Jim Katen

I don't know of any code that prohibits it, though one could argue that 408.4 requires them to be labeled. (. . . it might be a weak argument.) 

If the wires or cables are neatly tucked in the back of the panel, labeled as to where they go, and cleanly clipped at the ends, I don't say anything about them. (I have cables like this in my own house. One goes to a j-box in the attic and one goes to a j-box in the basement - as future proofing.)

If the wires have their insulation stripped back so that the conductors are exposed, I suggest trimming them and adding wire nuts as well as figuring out where they go and labeling them. 

10 hours ago, Kimi said:

Thank you for your responses. 

Probably I will choose the gas water heater without water. I take into account all the positive aspects described with (DELETED) article 

My friends from the Ukraine tell me that on-demand gas water heaters are by far the most popular there. Are tank-type water heaters even an option for you in the Ukraine? 

4 hours ago, John Kogel said:

 

There may be an intermittent wiring fault, but that wouldn't usually burn out the bulb. Nope, i don't have a clue.

1

I've got an ancient little desk lamp that I use daily. There's some kind of wiring flaw in it because if the metal cowl (shade, whatever . . .) is turned just the right way, the bulbs tend to cycle back & forth between bright and slightly less bright. If I let them go on like that, the bulb burns out really quickly. If I tweak the position of the shade then the cycling stops and the bulbs last for months. I'm sure that the shade is pulling on a wire somehow and causing a connection to loosen a bit. 

10 hours ago, Jerry Simon said:

Here we are, ten days later after switching the two fixtures as James suggested.

Same fixture, now on the left side instead of the right, just burned out a bulb.  (Again, I already replaced this almost brand new fixture with an even newer one, suspecting it was the fixture itself.)   This is odd.

So, you've narrowed the problem down to the fixture itself. I suspect a flaw, probably a loose connection, that affects a large percentage of the fixtures. You just happened to get two bad ones in a row. Does it use typical screw-base lamps? If so, the little tab at the bottom might not have enough spring to make good contact with the bottom of the lamp. Try using a chopstick or bamboo skewer to bend it up a bit. 

A "condo" is a form of ownership, not a type of building. I'm assuming that you're talking about multi-story apartment buildings?

In the US, the NEC doesn't require the main disconnect to be inside the unit. It can be in an electrical closet in the hallway, on a different floor, in the basement or parking garage, or anywhere else on the premises. The apartment occupants are supposed to have access to the main disconnect unless the building has "continuous building management supervision." Perhaps the CEC is similar? 

As Bill & Marc said, the NEC doesn't require it to be a the service panel, but it's just the model code. Local jurisdictions often amend it when they adopt it. I suggest getting copies of the locally amended codes for your area. 

It might be asphalt roll roofing. (The wrinkles and the thin edge in the last picture suggest this.) Try to tear an edge. If it tears easily, it's roll roofing. If you can't tear it, it's mod bit. 

The installation is a disgrace. 

Try swapping the two fixtures, just to see what happens. 

11 minutes ago, Nolan Kienitz said:

I used to suggest pig-tailing or the Alumicon products, but have stopped even that over past several years. I advise my client to have an electrician make sure the switches, receptacles, etc.. are all AL-CU rated. Early products used to be only CU rated. In my view the devices with the AL-CU ratings should sufficiently hold either aluminum or copper ... even with aluminum and its larger 'expansion/contraction' properties.

 

1

That's not entirely correct. Remember that the first aluminum wiring that came out in 1964 was an alloy that was just not well suited to household wiring because it was so brittle. There's no rating of a device that can make up for that problem. Every time the wires are handled, there's an increased risk of fractures that can lead to hot spots in the wires. That alloy was used up to about 1972. After 1972, the improved alloy came out and was much better. You really can't discuss aluminum wiring without making a distinction between the two. They're like night & day. 

As for devices, early ones were only listed for copper, but then when aluminum wiring was introduced some devices had labels that said CU/AL or AL/CU. These proved to be problematic in their own right and were really not suited for use with aluminum wire - most especially those with stab-back connections. This shouldn't have been surprising because there was no UL standard in place at the time to govern such labeling - it was entirely at the whim of the manufacturer. In 1972, UL came out with the AL/COR (aluminum, copper-revised) standard. Those devices are, indeed, manufactured and intended to be used with aluminum wires. (This doesn't include breakers, by the way, which are fine if marked AL/CU.) Confused, yet? 

Bottom line: don't recommend AL/CU or CU/AL switches & receptacles. 

Reminds me of Linda Hamilton's recurring dream in T2. 

Ok. If it's NM cable and if the new EGC enters each panel through the same knockout as the feeder cable, then it should be allowed. I'd check with the AHJ first though. 

I've only seen it once in the wild. The bead might have been more defined, but it's hard to say. Lighting can make a big difference. 

Looks like it works the same as the one in my picture, only shorter. 

Also, I can't see the benefit of routing the condensate back into the radon pipe below the fan. Why not let it drip on the ground or plumb it to a rain drain or other place of disposal? 

On 11/5/2017 at 1:05 PM, josephsapien said:

I don't have pictures or know the construction method.  In fact, the seller has placed all kinds of stuff in the garage.  It would be very difficult to pull out the attic ladder and look into below the roof.  And my understanding is that home inspectors will not touch/move the stuff in the garage to bring down the ladder because of liability.

I guess I've wasted hundreds of hours moving stuff during my inspections. . . 

You're asking for information that no one can give you from a distance. 

We can't remote-inspect a house for you. 

Bill's correct. 300.3(B)

This rule has some exceptions, but none applies to this situation. 

Hardiplank makes a siding with that profile. 

Choose a discreet area and probe the siding to see what it's made from. If it's fibercement, then it's probably Hardiplank's "beaded smooth" product. 

It's impossible to say without seeing some pictures and knowing what the construction methods are.

Wood shingles, shakes, 3-tab comp, laminated comp, or what? 

What kind of roof framing, trusses or rafters? Spacing? 

What kind of roof deck, plywood, shiplap, or skip sheathing with plywood on top. If plywood, what thickness? 

Crawlspace or basement? Water problems? 

Even with all of the necessary data, we can't really say without seeing it. 

It's just a handle extension to give the user more leverage. You should be able to rotate it up 90 degrees and the transfer linkage should just slip over it. 

It looks good. I like it. 

Two suggestions: 

At the bottom of the Home page, under the heading, "An Interactive Create Request List," the penultimate sentence reads, "Simply use the CRL™ to create your repair addendum along with your real estate agent." Alert readers will chuckle at the error. I suggest simply dropping the "along with your agent" part. It's not necessary.

Near the top of the Services page, the rascal who wrote the copy must have re-used the same paragraph from another website because he refers to you as "Trust Inspection Services." In addition to correcting the error, you might want to do some searches to see how much of the copy on your site is re-used from other sites that HomeGauge already designed. You want the copy on your pages to be unique. 

How does the "special coupling" collect the condensate without creating a narrower interior cross-section? 

One of my partners ended up talking with the tech who installed it - it's a condensate drain: 

https://www.radonpds.com/shop/all-accessories/hydro-sep/

He said that they've stopped using them because they felt that the 2" pipe caused a restriction in airflow and because they figured that condensation isn't going to be the limiting factor in the fan's service life anyway. 

Everybody's a comedian. . . 

Any idea why these radon exhaust pipes would have holes in them? 

The AHJ is just passing the buck to you. He's not going to care what you do as long as your recommendations are within the general boundaries of reason. 

I'd call it a non-conforming studio, or something like that, and just inspect it as if it were a dwelling attached to a garage. Why would you want to avoid such separation issues? 

I inspect these things once or twice per year and I always treat them that way. No one's complained about it. . . 

2 hours ago, Trent Tarter said:

I am always looking at ways to write a better report. I have not giving it much thought as to why I leave out "I" and simply start with Recommend. I guess it's because people know what I am talking about.

1

That's the same tired defense that everyone tries to hide behind when people point out that they're writing things wrong. With what we do, it's not good enough to assume that someone can figure out what you're trying to say. The most fundamental rule of home inspection report writing is to make your report impossible to misunderstand. You can't do that by sounding like Chief Wild Eagle from F Troop. 

2 hours ago, Trent Tarter said:

I look report writing as more of a technical writing format that's not the same as typical grammar. 

Well, then you're looking at it wrong. Our job is to clearly explain things to ordinary people. If you're going to do that with writing in English, then leaving out words and abandoning "typical" grammar (whatever that is) is not the best way to do that. If you want to use another method of communication - like pictures & captions or videos, then that's fine. Figure out the "grammar" that makes those things work. But if you're writing in English, you need to use grammar or your meaning flys out the window.  

2 hours ago, Trent Tarter said:

I try not to overuse use the term "further evaluate". However, I feel it's the best term to use in many cases. I am open to new ideas if someone's got a good replacement for "further evaluate".

"Further evaluate" has two problems. The first is that it's not always clear. In a lot of cases, telling people to further evaluate something leaves them scratching their heads. You know what you mean, but they often don't. Just drill down to the next level and tell them what you mean by it. For example, "I don't know much about this kind of widget. Hire a widget contractor to tell you what to do about it." The second problem is that way too many inspectors use "further evaluate" as a crutch to avoid legwork. They're just too lazy to actually check out the widget or write about it even when they know how, so "further evaluate" just flies out of their mouths like bad milk.