Jim Katen

Other opinions:

http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=138273

I don't know how much the physics gets into this but you can see that normally UF is going to be buried a few feet underground and if said ground is water saturated the max static head you would expect is a few feet. A well, on the other hand, could subject the UF up to two orders of magnitude (100x) the static head on the UF. Ever how much pressure is a factor in driving the water molecules into/through the polymer structure of the UF as opposed to the purpose designed submersible cable is the question that seems relevant to me.

Ever seen the wire leads coming off the pump?

Hi Everyone,

I build software and I'm doing some research on ways to make the inspection business more fun, productive and profitable.

What are the pain points you experience in your business?

Thanks in advance,

Scott.

Put together a system that does what these guys say that they do:

https://www.inspectionsupport.net/

Walter Jowers used to observe that the fee from one home inspection wouldn't even cover the cost of a cheap coffin.

The fact that I have never seen UF used for this purpose concerns me.

Is UF actually rated to be submerged in water for a long-term basis?

It's listed for use in wet locations, which includes "locations subject to saturation with water."

I think you don't see it used this way because it seems like it would be a pain in the butt to do so.

You really can't appreciate how hard concrete is until you experience it at 32 feet per second.

Thanks Jim,

I'm just a cheapskate. I've got some UF sitting around......

From what I'm seeing on-line, UF seems to run around .50/.60 a foot, while submersible wire is around $1.00 a foot.

PS: The western US Maxitrol rep. who just so happens to live in Tigard sounded interested in teaching a seminar for inspectors. If you're interested, I'll get you his number.

Please do. Thanks.

Hi guys,

I'm in the process of replacing my deep well jet pump with a submersible unit.

Is submersible wire really necessary, or can I get away with using UF-B? I'm not concerned with oil/ gas resistance....

I can't think of a good reason why UF wouldn't work. But it seems like it would be a pain in the butt to install and service and, the last time I checked, it was more expensive than submersible pump cable.

I don't understand the concern. If there's a gas leak, it'll just dissipate through the foam. It won't be any different than a gas leak with any other kind of insulation.

. . . One thing that does bother me is the circuit breaker feeding the air conditioner trips often. And I'm not sure I would trust trying to find a circuit breaker for the Fed Pac. . . .

That might say more about the air conditioner than the circuit breaker. Is the filter very clogged? The registers closed? The coils dirty?

If there were no pictures, then I'd say that the writing was kind of rough, and the comments too vague, but it would seem ok.

With the pictures, though, I'm wondering if the inspector actually understands what he's seen.

None of this is the fault of the report writing program.

...I have seen something like that only in an institutional setting, and it was used then for sound dampening.

Same here. I believe that someone posted a picture of this stuff before and Mark Cramer identified it, but I don't remember what it was called.

. . . Does the sheer age of the setup change our wait & see approach?

The thing that kills these systems is silt and that depends on your soil. If you can get a camera through it after 40years, it can't have much silt in there. It'll be fine.

The basement finishing would be to put in a rudimentary floor and giprock the walls, tidy up the ducts & wires in the ceiling for a playroom/home theatre, and hopefully a treadmill. Currently the basement is entirely unfinished, just a storage / laundry pit.

If you use wall studs, use metal, and instead of regular drywall use Densarmor or Densglass like Kurt said.

For the floor, it's a bit of a pain, but I really like polishing the concrete and using throw rugs on top. It doesn't get more flood-friendly that that.

The panel wasn't allowed in the closet in the 70s either. That's not a new requirement. It goes back a hundred years.

I'm a big fan of Alumiconn connectors. Have an electrician go through the house and ensure that every piece of aluminum wire ends at either an CO-ALR listed connector or at an Alumiconn connector.

If you want to install AFCI breakers for additional protection, great, but don't rely on them in lieu of proper connections.

He found the pipe sitting on the footing by digging - excavator dug down 8 feet along the exterior of the foundation wall until it reached the pipe, which was sitting on (rather than alongside or below) the concrete slab.

That's an extremely common situation. Builders used to do it that way all the time. I agree that the drain should have been installed at the bottom of the footing and it would work better at the bottom of the footing, but it might be ok as it is. Even though the holes in the pipe are facing up, water will still enter the pipes at the joints. In general, the water will have a hard time building up to the level of the top of the slab with the pipes in that location.

What he concluded was that the pipe (with the perforations on top) would only drain water to the level of the footing/slab, rather than below it, causing water to accumulate not below the basement floor level, but at it. Thus the buildup of hydrostatic pressure. He said that if the floor ever cracks (or if we were to install a radon vent eventually), water would infiltrate. The problem is compounded by the sump pit being relatively shallow.

What he says is possible, but not likely. A concrete basement floor slab is not very waterproof. If the underground water level had ever risen above the level of the floor slab, the water would have just entered the basement. It doesn't need cracks or a radon hole - it finds its way. Do you really believe that a 40-year old concrete basement could function like a boat hull to hold out water? It just doesn't work that way. If the underground water level rises above the level of the floor, you'll see the water. It's that simple.

Also, the placement of the drain doesn't "cause" water to accumulate. It "allows" it to accumulate. There could be other reasons - reasons that have nothing to do with the manmade drainage system - that are limiting the level of the water.

But I figure that if the major issue the expert is signalling (great point Marc- perhaps no issue at all) is that the drain placement & pump setup doesn't keep the water level low enough, could that not be solved by using a subterranean gravity drain not replacing the current perimeter drain, but merely drawing water away from the foundation in one or two corners of the house.

Depends on your soil. If it's very permeable, then a single drain can exert a drainage effect over a fairly long distance. If the soil is clay, then the effect of a single drain is only exerted over a very short distance.

The fact that the basement has remained dry (supposedly) for 40 years is very encouraging. On the other hand fate has a way of slapping you upside the head when you presume to tempt it.

If I were in your place, I'd install the missing gutter, perfect the downspout drainage to get the downspout water as far from the house as I could, grade the yard away from the house, and forgo the excavation project. Then I'd finish the basement with materials that could sustain an occasional flood. If, after that, fate were to screw with me, I'd jackhammer up the perimeter of the basement floor slab and put the drain tile there - for 1/3 the cost of doing it from the outside.

It means that there's a problem with the receptacle that the tester was not designed to detect. I've had it happen when a 120-volt receptacle was wired with 240-volts. I've also had it happen when the hot and neutral were reversed, the neutral connection was loose, and there was a load on the circuit downstream.

Bottom line: When you see this, you need to pull out a regular multi-meter to figure out what's actually going on.

. . .

I don't know why it's bizarre; it's how most of the world does it. Maybe everyone's got it wrong...(?)....

Not bizarre. Bizarro World. (Can't believe I found a literary reference that escaped you.)

I may be ignorant here, but the rim joist goes around the perimeter, correct? if so, that does not have fungus, a couple of the floor joists in the area do. Assuming it is due to moisture under there.

You're correct. The rim joist goes around the perimeter. When you said "joist closest to the outside wall" I inferred rim joist.

If it's just a small amount of fungus on joists that happen to be near the exterior, that really doesn't mean much. It might have been on the joists before they were installed.

Pictures?

Rim joist is not below grade, just 2-3 rows of brick veneer

If the rim joist isn't below grade, then why did fungus grow on it?

Is this because you had standing water in the crawlspace?

That's the opposite of how it's done here. In Chicago, it's exposed foundation and the first course of brick (hopefully) is above grade.

Where else do they bury the first course of brick? Never heard of nor seen it unless it's a screw up.

Bizarro World Brick.

In the 50s & 60s we did it that way. Since then, we cast a stemwall with a ledge in it that will end up well below grade. The brick starts at the ledge and the space between the brick and the concrete is fully grouted until we reach the elevation that will be final grade. At that point, we have (well, we're *supposed* to have) a course of through-wall flashing and weepholes above. Well above that is the top of the stemwall where the wood framing begins. When done right it works well and looks very nice.

Thanks, Jim. The only problem it is causing now is slight fungus on the joist closest to that outside wall. When my inspector saw the fungus he said he almost didn't mention it because it wasn't bad enough. I'm just worried about the future, though. The house only is 6 yrs old (granted in it's first year we had a 100 year flood which could have easily caused a bit of fungus afterwards).

If the rim joist is below grade, that's a problem all by itself.

I'm just baffled right now. I just went out to take a closer look. The entire back of the house is graded so that three rows of brick veneer are under earth. Is this right??

Yes. The bottom of the brick veneer is usually placed below grade. The first course above grade should have weep holes and *more important* it should have through-wall flashing. Weep holes don't do squat without flashing below them. Also, from the through-wall flashing down, the space between the brick and the foundation wall should be packed with mortar. You, of course, will have no way of telling whether or not this was done, but it should make it clear why you can't just "move the weep holes up."

A nice positive grade away from the house is a good thing - always to be admired. But a slight negative grade isn't the end of the world. Don't screw things up by trying to fix this minor problem. If it's not actually causing a problem, you might want to just leave it alone. If it causes a problem, you can work on fixing it next year or the year after that. The house won't fall down in the meantime.

If you wanted to know the temperature of the air in that box, why would you need three sensors?

. . . Do these dark stains look like mold to you?. . .

I can't tell anything from the picture.

Is there an attic space above the stains? If so, go up there and look at the top of the ceiling. If there's no attic, just cut away the drywall and look at the top of it. If there a water problem or a past water problem it should be obvious.

If you're not comfortable doing that, hire a home inspector to do it for you.

If I were considering buying a condo, the stains in the picture wouldn't have any influence on my decision.

It's too general to be of much use. There's also going to be a large difference from state to state.