Garage door retractor

[Marc M]

Is there a minimum / max pressure for the physical retracting mechanism, not the lower eye.

[BARRY ADAIR]

Marc, not clear on what you're asking
your answer may be in unit mfr. install instructions or these docs
DASMA Door and Access Systems Manufacturers Association (http://www.dasma.com/pubtechdata.asp)

this is what a number of us use as a guide for inspecting
http://www.dasma.com/PDF/Publications/TechDataSheets/CommercialResidential/TDS167.pdf

[Garry Sorrells]

Are you asking about the obstruction (door physically hitting something in opening) auto reverse function of the opener motor?

[Markus Keller]

If this is for litigation you obviously need to get the exact numbers for the specific unit from the manufacturer. You could then also compare those numbers to other comparable units on the market, etc.
For HI, I activate the door to close, put my foot under the door about a foot or so above the ground ( this is so in case it doesn't stop it doesn't crush my foot), if the door stops - great it works; if it doesn't stop - it doesn't work.

[Marc M]

Are you asking about the obstruction (door physically hitting something in opening) auto reverse function of the opener motor?

Yes, this. It's not for litigation. Im just curious to see what the min/max pressure is required for the door to go back up once it hits an object such as a 2x4...or kid.

[Gunnar Alquist]

Jerry P has stated (repeatedly, over and over again, ad nauseum ;) ) that it should reverse "on contact". To me, this means it should not push-down and load the motor, but should reverse nearly instantaneously. I have not seen a maximum psi (or Newtons, or Kilopascals or whatever).

[Marc M]

Jerry P has stated (repeatedly, over and over again, ad nauseum ;) ) that it should reverse "on contact". To me, this means it should not push-down and load the motor, but should reverse nearly instantaneously. I have not seen a maximum psi (or Newtons, or Kilopascals or whatever).

Cool, thanks Gunnar

[Corey Friedman]

Jerry P has stated (repeatedly, over and over again, ad nauseum ;) ) that it should reverse "on contact". To me, this means it should not push-down and load the motor, but should reverse nearly instantaneously. I have not seen a maximum psi (or Newtons, or Kilopascals or whatever).

Hello All,

The contact reversing feature is an anti-entrapment feature, not an anti-crush or anti-injury feature.

I don't know what the the pressure rating is either. However, it is supposed to stop and retract within 2 seconds (is that nearly instantaneously?) just before the floor level. I forgot if there is an actual inch measurement but somewhere around 1.5" since a 2x4 laid flat is a recognized procedure.

I suppose some manufacturers may have different testing methods listed in their literature.

Sincerely,

Corey

[Stuart Brooks]

Hello All,

The contact reversing feature is an anti-entrapment feature, not an anti-crush or anti-injury feature.

I don't know what the the pressure rating is either. However, it is supposed to stop and retract within 2 seconds (is that nearly instantaneously?) just before the floor level. I forgot if there is an actual inch measurement but somewhere around 1.5" since a 2x4 laid flat is a recognized procedure.

I suppose some manufacturers may have different testing methods listed in their literature.

Sincerely,

Corey

Quite right about anti-entrapment and not pressure related.
Federal regulations govern the installation and testing of auto reversing. The basics of which are included as part of the manufacturer's installation instructions of every opener sold in the US. The manufacturer's usually leave out all the regulation verbiage and provide the information in layman's terms.

This topic has, I believe, been gone over before in this group. There are some who refuse to test the door in accordance with the regulations or manufacturer instructions because they are afraid they might damage the door.

The process involves setting an endpoint for the closing motion and monitoring the current used by the closer motor. The opener has current sensing electronics that trigger an auto reverse if the motor current exceeds a threshold before the endpoint is detected. The auto reverse requirement has been in effect since 1991. The auxiliary sensors since 1993. The regulations don't specify electric eye transponders but that is what is used since they are simple to build, install, and are cheap.

[Bob Elliott]

Too many stories about these cheap doors crushing for me to even think of ever using anything solid.
I hold it with my hand so I get a feel for if it is not going to stop.
Rather have them prove I am wrong than pay for a new door.

[Darren Miller]

Rather have them prove I am wrong than pay for a new door.

Many questions but I'll ask just this one...

If a garage door installer comes out and proves you wrong, do you pay for his service call?

[Bob Elliott]

Many questions but I'll ask just this one...

If a garage door installer comes out and proves you wrong, do you pay for his service call?

See post 6
What do you do to method do you use to test if anything?

You can question me and are welcome to but is there some reason you are not offering opinion ?

I also do not open FPE panels or offer to pay for asbestos testing so please feel free to target me and criticize but make it constructive Mr Miller.

I am a professional and my clients that include Judges and construction Lawyers approve of my methods which remain consistent and respectful of the sellers property while looking out for who hired me.


Thank You for your opinion in advance as I look forward to a well thought out reply.

[Jerry Peck]

See post 6

"See post 6"?

Q. What does that have to do with you using your hand instead of the SPECIFIED method with the 2x4?

A. Nothing.


I am a professional ...

Then you should be testing the door as stated - with the 2x4.

If the door crushes ... and IF you have placed the 2x4 where directed ... then a door which crushes ... "failed under testing" - and that is not your fault, you do not owe anyone anything for the door which failed under testing.

Now, if you use your hand and the door falls, bends, crushes, etc., *you* SHOULD be willing to cover the costs involved as *you* did not test the door properly. This includes *not* placing the 2x4 where directed.

If you place the 2x4 where directed - the door will not crush. The top may fold because the top was not braced as it should have been, but that should be something you look for before testing the door. If you see the door is already broken at the top (from the top folding back and forth, causing metal fatigue), then you should report that deficiency and that the door needs to be replaced, at least the top panel does, and if the top panel is no longer available (it probably is not) then the door needs to be replaced.

That is what a "professional" does. The "professional" does not knowingly test something the wrong way because they are afraid of something breaking - the "professional" looks for the signs of failure before testing, reports those signs when present, and reports the failure of the door when the door fails with no visible signs of previous failure.

The "professional" knows what to do and how to react to unexpected things.

[Bob Elliott]

"See post 6"?

Q. What does that have to do with you using your hand instead of the SPECIFIED method with the 2x4?

A. Nothing.

Then you should be testing the door as stated - with the 2x4.

If the door crushes ... and IF you have placed the 2x4 where directed ... then a door which crushes ... "failed under testing" - and that is not your fault, you do not owe anyone anything for the door which failed under testing.

Now, if you use your hand and the door falls, bends, crushes, etc., *you* SHOULD be willing to cover the costs involved as *you* did not test the door properly. This includes *not* placing the 2x4 where directed.

If you place the 2x4 where directed - the door will not crush. The top may fold because the top was not braced as it should have been, but that should be something you look for before testing the door. If you see the door is already broken at the top (from the top folding back and forth, causing metal fatigue), then you should report that deficiency and that the door needs to be replaced, at least the top panel does, and if the top panel is no longer available (it probably is not) then the door needs to be replaced.

That is what a "professional" does. The "professional" does not knowingly test something the wrong way because they are afraid of something breaking - the "professional" looks for the signs of failure before testing, reports those signs when present, and reports the failure of the door when the door fails with no visible signs of previous failure.

The "professional" knows what to do and how to react to unexpected things.

Sorry but I do not agree with that method and I guess post #6 which pretty much quotes you is incorrect meaning you should take your argument up with him.

Before I reply any further do you always purposely ,or rather if and when you ever inspected did you always test mechanical devises in order to make them cause damage to property under failure ?

Be careful how you respond Mr peck.

Glad you have replied for your buddy but perhaps we should have let him respond first though as at this point he will most likely parrot you.

Now look forward to your reply.

(Busy working on a few reports but will get back tomorrow if not up late.)

[Jerry Peck]

Sorry but I do not agree with that method ...

That's the problem: you "do not agree with that method".

That method you do not agree with IS THE APPROVED METHOD, so instead of doing what is approved, you make up your own method? Now that is highly "professional" of you. :rolleyes:


... and I guess post #6 which pretty much quotes you is incorrect meaning you should take your argument up with him.

Nope, post #6 does quote me, and that quote is that the standards specify that the operator reverses "on contact" and that is on contact with the 2x4. Gunnar, in post #6, is right on.

THE standard is to use the 2x4, and that standard does not say how many pounds crushing force may be applied before the 2x4 separates into all of its separate fibers, no, the standard says that it reverses "on contact" with that 2x4.

That means that instead of doing what I frequently did, which was to watch and see *how high* the arm would bow while the operator was continuing to press down on the door and was trying to crush the 2x4 ... :D ... that means that when the door makes contact with the 2x4 ... the operator reverses the door.


Before I reply any further do you always purposely ,or rather if and when you ever inspected did you always test mechanical devises in order to make them cause damage to property under failure ?

Be careful how you respond Mr peck.

Ahhh ... one of those 'have you stopped beating your wife' types of questions ... :p

"Before I reply any further do you always purposely ,or rather if and when you ever inspected did you always test mechanical devises in order " find out if the auto reverse worked? YOU BET!

"cause damage to property under failure", if the doors caused property damage UNDER TEST, YOU BET I wrote them up.

Do you purposely, or rather if and when you ever inspected [B]do you always improperly test the door?

Be careful how you respond Mr. Elliott.
:rolleyes:

[John Kogel]

We all have to decide for ourselves how we want to conduct the business of inspecting the door opener, which does not belong to us nor to our clients, in most cases.
Keep in mind that 90% of the garage doors we operate have not been set up or adjusted in years, if ever.
It is all very well to say "I'm right, your door is wrong," It may not be good for your business, however. Everybody just do what you feel is the best way to serve your client.

[Ian Page]

Fully aware that the testing procedure typically requires a 2x4. At risk of causing unnecessary damage, should the reverse feature fail, I use a tennis ball spiked onto a length of plastic rod, which I use as a probe and pointer for photos. The ball, placed in the same location as the 2x4, has a little 'give' and the rod prevents it from rolling away. No, it's not the 'approved' method but it works for me. If the door reverses, as it should, then there is no need to use a 2x4. If it doesn't and crushes the ball, I reverse the door and report it as requiring repair/adjustment etc. If my 'test' was challenged, I'd be happy to use a 2x4 with the approval of the home owner and in their presence.

Haven't had a door damaged, yet.

[Darren Miller]

See post 6
What do you do to method do you use to test if anything?

You can question me and are welcome to but is there some reason you are not offering opinion ?

I also do not open FPE panels or offer to pay for asbestos testing so please feel free to target me and criticize but make it constructive Mr Miller.

I am a professional and my clients that include Judges and construction Lawyers approve of my methods which remain consistent and respectful of the sellers property while looking out for who hired me.


Thank You for your opinion in advance as I look forward to a well thought out reply.

Here's my macro for a properly working pressure device:

"The garage door opener is equipped with a safety pressure reverse device which operated when tested at the time of inspection using the accepted 2X method. The U.S. Product Safety Commission recommends these devices be checked monthly for proper operation and safety. Switches for door openers should be located as high as practical to prevent children from playing with the door. Children should also be warned of the potential risk of injury."

Personally, I think your 'methods' are cheating your clients (that was always Chicago's theme [remember, you took a shot at Jersey]). You seem to make your own rules as you go. Why not remove a FPE cover. There are many more items inside the panel that could harm your client and as I've seen in the past, not all FPE panels get changed just because I recommended they get changed.

But please answer my question. If a trained garage door installer "proves" you were wrong, do you pay for his service call?

[Bob Elliott]

Half the doors I test do not retract so the idea of damaging them is crazy talk.
I could see why a garage door maker might like that idea however.:)

Use common sense guys.

[Dan Harris]

Use common sense guys.


Bob I do..
I read the little white tag with red lettering that's says it's supposed to be stuck on the wall by the opener button

That little sticker says.. lay a 2X4 flat on the ground and check it monthly. :)

[Bob Elliott]

Dan if some of you do it that way fine and Cory who posts here operates the original classes I went to years ago where that is taught.
All said and well but the red sticker does not help you on site when the sellers sues you for damage.

If my hand does not stop it it is defective and can be adjusted.

Running late but off the top of my head I do not raise water heater temp to see if the TPR valve functions before tank blow up either and am hoping one of the silent but scared to post guys lurking out there jumps on to give other ridiculous examples of over the top testing.
I am sure we could fill a page.:)

[Rick Cantrell]

... I do not raise water heater temp to see if the TPR valve functions before tank blow up either ...

I have never seen anything that indicated that is an approved method to test a TPR valve. Could you provide some form of document that supports this method?

[Door Guy]

Dan if some of you do it that way fine and Cory who posts here operates the original classes I went to years ago where that is taught.
All said and well but the red sticker does not help you on site when the sellers sues you for damage.

If my hand does not stop it it is defective and can be adjusted.

Running late but off the top of my head I do not raise water heater temp to see if the TPR valve functions before tank blow up either and am hoping one of the silent but scared to post guys lurking out there jumps on to give other ridiculous examples of over the top testing.
I am sure we could fill a page.:)

I understand the point you're trying to make.... I have installed quite a few overhead doors and openers. In fact, using my hand to "feel" the pressure and then adjust the door, is exactly how I start my adjustment process. If I can't stop it with my hand, then I turn down the down force. Then I finish with the 2x4 test.

I actually replaced a stripped trolley (gear drive) in an opener that someone had just kept turning up the pressure to accomadate the broken spring!!

[Stuart Brooks]

Bob: It's not the way it is taught,but a Federal regulation. It is included with every door opener sold in the US. If you test something in direct accordance with the manufacturer's instructions AND Federal regulations and as JP said above there is nothing apparently wrong with or apparent damage to the door, why would you be liable for damage? Would you like to have a direct reference to the regulations?
[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 16, Volume 2]
[Revised as of January 1, 2002]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 16CFR1211.15]
[Page 337-338]
TITLE 16--COMMERCIAL PRACTICES
CHAPTER II--CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
PART 1211--SAFETY STANDARD FOR AUTOMATIC RESIDENTIAL GARAGE DOOR OPERATORS--Table of Contents
Subpart A--The Standard

If you do not wish to test the doors correctly, that's your prerogative. I'm required to and I have to have a statement in the report describing the test procedure.

The test specifies a 1-inch block but later amended to say a piece of 2x4 would be satisfactory. I imagine that was done because a 2x4 block is much easier to find than a 1 inch block.

[Bob Elliott]

I understand the point you're trying to make.... I have installed quite a few overhead doors and openers. In fact, using my hand to "feel" the pressure and then adjust the door, is exactly how I start my adjustment process. If I can't stop it with my hand, then I turn down the down force. Then I finish with the 2x4 test.

I actually replaced a stripped trolley (gear drive) in an opener that someone had just kept turning up the pressure to accomadate the broken spring!!

Thanks ,and I believe it should reverse at 12-14 pounds pressure from just reading about that.

[Bob Elliott]

Stuart I understand and agree that there are statements about the one inch block test and testing once a month.
My issue is that so many do not pass the hand test that I would be ruining a perfectly good door panel.

Never have I run into anyone that even knows about the block test much less performs monthly tests.

If I test a GFCI and it fails then failed during testing is a great remark for the report but causing $$$ damage while testing is not my thing.

Can anyone think of any other common H.I tests that actually cause damage?

[Rick Cantrell]

...
Can anyone think of any other common H.I tests that actually cause damage?

Shower pan flood test
GFCI/AFCI that will not reset
TPR Valve that does not stop leaking
Dish washer that leaks
Cutting around the breaker panel cover that has been painted/ caulked.
Probing rotted wood with a pick
Crawling through 12" of insulation
Pulling down attic stairs
Cutting caulk around an attic access hatch
Having shower tile come off when you tap on it
Have a defective FP damper come off in my hand when I open/close it
Have the crawlspace door fall apart when I open it
Have blinds fall when I raise them
Have a light blub blow when I flip the switch
Cabinet doors/ drawers that fall apart when opened
Hose bib that would not stop dripping
Sliding door that I could not get closed
Handle on crank out window that breaks

Even had a door knob come off in my hand just last week

[Bob Elliott]

Shower pan flood test
GFCI/AFCI that will not reset
TPR Valve that does not stop leaking
Dish washer that leaks
Cutting around the breaker panel cover that has been painted/ caulked.
Probing rotted wood with a pick
Crawling through 12" of insulation
Pulling down attic stairs
Cutting caulk around an attic access hatch
Having shower tile come off when you tap on it
Have a defective FP damper come off in my hand when I open/close it
Have the crawlspace door fall apart when I open it
Have blinds fall when I raise them
Have a light blub blow when I flip the switch
Cabinet doors/ drawers that fall apart when opened
Hose bib that would not stop dripping
Sliding door that I could not get closed
Handle on crank out window that breaks

Even had a door knob come off in my hand just last week

LOL,I actually disagree on many and will reply to them individually soon as I have time off this tortuous report weekend.
All the guys refusing to work keep me busy.;)

[Jerry Peck]

Stuart I understand and agree that there are statements about the one inch block test and testing once a month.
My issue is that so many do not pass the hand test ...

The hand test does not indicate that the door will not auto reverse at the almost closed point. Testing the hand test where one can grab the door and safely expect to get out from under a falling door (yes, doors have fallen on inspectors doing the hand test) places the test in the travel area of the door, not the near its end point, thus there is no relation between that test and autor reverse failure.

[Darrel Hood]

I also use my hand instead of a 2x4. While I may be legally safe using the 2x4, I think it is important to respect the owner's property. Earlier, someone mentioned common sense. However, according to the logic of some of our members, common sense, much less common courtesy are not approved items for HIs. Finally, all the discussion of being a professional is malarkey since we are really a trade. JMHO.

[Jerry Peck]

Finally, all the discussion of being a professional is malarkey since we are really a trade. JMHO.

How are home inspectors "a trade"?

What is it that home inspectors build?

Or do home inspectors just "offer their professional opinion" on things?

Wait ... just answered part of the question - those home inspector who go around repairing and fixing things rather than write them up are tradespersons, so hopefully they are properly licensed as such and carry the required insurances as such.

But, for the rest of the home inspectors ... how are they tradespersons?

[Bob Elliott]

How are home inspectors "a trade"?

What is it that home inspectors build?

Or do home inspectors just "offer their professional opinion" on things?

Wait ... just answered part of the question - those home inspector who go around repairing and fixing things rather than write them up are tradespersons, so hopefully they are properly licensed as such and carry the required insurances as such.

But, for the rest of the home inspectors ... how are they tradespersons?

Something we can agree on.
I expect to be paid as a professional.

We are paid for opinion /not physical work performed.

[Stuart Brooks]

Something we can agree on.
I expect to be paid as a professional.

We are paid for opinion /not physical work performed.
So that's why I get tired, stiff, and sore. I work too hard!. Dang! I thought it just an age thing. Perhaps I should work on various ways to walk up to a house and write one those comments to say something like, "This house is a piece of doodoo. Call 5 different contractors to find out how much it will cost to make it at least somewhat livable." :D

[Jerry Peck]

We are paid for opinion /not physical work performed.


So that's why I get tired, stiff, and sore. I work too hard!. Dang!

Sometimes brain work is more energy draining than leg work is, especially if that brain work is being done while crouched over a truss in the attic. :)

[Darren Miller]

From yesterdays inspection; I carry an old surveyors hub with me.

Pictures worth a thousand words.

[Jerry Peck]

Pictures worth a thousand words.

The location of that piece of wood is entirely at the wrong location.

That piece should be under that vertical brace.

Otherwise, the bottom of the door will (or has a better than even chance of) being bend upward.

[Stuart Brooks]

From yesterdays inspection; I carry an old surveyors hub with me.

Pictures worth a thousand words.

I cut a piece of oak 6 inches long (max height of auxiliary beams), 1-in x 1.5 in. Mark the center of the door before opening it and I place it parallel with the door bottom.

[Lon Henderson]

As usual, this thread has taken a turn but a turn into an interesting area. Exercising common sense learned from experience vs. the by-the-book guidelines for inspecting a feature:

We have had other discussions about inspecting beyond the SoP. I submit, that using some common sense in an inspection is also important. We use our experience to offer opinions on what we see. That is why we get the medium size pay. We should also use our experience to learn some common sense in this business.

I can recognize that a door opener needs adjusting without doing a test that I know can lead to a dangerous failure and/or a very angry seller. Like Bob, I never use a block of wood. Years ago I had a door jump out of its rail doing that. I had done less than a hundred inspections at that time and just didn't know what I know now. A garage repair guy told me that he could stay busy putting doors back on if everyone tested their doors with a block of wood. I can determine if the down force is correctly set with my hand without making an incorrectly adjusted opener force a door out of the rails. (I don't doubt that you can make a door jump out of its rail with your hand if that is your purpose.)

Jerry makes some great points as he always does, but debate is like a tennis match. You can score some great points and loose the match and this is a debate where I say that Jerry's by-the-book argument looses the match and the common sense argument wins.

For me, it is just common sense not to put a block under every garage door when the odds are good that you'll be causing trouble for yourself when you can reliably test the auto reverse with less risk of trouble. If a door drives your firm grip down, then write it up and move on. It is a lot easier to release your grip on a pile driving door than jump out of the way of a door coming out of the rails.

Here is the look on my face, when that door came out its rail.:eek:

[Stuart Brooks]

As usual, this thread has taken a turn but a turn into an interesting area. Exercising common sense learned from experience vs. the by-the-book guidelines for inspecting a feature:

We have had other discussions about inspecting beyond the SoP. I submit, that using some common sense in an inspection is also important. We use our experience to offer opinions on what we see. That is why we get the medium size pay. We should also use our experience to learn some common sense in this business.

I can recognize that a door opener needs adjusting without doing a test that I know can lead to a dangerous failure and/or a very angry seller. Like Bob, I never use a block of wood. Years ago I had a door jump out of its rail doing that. I had done less than a hundred inspections at that time and just didn't know what I know now. A garage repair guy told me that he could stay busy putting doors back on if everyone tested their doors with a block of wood. I can determine if the down force is correctly set with my hand without making an incorrectly adjusted opener force a door out of the rails. (I don't doubt that you can make a door jump out of its rail with your hand if that is your purpose.)

Jerry makes some great points as he always does, but debate is like a tennis match. You can score some great points and loose the match and this is a debate where I say that Jerry's by-the-book argument looses the match and the common sense argument wins.

For me, it is just common sense not to put a block under every garage door when the odds are good that you'll be causing trouble for yourself when you can reliably test the auto reverse with less risk of trouble. If a door drives your firm grip down, then write it up and move on. It is a lot easier to release your grip on a pile driving door than jump out of the way of a door coming out of the rails.

Here is the look on my face, when that door came out its rail.:eek:

Lon, again, it is not a force or pressure check. No one could afford an opener that had to measure pressure much less the regular calibrations. I disconnect the opener from the traveler and manually check the door open-close operation before I check the opener operation. The spring tension is supposed to balance the door anyway. Too little or too much tension is not only a safety hazard but puts an unnecessary load on the opener.

[Jerry Peck]

You can score some great points and loose the match and this is a debate where I say that Jerry's by-the-book argument looses the match and the common sense argument wins.

For me, it is just common sense not to put a block under every garage door when the odds are good that you'll be causing trouble for yourself when you can reliably test the auto reverse with less risk of trouble. If a door drives your firm grip down, then write it up and move on. It is a lot easier to release your grip on a pile driving door than jump out of the way of a door coming out of the rails.

Lon,

The common sense approach is to *not* stand under the door and try to see if it autoreverses by catching it with your hand ... the look on your face when you are holding the door with your hand and the door comes crashing down on you is going to be better than 'a picture is worth a thousand words' ... :eek: :D

It is, of course, your choice as to whether you would rather *watch* the door fall or *catch* the door as it falls on you. :p

[Darren Miller]

The location of that piece of wood is entirely at the wrong location.

That piece should be under that vertical brace.

Otherwise, the bottom of the door will (or has a better than even chance of) being bend upward.

See that, I learned something new today.
I just found out that when a baby or a pet gets trapped under a garage door, it will only happen under the vertical brace...

[Glenn Duxbury]

Hi, ALL &

* As to the original question - "how much pressure" - I usually educate my clients, advising "2 lbs. presssure, for safety" {now, think I can remember where I got that ?}, just like holding 2 lbs. of butter & they 'get it'.

Just that easy...

I'd have to agree - the 'debate' can become like a tennis match going overtime.


Cheers !

[Rick Cantrell]

See that, I learned something new today.
I just found out that when a baby or a pet gets trapped under a garage door, it will only happen under the vertical brace...

Where you place the obstruction (2x4) has nothing to do with causing the door to reverse, but it does have a better (or worse) chance of having damage to the door.

[Vern Heiler]

The "Safety Reversal" Adjustment and the "Down (close) Force" Adjustment are two different adjustments. The NCHILB requires us to test the down or close force adjustment specifically.

Maybe JP can interpret the first paragraph: Grasp the door bottom when the door is about halfway through DOWN (close) travel.

Please see http://www.chamberlain.com/CatalogResourcesV3/en-us/shared/files/tucmanuals/114A4318.pdf

Page 28. "HOW AND WHEN TO ADJUST FORCES"

[Jerry Peck]

See that, I learned something new today.
I just found out that when a baby or a pet gets trapped under a garage door, it will only happen under the vertical brace...

:p

Even babies know the strongest place to lay under a door where they will not cause damage to the door itself. :rolleyes:

The intent of the placement of the test 2x is to *not* cause the door to become crushed or bent. The intent is not to replicate where a person (not necessarily a baby) might happen to fall under a closing door.

If you want to do a realistic test, use a watermelon, slice it in half, place a doll inside of it with the head, arms and legs sticking out, tape the two halves back together, then place it ANYWHERE under the closing door ...

If you get 'blood and guts' spattered all over ... very effective visually ... :eek: :p :D

[Vern Heiler]

:p

Even babies know the strongest place to lay under a door where they will not cause damage to the door itself. :rolleyes:

The intent of the placement of the test 2x is to *not* cause the door to become crushed or bent. The intent is not to replicate where a person (not necessarily a baby) might happen to fall under a closing door.

If you want to do a realistic test, use a watermelon, slice it in half, place a doll inside of it with the head, arms and legs sticking out, tape the two halves back together, then place it ANYWHERE under the closing door ...

If you get 'blood and guts' spattered all over ... very effective visually ... :eek: :p :D

Jerry were you busy typing or do you have me on ignore list?

[Jerry Peck]

The "Safety Reversal" Adjustment and the "Down (close) Force" Adjustment are two different adjustments. The NCHILB requires us to test the down or close force adjustment specifically.

Maybe JP can interpret the first paragraph: Grasp the door bottom when the door is about halfway through DOWN (close) travel.

Please see http://www.chamberlain.com/CatalogResourcesV3/en-us/shared/files/tucmanuals/114A4318.pdf

Page 28. "HOW AND WHEN TO ADJUST FORCES"


Jerry were you busy typing or do you have me on ignore list?

Vern,

No one on my ignore list. :) I was typing when you posted and did not see it.

This "force adjustment" has been discussed in the past, and it is use to make sure the door closes (binding in the tracks will cause the door to auto reverse) and is not an adjustment or requirement for preventing injuries to people, it is simply to make sure the door closes and still auto reverses on with the 2x4 test (see page 29).

Note the two Warning boxes:
- The "Force Adjustment" Warning box states: "Too much force on the garage door will interfere with the proper operation of safety reversal system".
- The "Safety Reversal System" Warning box states: "Door MUST reverse on contact with 1-12/" high (3.8 cm object (or 2x4 laid flat) on the floor."

The "force" adjustment is an installation adjustment and allows the door to close all the way without nuisance reverses.

The safety reversal test is the required auto-reverse test and is on a 2x4 and is to reverse "on contact with" the 2x4. Also note that the "Safety reversal system is MUST be tested every month.", there is no requirement to perform the other tests once the door is installed ... unless (of course) the door were to start reversing for no reason, then the force adjustment would need to be reset, and then the reversal test must be made "After ANY adjustments are made, the safety reversal system MUST be tested." - from the force adjustment Warning box.

[Vern Heiler]

Vern,

No one on my ignore list. :) I was typing when you posted and did not see it.

This "force adjustment" has been discussed in the past, and it is use to make sure the door closes (binding in the tracks will cause the door to auto reverse) and is not an adjustment or requirement for preventing injuries to people, it is simply to make sure the door closes and still auto reverses on with the 2x4 test (see page 29).

Note the two Warning boxes:
- The "Force Adjustment" Warning box states: "Too much force on the garage door will interfere with the proper operation of safety reversal system".

- The "Safety Reversal System" Warning box states: "Door MUST reverse on contact with 1-12/" high (3.8 cm object (or 2x4 laid flat) on the floor."

The "force" adjustment is an installation adjustment and allows the door to close all the way without nuisance reverses.

The safety reversal test is the required auto-reverse test and is on a 2x4 and is to reverse "on contact with" the 2x4. Also note that the "Safety reversal system is MUST be tested every month.", there is no requirement to perform the other tests once the door is installed ... unless (of course) the door were to start reversing for no reason, then the force adjustment would need to be reset, and then the reversal test must be made "After ANY adjustments are made, the safety reversal system MUST be tested." - from the force adjustment Warning box.

Grasping the bottom of the door is a listed test and is the test required by my licensure board. I believe the NC licensure board recognized the side stepping that the door operators lobbyist were able to get put into the warning labels required by law. The 2X4 test does not protect the client, just the door manufacturer.

[Door Guy]

Vern,


Note the two Warning boxes:
- The "Force Adjustment" Warning box states: "Too much force on the garage door will interfere with the proper operation of safety reversal system".
- The "Safety Reversal System" Warning box states: "Door MUST reverse on contact with 1-12/" high (3.8 cm object (or 2x4 laid flat) on the floor."

The "force" adjustment is an installation adjustment and allows the door to close all the way without nuisance reverses.

The safety reversal test is the required auto-reverse test and is on a 2x4 and is to reverse "on contact with" the 2x4. Also note that the "Safety reversal system is MUST be tested every month.", there is no requirement to perform the other tests once the door is installed ... unless (of course) the door were to start reversing for no reason, then the force adjustment would need to be reset, and then the reversal test must be made "After ANY adjustments are made, the safety reversal system MUST be tested." - from the force adjustment Warning box.

Am I missing something here... the "force" adjustment is the same adjustment that will reverse the door when a 2x4 is placed under the door? How is the saftey reversal test different than the force adjustment test. They are both set by the same button on the opener?

[Rick Cantrell]

Am I missing something here... the "force" adjustment is the same adjustment that will reverse the door when a 2x4 is placed under the door? How is the saftey reversal test different than the force adjustment test. They are both set by the same button on the opener?

Guy (and others)
Yes both are checking the force needed to reverse the door.
But the 2x4 checks that the door will reverse at any point before (=>1.5") the door is fully closed.

Lets say you use your hand to check the safety reversal at 30", and the door does reverse. That by itself does not insure the door will reverse at 1.5" above the floor. If the door does not reverse at 1.5" children and pets could get trapped under a partiality open door.
The purpose of testing at 1.5" is that no one will be trapped under a door that is only open <1.5".

So if you (not you personally, but anyone) are concerned about having damage to the door from the reversal test.
Use you hand to hold the door and check for reversal at any height, then, if the door does reverse, now use the 2x4 to check that the door reverses at 1.5".
Checking the door reversal with your hand only is not testing that the safety feature is actually working as intended.

[Vern Heiler]

Am I missing something here... the "force" adjustment is the same adjustment that will reverse the door when a 2x4 is placed under the door? How is the saftey reversal test different than the force adjustment test. They are both set by the same button on the opener?

Safety reversal is dependant on the travel adjustment. The force adjustment just determines if something is crushed or not before it reverses.

[Door Guy]

Guy (and others)
Yes both are checking the force needed to reverse the door.
But the 2x4 checks that the door will reverse at any point before (=>1.5") the door is fully closed.

Lets say you use your hand to check the safety reversal at 30", and the door does reverse. That by itself does not insure the door will reverse at 1.5" above the floor. If the door does not reverse at 1.5" children and pets could get trapped under a partiality open door.
The purpose of testing at 1.5" is that no one will be trapped under a door that is only open <1.5".

So if you (not you personally, but anyone) are concerned about having damage to the door from the reversal test.
Use you hand to hold the door and check for reversal at any height, then, if the door does reverse, now use the 2x4 to check that the door reverses at 1.5".
Checking the door reversal with your hand only is not testing that the safety feature is actually working as intended.

Good explanation...

[Rick Cantrell]

Safety reversal is dependant on the travel adjustment. The force adjustment just determines if something is crushed or not before it reverses.

Kinda but not exactly
The travel adjustment could be set where the door would stop at any height, say 4" above fully closed. Even when the travel adjustment is set at the improper height, the force reversal will still work. But someone could be trapped under a door that stops at 4".
Setting the travel adjustment to stop at fully closed insures that the force reversal feature (when properly working) will open (reverse) the door if there is an obstruction at any point (=>1.5") before the door is fully closed.
No one will be trapped under a door that is open 30". but they could be trapped if the door stops at >1.5"- ?".

[Gary Bottomley]

Quite right about anti-entrapment and not pressure related.
Federal regulations govern the installation and testing of auto reversing. The basics of which are included as part of the manufacturer's installation instructions of every opener sold in the US. The manufacturer's usually leave out all the regulation verbiage and provide the information in layman's terms.

This topic has, I believe, been gone over before in this group. There are some who refuse to test the door in accordance with the regulations or manufacturer instructions because they are afraid they might damage the door.

The process involves setting an endpoint for the closing motion and monitoring the current used by the closer motor. The opener has current sensing electronics that trigger an auto reverse if the motor current exceeds a threshold before the endpoint is detected. The auto reverse requirement has been in effect since 1991. The auxiliary sensors since 1993. The regulations don't specify electric eye transponders but that is what is used since they are simple to build, install, and are cheap.
If a door has an electric eye, is it sufficient to just waive a foot or hand across the eye to confirm proper operation or do you also have to lay a 2x4 down which, may be below the beam eye to test? Is that the auxillary sensor that you refer to?

[Rick Cantrell]

If a door has an electric eye, is it sufficient to just waive a foot or hand across the eye to confirm proper operation or do you also have to lay a 2x4 down which, may be below the beam eye to test? Is that the auxillary sensor that you refer to?

Two different safety features, two different test.
You should do both.

A child could easily have their leg or arm trapped under the door, and not trip the photo beam. The door safety reversal feature would protect the child in this case, not the photo beam.

[Garry Sorrells]

Deja Vo all over again. Testing the garage door. Almost hate to weigh in on this again knowing how some are so inflexible in their position and refuse to change no matter what is said. In an attempt not to deal with individual predispositions to being unconcerned if damage is caused by a failure from testing. And those that just do not want to learn a different methodology.

Testing the door operation, as to not cause any damage, is a matter of knowing and understanding the original installation process Most HI have not installed a door as a paid contractor and just do not understand all the fine points of where the installation can go wrong. The same is for the motorized opener. The first and foremost concern that an installation contractor has is not to damage (lunch) the door and have to pay for it out of his pocket (eat it). There is no profit that way. The same position should be taken by anyone that wants to test a doors operations. The installer also does not want to be injured during the installation, so they take precautions to protect themselves, as should anyone testing a door's operation.

Installation instructions and operation manuals are nice as basic primmer but they are just the beginning, not the end, of understanding the complexities of a garage door.

Marc's OP question is a good one. Though after 40 years on experience I do not believe I have heard of a specific PSI test range stated. Since it would be impractical for the installer to test with out calibrated and certified testing equipment. Being much easier to test using what you always have on the job, your hand.

The practical answer is how the door operator was first installed.
The installer would set the sensitivity so that the door would reverse with a minimal amount of resistance so that the door would not be damaged while setting the operator's range of motion. With out presetting the sensitivity it is possible that the door would be damaged as it tried to close. So the installer would try to reverse the door half way down by using his hand on the bottom edge of the door. Adjusting the sensitivity to a light resistance at first.

The final reverse sensitivity will be affected by several factors one of which is the type of seal at the bottom of the door. Some seals are stiffer and larger than others thus offer different PSI to compress and seal correctly.

The correct testing methodology of a garage door would prevent any possibility of injury. Doors just do not fall apart without cause. It is the correct methodology which will detect potential problems and protect the individual from injuries and damaging the door and operating systems.

So, prior to using a 2x material for testing on the floor it is advisable to test using your hand to see if the door will reverse with a reasonable amount of resistance. Thus preventing the possible damage of the door meeting the 2x on the floor.

By only using the 2x test as suggested by manufacturers and no other testing regiment is only creating replacement sales for the door companies.

[Vern Heiler]

Kinda but not exactly
The travel adjustment could be set where the door would stop at any height, say 4" above fully closed. Even when the travel adjustment is set at the improper height, the force reversal will still work. But someone could be trapped under a door that stops at 4".
Setting the travel adjustment to stop at fully closed insures that the force reversal feature (when properly working) will open (reverse) the door if there is an obstruction at any point (=>1.5") before the door is fully closed.
No one will be trapped under a door that is open 30". but they could be trapped if the door stops at >1.5"- ?".

I should have been more concise: the safety reversal "test" is dependant on the travel adjustment. If the travel adjustment stops the door more than 1.5" from closed a 2x4 won't revers the door. If the force adjustment is set to the max it won't crush a 2x4 but it will reverse if the travel is set to close all the way.

[Rick Cantrell]

I should have been more concise: the safety reversal "test" is dependant on the travel adjustment. If the travel adjustment stops the door more than 1.5" from closed a 2x4 won't revers the door. If the force adjustment is set to the max it won't crush a 2x4 but it will reverse if the travel is set to close all the way.

I think you have it.

The force adjustment should be set just above the force needed to overcome the friction to close the door.
Since the friction of the door will change from one door to another and over time, the force adjustment is set for each door at that particular time. In a year from now the force needed to close the door will likely be different due to changes in friction.
If the force adjustment is set to low the door will reverse because of the friction needed to close the door. If it is set to high, damage or injury could happen before the door reverses, if it reverses at all.

[Ray Thornburg]

I've installed a lot of garage door openers and I always use the feel method. The feel method is where you stand with the remote in hand and literally feel the force with your hand in both the up direction and the down direction while looking carefully. I do it this way because some doors are rather flimsy and require instant response to keep from damaging the door. As an installer....if you damage a door....you buy it.....no way to spin yourself out of that. After you learn the nuances of this method it'll become clear that the 2x4 method has its limitations and maybe some liabilities. What I am saying here it its important to feel and judge exactly how much pressure is needed to open and close the door and adjust accordingly based on many factors such as door weight, alignment etc.

[Rick Cantrell]

So, prior to using a 2x material for testing on the floor it is advisable to test using your hand to see if the door will reverse with a reasonable amount of resistance. Thus preventing the possible damage of the door meeting the 2x on the floor.

Yes, that is what should be done


By only using the 2x test as suggested by manufacturers and no other testing regiment is only creating replacement sales for the door companies.

That is not what the instruction says to do.
Using the instructions provided by Vern in post #44

http://www.chamberlain.com/CatalogResourcesV3/en-us/shared/files/tucmanuals/114A4318.pdf

I cannot cut and paste, so bear with me, as I’m not going to retype everything.

Page 32 under Maintenance, Every month
Check to be sure door opens and closes fully. Adjust if necessary (see pages 27/28)

Pages 27/28 tell how to make adjustments
On page 28 at #1 Test the down force
First thing it tells you is Grasp the door halfway through down travel.
If the door is hard to hold or does not reverse decrease the down force.

Now the instructions tells you to:
Repeat the safety reverse test
The instructions for the safety reverse test are found on page 29
Now is when you use the 2x4.
Place a 2x4 laid flat centered under the door,
The door should reverse on contact with the 2x4

[Garry Sorrells]

Rick,
Sorry that I was not clear when I wrote:
By only using the 2x test as suggested by manufacturers and no other testing regiment is only creating replacement sales for the door companies.

It was directed at some suggesting that only the 2x test be performed and subsequent damage written off as "failed under testing".

[Rick Cantrell]

My goodness people, how much plainer can it be.
THE correct method to test the reversal on a garage door includes using a 2x4.

It's OK to use your hand first, but you must use a 2x4 to determine if the reversal is operating properly. PERIOD

Yes, there is a risk of damage. (Very little if you first inspect the door and hardware, then open and close the door, as you should)
Yes, if there is damage the HO will likely not understand it wasn't your fault.


If you are so concerned about risk, you are in the wrong business.

A lawyer MUST be willing to defend the guilty as well as the innocent.
A roofer must get on roofs and risk falling.
A Doctor or nurse risk getting infection.(ever hear of Hepatitis?)
And a home inspector must be willing to accept the risk associated with performing what they are expected and paid to do.

I mean no offence, but the reason some of you are hesitant is because you do not understand (know) what you are doing, how to do it, or why it's needed. Either that or you don't care. I think, for most of you, it's the former.

[Lon Henderson]

I am a relative newcomer to InspectionNews, although I have been doing property inspections for 14+ years. I like this website and the information that you guys share.

And you guys have convinced me to change my inspection of garage doors. I'll still first test with my hand grip and if that is satisfactory, then I'll use the 2X4 block.

At my own home a few years ago, one of my barn cats decided to make a break for inside the garage just as the door was reaching the floor. He got quite a pinch and then the door reversed as designed. No harm, no foul and the cat was considerably wiser for the experience.

I think this topic has been thrashed more than it deserves but the discussion was still informative.

[Rick Cantrell]

...
And you guys have convinced me to change my inspection of garage doors. I'll still first test with my hand grip and if that is satisfactory, then I'll use the 2X4 block.
...I think this topic has been thrashed more than it deserves but the discussion was still informative.

Sometimes it takes a lot of discussion before the right words are said so that someone understands the Hows and Whys something should be done.
Glad you hung in there.

[Dave Mortensen]

I built my own pressure sensor with a digital readout (thought it was awesome!), came across quite a few doors which auto reversed at over 150#! Some over 250#. According to the test, that would be acceptable since the door autoreversed within 2 seconds. Doesn't seem quite right, especially if your cat was under one of those doors...

[Lon Henderson]

I built my own pressure sensor with a digital readout (thought it was awesome!)..

Nice use of all that down time in the winter to build something like that.:o

Yeah, 150lbs. is a little heavy, that is why I judge what is reasonable down force with my hand.

[Vern Heiler]

I don't think we have gotten to the point were everyone realizes just how totally worthless the manufacturer mandated 2x4 test is.

Entrapment can only happen if the door stops driving down (closed) on its own fruition (end of travel), when the power is removed from the current sensing circuit. The scenario would be something like this: A person is laying under the door and the door travels down and stops just as it reaches the person, power is removed from the current sensing and now no matter how hard the person pushes on the door it will not move. Hence the need to know that the door is still trying to close when less than 1.5" from the floor, which should be less than the thickness of even the scrawniest neck. This distance is controlled by the travel adjustment and we know the travel adjustment brings the door to within 1.5" of the floor when we pull up in the drive to start the inspection because the door is closed, and this is verified every time we use the opener to close the door. No need for a 2x4! The manufacturerers test does not test that the door reverses when it meets reasonable resistance. Through the gathering if empirical data we have all gathered over our lifetimes, we know that a 2x4 provides more than reasonable resistance and the current sensor will reverse the door before the wood is crushed if it is working at all. The only thing the 2x4 test does is verify the door is still trying to close at 1.5" from the floor and the current sensor will reverse the door if the door is stopped prior to reaching the end of travel. If the persons neck or other body part is as resistant to crushing as a 2x4, he is safe.

I am under no obligation to preform the manufactures monthly mandated test of the operator, and if I was I only have a 1 in 30.5 chance of hitting the right date as I have no idea when the door operator was installed. I do have an obligation to meet the SOP of my state, which requires me to test for reversal due to reasonable resistance, which can not be determined by a 2x4.

I will add one thing to Ray Thornburg's post, which I agree with. As HI's we often do not have the remote control to stop a door from destroying itself. As mentioned by Ray, the alignment of the tracks can cause the door to bind and if the force adjustment is not correct the door can turn into space junk falling from the sky, with you ducking for cover. I recommend testing the door when it is much more closed than half way as recommended by the manufacturer. With the door almost closed there is less chance the door panels can twist and bind. (This is some of that "Empirical data" we acquire with life experiences:D )

[Jerry Peck]

I don't think we have gotten to the point were everyone realizes just how totally worthless the manufacturer mandated 2x4 test is.

It is worth more than trying to catch the door with one's hand and then trying to state that the door does not reverse properly. :p

The test is actually quite useful and practical in showing FAILURE of the reverse mechanism. :D

[Vern Heiler]

It is worth more than trying to catch the door with one's hand and then trying to state that the door does not reverse properly. :p

The test is actually quite useful and practical in showing FAILURE of the reverse mechanism. :D

I have never seen one fail in this mannor. If it was to fail the result would be the motor running until it was stopped by pressing the opener button or it burned up! Not a test of much value to me as I will know the current sensing works or doesn't work with my hand. If it doesn't work it requires further investigation by an overhead door contractor. I already know it is trying to close the door within 1.5" of the floor because it closed all the way, or if it didn't; it requires further investigation by an overhead door contractor.

[Rick Cantrell]

Vern
You almost have me convinced, now if you can just convince every one of the garage door opener manufacturers and government safety experts that they have been doing it wrong.
READ POST #62

[Vern Heiler]

Vern
You almost have me convinced, now if you can just convince every one of the garage door opener manufacturers and government safety experts that they have been doing it wrong.
READ POST #62

Manufacturers giving misleading or bogus information/direction????

Government without a clue???????

Who would ever think that could happen????

If you can give me detailed information on how this 2x4 test reveals anything other than that the operator is still trying to close at less than or equal to 1.5" and that the door will reverse at some resistance less than the crush pressure of kiln dried pine, I will change my test practice.

[Ian Page]

Use of a 2x4 when manufacturer's instructions often clearly indicate... "an object of 1" (1.5") OR a 2x4 ", is overstated. I choose the former...Neither do instructions mandate a solid object should be used, other by inference that a 2x4 is solid. An an object with some 'give' so that its final compression is within the 1.5" tolerance should be satisfactory for reversal testing. Further, seeing something compressing, when the reverse mechanism is failing, is much more telling than when the door hits a 2x4.

[Rick Cantrell]

http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia97/os/in5.pdf

Automatic garage door openers: hazard for children. [Pediatrics. 1996] - PubMed - NCBI (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8885959)

[Vern Heiler]

http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia97/os/in5.pdf

Automatic garage door openers: hazard for children. [Pediatrics. 1996] - PubMed - NCBI (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8885959)
Rick, I did not read every incident but every one of the ones I did read would have been preventable with the hand test I use. The incident on page 6, 92/09/18, would not have been detected with the 2x4 test but would have been detected by the hand resistance test.

[Jerry Peck]

It is worth more than trying to catch the door with one's hand and then trying to state that the door does not reverse properly.

The test is actually quite useful and practical in showing FAILURE of the reverse mechanism.


I have never seen one fail in this mannor.

You've never seen one fail on a 2x4 test?

You mean to tell us that every single garage door opener reverses on contact with the 2x4? That the opener does not try to crush the 2x4?

No? That's not what you mean? Oh - then you HAVE seen them fail that test. :cool:


If it was to fail the result would be the motor running until it was stopped by pressing the opener button or it burned up!

Nope. They fail when they do not *reverse on contact* with the 2x4. :p

And, the motors do not burn up as they try to crush the 2x4, at least I've never had one fail as it bowed the track upward to the ceiling trying to push the door down and crush the 2x4. :D

The problem, as I see it, is that you do not understand what the failure mode is. The failure mode is that the opener does not reverse *ON CONTACT* with the 2x4. It really is that simple ... "on contact" with the 2x4 ... not after 5 minutes of trying to crush the 2x4 ... not after 75 pounds pressure ... not after 50 pounds pressure ... not even after 5 pounds pressure ... "on contact" with the 2x4.

This might be a good test: get a 1/8" piece of stick on foam weather strip and place a piece along each edge of the underside of the 2x4, now place two copper strips cross-wise on the 2x4, one on top of the foam weatherstrip and one underneath the foam weather strip, connect one wire from a lamp cord to one copper strip and the other wire from the lamp cord to the other copper strip, the copper strips are a switch. Test to make sure you can turn the lamp on by placing another 2x4 under the test 2x4 and press the 2x4s together to turn the lamp on. If the lamp turns on, the two copper strips have made contact with each other.

Lay the test 2x4 under the door and close the door. The door will 'make contact with' the 2x4, but the 2x4 is not yet on the floor, when the door presses the 2x4 down to the floor (where the 2x4 would normally be for the test) the lamp will light (the door closed the switch). When the lamp lights, that is indicative that the 2x4 is 'on the floor' where it would normally be and that the door as 'contacted' the 2x4. The lamp should light, and when the lamp lights, the door should reverse, which means the lamp should immediately go off as the door is no longer 'contacting' the 2x4 on the floor. You should see the light go on, then almost immediately go back off as the door reverses "on contact" with the 2x4 on the ground. :cool:

That is one way to check for "on contact" with the 2x4. :D

[Rick Cantrell]

Kinda long and technical but worth the time

Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid=128254d150e4ebe1ff276e68588ef462;rg n=div5;view=text;node=16%3A2.0.1.2.48;idno=16;cc=e cfr)

[Jerry Peck]

Kinda long and technical but worth the time

Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid=128254d150e4ebe1ff276e68588ef462;rg n=div5;view=text;node=16%3A2.0.1.2.48;idno=16;cc=e cfr)

Rick,

Thanks, I see they've made a few minor changes over time - such as 2 seconds:
- § 1211.7 Inherent entrapment protection requirements.
- - (a)(1) Other than for the first 1 foot (305mm) of door travel from the full upmost position both with and without any external entrapment protection device functional, the operator of a downward moving residential garage door shall initiate reversal of the door within 2 seconds of contact with the obstruction as specified in paragraph (b) of this section. After reversing the door, the operator shall return the door to, and stop at, the full upmost position. Compliance shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs (b) through (i) of this section.
- - - (2) The door operator is not required to return the door to, and stop the door at, the full upmost position when the operator senses a second obstruction during the upward travel.
- - - (3) The door operator is not required to return the door to, and stop the door at, the full upmost position when a control is actuated to stop the door during the upward travel—but the door can not be moved downward until the operator reverses the door a minimum of 2 inches (50.8 mm).
- - (b)(1) A solid object is to be placed on the floor of the test installation and at various heights under the edge of the door and located in line with the driving point of the operator. When tested on the floor, the object shall be 1 inch (25.4 mm) high. In the test installation, the bottom edge of the door under the driving force of the operator is to be against the floor when the door is fully closed.

The 1 inch is still there, but the manufacturer's and everyone state to use a 1x4. As stated by others in posts above, that is because trying to find a 1" thick board is not that easy for most homeowners.

The 2 seconds is a newer requirement, however, I do recall seeing the 2 second before - probably the last time we had this discussion and that link was provided - and wondering how crushed a person gets in 2 seconds ... :eek:

[Vern Heiler]

You've never seen one fail on a 2x4 test?

You mean to tell us that every single garage door opener reverses on contact with the 2x4? That the opener does not try to crush the 2x4?

No? That's not what you mean? Oh - then you HAVE seen them fail that test.



Nope. They fail when they do not *reverse on contact* with the 2x4.

And, the motors do not burn up as they try to crush the 2x4, at least I've never had one fail as it bowed the track upward to the ceiling trying to push the door down and crush the 2x4.

The problem, as I see it, is that you do not understand what the failure mode is. The failure mode is that the opener does not reverse *ON CONTACT* with the 2x4. It really is that simple ... "on contact" with the 2x4 ... not after 5 minutes of trying to crush the 2x4 ... not after 75 pounds pressure ... not after 50 pounds pressure ... not even after 5 pounds pressure ... "on contact" with the 2x4.

This might be a good test: get a 1/8" piece of stick on foam weather strip and place a piece along each edge of the underside of the 2x4, now place two copper strips cross-wise on the 2x4, one on top of the foam weatherstrip and one underneath the foam weather strip, connect one wire from a lamp cord to one copper strip and the other wire from the lamp cord to the other copper strip, the copper strips are a switch. Test to make sure you can turn the lamp on by placing another 2x4 under the test 2x4 and press the 2x4s together to turn the lamp on. If the lamp turns on, the two copper strips have made contact with each other.

Lay the test 2x4 under the door and close the door. The door will 'make contact with' the 2x4, but the 2x4 is not yet on the floor, when the door presses the 2x4 down to the floor (where the 2x4 would normally be for the test) the lamp will light (the door closed the switch). When the lamp lights, that is indicative that the 2x4 is 'on the floor' where it would normally be and that the door as 'contacted' the 2x4. The lamp should light, and when the lamp lights, the door should reverse, which means the lamp should immediately go off as the door is no longer 'contacting' the 2x4 on the floor. You should see the light go on, then almost immediately go back off as the door reverses "on contact" with the 2x4 on the ground. :cool:

That is one way to check for "on contact" with the 2x4.

Now would that be 4 pound foam weather strip or 80 pound foam weather strip?

The 2x4 test is bogus and does not tell the most important information. The amount of resistance required to reverse.

And no, I have never seen the 2x4 test fail, because I have already seen it fail the hand test if it was going to fail:D . End of door operator test. No bowed track, no groaning motor, no POed HO!

[Jerry Peck]

And no, I have never seen the 2x4 test fail, because I have already seen it fail the hand test if it was going to fail:D

Incorrect again.

The "hand test" does not tell you anything with regard to how, or if, the door is going to reverse at the floor on the 2x4.

The most useless test of all is the "hand test". :p

Go back and review Rick's post to the standard, then my post in response, maybe you will get it then ... or maybe not ...

[Vern Heiler]

Jerry I forgot to ask. If I hit your test jig with a sledge hammer, will the light go on and off indicating everything is ok?

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry I forgot to ask. If I hit your test jig with a sledge hammer, will the light go on and off indicating everything is ok?

Now you just might be getting it! :cool:

The garage door IS that sledge hammer.

[Vern Heiler]

Incorrect again.

The "hand test" does not tell you anything with regard to how, or if, the door is going to reverse at the floor on the 2x4.

The most useless test of all is the "hand test". :p

Go back and review Rick's post to the standard, then my post in response, maybe you will get it then ... or maybe not ...

Oh contrar my learned one. The current sensing does not know where the door is in its travel. If it reverses at two feet it will reverse at 1.5".

[Jerry Peck]

Oh contrar my learned one. The current sensing does not know where the door is in its travel. If it reverses at two feet it will reverse at 1.5".

But it may not mean anything as the door has to travel another 4 feet to 5 feet of track and whatever friction and binding up there is, and those sensors have to be set to over that, NOT the 'hitting the 2x4 and reversing' test.

The hand test is useless, unless you just like to tell people that you are not afraid to stand under a moving overhead garage door and try to make it fall off its track by trying to hold it with your hand ... other than that, the hand test tells you nothing.

There IS a approved and mandated test - not sure why some people have resistance about doing an approved and mandated test ... :confused:

[Vern Heiler]

Now you just might be getting it! :cool:

The garage door IS that sledge hammer.

May I direct you to Rick's link, page 6 incident 92/09/18
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia97/os/in5.pdf

the door is the sledge hammer????? Really are you kidding???

[Jerry Peck]

May I direct you to Rick's link, page 6 incident 92/09/18
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia97/os/in5.pdf

the door is the sledge hammer????? Really are you kidding???

You are saying that the sledge hammer would not have damaged the metal folding chair? :confused:

[Vern Heiler]

But it may not mean anything as the door has to travel another 4 feet to 5 feet of track and whatever friction and binding up there is, and those sensors have to be set to over that, NOT the 'hitting the 2x4 and reversing' test.

The hand test is useless, unless you just like to tell people that you are not afraid to stand under a moving overhead garage door and try to make it fall off its track by trying to hold it with your hand ... other than that, the hand test tells you nothing.

There IS a approved and mandated test - not sure why some people have resistance about doing an approved and mandated test ... :confused:

Here is the long and the short of it, #1 this test is not mandated by my licensure board. #2 if the fource adjustment is turned to the max (which is how I often find them) the 2x4 test will not detect it but the hand will. #3 if the wife leaves the beamer with the trunk under the door and the fource adjustment is at the max, dads not going to be happy! (the sledge hammer thing:D )

[Rick Cantrell]

Oh contrar my learned one. The current sensing does not know where the door is in its travel. If it reverses at two feet it will reverse at 1.5".

Vern, I understand your reluctance to perform a test that you feel may cause damage. Especially when you believe there is an alternate method (hand hold) that will provide the same results without the risk of damage.

Here is the problem
Just because a door will reverse at 30" in no guarantee that the door will reverse at 1.5"

Let me (try to) explain
I will just make up the numbers
A door weighs 200 lbs
When the door is fully open the springs have little tension on them, say 50 lbs. When the door is fully open it has no downward weight so the door stays open until force is applied to close it.
When the door is fully closed the springs have more tension on them, lets say 150lbs. Now the door has it's full weight (200lbs) applying a downward force. That is why we have to lift the door. The door weights more than the springs pull.
But when the door is half open the tension on the springs and the weight of the door are equal or nearly so. The door does not move up or down unless a force is being applied.
Since there is more downward weight on a closed door than there is lift from the springs the force sensor has to overcome the additional weight. More force is needed to cause reversal.
But there is no weight on a partly open door. So it takes less force for the reversal to kick in.
So a partly open door takes less force to cause reversal than a fully closed door.

I probably did not do a good at explaining this, but hopefully someone else can.

[Rick Cantrell]

Here is the long and the short of it, #1 this test is not mandated by my licensure board. #2 if the fource adjustment is turned to the max (which is how I often find them) the 2x4 test will not detect it but the hand will. #3 if the wife leaves the beamer with the trunk under the door and the fource adjustment is at the max, dads not going to be happy! (the sledge hammer thing:D )

I don't recommend doing even a hand hold test if a car is parked under the garage door. Maybe it's just me, but thats one time I draw the line.;)

[Dan Harris]

Back in the day when I checked the doors mid way by hand, I had a few doors on new homes that would not return by testing by hand, and wrote them up as needing adjustment.
Then I had a garage door contractor, and the builders customer service guy inform me I didn't know how to properly check the doors because some of the doors did return when they tested them with a 2X4 on the floor.

[Garry Sorrells]

Incorrect again.

The "hand test" does not tell you anything with regard to how, or if, the door is going to reverse at the floor on the 2x4.

The most useless test of all is the "hand test". :p

Go back and review Rick's post to the standard, then my post in response, maybe you will get it then ... or maybe not ...


Jerry,
I can understand that you are afraid to be near the door during its operation. Some people have a fear of the water which I can accept. Others have a fear of electric. Or it may be a physical shortcoming, which I also can understand.:)

With all of the talk about those that only inspect to the minimum SOP and how they should extend beyond those SOPs, it seems odd that you have taken your position. Something akin to looking for signs of water damage prior to testing a shower pan.

You seem to have taken a bureaucratic mode of rigidity of process.
The testing the door as it closes 1/2 way is only a precautionary task. If the door will not reverse at 1/2 way then there is a concern that it will not reverse at 1" from floor. To complete the testing, provided confidence in not damaging the door, by using a 1" or 2x block is reasonable.

The manufactures determined that the test works at 1" and 1.5" and then it will also work at 6" and so on. Why did they select 1" or 1.5"? Rather simple. If they said that it had to reverse on contact withe the floor, adjusting the motor would be a night mare. The door has a bulb seal on the bottom that takes up 1/2 to 1.5" and allows the door to stop before contacting the floor else it would reverse without any margin of error on travel.

You have to agree that those of who have been door installers seem to have a consensus of opinion on process. Not wanting to damage something, if possible, we end up testing the door prior to doing a 2x on floor test. This is just part of being aware what can happen and experience.

Like most things if you are so adamant in your view, trying to change it may be like changing HG's perception of the world.

To others following the thread;
Please develop an in-depth understand of what is involved in the installation of different types of doors and operators. Then develop a even deeper understand of what happens to them over time as the are used, understanding how and why they fail. By doing so will prevent you from being hurt and will allow you to test a door without causing damaging to the owners property.

Sorry for the wordy responses and comments. I will never be happy with communicating using TXT messaging. :rolleyes:

[Vern Heiler]

Vern, I understand your reluctance to perform a test that you feel may cause damage. Especially when you believe there is an alternate method (hand hold) that will provide the same results without the risk of damage.

Here is the problem
Just because a door will reverse at 30" in no guarantee that the door will reverse at 1.5"

Let me (try to) explain
I will just make up the numbers
A door weighs 200 lbs
When the door is fully open the springs have little tension on them, say 50 lbs. When the door is fully open it has no downward weight so the door stays open until force is applied to close it.
When the door is fully closed the springs have more tension on them, lets say 150lbs. Now the door has it's full weight (200lbs) applying a downward force. That is why we have to lift the door. The door weights more than the springs pull.
But when the door is half open the tension on the springs and the weight of the door are equal or nearly so. The door does not move up or down unless a force is being applied.
Since there is more downward weight on a closed door than there is lift from the springs the force sensor has to overcome the additional weight. More force is needed to cause reversal.
But there is no weight on a partly open door. So it takes less force for the reversal to kick in.
So a partly open door takes less force to cause reversal than a fully closed door.

I probably did not do a good at explaining this, but hopefully someone else can.
I'm sorry y'all, I really wanted to let this die but this kind of logic can not go un-noticed. To say "Just because a door will reverse at 30" in no guarantee that the door will reverse at 1.5", is the same as saying a car that can do 70 mph is not guaranteed to to 5 mph. If the reverse circuit works a partial load it will work at full load, and a block of wood will bring it to full load very quickly.

[Rick Cantrell]

Vern
Since you had a garage door mishap in August 2008 I can understand your reluctance.

http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/exterior-systems-home-inspection-commercial-inspection/8946-test-complete.html

When someone has some sort of mishap, normally they do one of three things

#1 They completely avoid the circumstance that led to the mishad, thereby avoiding a repeat.of the mishap. When they cannot avoid the circumstance they do #2 or #3

#2 Learn what went wrong, why the circumstance resulted in the mishap, and ultimately how to prevent the mishap from occurring again. They do this through education and evaluation of the circumstances that resulted in the mishap.

#3 They deny personal responsibility for the mishap and contribute the cause to factors beyond their control. In denying responsibility they must also justify and defend their actions that may have contributed to the mishap.

Vern, I do not mean to insult or offend you in any way, but my impression is that you are #3.

[Garry Sorrells]

Well I had to do a quick review (not exact) and see who stands where on the testing methods.

Those who appear to support a reversal test at some point above 12 " from floor prior to testing at 1" to 1.5" from floor are :
Garry S, Vern, Dan, Rick, Lon, Ray, Door, Bob, Darrel, Markus

Those that appear to only support testing at the 1" to 1.5" location are:
Jerry, Dan, Gary B, Stuart, Ian, Darren

[Dave Mortensen]

add me to the 1.5" crowd.

[Rick Cantrell]

"Those who appear to support a reversal test at some point above 12 " from floor prior to testing at 1" to 1.5" from floor are :
Garry S, Vern, Dan, Rick, Lon, Ray, Door, Bob, Darrel, Markus

Those that appear to only support testing at the 1" to 1.5" location are:
Jerry, Dan, Gary B, Stuart, Ian, Darren "

Only partly correct
I do not oppose someone use the hand hold method first, if they are more comfortable doing that. But I really do not see it as meaningful, and only slightly if at all reducing the risk of damage.
See Vern's Thread where he was using the hand hold method.

http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/exterior-systems-home-inspection-commercial-inspection/8946-test-complete.html

[Vern Heiler]

Vern
Since you had a garage door mishap in August 2008 I can understand your reluctance.

http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/exterior-systems-home-inspection-commercial-inspection/8946-test-complete.html

When someone has some sort of mishap, normally they do one of three things

#1 They completely avoid the circumstance that led to the mishad, thereby avoiding a repeat.of the mishap. When they cannot avoid the circumstance they do #2 or #3

#2 Learn what went wrong, why the circumstance resulted in the mishap, and ultimately how to prevent the mishap from occurring again. They do this through education and evaluation of the circumstances that resulted in the mishap.

#3 They deny personal responsibility for the mishap and contribute the cause to factors beyond their control. In denying responsibility they must also justify and defend their actions that may have contributed to the mishap.

Vern, I do not mean to insult or offend you in any way, but my impression is that you are #3.
See the last paragraph of post #67.....guess that makes me a #2:)

[John Kogel]

OK, here's the door. what's it going to be, hand? 2X4? barn cat on a stick? :D

[Rick Cantrell]

See the last paragraph of post #67.....guess that makes me a #2:)

I expected you would think that.;)

[Raymond Wand]

Seems to me I have read somewhere (maybe this site) in the past that a roll of paper towel should be used to test the reverse?

[Rick Cantrell]

OK, here's the door. what's it going to be, hand? 2X4? barn cat on a stick? :D

John I know you are just having fun. So I'll go along.
First
Inspect the door, hardware (springs,cable, rails,etc...)
(On this door I likely would no go any further)
Release the door from the drive
Open door manually to about 3'
Close door
Observe for balance, smooth movement
Engage door to drive
Operate door opener to full open
Inspect hardware again while door is open
Operate door to full close
Observe for smooth operation and stop point
Open door to mid way then stop
Close door, obstruct photo eye.
Close door
Open door full
Place 2x4 under door path
Close door
Pry out 2x4 so nobody knows it was there
Pick up pieces of door off floor
Enter remarks " door failed"
:D

[Darrel Hood]

If Rick's list implies I will do a test before doing the 2x4 test, count me out. I won't be doing the 2x4 test. Now I will return to being a spectator for a little while.

[Lon Henderson]

So, with my new block of wood in my kit, I am inspecting a seven year old house today.
The electric eyes trigger the door reversal. The opener reverses with the "hand" test with little resistance.

The garage door locks the block down like a vice................and I write it up.

Incidentally, the opener did not continue to pile drive the door down, it just stopped. I hit the control button and the door rolled back up as it should.

I cheerfully concede that you guys who advocate the block test are correct and thanks for convincing me to start using it.

[John Kogel]

John I know you are just having fun. So I'll go along.
First
Inspect the door, hardware (springs,cable, rails,etc...)
(On this door I likely would no go any further)
Release the door from the drive
Open door manually to about 3'
Close door
Observe for balance, smooth movement
Engage door to drive
Operate door opener to full open
Inspect hardware again while door is open
Operate door to full close
Observe for smooth operation and stop point
Open door to mid way then stop
Close door, obstruct photo eye.
Close door
Open door full
Place 2x4 under door path
Close door
Pry out 2x4 so nobody knows it was there
Pick up pieces of door off floor
Enter remarks " door failed"
The home owners are away. You've busted the door, and there's no way to secure the home from thieves. Way to go, you proved the door is crap.

I reported this door as in need of repair for safety and security. That's pretty obvious. The owners were away.
I tried the opener, closed the door and broke the beam. The door reversed nicely for the electric eyes.
I skipped the hand stop this time. The barn cat went crazy, broke the stick and ran off, so I took that to mean the door was crap.

I always tell my clients how I have tested the door and what the results were. I don't go back every 3 months to test the auto-reverse. That is their job.

[Jerry Peck]

#3 if the wife leaves the beamer with the trunk under the door and the fource adjustment is at the max, dads not going to be happy! (the sledge hammer thing )


I don't recommend doing even a hand hold test if a car is parked under the garage door. Maybe it's just me, but thats one time I draw the line.


Jerry,
I can understand that you are afraid to be near the door during its operation. Some people have a fear of the water which I can accept. Others have a fear of electric. Or it may be a physical shortcoming, which I also can understand.:)

Here is the long ... and short ... of it, and why Rick is correct, and why I readily admit that I am a slow learner - but learner nonetheless. :)

Shortly after I first started doing inspections I was standing there with the real estate agent, the buyer, the listing agent, and the seller, I pressed the wall mounted button to activate the garage door to close - the door closed, I then pressed the button again to open the door - the door opened, I then pressed the button again and walked up under the closing door and swung my leg forward so my foot tripped the photo cell reverse action (one of the first one with the photo cells, or in that very early time period) - the door reversed, I then pressed the button to close the door - the door closed, then, after talking about something with the buyer briefly, I pressed the button to raise the garage door so we could go out the garage door - the door opened, went to the top of its travel ... and continued to go up and fall off the back of the track.

There were toys laying on the garage floor under where the garage door fell.

The listing agent starts screaming something about who is going to fix the door, the seller starts screaming something about who is going to fix the door, I stand there and say that all *I* did was to push *the* button which operated the garage door - *just like the seller did when we all first arrived* to close the garage door and hide the stuff in the garage.

After a few more minutes of them screaming about who is going to fix the door ... I decided to chime back in and state that the sellers were *VERY LUCKY* that the door *FAILED UNDER TESTING* because that door could very well have fallen on their kids while playing in the garage.

Twas to no avail though, so I repeated that the door *FAILED UNDER TEST* and that the only person I know of who is going to fix that garage door is the garage door person that the seller calls, and that if they wait too much longer to call to get the door fixed that they repair person may not be able to fix it until tomorrow - THAT got their attention as they did not want the garage open the rest of the day, evening or night.

Thus began my "failed under test"/"failed under testing" statement.

But, as I said, I am a slow learner, so a few months later I was at an expensive house in Boca Raton and the door closed as it should, but when the door opened, the door started going up/down/up/down/up and banging against the upper stop ... all the while with a nicely restored Model A Ford under the door ... DUMB THING TO DO ... I said to myself, no more testing door when a car is parked under it.

Alas, the slow learner that I am, a few years later I was in an even more expensive house in Miami Beach, on Sunset Island 2 as I recall, and there I was testing the door again, this time the door went down, and the split track (which was held together by a coupler) spit out the coupling bolts from one side and the track folded downward ... just missing the top of a nice brand spanking new Lexus - the track stopped about 1" above the top of that car. :eek:

I found one of the bolts, used my ladder to raise the track back into position, inserted that bolt through a bolt hole, but could not put a nut on it as the thread were all stripped out by coming out of the hole like it did.

I went and got the seller and showed her the loose track, the bolt without the nut, and told her that the next time the door is operated that the track may fall and hit her new car. She immediately went into the house and called a garage door company to fix the track. :cool:

*THAT* was *THE LAST TIME* I ever tested a garage door when there as a vehicle under it - see, I do learn things.

Even now, I do not drive into our garage, or out of it, or walk under the garage door in or out of the garage *until the door has stopped moving and is all the way up (or door, still not going to walk under it). I stop my wife from walking under the moving door, I stop our grand daughter from walking under the moving door. A moving door CAN FALL.

Now, what was it you were saying about being afraid of garage doors? Not afraid ... JUST SMART ... :p

[Rick Cantrell]

So, with my new block of wood in my kit, I am inspecting a seven year old house today.
The electric eyes trigger the door reversal. The opener reverses with the "hand" test with little resistance.

The garage door locks the block down like a vice................and I write it up.

Incidentally, the opener did not continue to pile drive the door down, it just stopped. I hit the control button and the door rolled back up as it should.

I cheerfully concede that you guys who advocate the block test are correct and thanks for convincing me to start using it.

Thanks Lon


Vern, I understand your reluctance to perform a test that you feel may cause damage. Especially when you believe there is an alternate method (hand hold) that will provide the same results without the risk of damage.

Here is the problem
Just because a door will reverse at 30" in no guarantee that the door will reverse at 1.5"

Let me (try to) explain
I will just make up the numbers
A door weighs 200 lbs
When the door is fully open the springs have little tension on them, say 50 lbs. When the door is fully open it has no downward weight so the door stays open until force is applied to close it.
When the door is fully closed the springs have more tension on them, lets say 150lbs. Now the door has it's full weight (200lbs) applying a downward force. That is why we have to lift the door. The door weights more than the springs pull.
But when the door is half open the tension on the springs and the weight of the door are equal or nearly so. The door does not move up or down unless a force is being applied.
Since there is more downward weight on a closed door than there is lift from the springs the force sensor has to overcome the additional weight. More force is needed to cause reversal.
But there is no weight on a partly open door. So it takes less force for the reversal to kick in.
So a partly open door takes less force to cause reversal than a fully closed door.

I probably did not do a good at explaining this, but hopefully someone else can.

[Jerry Peck]

So, with my new block of wood in my kit, I am inspecting a seven year old house today.
The electric eyes trigger the door reversal. The opener reverses with the "hand" test with little resistance.

The garage door locks the block down like a vice................and I write it up.

Incidentally, the opener did not continue to pile drive the door down, it just stopped. I hit the control button and the door rolled back up as it should.

I cheerfully concede that you guys who advocate the block test are correct and thanks for convincing me to start using it.

As Rick said, thanks Lon.

[Vern Heiler]

Lon, if you can post a picture of the door fully closed, without the block of wood under it, and the door (not the weatherstrip) is less than 1.5" above the concrete where the wood was placed, as I have said I will begin to use the 2x4 test.

I know this will sound made up but at todays inspection I tested the single car door by hand and it failed. Thinking I have not tried the 2x4 test I looked around and found a stack of spare tile in the garage. I made a stack 1.25" tall (closest I could get) and placed them under the center of the door, all the while thinking "what have these people talked me into?" I ran the door closed thinking how much could a single car door panel cost anyway? When the door reached the stack of tile the rails bowed up and then the door stopped with a loud bang. No damage, but I think I will not do the 2x4 test if the hand test fails regardless of Lon's response.

[Jerry Peck]

I know this will sound made up but at todays inspection I tested the single car door by hand and it failed. Thinking I have not tried the 2x4 test I looked around and found a stack of spare tile in the garage. I made a stack 1.25" tall (closest I could get) and placed them under the center of the door, all the while thinking "what have these people talked me into?" I ran the door closed thinking how much could a single car door panel cost anyway? When the door reached the stack of tile the rails bowed up and then the door stopped with a loud bang. No damage, but I think I will not do the 2x4 test if the hand test fails regardless of Lon's response.

You did the correct test.

You proved it worked.

And you still refuse to do the test? :rolleyes:

I *TOLD YOU* the track would bow up, so what did you expect? :D

How many tiles broke when you heard that loud bang? :p

[Rick Cantrell]

Lon, if you can post a picture of the door fully closed, without the block of wood under it, and the door (not the weatherstrip) is less than 1.5" above the concrete where the wood was placed, as I have said I will begin to use the 2x4 test.

I know this will sound made up but at todays inspection I tested the single car door by hand and it failed. Thinking I have not tried the 2x4 test I looked around and found a stack of spare tile in the garage. I made a stack 1.25" tall (closest I could get) and placed them under the center of the door, all the while thinking "what have these people talked me into?" I ran the door closed thinking how much could a single car door panel cost anyway? When the door reached the stack of tile the rails bowed up and then the door stopped with a loud bang. No damage, but I think I will not do the 2x4 test if the hand test fails regardless of Lon's response.


If the reversal feature fails, what you describe is most often what will happen.
The door will close, heavy strain on the door and rails, sometimes a noise as the door pops or jumps against the rails. But not often will there be any damage, sometimes, but not often.

Glad you gave it a try, and thanks for telling us.

[Jerry Peck]

If the reversal feature fails, what you describe is most often what will happen.
The door will close, heavy strain on the door and rails, sometimes a noise as the door pops or jumps against the rails. But not often will there be any damage, sometimes, but not often.

In 17+ years testing garage doors with the 2x4 I never damaged a door because of that test.

Of course, the obvious comes first:
- 1) Look at the top of the door where the arm is attached, if there is not a brace along the top of the door there, and it is a metal door, you will most likely see crimp marks where the top has been flexing due to the operator opening and closing the door - DO NOT test the door, call for a repair, the door is ALREADY damaged. I have tested many metal doors which had those crimp marks, and many which were already split from metal fatigue, I simply added the *did not auto-reverse* to the list of reasons the door needed to be repaired or replaced.
- 2) Look at the bottom of the door where the 2x4 will be placed, make sure that the person who tested the door before you did not bend and damage the bottom of the door, then make sure to place your 2x4 under the center vertical brace the operator arm is attached to - no damage/no more damage will be done to the door.

I have had several doors fall off their tracks because the track ends were too far apart and the tracks would pull the wheels right out of the door axle holders. This was mostly on new houses and I was the first one to open the door after the door installer finished. NEVER trust the brand new installation by a door installer, ALWAYS check it carefully first - the installers seem to just not care about the doors, Git-R-Done and Git-Paid seems to be there motto.

ALL of the doors which fell or were otherwise damaged were not caused by the auto-reverse test. Not even the one in Miami Beach where the track came apart at the joint - the cause was not the test, the cause was the bolts were loose and ready to fall out. The test just found the problems before the door fell on the car or someone else.

I would much rather have the door "fail under testing" than "fail the next time someone pushes the button" to operate the door - they will be calling the inspector as to why the door failed, even when the problem was/is proved to be an installer problem.

That is simply the way this profession is - the home inspector gets blamed for everything which does not work after the inspector walks away, does not matter whether or not the inspector ever touched it - the inspector was on-site and that is enough for them to make the call.

So why not see if it fail while you are there, you can then document what failed and call for repair/replacement.

[Rick Cantrell]

Jerry
You are right
The important thing to do is inspect the door before the test
I recommend to inspect the door before the door is even touched.
Then operate the door a few times before the reversal test.
If you see something wrong, or even questionable, do not operate the door, much less the reversal test.


PS
I find it hard to believe that you would (even in the distant past) operate a garage door with a car parked inside, I won't.

[Rick Cantrell]

I was on an inspection a while back that had a 4 car detached garage.
A car was parked in one side (the car was covered so I don't know what it was). The buyer was with me. I told him I would not open that door.
I do not operate garage doors when a car is parked under the door, ever.

[Vern Heiler]

You did the correct test.

You proved it worked.

And you still refuse to do the test? :rolleyes:

I *TOLD YOU* the track would bow up, so what did you expect? :D

How many tiles broke when you heard that loud bang? :p

Had the door reversed I would still have had to do the hand test to satisfy the NC SOP. That test had already failed so this was just a lets see what happens test. It makes little sense to stress the door, rails and operator without cause, so it is unlikely I will adopt the 2x4 as a normal part of my testing.

I am fairly confident the door tested by Lon today did not have the travel adjustment correct and the door did not reach the floor where the block was placed, allowing the travel limit to be reached just as the door touched the block. But I wasn't there so I wait to see.

[Rick Cantrell]

...
I am fairly confident the door tested by Lon today did not have the travel adjustment correct and the door did not reach the floor where the block was placed, allowing the travel limit to be reached just as the door touched the block. But I wasn't there so I wait to see.

Yes, that is likely what it was.
But whatever it was, it was not working properly.
Whatever it was, a child could have still been trapped under the door because it did not reverse.

[Ian Page]

I actually performed all three tests at today's inspection.. 'hand test', 2x4 test (just 'cause there was 2x4 just inside the doorframe) and 'photo- eye' test today on a door and opening mechanism installed by the home owner. Amazingly the door reversed and/or failed to open or close, exactly as it should, was perfectly balanced and ran as smooth as silk. Probably the best install in a year or so and quite an accomplishment for a DIYer. Later during the inspection I found out the homeowner was a professional garage door installer.

[Darrel Hood]

I guess if a garage door installer can be a professional, so can a home inspector.

[Lon Henderson]

Sorry, I don't have a photo to the door closed normally. However, the door closed nicely to the slab and appeared to close normally. On my hand test, the door reversed easily. I guesstimate about 10 to 15lbs of pressure reversed it about 28-25" off the floor.

If a door fails my hand test, that will be as far as I go. I'll write it up. If the door is going to stunt the growth of some poor confused toddler, then that is a failure as far as I am concerned and I am moving on.

One caveat will be on wood framed garage doors. About 90% of those have loose hinges and if I see any loose ones; I don't think I'll do the block test. That seems like begging for a disaster. Jerry's comment about passing on doing a full test when a car is in the garage makes a lot of sense too. I like learning from the experiences of others whenever I can.

BTW, that door that I had jump out of the rail years ago was not a disaster. Two wheels mid way jumped out. The door sagged big but hung on. It took about ten minutes to put the door back in the rail and avert any yelling. However, like Jerry, I once had a door come slamming to the ground after opening normally. As the dust billowed around the us, the buyer says, "I'm your witness. All you did was press the button."

[Rick Cantrell]

At any time during your inspection of the garage door you fine something that you feel is worth writing up, stop right there.
No need to proceed any further.
Bent track, loose hinges, missing or badly worn parts, maybe even general poor condition.
Once you see something no need to proceed.
Call for service/ repair.

[Garry Sorrells]

Grasping the bottom of the door is a listed test and is the test required by my licensure board. I believe the NC licensure board recognized the side stepping that the door operators lobbyist were able to get put into the warning labels required by law. The 2X4 test does not protect the client, just the door manufacturer.

Vern,
It took a little while after reading your post for it to sink in and then resurface.
When I read your post I wanted to question you about NC SOP and you referring to as required. But was distracted.

"Grasping the bottom of the door is a listed test and is the test required by my licensure board. ..."

After going to NC Home Inspection SOP I do not find where they specifically state the above quote from you. What I found was:

http://www.ncdoi.com/OSFM/Engineering/hilb/Documents/StandardsOfPracticeSECTION8.1100excerpt.pdf

SECTION .1100 - NC HOME INSPECTOR STANDARDS OF PRACTICE AND CODE OF ETHICS

.1107 EXTERIOR
(a) The home inspector shall inspect:
(3) Garage door operators;

(b) The home inspector shall:
(3) Operate garage doors manually or by using permanently installed controls for any garage door operator;
(4) Report whether or not any garage door operator will automatically reverse or stop when meeting reasonable resistance during closing; and
(5) Probe exterior wood components where deterioration is suspected.

Do not take my question wrong. I subscribe to using your hand to test the reverse mechanism first. Then if appropriate place a block on the floor to test the operator at that point operation.

I have found organization and state SOP never to so specific in their wording.

Would you help me out and post a location to find your wording of the SOP required under NC law. I like it, just can not find it.

[Vern Heiler]

Vern,
It took a little while after reading your post for it to sink in and then resurface.
When I read your post I wanted to question you about NC SOP and you referring to as required. But was distracted.

"Grasping the bottom of the door is a listed test and is the test required by my licensure board. ..."

After going to NC Home Inspection SOP I do not find where they specifically state the above quote from you. What I found was:

http://www.ncdoi.com/OSFM/Engineering/hilb/Documents/StandardsOfPracticeSECTION8.1100excerpt.pdf

SECTION .1100 - NC HOME INSPECTOR STANDARDS OF PRACTICE AND CODE OF ETHICS

.1107 EXTERIOR
(a) The home inspector shall inspect:
(3) Garage door operators;

(b) The home inspector shall:
(3) Operate garage doors manually or by using permanently installed controls for any garage door operator;
(4) Report whether or not any garage door operator will automatically reverse or stop when meeting reasonable resistance during closing; and
(5) Probe exterior wood components where deterioration is suspected.

Do not take my question wrong. I subscribe to using your hand to test the reverse mechanism first. Then if appropriate place a block on the floor to test the operator at that point operation.

I have found organization and state SOP never to so specific in their wording.

Would you help me out and post a location to find your wording of the SOP required under NC law. I like it, just can not find it.
(4) is the requirement.

the manufacturers test for when and how to adjust the force, is the how.

[Jerry Peck]

"(4) Report whether or not any garage door operator will automatically reverse or stop when meeting reasonable resistance during closing; and"


(4) is the requirement.

the manufacturers test for when and how to adjust the force, is the how.

That is not a hand test, nor does it state the hand test, nor does it imply the force adjustment test.

That does state "will automatically reverse or stop when meeting reasonable resistance" which is when the door CONTACTS the 2x4 ... that CONTACT is the "reasonable resistance" and door either passes or fails on the 2x4 test.

Plain and simple and as clear as can be - that is referring to the 2x4 test. :p :)

[Rick Cantrell]

I think this thread had some very good discussion.
Without name calling and insults it stayed on topic.
A lot was brought out that I think will be a benefit to many.

I also want to say thanks to Lon and Vern. I know it took courage to use the 2x4 after each had of you a garage door give you a scare in the past.
Both of you are to be commended on you willingness to try something you fear.

[Jerry Peck]

I think this thread had some very good discussion.
Without name calling and insults it stayed on topic.
A lot was brought out that I think will be a benefit to many.

I also want to say thanks to Lon and Vern. I know it took courage to use the 2x4 after each had of you a garage door give you a scare in the past.
Both of you are to be commended on you willingness to try something you fear.

I completely agree with Rick on all accounts.

[Vern Heiler]

"(4) Report whether or not any garage door operator will automatically reverse or stop when meeting reasonable resistance during closing; and"



That is not a hand test, nor does it state the hand test, nor does it imply the force adjustment test.

That does state "will automatically reverse or stop when meeting reasonable resistance" which is when the door CONTACTS the 2x4 ... that CONTACT is the "reasonable resistance" and door either passes or fails on the 2x4 test.

Plain and simple and as clear as can be - that is referring to the 2x4 test. :p :)
Only someone as stubborn as you would consider a 2x4 to be only reasonable resistance and force is the reciprocal of resistance. I have also shown you the manufactures instructions on how to determine and set the force adjustment with a hand.

[Jerry Peck]

Only someone as stubborn as you would consider a 2x4 to be only reasonable resistance and force is the reciprocal of resistance. I have also shown you the manufactures instructions on how to determine and set the force adjustment with a hand.

Me stubborn? YOU are still trying to justify the hand test for the reasonable force on the 2x4 for the *reversing* test. :p :D

[CHARLIE VAN FLEET]

NO 2X4 FOR ME--I use a large paper towel roll

cvf

[Jerry Peck]

NO 2X4 FOR ME--I use a large paper towel roll

cvf

Charlie,

I've heard of a couple of other inspectors who used a large paper towel roll and I asked them this same thing: What does that tell you?

- a) What does it tell you if the door DOES reverse on it?
- b) What does it tell you if the door DOES NOT revers on it?

I am continually amazed at all the ways home inspectors come up with to NOT DO the only test that actually tells something about what is being tested.

[CHARLIE VAN FLEET]

JERRY

i test with my arms first and then the paper towel--again i think we are testing to save small children and pets--they all have bones that will break when crushed by a garage door--a 2x 4 has no bones to crush--maybe inspectors should put their heads under door and see if it works. everyone has their own testing i guess--maybe we should ask our insurance companies what to do--hate the 2 x4 test--no blood or guts to be spewed into garage when failed--just my take

cvf

[Jerry Peck]

JERRY

i test with my arms first and then the paper towel--again i think we are testing to save small children and pets--they all have bones that will break when crushed by a garage door--a 2x 4 has no bones to crush--maybe inspectors should put their heads under door and see if it works. everyone has their own testing i guess--maybe we should ask our insurance companies what to do--hate the 2 x4 test--no blood or guts to be spewed into garage when failed--just my take

cvf

Charlie,

Doing those tests reveals nothing about whether or not the garage door will automatically reverse as it should.

Now that you brought up "save small children and pets--they all have bones that will break when crushed by a garage door", if you do not fail a door which reverses under the tests you do, and the above happens, when you stand before the Judge or jury and say that you do those tests because you "hate the 2 x4 test", you will be hanging out on a limb for devising your own test method which does not relate in any way to the actual test method and shows nothing with regard to whether the garage door would, or would not, automatically reverse as it should have at the date and time of your test.

The response I frequently get when I bring up 'the Judge and jury' is that the chances of that happening are between slim and none ... well, if the chances of a home inspector being brought before a judge and jury for a garage door failing to reverse and injuring or killing a child or other person is between slim and none, and given that if that did happen (injuring or killing a child or other person) the home inspector who tested it would surely be named as they did not fail it, then the logical conclusion of the chain of thought that the home inspector would not be brought before the Judge and jury means that there is slim to no chance of the garage door failing, which in turn makes one wonder why the home inspector would even bother to test something which has a slim to no chance of ever happening.

Why even bother to test the garage door as you know that there is a slim to no chance of it failing?

That logic does not play out.

[CHARLIE VAN FLEET]

jerry
i'm going to bed now--it,s 9:30 pm in colorado-- 64 yrs old--why are you up at 11:30 gator time--you must be 80--only kidding

i guess we all need to do what makes us comfortable in our job and to client--there can be millions of approaches--but i always have my client there at inspection and make sure they know the importance of the safety reverse and that is what is important to me anyway--and stated in my report--we can only do so much--i think we should report what we think makes client safe--

cvf

[Garry Sorrells]

Fuel for the fire for discussion. Sorry that it turned out long.

Vern,
I thought you were were writing your interpenetration of the NC Law. The NC Law like most all SOP is reliant on interpretation. Usually falling back on manufactures specifications and manuals. Different manufactures will have different requirements, even within the company for different models and different years.

So for clarification of others that may review this thread.
NC SOP does require but does not specify the actual testing methodology that you stated as required, ""Grasping the bottom of the door is a listed test and is the test required by my licensure board. ...""

NC SOP .1107 EXTERIOR
(4) Report whether or not any garage door operator will automatically reverse or stop when meeting reasonable resistance during closing;

Without actually stating it NC leaves it up to the HI to determine testing methods. What the HI bases the test method is a matter for the HI to justify if/when challenged. The HI can go to manufacture or other resources to find testing methods and then use those methods as the basis for developing the HI's method of testing across various manufactures and installations.


The real issue is that when presented with an door/gate opener they are of varying in age and manufactures. Again for myself though time consuming, I want to test without damaging the system so I test in increments ending in testing with a 2x on the floor. Stopping at the point where I determine a testing failure.

[Garry Sorrells]

The original question by Marc,

“Is there a minimum / max pressure for the physical retracting mechanism, not the lower eye.”, I found interesting, having never heard or seen an actual PSI #. Which now has me trying to obtain an answer form different manufactures. Better late than never.


I have received one reply which I found disappointing but in some respects not surprising. I specified a specific model hoping to make it easier to obtain a clear response. Here is the slightly edited email and reply

Email sent:
Chamberlain Product Support
Model WD962KEV
"...I would like too know what the maximum acceptable amount of pressure that is exerted when the door meets an object as it closes. Specifically the pounds per square inch (PSI) to trigger the safety reverse sensing technology function...."

Reply:
"Chamberlain Support" <technical.support@chamberlain.com
"...The travel and force is programmed to the logic board. Using the 2X4 you can check the force reversal. the unit will hit the board and open back up.

Chamberlain does not provide this information, our corporate office considers this information to be proprietary. ..."
Sincerely,
Maryann
Chamberlain Product Support

In my email I did not mention any potential issues of damage, only a request for a SPI. I will be following up on this with Chamberlain and other manufactures to attempt to obtain something specific on the PSI trigger question.

[Doctor Haus]

The guys are right, Peck is mostly wrong in his insistance that the first and only test should be a 2x4 test.

The 2x4 test is the last step in inspecting a garage door manufactured on/after 1991.First of all the 2x4 test should NEVER be employed before testing the BALANCING of the garage door after first visually inspecting the door, handles, locks, tracks (and obstructions placed therein), opening system, spring restraint system (cables or other) etc.

Visual inspection.

Next inspect for signs of insufficient or incorrect lubrication (noises, skips, drips, foreign matter contaminating, etc.).

Check the release feature(s) including the quick release feature.

Next check the balancing system. (requiring manual operation of the door) Further verify balancing system released and stop door when opening at mid way about 3-4' off the floor-ish and assure it holds open (procedure described on DASMA.org link provided below).

Next if manufactured on/after 1993 determine which of several additional stop and/or stop/reverse safety features required are present and test their operation. (all of which are hands off and out of the way of a failing falling door.

Next the hand force test (from outside not inside the garage under the door!)

Then and only then check via the 2x4 test which is required in all such systems to protect against entrapment between something and THE FLOOR manufactured on/after 1991.

If failing any of the prerequisite tests/inspections do not proceed and recommend further evaluation, adjustment, repair or replacement by a qualified professional. Most springs and safety cables/restraints should ONLY be evaluated for alteration, adjustment, repair or replacement by a qualified professional.

The instructions/manual is supposed to be present. Always refer to manufacturer's instructions, safety, warnings, and maintenance. The manufacturers will always supply information regarding monthly inspections and testing if manufactured on/after 1993.

I strongly recommend to all H.I.s, H.O.s, etc. to the following link (and perhaps direct property owners, clients, etc. to) for the SAFE PROCEDURE STEPS (with additonal information regarding same) here: DASMA Door and Access Systems Manufacturers Association (http://www.dasma.com/SafetyGDMaint.asp) It is important information is provided by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, the National Safety Council, and the Industry Coalition for Automatic Garage Door Opener Safety.

I used to have a pdf file of a brochure with similar info from the NSC but cannot locate it at the moment.

As well, numerous entrapment issues can occur above the floor - against a surface or obstruction other than the floor causing injuries and deaths see the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) web page below and UL.com (UL Standard technical panel STP 325, & UL Standard 325). Additional Information (Page with many useful links at CPSC here): Voluntary Standards - Garage Door Operators/Gate Operators (http://www.cpsc.gov/volstd/garage/garage.html) Additionally I'm uploading CPSC Publication 523 (pdf file).

Garry, you might try writing to UL for further information concerning ANSI/UL 325 Standard for Safety for Door, Drapery, Gate, Louver, and Window Operators and Systems, by contacting Joe Musso at Joseph.R.Musso@us.ul.com for your questions regarding force etc.

The mandatory standards can be found at US 16 CFR part 1211, Commercial Practices (http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/16cfr1211_04.html)

WARNING! If the force is set too high or the balancing is off a catastrophic failure can occur during the 2x4 test. The 2x4 test should not be employed if a door fails the Force Setting Test or the balancing test (or the foregoing inspections and examinations). A catastrophic failure can result in injury, death, or property damage.

[Vern Heiler]

Fuel for the fire for discussion. Sorry that it turned out long.

Vern,
I thought you were were writing your interpenetration of the NC Law. The NC Law like most all SOP is reliant on interpretation. Usually falling back on manufactures specifications and manuals. Different manufactures will have different requirements, even within the company for different models and different years.

So for clarification of others that may review this thread.
NC SOP does require but does not specify the actual testing methodology that you stated as required, ""Grasping the bottom of the door is a listed test and is the test required by my licensure board. ...""

NC SOP .1107 EXTERIOR
(4) Report whether or not any garage door operator will automatically reverse or stop when meeting reasonable resistance during closing;

Without actually stating it NC leaves it up to the HI to determine testing methods. What the HI bases the test method is a matter for the HI to justify if/when challenged. The HI can go to manufacture or other resources to find testing methods and then use those methods as the basis for developing the HI's method of testing across various manufactures and installations.


The real issue is that when presented with an door/gate opener they are of varying in age and manufactures. Again for myself though time consuming, I want to test without damaging the system so I test in increments ending in testing with a 2x on the floor. Stopping at the point where I determine a testing failure.

I agree with all you have said. My contention is; a 2x4 is infinite resistance, for all practical purpose, leaving the amount of force (resistance) required to reverse the door as an unknown.

As you have been using the 2x4, how many have failed as a final test?

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Sectional Garage Door and Electric Operator Checklist for Home Inspectors and Consumers: http://www.dasma.com/PDF/Publications/TechDataSheets/CommercialResidential/TDS167.pdf

Note #10, page 3 (Contact Reversal Test):

In some rare cases, this test has damaged the door system when the Operators Force-Setting has been improperly set or when the Operator Reinforcement Bracket is not secrely or appropriately attached to the top section. If you have any concerns that this test may cause damage, a trained door systems technician should check the entire system and conduct the test.

Also attached.

See also the following, regarding manual inspection and operation of Garage door prior to testing electric operator.

http://www.dasma.com/PDF/Publications/TechDataSheets/CommercialResidential/TDS174.pdf

additionally attached.


DASMA Door and Access Systems Manufacturers Association (http://www.dasma.com)

has much more.

[Jerry Peck]

Let me get this straight ... you said not to do the 2x4 test I talk about ... then you linked to a document which shows that as the correct test method???


The guys are right, Peck is mostly wrong in his insistance that the first and only test should be a 2x4 test.
.
I strongly recommend to all H.I.s, H.O.s, etc. to the following link (and perhaps direct property owners, clients, etc. to) for the SAFE PROCEDURE STEPS (with additonal information regarding same) here: DASMA Door and Access Systems Manufacturers Association (http://www.dasma.com/SafetyGDMaint.asp) It is important information is provided by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, the National Safety Council, and the Industry Coalition for Automatic Garage Door Opener Safety.

Huh???? :confused:

Either you are for the 2x4 test or you are not, and apparently you are for the 2x4 test as you referred and linked to that document.

[Rick Cantrell]

The guys are right, Peck is mostly wrong in his insistance that the first and only test should be a 2x4 test.
...

Next the hand force test (from outside not inside the garage under the door!)

I strongly recommend to all H.I.s, H.O.s, etc. to the following link (and perhaps direct property owners, clients, etc. to) for the SAFE PROCEDURE STEPS (with additonal information regarding same) here: DASMA Door and Access Systems Manufacturers Association (http://www.dasma.com/SafetyGDMaint.asp) .

Doc
First of all Jerry did not say it is the first and only test

Next did you even read the link you provided
I think not
http://www.dasma.com/PDF/Publications/TechDataSheets/CommercialResidential/TDS167.pdf
Nothing in the DASMA 10 step inspection procedure about using your hand to hold back the door.

[Corey Friedman]

Hello Fellas,

For those who like testing the door by stopping it with their hands (presumably at approx. waist height), I am curious how you think an ergonomic professional, back doctor, P.I. lawyer and OSHA would respond if you asked them following:

Do you think it is a good idea to stand under a large downward moving object than can weigh as much as 400 hundred pounds, that is on a set of tracks and motor driven with a force behind it that we don’t know, and attempt to stop this object from its intended downward motion to see if a safety device works to make this object stop and go back up. And, use a body part to conduct this test?

Just curious what other professionals in other industries might say.

I have never read an instruction manual that says to use a body part to stop a mechanical moving object.

I have no intention of changing anyone’s mind. I sincerely wish for all to be safe and do what they believe is best for themselves and their clients.

Be well,

Corey

[Darrel Hood]

In this forum I am frequently amazed at how many adults who call themselves professionals claim to have no common sense or good judgment.

[Raymond Wand]

... not to mention the constant pissing contests!

[Rick Cantrell]

Not a pissing match at all, and I certainly think every person here has plenty of common sense.

Home inspectors, as a group, are accustomed to having their opinions challenged and criticized, by trades people, sellers, and agents.
Almost everyone here has heard a trades person or agent say, “ He doesn’t know what he’s talking about”. The HI cannot allow the criticism to alter his opinion.
However, the HI cannot become so entrenched that he is unwilling to examine himself and his methods.
It does not surprise me that some are reluctant to accept using a 2x4. Years of hearing inspector folklore and rumors of disaster have them understandable skeptical.
Only by trust in the words of a few and accepting the validity of written instructions, are they willing to do what they have feared.

Understanding takes trust
Trust takes change
Change takes time

As I said before, it took courage for Lon and Vern.

[Doctor Haus]

Doc
First of all Jerry did not say it is the first and only test

Next did you even read the link you provided
I think not
http://www.dasma.com/PDF/Publications/TechDataSheets/CommercialResidential/TDS167.pdf
Nothing in the DASMA 10 step inspection procedure about using your hand to hold back the door.

Wasn't the link I provided.

You're not alone, all of the last five posters have evidenced that they do not read.


Force Setting Test
Test the force setting of your garage door opener by holding the bottom of the door as it closes. If the door does not reverse readily, the force setting may be excessive and need adjusting. See your owner’s manual for details on how to make the adjustment.

Was from the link I provided.

Testing a GDO is a progressive process and when properly done, is halted, whenever a step in the process indicates a problem. Proceeding to a 2x4 test is foolhardy if the GD or the GDO has already been found to have a problem condition, adjustment, etc. and "failed under testing" is not a valid response if having done so.

The .pdf you refer to also makes mention of the force setting and manufacturers instructions.

You do not stand in the garage nor under the Garage Door when you perform a force setting test, just as you do not stand in the garage nor under the garage door when you perform a balancing test.

[Darrel Hood]

I did not say folks had no common sense, only that they claim not to have. Many of the HIs appear to use "approved", "listed", "required" and other buzz words to escape ownership of their decisions, policies and practices. For instance, if one can say, "It's not listed for that" then one has an excuse not to render an opinion whether it will work or not.

[Rick Cantrell]

Sorry Doc
I did not mean to misquote you.
I had several pages open at the same time all from that site.

[Rolland Pruner]

Marc: At one time 35 lbs pressure was recommended. DONT use a 2x4 I did this once and the door fell apart, I had to pay big for this!!!! I do know they say to do this.... Trust me don"t

[Bob Elliott]

Hello Fellas,

For those who like testing the door by stopping it with their hands (presumably at approx. waist height), I am curious how you think an ergonomic professional, back doctor, P.I. lawyer and OSHA would respond if you asked them following:

Do you think it is a good idea to stand under a large downward moving object than can weigh as much as 400 hundred pounds, that is on a set of tracks and motor driven with a force behind it that we don’t know, and attempt to stop this object from its intended downward motion to see if a safety device works to make this object stop and go back up. And, use a body part to conduct this test?

Just curious what other professionals in other industries might say.

I have never read an instruction manual that says to use a body part to stop a mechanical moving object.

I have no intention of changing anyone’s mind. I sincerely wish for all to be safe and do what they believe is best for themselves and their clients.

Be well,

Corey


A block of wood is solid while a small child is not.
How many people have been injured after my better hand test (zero)
How many kids get crushed for being less solid than a block of wood or wider than one inch we may never know.

If you guys are happy filling insurance forms for damaged doors then it is up to you.

Please explain how a "solid" block of wood determines the exact amount of pressure sensitivity.

[Stephen G]

Hello Fellas,


I have never read an instruction manual that says to use a body part to stop a mechanical moving object.



Corey


Okay, Elevator doors are tested and operate on the practise that if something, body part perhaps, closes the safety switch the door opens. The other one I can think of is in one of the battle tanks, the bomb door has same type of mechanism. Body part gets in front it opens back up to prevent crushing.
My garage door was tested twice last year, both times by my wife, on her RAV4. And both times the door raised as expected, if it hadnt she woulda drove out with it on the roof. Spare tire cover took the hit both times. They cost about $800...saved the garage door though :cool:

[Corey Friedman]

Okay, Elevator doors are tested and operate on the practise that if something, body part perhaps, closes the safety switch the door opens. The other one I can think of is in one of the battle tanks, the bomb door has same type of mechanism. Body part gets in front it opens back up to prevent crushing.
My garage door was tested twice last year, both times by my wife, on her RAV4. And both times the door raised as expected, if it hadnt she woulda drove out with it on the roof. Spare tire cover took the hit both times. They cost about $800...saved the garage door though :cool:


Stephen,

Elevator doors are specifically designed for that function.

Battle tanks and bomb doors... really? Kinda specialized including specialized training.

Corey

[Bob Elliott]

The reason the manufacturers recommend block of wood is two fold.
Damage the door testing and they sell more product.
Second reason is the same as for why they have a warning your coffee is hot on the cup.
LIABILITY.

If it is a 12-14 Lb retract setting then my hand method is a much better judge than a solid block of wood damaging a door and also does what the block can not which is make sure it retracts on light pressure not to mention very few kids are one inch tall.

Guys will use one or the other method but nobody can tell me my method is wrong .Too many years in this to not think for myself.

[Raymond Wand]

Me too, I am sticking with my hand test method. Only have had one cheap aluminum door buckle where the track arm was mounted onto the door. I was able to straighten it out by hand.

How does one test swing up doors that have a power lift?

[Bob Elliott]

Ray, you would need to wedge the 6 foot long 2x4 at the edge going back to the door frame and if it pops off the springs and drops the car door you simply write it up as failed under testing.:)

[Stephen G]

Talk to what you know, In my past life I was a heavy armoured mechanic and frequent elevator door tester, just like you.
My point stands to your 'body part' comment. I feel like I did answer your statement. No big skill needed for HO to test the door. We just have to follow manufacturers instruction. Cuz the doors will cause damage, treat them with respect, like any other mechanical device.
But, as every other tradesman does, we do a little reverse engineering. I know that by sticking my hand under that door (standing outside) and creating some resistance I should be able to get it to auto reverse. I also get to see the door move on its bogies. And if it doesnt work and if its got a photo sensor at the bottom I sweep my foot to re-open the door. :rolleyes:








Stephen,

Elevator doors are specifically designed for that function.

Battle tanks and bomb doors... really? Kinda specialized including specialized training.

Corey

[Raymond Wand]

Bob,

I am going to go out and purchase a 6 footer 2x4 today. I just hope it fits in my inspection kit. :D ;)

[Lon Henderson]

Crap happens in this business. Honestly, things break when we are doing inspections. I have had a main water shutoff break off and start trying to convert the crawlspace to a trout pond. I have had several windows fall out when I tried to open them. I had a furnace catch debris in the ducts on fire (the fire department said it was a good thing that I was the one this happened to because I shut the furnace down properly, but I sure didn't feel like it was such a good thing) I have never had to fill out an insurance form or even offer any more explanation than "component failed under normal use or industry accepted testing." C'mon guys, this is a business where we are suppose to find failing or problem components to protect our clients. To do that, we have to risk breaking things.

I had quit using the wood block because of one problem door some 14 years ago. In the four days that I have once again been using a wood block, I have had two doors pass the hand test and flunk the block test. (Second one today) Neither door buckled, they just locked the block down.

Since, the wood block test is an industry recognized and approved test, in worst case scenarios, I think you could find yourself doing more "splainin" about why you didn't use it than why you broke a door using it.

This thread morphed into something very interesting about our business and the way we conduct it. Jerry noted situations where he won't use the block test. I concur. Similarly, I will never test AFCI breakers in an occupied house, which I rarely see these days. As we become more experienced, we have to recognize when and when not to risk breaking something. But guys, if your risk threshold is too low, I don't know how you can effectively do this business.

Of course, that is very subjective and one good thing revealed in threads like this, is how much thought so many inspectors put into the way they conduct their business.

[Corey Friedman]

Talk to what you know, In my past life I was a heavy armoured mechanic and frequent elevator door tester, just like you.
My point stands to your 'body part' comment. I feel like I did answer your statement. No big skill needed for HO to test the door. We just have to follow manufacturers instruction. Cuz the doors will cause damage, treat them with respect, like any other mechanical device.
But, as every other tradesman does, we do a little reverse engineering. I know that by sticking my hand under that door (standing outside) and creating some resistance I should be able to get it to auto reverse. I also get to see the door move on its bogies. And if it doesnt work and if its got a photo sensor at the bottom I sweep my foot to re-open the door. :rolleyes:

Hi Stephen,

First of all, I really don’t care how anyone tests the doors and never said otherwise. As I said in my post, everyone should do what they believe is best for themselves and their client.

We’ll have to agree to disagree on elevator doors, but you did indeed answer that question.

I know very little about tanks and never said I did (know anything about tanks). I was asking a question (hence the use of a question mark) but that’s ok if you didn’t understand what I meant. I also assumed that people involved in the operation of tanks had specialized training, apparently not. Thank you for clearing that up. I appreciate your input based on your previous tank experience.

Is it safe to assume that you served in the military or some type of military support? If you did, thank you for your service.

Have a great weekend.

Corey

[Garry Sorrells]

Bob,

I am going to go out and purchase a 6 footer 2x4 today. I just hope it fits in my inspection kit. :D ;)

Bob,
I cut my 6 footer into 1 foot lengths. Fits fine now, though I had to take everything else out to make room.

[Garry Sorrells]

Bob E.,
Block of wood is is more of a measurement devise than anything else. Though I agree on selling more product.

You stated :"...If it is a 12-14 Lb retract setting then my hand method is a much better judge than a solid block of wood damaging a door and also does what the block can not which is make sure it retracts on light pressure not to mention very few kids are one inch tall. ..."

If you can get a manufacture or a U.L. source to specify the force expected to trigger the reverse I would love to know it. I am trying to get a manufacture to provide PSI specification but have not to date.

Lon,
"...I have had two doors pass the hand test and flunk the block test. (Second one today) Neither door buckled, they just locked the block down...."

Passing the hand test help ensured that the door would not be damaged using a 2x on the floor.

Your situation of the door operator failing the 2x test is a matter of the adjustment to the travel distance of the door
Did you try to turn the 2x4 on edge and parallel to door? Or add a 2nd 2x to increase height?

Corey,
".......I am curious how you think an ergonomic professional, back doctor, P.I. lawyer and OSHA would respond if you asked them following:

Do you think it is a good idea...."

If you listened to them it would take 4 people, 3 supervisors, 12 form, 2hours of paper documentation and 14 hours of certification training to put up a 40 ft ladder. Oh I forgot the crane and operator.

I typically find most (not all) doctors and lawyers hire others to perform anything requiring actual physical labor. They do not want to risk getting hurt. Plus the work up a sweat issue.

With trying to stop the door using your hand, instead of your shoulder, if the force is to great you just let go. No harm no foul. No worse than picking up a 50# bag of bird seed or a 75+# ladder. How about a bundle of shingle?

Inside garage, outside garage, on roof to test door operation.
If after during an inspection of a door I had a concern of it falling down on me I would have already stopped inspecting and declared it as failed and in need of repair. I have never had a concern of a door coming down on me that I have determined in sound operating condition. If a door is going to come down it will be for a reason. It is my job/responsibility to determine the risks and act accordingly. That is what knowledge and experience teaches you. Knowing what to look for and test then what those thing actual mean.

[Ray Thornburg]

The block test doesn't work sometimes because on the bottom of the door is a rubber seal which will help seal floor inconsistenties. It can hide an uneven surface by about an inch or more as it should. Sometimes the installer sets the door down only enough to hide the crack to keep daylight from shining through. I would like to say that extensive testing and calibration is beyond the scope of a standard home inspection.

[Garry Sorrells]

Ray,
Right you are. There are at least 3 different bottom door seals to use, one is extra large to compensate for sloping openings. The large one can be a problem to set to.

"....extensive testing and calibration is beyond the scope of a standard home inspection."

I do not think anyone is saying to reset/calibrate the operator or to make any adjustment to the door. But, unlike many things in the house that are inspected devoting the time required to the garage door should not be question. State and organizational SOP will give you potentially a partial pass on how well you inspect the door and operator systems. But, it may come back to bite you. Also, if only to protect the unknowing (ignorant) from themselves, a real close and extensive inspection may prevent damage to property and injury to others. There are few areas that have so many things involved in the installation and subsequent operation.

[Lon Henderson]

Bob E.,
Did you try to turn the 2x4 on edge and parallel to door? Or add a 2nd 2x to increase height?

That is a good question but, it is not the industry recognized protocol. I think a much better test would be a 2X4 or 2X6 on edge. This is much closer to a child or pet getting stuck under the door, but none of the smart guys who make up these testing guidelines have asked me.

So, do we want to take on the burden of creating our own test protocol? I bet few of us are willing to take on the liability of creating our own protocol for doing a radon test. So why do you cheerfully create your own for testing a garage door. Do any of us think that a garage door is less important than radon and therefore it doesn't matter if we think up our own test procedure?

That kind of thinking takes you into dangerous liability ground. And that is the argument from some of you guys that convinced me to go back to the block test. Inspecting beyond an industry test is fine, imo. But that doesn't mean ignoring the flat 2X4 test. So, what do you tell a client when the door passes a 2X4 on edge test but fails the flat 2X4 test? The opener flunked the industry accepted test. It's educational and informative that the opener passed the board on edge test, for us as inspectors, we better write the opener up as failed. Or...........explain to the customer for minutes why the test is stupid.....just for a durn garage door opener!

Heck, I wouldn't believe that we are still discussing this, except the bigger picture discussion is about whether as lowly home inspectors, do we create our own testing procedures for components that have industry recognized and accepted procedures?

[Garry Sorrells]

Lon,
Turning the 2x on edge would just have been an answer to my personal curiosity to see that it would make a difference.

The test for 1" to 1.5" is what you would report.

As far as creating individual methodology for testing, Radon testing is Federally regulated. Garage doors seem to be in a bit of a limbo land. Else there would be a specific SPI for the reversal function not just a location for reversal ( 1" from floor). And no specification of the material density to be used for the test. There are no universally specified methods for checking rail attachment. Typically it reverts back to manufacture installation specifications. And not all manufactures write the specs. the same.

Yes it is interesting that the thread has lasted. All revolving over the concern of damaging a door during testing.

[Lon Henderson]

Lon,
As far as creating individual methodology for testing, Radon testing is Federally regulated.

Not to get us going in a different direction, but radon testing isn't Federally regulated. The EPA doesn't mandate anything to do with radon. They just make recommendations. Some states have created licensing for radon testers but not Colorado where I live.

Where Can I Get a Radon Test Kit? | Radon | US Environmental Protection Agency (http://www.epa.gov/radon/radontest.html)

However, as we know, the EPA has recommended protocols for radon testing and if you don't want to have a discussion with a plaintiff's attorney about it, the course of least resistance is to conduct your radon testing according to the EPA protocol.

You make a good point about different garage door manufacturers and opener makers having differences but the block test appears to be universally accepted by the industry as a test method. I like simple tests but I am not a fan of this one. If I was creating a test, I would have a 4-6" spring with something like 12-15psi resistance. And make my fortune selling them to fellow inspectors, retire to a tropical island and .................or not.:cool:

[Garry Sorrells]

Found a little something from your friends at nachi. .
Thought that Jerry P. would like their illustration of testing from the interior of the opening.

http://www.nachi.org/garage-doors-openers.htm#ixzz1sOV1Uyj1 (http://www.nachi.org/garage-doors-openers.htm#ixzz1sOV1Uyj1)

[Garry Sorrells]

Inspecting garage door.

[Garry Sorrells]

The original question of the post: "Is there a minimum / max pressure for the physical retracting mechanism, not the lower eye."

There is an answer.

Thinking there should be a specification in PSI to trigger reversal from obstruction contact, even though it may not be referenced to by manufactures in their installation, operation or maintenance manuals due to the equipment required perform such a test.

After reviewing Underwriters Lab and Consumer Product Safety Commission and then consulting a Senior Project Engineer at UL this is the short answer. [ a little CYA ] (( all should look at the full texts in their original forms and not use the following as their final reference))))

There is no PSI specification for doors without an edge sensor.
The anti-entrapment standard for the door is one that requires the door to reverse after 2 seconds and retract a minimum of 2 inches. There is no min/max specification on the amount of force exerted during those 2 seconds.

An operator using an edge sensor on the bottom of the door does require a pressure 15 lbs. or less to activate the sensor switch.


The following is condensed and highlighted for the areas of interest in this topic area.

Underwriters Laboratories ( UL )
UL 325 Sec. 36
36 Edge Sensors
36.1 Normal operation test
36.1.1 When installed on a representative residential door edge, an edge sensor shall actuate upon the application of a 15 lbf (66.7 N) or less force in the direction of the application. For an edge sensor intended to be used on a sectional door, the force is to be applied by the longitudinal edge of a 1-7/8 in (47.6 mm) diameter cylinder placed across the sensor so that the axis is perpendicular to plane of the door. For an edge sensor intended to be used on a one piece door, the force is to be applied so that the axis is at an angle 30 degrees from the direction perpendicular to the plane of the door. See Figure 36.1.
36.1.1.1 When installed on a representative commercial door edge, an edge sensor shall actuate upon the application of a 15 lbf (66.7 N) or less force in the direction of the application. For an edge sensor intended to be used on a commercial door, the force is to be applied by the longitudinal edge of a 1-7/8 in (47.6 mm) diameter cylinder placed across the sensor so that the axis is perpendicular to plane of the door at a distance of 6 in (152.4 mm) from the fully closed position. See Figure 36.1.
36.1.2 With respect to the test of 36.1.1 and 36.1.1.1, the test is to be repeated at various representative points of the edge sensor across the width of the door.

Consumer Product Safety Commission

PART 1211—SAFETY STANDARD FOR AUTOMATIC RESIDENTIAL GARAGE DOOR OPERATORS

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2012-title16-vol2/pdf/CFR-2012-title16-vol2-part1211.pdf (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2012-title16-vol2/pdf/CFR-2012-title16-vol2-part1211.pdf)

§ 1211.7 Inherent entrapment protection requirements.
(a)(1) Other than for the first 1 foot (305mm) of door travel from the full upmost position both with and without any external entrapment protection device functional, the operator of a downward moving residential garage door shall initiate reversal of the door within 2 seconds of contact with the obstruction as specified in paragraph (b) of this section.

(b)(1) A solid object is to be placed on the floor of the test installation and at various heights under the edge of the door and located in line with the driving point of the operator. When tested on the floor, the object shall be 1 inch (25.4 mm) high. In the test installation, the bottom edge of the door under the driving force of the operator is to be against the floor when the door is fully closed.

(2) For operators other than those attached to the door, a solid object is not required to be located in line with the driving point of the operator. The solid object is to be located at points at the center, and within 1 foot of each end of the door. ….

(f)(1) An operator, using an inherent entrapment protection system that monitors the actual position of the door,…….. The entrapment protection system shall monitor the position of the door at increments not greater than 1 inch (25.4 mm). …..

§ 1211.8 Secondary entrapment protection requirements.
(a) A secondary entrapment protection device supplied with, or as an accessory to, an operator shall consist of: (1) An external photoelectric sensor that when activated results in an operator that is closing a door to reverse direction of the door and the sensor prevents an operator from closing an open door,
(2) An external edge sensor installed on the edge of the door that, when activated results in an operator that is closing a door to reverse direction of the door and the sensor prevents an operator from closing an open door,……..

§ 1211.9 Additional entrapment protection requirements.
(a) A means to manually detach the door operator from the door shall be supplied. The gripping surface (handle) shall be colored red and shall be easily distinguishable from the rest of the operator. It shall be capable of being adjusted to a height of 6 feet (1.8 m) above the garage floor when the operator is installed according to the instructions specified in § 1211.14(a)(2). The means shall be constructed so that a hand firmly gripping it and applying a maximum of 50 pounds (223 N) of force shall detach the operator with the door obstructed in the down position. …..

§ 1211.12 Requirements for edge sensors.
(a) Normal operation test. (1) When installed on a representative door edge, an edge sensor shall actuate upon the application of a 15 pounds (66.7 N) or less force in the direction of the application. For an edge sensor intended to be used on a sectional door, the force is to be applied by the longitudinal edge of a 17⁄8 inch (47.6 mm) diameter cylinder placed across the switch so that the axis is perpendicular to the plane of the door. For an edge sensor intended to be used on a one piece door, the force is to be applied so that the axis is at an angle 30 degrees from the direction perpendicular to the plane of the door. See figure 6.
(2) With respect to the test of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the test is to be repeated at various representative points of the edge sensor across the width of the door.
(3) Exception: The edge sensor need not be sensitive to actuation two inches (50.4mm) or less from each end of the intended width of the door opening.

file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Garry/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image002.gif

§ 1211.13 Inherent force activated secondary door sensors.
(a) Normal operation test. (1) A force activated door sensor of a door system installed according to the installation instructions shall actuate when the door applies a 15 pound (66.7 N) or less force in the down or closing direction and when the door applies a 25 pound (111.2 N) or less force in the up or opening direction. For a force activated door sensor intended to be used in an operator intended for use only on a sectional door, the force is to be applied by the door against the longitudinal edge of a 17⁄8 (47.6 mm) diameter cylinder placed across the door so that the axis is perpendicular to the plane of the door. See Figure 6 of this part. The weight of the door is to be equal to the maximum weight rating of the operator.
(2) The test described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section is to be repeated and measurements made at various representative points across the width and height of the door. For this test, a door sensor system and associated components shall withstand a total of 9 cycles of mechanical operation without failure with the force applied as follows:
(i) At the center at points one, three, and five feet from the floor,
(ii) Within 1 foot of the end of the door, at points one, three, and five feet from the floor,
(iii) Within 1 foot of the other end of the door at points one, three, and five feet from the floor.

§ 1211.14 Instruction manual.
……..8. After installing opener, the door must reverse when it contacts a 11⁄2 inch high object (or a 2 by 4 board laid flat) on the floor. …..

[Garry Sorrells]

As a side note, I contacted many sources one of which was Chamberlain about the SPI specifications to trigger reversal of the door operator.

Chamberlain's response from their technical support was :
"...The travel and force is programmed to the logic board. Using the 2X4 you can check the force reversal. the unit will hit the board and open back up.

Chamberlain does not provide this information, our corporate office considers this information to be proprietary...."

Had a chuckle when I saw it.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

...(( all should look at the full texts in their original forms and not use the following as their final reference))))...



PART 1211—SAFETY STANDARD FOR AUTOMATIC RESIDENTIAL GARAGE DOOR OPERATORS

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2012-title16-vol2/pdf/CFR-2012-title16-vol2-part1211.pdf (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2012-title16-vol2/pdf/CFR-2012-title16-vol2-part1211.pdf)

§ 1211.7 Inherent entrapment protection requirements.



(a)...
(1) Other than for the first 1 foot (305mm) of door travel from the full upmost position both with and without any external entrapment protection device functional, the operator of a downward moving residential garage door shall initiate reversal of the door within 2 seconds of contact with the obstruction as specified in paragraph (b) of this section...

(b)...
(1) A solid object is to be placed on the floor of the test installation and at various heights under the edge of the door and located in line with the driving point of the operator. When tested on the floor, the object shall be 1 inch (25.4 mm) high. In the test installation, the bottom edge of the door under the driving force of the operator is to be against the floor when the door is fully closed.
(2) For operators other than those attached to the door, a solid object is not required to be located in line with the driving point of the operator. The solid object is to be located at points at the center, and within 1 foot of each end of the door. ….

(f)...
(1) An operator, using an inherent entrapment protection system that monitors the actual position of the door,…….. The entrapment protection system shall monitor the position of the door at increments not greater than 1 inch (25.4 mm). …..§ 1211.8 Secondary entrapment protection requirements.


(a) A secondary entrapment protection device supplied with, or as an accessory to, an operator shall consist of:
(1) An external photoelectric sensor that when activated results in an operator that is closing a door to reverse direction of the door and the sensor prevents an operator from closing an open door,
(2) An external edge sensor installed on the edge of the door that, when activated results in an operator that is closing a door to reverse direction of the door and the sensor prevents an operator from closing an open door,……..§ 1211.9 Additional entrapment protection requirements.

(a) A means to manually detach the door operator from the door shall be supplied. The gripping surface (handle) shall be colored red and shall be easily distinguishable from the rest of the operator. It shall be capable of being adjusted to a height of 6 feet (1.8 m) above the garage floor when the operator is installed according to the instructions specified in § 1211.14(a)(2). The means shall be constructed so that a hand firmly gripping it and applying a maximum of 50 pounds (223 N) of force shall detach the operator with the door obstructed in the down position. …..

§ 1211.12 Requirements for edge sensors.


(a) Normal operation test.
(1) When installed on a representative door edge, an edge sensor shall actuate upon the application of a 15 pounds (66.7 N) or less force in the direction of the application. For an edge sensor intended to be used on a sectional door, the force is to be applied by the longitudinal edge of a 17⁄8 inch (47.6 mm) diameter cylinder placed across the switch so that the axis is perpendicular to the plane of the door. For an edge sensor intended to be used on a one piece door, the force is to be applied so that the axis is at an angle 30 degrees from the direction perpendicular to the plane of the door. See figure 6.
(2) With respect to the test of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the test is to be repeated at various representative points of the edge sensor across the width of the door.
(3) Exception: The edge sensor need not be sensitive to actuation two inches (50.4mm) or less from each end of the intended width of the door opening.§ 1211.13 Inherent force activated secondary door sensors.

(a) Normal operation test.

(1) A force activated door sensor of a door system installed according to the installation instructions shall actuate when the door applies a 15 pound (66.7 N) or less force in the down or closing direction and when the door applies a 25 pound (111.2 N) or less force in the up or opening direction. For a force activated door sensor intended to be used in an operator intended for use only on a sectional door, the force is to be applied by the door against the longitudinal edge of a 17⁄8 (47.6 mm) diameter cylinder placed across the door so that the axis is perpendicular to the plane of the door. See Figure 6 of this part. The weight of the door is to be equal to the maximum weight rating of the operator.
(2) The test described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section is to be repeated and measurements made at various representative points across the width and height of the door. For this test, a door sensor system and associated components shall withstand a total of 9 cycles of mechanical operation without failure with the force applied as follows:
(i) At the center at points one, three, and five feet from the floor,
(ii) Within 1 foot of the end of the door, at points one, three, and five feet from the floor,
(iii) Within 1 foot of the other end of the door at points one, three, and five feet from the floor.

§ 1211.14 Instruction manual.


...8. After installing opener, the door must reverse when it contacts a 1-1⁄2 inch high object (or a 2 by 4 board laid flat) on the floor...

Thanks for highlighting/pasting up some of the language from the reference (U.S. Code Federal Regulations) pertaining to the performance testing standards for certification for the manufacture and installation/maintenance instructions required of GDOs and accessory safety features sold for residential installation in this country.

P.S.

Garry,

In the middle of your post (just above 1211.13) you attempted to insert an image directly from your harddrive:

file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Garry/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image002.gif

That, obviously doesn't work.

Could you please upload the image to IN ('attach' it) or to a hosted internet site first, please, so we can see it? After you've first done either, and using a link to same, you can then insert it into your post, if you desire to ('IMG' it), or use the direct link to where the image may be already hosted when you 'IMG' it.

Thanks again.

[Garry Sorrells]

Missing image