Jim Katen

I use Pictometry. It has lot line overlays, a measuring tool, and an area tool.

Here's an image I used to prove there wasn't adequate separation between the septic and the well... or legal access to the property.

Click to Enlarge

864.26?KB

Their site tells me everything about it except the cost. What's it cost?

The copyright issue is irrelevant here. Forget about it.

You probably should have returned the lawyers' phone calls right away, if only to have some control over your relationship with them. You might have convinced them to hire you for litigation support.

They want you to be a witness of fact, not an expert. They'd be foolish to call you as an expert because you're no longer in the business. If you haven't been inspecting since "back in the day," you just wouldn't make a credible expert and the defense attorney would go after you pretty hard. I agree that the lack of deposition is strange.

Just show up and provide factual answers. If they ask you an "opinion" question, turn to the judge and ask whether or not you should answer. I'm guessing that the other inspector's defense will be based on the notion that he adhered to the state standards of practice while you exceeded them. Expect questions about the ways in which your report exceeded the standards; most of those questions will be of the "opinion" nature - watch out there. If you're lucky, the defendant will have hired his own expert to demonstrate his position.

They should pay for your parking, but forget about any other compensation.

Definitely review the standards and your report the night before. I was once involved in one of these where the thing that was alleged to be my report wasn't. It had been fabricated by the defendant from bits & pieces of my report combined with bits & pieces of another inspector's report. That defendant, a real estate agent, actually ended up doing time in prison, which, I'm ashamed to say, I found to be quite gratifying.

I just saw similar screens on yesterday afternoon's Lennox furnace. The installation instructions say that the screens are supposed to be used only on the intake pipe and only in a non-direct vent configuration; that is, when the end of the intake pipe is in the house, in an attic, or in a crawlspace. It specifically warns against using these screens when the intake is in a direct-vent configuration. The concern seems to be ice build up.

In the 1990s, I seem to recall an article in JLC about a drywall contractor who advocated slicing all scrap drywall into 14-inch wide pieces and stacking it in the wall cavities. He claimed it helped to deaden sound and it cut down on the waste that he had to haul away.

Wonder if he ever compared the cost of labor for cutting it up to just tossing it?

Or the cost of the added time of those poor sacks who might have to fish wires through the walls someday.

In the area of New England where I grew up and got started in construction, it was very common to find all kinds of crap inside wall cavities. For some reason, people threw old shoes in there - I have no idea why. They were usually worn out and mismatched, but we'd sometimes find a whole wall full of them.

In the 1990s, I seem to recall an article in JLC about a drywall contractor who advocated slicing all scrap drywall into 14-inch wide pieces and stacking it in the wall cavities. He claimed it helped to deaden sound and it cut down on the waste that he had to haul away.

Insulation. New Englanders are frugal.

It was common to find corncobs in there, which I'm sure were intended to serve as insulation and which the mice loved. The shoes, though, I'm not so sure. I can't imagine anyone would think that they'd make good insulation.

Find the manufacturer's instructions and see what they say. Some manufacturers require a screen. I've never seen a pre-manufactured grate like that, but it certainly might be ok.

I see that sort of thing once or twice a year, but the thickest accumulation is usually about 1/8", never anywhere near as dramatic as what's in your photos.

It's caused by very slow movement of water through the slab. The water carries soluble minerals with it and when it reaches the surface, the water evaporates, leaving the minerals behind. If liquid water were coming through the concrete, it would wash the minerals into a crust somewhere, so you've just got vapor coming through.

Of course, start with the basics: keep the gutters clean, and direct the downspout water well away from the house to reduce the saturation of the soil immediately under the house. After that, I usually advise installing a sub-slab drainage system. If that's not possible, then remove the vinyl tiles, thoroughly clean the floor, and leave it unfinished. Then install a dehumidifier. If they occasionally sweep the floor, they'll probably never notice the problem again because it'll be happening on such a slow scale.

I've never seen or heard of such a product. It looks like a great idea though. Kind of like gypsum plywood.

In the area of New England where I grew up and got started in construction, it was very common to find all kinds of crap inside wall cavities. For some reason, people threw old shoes in there - I have no idea why. They were usually worn out and mismatched, but we'd sometimes find a whole wall full of them.

In the 1990s, I seem to recall an article in JLC about a drywall contractor who advocated slicing all scrap drywall into 14-inch wide pieces and stacking it in the wall cavities. He claimed it helped to deaden sound and it cut down on the waste that he had to haul away.

In my experience, I've never seen multi-staged backup heat. What I've always seen is multiple electric elements. The installer connects whatever he sees fit, assuming there's enough power coming in from the panel. So yeah, If you've got two elements wired up for backup duty and one fails then there would be only half the heat on backup mode.

You're the first I've ever heard that checks for that. Not that I'm knocking it. It's colder where you are so maybe it's justified.

Marc

Most heat pumps with electric backup heat (outside of the south) are wired the way John describes. The coils come on in stages, either about 90 seconds apart (when governed by a sequencer), or in response to an outdoor thermostat and an intelligent thermostat.

I find it easiest to test them with a clamp-on meter. That way I can say with confidence which coils are coming on and which aren't. If I disconnect the suspect coils, I can even tell whether or not they're broken. The meter also makes for nice pictures, which provide a convincing narrative. Including a picture of an ammeter with "0.00" on it makes a point that's hard to argue with.

I do reinspections now and then. Many times I'm looking at a repair order list where the issues I'm supposed to inspect again have morphed into something different than I had originally called out. I'm sure you might get this too. What's your experience with this?

Here are the most recent morphs I've had.

Concern written in report;

The auxiliary backup electric coils in the furnace were tested by bypassing the heat pump using the thermostatic controls. Sufficient time was allowed for the system to ramp up but it failed to deliver an adequate heat supply. Further investigation is needed by a qualified contractor to determine the cause so that repairs can be made.

Response from seller;

"The Trane unit outside is just a few years old and inside a brand new motor was just placed in the air handler in 2015. Both were tested then and have worked flawlessly".

Your written comment is unclear. Three passive-voice sentences in a row put him to sleep. He got frustrated trying to figure out what the heck you were trying to say. Next time say, "The third electric coil from the top is broken. Replace it." Or, if you don't want to bother figuring out the exact problem, "The heat pump works fine in the heat pump mode, but not in the emergency backup mode. Ask your heating contractor to fix it."

Concern written in report;

A difference in water supply volume was recognized on the day of the inspection. While running the water at the fixtures an inconsistent volume was present. The volume changed significantly when more than one fixture was turned on at the same time. The systems of the well pump and well pressure tank should be further investigated by a qualified plumber to determine the cause of the inconsistent supply of water volume so that adjustments or repairs can be made.

Response from seller;

"The water pressure will decrease in pressure when using several water sources but this is true for any home on a well that does not have a continuous water pressure system. The pressure tank is only around three years old. It hasn't been an issue for us but I will make some psi adjustments to the pressure tank and pressure switch to help with this".

His response is much clearer than your comment. So far, I'm with him.

In general, when people don't understand what you've written, it's your fault, not theirs.

The 3 wire feed issue would depend on when the sub panel was installed as to whether or not its an enforcable issue.

Home inspectors have nothing to do with enforcement.

The NEC never allowed grounds and neutrals to be connected in a sub panel in the same building.

In addition to what Marc said, I'd mention the improper jumper between the main lugs at the sub panel and the problems with an upside down breaker in the FPE panel.

The green wire at the main lug is a giveaway that this entire installation is not to be trusted.

You might want to do some research to find out when a 4 wire feed for a sub panel was actually adopted by the NEC.

The 3 wire feed was accepted for many years before the change was made.

The 3-wire feed for sub panels in *separate buildings* was allowed and was only recently prohibited (2008?).

Sub panels in the same building have almost always been required to have their neutrals and grounding wires (if there were any) separated. (The 1918 NEC was the first to prohibit rebonding the the neutral at a sub panel.) Until 1962, this wasn't much of an issue, because most cables didn't have grounding wires. Since then, the NEC required a 4-wire feeder (if, of course, the panel had 120/240 volts).

We both know that this rule was often ignored, but it was still an NEC requirement.

The 3 wire feed issue would depend on when the sub panel was installed as to whether or not its an enforcable issue.

Home inspectors have nothing to do with enforcement.

The NEC never allowed grounds and neutrals to be connected in a sub panel in the same building.

In addition to what Marc said, I'd mention the improper jumper between the main lugs at the sub panel and the problems with an upside down breaker in the FPE panel.

The green wire at the main lug is a giveaway that this entire installation is not to be trusted.

What do ya'll comment about when inspecting older homes with wood burning masonry chimneys that do not comply with the 10-2-3 rule?

Does anyone know exactly when the 10-2-3 rule came in affect?

I've got a 1966 home where the chimney is about 12-18" out the peak of the roof.

Thanks,

Kiel

Click to Enlarge

72.35 KB

I wouldn't call 1966 "older."

My 1911 code for the City of Portland contains a rule that's quite similar. It requires the chimney to be 5' higher than a flat roof, 2' higher than a ridge, and 3' higher than a ridge if it's within 10' of the ridge.

The overwhelming likelihood is that the chimney in your picture was supposed to be higher when it was built.

That said, what possible difference does a 1966 rule have here? Is someone going to say, "Gee, since it was required in 1966, I'd better fix it?"

That last picture sure looks like a patched crack.

Very interesting problem and solution. Would you consider a gypsum based grout in the future to reduce weight and pressure?

Google "concrete snap ties" and take a look at some of the images. Looks like whoever did those walls did not bother to break off the ties after stripping the forms (or used a type not designed to break off). They're still sticking out, so they smeared some type of sealant around them.

We use snap ties that look like that here too, but they're much longer and they have a bulb or tee at the end that holds the "shoe" in place. Those rods in the picture would barely be long enough to project beyond the plywood forms, let alone leave enough room for the battens or shoe. Also, when you bend them, snap ties snap off at the bottom of a conical plug, behind the surface of the concrete. To get them to the length in the picture, you'd have to use some kind of cutting device, which would be more trouble than just bending them and snapping them off. I'm willing to bet that the things in the picture aren't snap ties.

It sounds like the only damage was above grade. Was there no damage below grade?

Were you concerned with stones popping loose during the void-clearing process?

Just out of curiosity, were these kinds of walls constructed as straight vertical structures or is the below grade portion battered back into the earth?

We don't have stone foundations out here. . .

I don't have a fraction of Kurt's experience with brick, but even out here, the simplest lintel replacement goes for $1,200 to $1,500 per lintel. $15k for the work you're describing doesn't sound out of line to me.

I should point out that LP siding was one of dozens of siding products that were rushed to market in the '80s, almost all of which failed. The LP product was unique in that they never actually halted production, but continued to refine it. They still make it to this day and it's matured into a decent siding product that hardly anyone in the USA will use because of its association with failure through the '90s.

It might also be interesting to ruminate on the difference between performance-based codes and prescriptive codes; two fundamentally different approaches to the code making process.

How old is the house?

Do you have a picture of the whole furnace?

Does it have an interlock switch?

What kind of burners?

Hi guys, today I had a GE exhaust fan over the range. It had recirculating fan with carbon filter in place (dirty). But it also vented to exterior, no louvers to block the exhaust to interior. Other than the gummed up dirty filter this should be a non-issue, correct?

Leighton

I wouldn't call it a non-issue. I'd call it a screwed up installation and I'd recommend installing the stoopid baffle so that it actually vented all of its exhaust to the exterior.

I'm wondering how strong a grout mix can be when it's watered down to flow like that?

The manufacturer's installation instructions will list a clearance to an inside corner, which will be either 6" or 12" depending on the type of cap used.

You've got neither there.

I see this all the time inside the attic spaces for the common walls. In areas where no one is going to go, it is just not aesthetically pleasing, but it isn't considered a defect. Some houses we have too much to write up already. When there are too many things in a report that don't have any meaning, it takes away from the importance of the things that do.

That pic stays on the cutting room floor in my editing room.

That's a really good point. I have no problem including lots of little defects in my report if there are lots of little defects in the house, but the sloppy mortar in the original post falls way short of being a defect.

Ours are iron with a big iron cap. What's that little plastic cap get you to?

One of these:

http://www.sears.com/oatey-abs-3in-back ... 7785291928