an architect when I want to change my flooring? 

Not in the Philippines. 

What were you hired to do? 

If I were interested in developing that building into usable apartments, I'd start with a Capital Needs Assessment. 

Well, never say never. 

I just ran into this today. 

1954 house - note the postal zone in the address. 

It was a nicely made panel. 

I just say, "You've been hanging out with the wrong kind of inspectors." 

I think you'd have to look at the packaging or catalog to know for sure. 

FWIW, I wouldn't consider that to be a wet location. 

9 hours ago, Whalen68 said:

The house is an 1889 Victorian with ornate everything.  In between the two closets I have a fireplace mantel.  I will be painting the woodwork white and want to incorporate the closets into the scheme.  I am thinking a paintable plywood would be a better fit than drywall.   

I'd think that beadboard wainscot would be a better choice than either one. 

I'll bet you a dollar that it'll be impossible to remove that lug cleanly. 

To do this properly, the building paper under the siding has to overlap the z flashing. That's not possible to do by sliding it in from the side. 

Just remove the course of siding above each place you want to flash, install the flashing properly, and then replace the siding, typically using a pin gun. If you could remove the original piece without damaging it, great. If not, replace it with a new piece of siding. 

These kinds of repairs are done every day - it really shouldn't be too much of a trial for a contractor. 

Joe Hancaviz will probably cover the northern part. 

What is it that you're hoping to achieve with the plywood? That will help with the recommendation. 

Something is wrong with that explanation. Smart meters don't need to tap the main lugs in a service panel. They're already attached to the SECs inside the meter base. There's nothing more that the meter can learn from tapping the main lugs. Especially not with copper wires mixed with aluminum wires in lugs not listed for that. 

I'd tell the utility to keep their grubby wires out of my panel. 

Those are some interesting parallel SECs. What kind of building is this? 

12 hours ago, Rayne said:

I posted a pic awhile back of this panel without the cover taken off.

No, this is a different panel. The one you posted before had all different breakers. 

13 hours ago, Rayne said:

That bare copper wire I thought was the equipment grounding conductor but where’s the neutral? Is the copper wire the neutral but then we’re is there equipment grounding conductor?

Like Marc said, the big bare copper wire is the incoming neutral. What's missing is a grounding electrode conductor. 

I don't recall ever hearing of them. 

10 hours ago, Les said:

It was prior to 1958, ala the lack of zip code.

I generally agree with you & Chad, but here's my thought process: 

Zip codes started in 1963, and postal zones (one or two digit codes) go back to 1943. This one has neither, but it certainly doesn't pre-date 1943, so the absence of a code doesn't necessarily date it. (I've found the presence of a zip code or postal zone to be good at dating a furnace, but the absence of one doesn't mean much. It could be that they didn't feel the need to add a zip code (or postal zone) since they weren't mailing it. . . )

I agree about the chrome and the likelihood of it being from the '50s, but the sticking point is that this was a gas furnace from the get-go - it wasn't converted from oil, and there's only a small chance that this house had gas service in the '50s. Portland didn't have any natural gas until 1956, and even then, it was quite rare until the '60s. (We had manufactured gas much earlier, but that was long gone by the '50s.) So the '50s is possible, but unlikely. 

The data plate states 66% efficiency (90/135), which is probably what it gets when everything is perfectly balanced, it gets a rolling start, and it has a tailwind behind it. One of my partners used to do combustion analysis on these things and he said that, once tuned up properly (which wasn't particularly difficult), they could deliver about 65% efficiency pretty reliably. 

I was able to get a good view of the burner and the outside of the drum-style heat exchanger, both of which looked great. In the report I observed that the furnace is old and inefficient, but paid for and that it would probably outlast several 

If anyone's interested, I included this paragraph in the report: 

Quote

The ancient Holland furnace is working fine today. Modern furnaces are anywhere from 80% efficient (for a cheap one) to 96% efficient. This one is probably in the 60-66% range of efficiency (on a good day). That said, it’s paid for and if you take care of it, it’ll probably outlast several very expensive modern furnaces. Despite its inefficiency, its overall cost of ownership just might be less than the series of new furnaces that might otherwise replace it.

7 hours ago, Rob Amaral said:

Well... chimney (AKA 'vent') terminations should be 3' above where they leave the roof and 2' above anything within 10' of the roof... the problem here is the water heater vent is simply too short..even if it was by itself.. . 

If only it were so simple. The rule you're quoting is for masonry chimneys that serve fireplaces.  Alas, gas B-vents don't follow the rules for "chimneys." Their minimum height above the roof depends on the slope of the roof and the diameter of the vent. 

7 hours ago, Rob Amaral said:

it's also probably an over-sized chimney now that the furnace was removed from it...   It's apparently an 'orphaned' water heater and that can make the water heater draft poorer and exacerbate the blah blah blah blah blah.. and lead to corrosion.

Maybe, or maybe not. There's quite a bit of leeway when you actually do the calculations. 

I think it would be nice to have a rule to refer to, but I'm also unable to find one. 

Without a rule or other reference, the HVAC contractor isn't going to know what to do. After all, he or someone like him installed it in the first place. 

For things like this, in the past, I've asked the furnace manufacturer for a written opinion, and used that. 

What do you Michiganders think?

1960's? 

On 3/24/2020 at 4:02 PM, hausdok said:

Hi,

The white powdery substance you are seeing is mineral salts caused by a chemical reaction between the acids in the exhaust gases and the zinc contained in the galvanized pipe used for the single-walled vent connector. To make that relatable, think battery post corrosion in your engine compartment.

That length of single-walled pipe from the collar allows those exhaust gases to cool, get heavier and slow down way too early. When that happens, the gas cools to dewpoint and condenses on the inner walls of the vent somewhere above the connection between the single-walled connector and double-walled vent pipes. Wherever the acids in that condensation comes into contact with galvanized pipe, that reaction occurs. Then, when all of that excess condensation drains back to the joint between the vent and connector and leaks out of the joint, the water evaporates and leaves the salts behind.

That's why gas exhaust vents and connectors should be double-walled all the way from the collar of the appliance to terminus. The fuel-gas code used to require only B vents to the collar in attics and concealed spaces and anywhere considered to be cold, but it seemed like the majority of HVAC installers ignored that rule anyway if the furnace or water heater was installed where it's readily viewable in unheated areas like garages. Somewhere back around the 2003 - 2005 timeframe that requirement disappeared from the code and they allowed installation of single-walled connectors in areas other than the attic or concealed spaces as long as the area wasn't any colder than 5-deg. F. in winter. This despite the fact that a lot of condensation can occur even in vents that are luke-warm to the touch in such areas like garages. I'll bet you a box of donuts that most HVAC installers still couldn't care less and are still using as much single-walled material as they can, in order to squeeze as much profit as possible out of every job.

Too much salt indicates an issue with the exhaust vent system. A little bit of salts isn't really too much of a concern at a single-walled to double-walled connection, if there isn't any issue at the vent terminus (Excessive rusting, cracks, holes due to condensation and acidic vapor lingering around the vent once it leaves the pipe), but a lot of salt is telling you there's an issue with exhaust gases cooling too rapidly - especially if there is a lot of salt sifting back down from the vent connector at the collar and ending up in/on the furnace. Cause could be the single-walled connector from the collar, if it's too long and it's in an unheated (cold) area. The fix could be to replace the single-walled section with a double-walled section, but a lot of the time that doesn't necessarily stop it if the installer didn't properly calculate the vent size requirements using the vent sizing tables in the code or if he/she didn't pay attention to the rule about limits on number and degree of bends in the vent between collar and terminus - bends that violate the 'no bends greater than 45-deg but one bend of no more than 60-deg. rule, slow those gases. The more bends, the slower the gas moves - even if the furnace has an exhaust gas inducer. Around here those numbskulls will use two to four 90-deg. bends to detour around furnace filter access doors instead of using 45-deg. vents to go around. Another thing to look at is whether or not the appliance has enough makeup air. If they've installed it in confined space with insufficient makeup air, or in a laundry room where there's a clothes dryer and no makeup air openings to the outside, those gases will stall - even with an inducer integral to the appliance. There have been thousands of times I've stepped out of my vehicle, glanced up at a rooftop, saw a heavily-rusted vent terminus and knew right away that as soon as I checked out the furnace I was going to find issues with stalling exhaust gases. Sometimes, the issue was so bad that condensation would literally leak out of the vent connector connection at the collar and drip onto components in the controller bay - eating holes through the floor of the bay and sometimes causing electrical connections to severely corrode. So, when someone tells you, like the gent above, that the salts mean nothing, take it with a grain of salt and thoroughly inspect that vent installation anyway.

It's good that you're asking questions about this. I've always said that inspectors need, more than anything else, to understand basic building sciences, and need to look at the whole picture, not just the tick marks their report format asks them to check, that are taught by a lot of so-called inspection schools, in order to really do this job well and be able to make the client fully comprehend the implications of issues found.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike 

This is all spot on, but Mike forgot to mention one of the most common problems that causes excessive build-up of this salt: short cycling. If the furnace is over sized, if the thermostat is poorly located near a supply register, if the burners are over-firing, if the high-temperature limit switch is failing, the furnace might be shutting down before the flue comes up to a steady-state temperature, allowing lots of condensation to build up in there. 

8 hours ago, Homeowner in Ohio said:

I have  white gritty sand-like debri on top of my gas hot water tank and on the floor near it.  I'm guessing it's falling from the vent which goes directly to my roof.  This is not a powder like the earlier posts.  What is this, and what should I do?

Without pictures of the stuff and the entire configuration of the installation, my best advice is to sweep up all the debris, throw it out, and go have a beer. 

3 hours ago, Chad Fabry said:

I report it if they're not listed on the panel label. 

You might want to revisit that policy. While it's certainly the easy path, it's often not the right one. Classified breakers meant for that panel are perfectly acceptable, no matter what the manufacturer attempts to claim. 

8 hours ago, BADAIR said:

Eaton Interchangable Classified Breaker.pdf 116.05 kB · 3 downloads

It's disturbing that Square D would lump counterfeit breakers in with classified breakers, which are specifically UL listed to fit into their panels. The thing that's particularly galling is that Square D makes classified breakers to fit into nearly every other panelboard out there, but they "prohibit" using other company's classified breakers in their panels. It's a racket and it's probably not enforceable under the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, which specifically prohibits a company from requiring only branded parts be used with the product in order to retain the warranty. 

In fact, I seem to recall hearing that Square D took that bulletin off their website like 20 years ago. Did you find it on Schneider's website or has it just been re-posted on other websites since the early 2000s? 

I call it the bus bar and the things that stick out of it are the stabs. (At least that's what I call them.)

If the breakers are sitting 1/2" proud of where they should be, I'd call that a real problem. The're not engaging with the stabs properly. If you're in a hurry and/or if you're not interested in screwing around, just note that the breakers are the wrong type for the panel, recommend that they be replaced, and move on. 

However, if you're interested in mucking around, I suspect that whoever installed the breakers just didn't push them all the way into place. Sometimes you've got to push pretty hard, even with Square D breakers in a Square D panel. Personally, I wouldn't hesitate to carefully push on one of the breakers - it would probably slip right into place. If so, I'd do all the others and move on. 

From your description, it sounds like the ground water is completely surrounding the basement, like a boat. This seems unlikely because if it were, water would surely be leaking into the basement. 

Thinking out loud: what if the water is accumulating on a hard lens of soil, with dryer soil below? It might be interesting to drill a 6' or 8' deep hole in the bottom of one well to see what happens. 

Personally, I don't say anything about it unless the off-brand breakers interfere with the fit of the deadfront. 

I don't understand what you mean by "stick out 1/2 inch at the middle contacts." 

10 hours ago, Marc said:

I'm curious about the efflorescence.  Why does it seem to favor the border between the spalled and un-damaged areas?

Just a guess, but I suspect that the worst of it occurs where the most water emerges. You can't see it because it's fallen off along with the face of the stone.