Thread: Garage Door Opener Support

At the risk of starting another "garage door opener" mega thread; here is a new one one me. Today I tested the door for resistance, as I always do, near the bottom of travel. When I did the 2X6 that the end of the drive rail is attached to popped off the wall. The 2X6 was held to the wall with 12-15 2" ring shank flooring nails. The ends of the nails didn't even make it all the way through the drywall let alone go into wood. Sellers response was "It worked for 16 years, who should fix it?". My response was "any handyman that can hit a real nail with a real hammer".

Vern,
Not looking for a long thread to start either. But I am interested in the blocking failure.
Granted it was not secured to the framing correctly which allowed it to pull away from wall.
Furthermore I do not think that you did anything wrong in testing the doors operation.
I have some thoughts on the physics of what happened and would like to know just a few things.
Thanks.

At what point of the door operation did you introduce the resistance ?
-On way down, and at what point?
-On way up, and at what point?

Originally Posted by Garry Sorrells

Vern,
Not looking for a long thread to start either. But I am interested in the blocking failure.
Granted it was not secured to the framing correctly which allowed it to pull away from wall.
Furthermore I do not think that you did anything wrong in testing the doors operation.
I have some thoughts on the physics of what happened and would like to know just a few things.
Thanks.

At what point of the door operation did you introduce the resistance ?
-On way down, and at what point?
-On way up, and at what point?

I apply resistance by hand on the way down. I don't start applying resistance until the top panel is nearly vertical and release when the pressure reaches 10-20 lbs. (10 lbs range on flimsy questionable door and 20 lbs range on solid well built and installed door)

Thanks, Thought that probably was the case, seeing that it was the left side that appears to have had the greater rotation.

The blocking should not have done that. The opener pushes against the rail back to the wall when engaged to open the door. It also pushes against the wall at the first part of lowering due to a small amount of weight on the door, if the springs are adjusted properly. Therefore if anything it should have pushed the block against the wall, not away from it in either opening or closing. The bracket for the spring tension is on the block. That would rotate the block against the spring winding which would have opened a gap at either the top or the bottom, depending on the wind rotation direction. What were the hangers for the opener made of? Strange.

Originally Posted by JeffGHooper

The blocking should not have done that. The opener pushes against the rail back to the wall when engaged to open the door. It also pushes against the wall at the first part of lowering due to a small amount of weight on the door, if the springs are adjusted properly. Therefore if anything it should have pushed the block against the wall, not away from it in either opening or closing. The bracket for the spring tension is on the block. That would rotate the block against the spring winding which would have opened a gap at either the top or the bottom, depending on the wind rotation direction. What were the hangers for the opener made of? Strange.

The opener pushes against the rail back to the wall when engaged to open the door, and against the motor (or away from the wall) when closing. Opposite directions have opposite pressures.

Originally Posted by Vern Heiler

The opener pushes against the rail back to the wall when engaged to open the door, and against the motor (or away from the wall) when closing. Opposite directions have opposite pressures.

When closing there is no pressure, or very little, if the springs are adjusted properly when closing. The weight of the door should be pushing against the rail then too as the door is trying to come down. The load path is the same in both directions. If there is resistance in the downward motion, the springs are not adjusted correctly. The door should have zero effective weight when the door is at balance, which should be around 3 feet off the floor.

Based on past experience with similar threads, Brian might as well mark this one red.

Several months ago, I had a similar experience. After discussions with several garage door installers, I've abandoned the "block" test and gone completely to the "hand" test. But I had everything go wrong on a door. I barely applied any resistance to a newer steel door with an older opener. The door immediately jammed in the tracks. The mounting bracket on the door twisted almost off the door rib. The opener drove down. The upper three panels warped. And the opener locked up as it pushed against the door.

To make the long story shorter, both the door and opener had to be replaced and the seller ain't happy. The listing agent tried to call this an "accident" because as the Colorado contract to purchase is written, the seller will have recourse against the buyer for breaking anything. However, if something breaks in the course of normal operation, this clause (10.4) in the contract falls into a grayer area. I explained that this was damage that was sustained during an industry recognized test of the safety features of the opener that should be conducted on a regular basis. After much furor, the seller made repairs and no doubt called me many unflattering things and I haven't heard anymore about it. There were many issues in the home and the buyers terminated the transaction which probably added to the seller's anger.

After much consideration, I still conduct the hand test because the obstruction sensor on an opener is an important safety feature. However, if I see anything wrong with a door or opener before doing the test, I don't and note that the test should be done after repairs are done.

Originally Posted by Lon Henderson

Based on past experience with similar threads, Brian might as well mark this one red.

Several months ago, I had a similar experience. After discussions with several garage door installers, I've abandoned the "block" test and gone completely to the "hand" test. But I had everything go wrong on a door. I barely applied any resistance to a newer steel door with an older opener. The door immediately jammed in the tracks. The mounting bracket on the door twisted almost off the door rib. The opener drove down. The upper three panels warped. And the opener locked up as it pushed against the door.

To make the long story shorter, both the door and opener had to be replaced and the seller ain't happy. The listing agent tried to call this an "accident" because as the Colorado contract to purchase is written, the seller will have recourse against the buyer for breaking anything. However, if something breaks in the course of normal operation, this clause (10.4) in the contract falls into a grayer area. I explained that this was damage that was sustained during an industry recognized test of the safety features of the opener that should be conducted on a regular basis. After much furor, the seller made repairs and no doubt called me many unflattering things and I haven't heard anymore about it. There were many issues in the home and the buyers terminated the transaction which probably added to the seller's anger.

After much consideration, I still conduct the hand test because the obstruction sensor on an opener is an important safety feature. However, if I see anything wrong with a door or opener before doing the test, I don't and note that the test should be done after repairs are done.

I feel your pain. However, if it failed during an approved test, then that is how I used to write it up. (Failed During Test) What you did was discover a latent defect, (meaning it was defective and you cannot damage something that is already damaged), your argument to seller and buyer. Good you found the defect or it could have bound in a higher position with someone under it and when the panels deflect the roller can come out. Had a door crash down onto a Mercedes Benz that way once. Thankfully it was the Agent that pushed the button on the door that still had locks in place with an opener. I know that one will get a lot of argument about what to use and how. Most manufactures recommend the block test, however, some manufacturers had printed literature of the hand test. I like you prefer the hand test when the door is about 3 feet from the floor, and not more than about 20lbs of pressure. I have seen doors damaged with the block test. If I see any deflection I immediately stop. Never check the release in the up position (or you too may have torn ligaments and a torn bicep) catching a door rushing downward with improperly set springs. Stay SAFE!

Originally Posted by JeffGHooper

I feel your pain. However, if it failed during an approved test, then that is how I used to write it up. (Failed During Test) What you did was discover a latent defect, (meaning it was defective and you cannot damage something that is already damaged), your argument to seller and buyer. Good you found the defect or it could have bound in a higher position with someone under it and when the panels deflect the roller can come out. Had a door crash down onto a Mercedes Benz that way once. Thankfully it was the Agent that pushed the button on the door that still had locks in place with an opener. I know that one will get a lot of argument about what to use and how. Most manufactures recommend the block test, however, some manufacturers had printed literature of the hand test. I like you prefer the hand test when the door is about 3 feet from the floor, and not more than about 20lbs of pressure. I have seen doors damaged with the block test. If I see any deflection I immediately stop. Never check the release in the up position (or you too may have torn ligaments and a torn bicep) catching a door rushing downward with improperly set springs. Stay SAFE!

Reduce your risk of damaging the door by waiting til the top panel is near vertical before applying resistance.

I tested hundreds, make that a few thousand, garage doors with the 2 x 4 on the floor and (that I can recall) never bent or damaged a door doing that test.

Many didn't reverse, and many would bow the opener guide upward straining trying to crush the 2x4, but no door damage.

I've had doors fall off their tracks before the test, and one or two opener guides come apart ... before the test.

All I can think of is the location and orientation of the 2x4 as a reason for the door being damaged by a 2x4 test.

Maybe I was just lucky all those years?

The 2x4 test is the test in the standard the last time I checked.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

I tested hundreds, make that a few thousand, garage doors with the 2 x 4 on the floor and (that I can recall) never bent or damaged a door doing that test.

Many didn't reverse, and many would bow the opener guide upward straining trying to crush the 2x4, but no door damage.

I've had doors fall off their tracks before the test, and one or two opener guides come apart ... before the test.

All I can think of is the location and orientation of the 2x4 as a reason for the door being damaged by a 2x4 test.

Maybe I was just lucky all those years?

The 2x4 test is the test in the standard the last time I checked.

I don't want too say to much, so I'll just add this.
I have yet to even hear of damage when the proper method is used. Only time I hear of damage is when someone uses a "Modified" test. I just don't get it.

Originally Posted by Vern Heiler

At the risk of starting another "garage door opener" mega thread; .........

Vern, time will tell if your seed is a dwarf or mega critter.

To save thread expansion and assist others on finding threads that have dealt with testing a garage door operator function. I put together a condensed read suggestion on two threads. RED is for a little slower read as you skim over the posts.


April 2012 min/max pressure is required

http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_i...tractor-2.html

Post# 1, 5, 131, 132, 142 , 165, 166 , 168 image for post 165 that didn't show up

July 2012 Testing protocol

http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_i...testing-2.html

Post# 76, , 104, 113, 138, 142, 144, 152, 183, 188, 196, 197, 204, 205, 207

Maybe this topic garners so many comments because of the divergence of opinions. I have had two opener rails twist loose at their anchors with the block test but can't say that I've had significant damage to the doors. Until the incident that I reference lower in this thread, I'd never had any damage of any kind using the hand test. I agree that the official standard is the block test. I've seen many doors strain mightily against the block, so even though I haven't seen major damage occur in the block tests that I've done, the potential seems high. That's why after those conversations with long time installers, that I went to the hand test. Most of my fellow inspectors in my local NAHI chapter don't do either. The risk of damage is too great in their opinions.

I really was not trying to drag this beast back from the dead. I am just sharing a new encounter that few have probably had. It would have made no difference how I tested the door as that board popped off the wall like a teen squeezing a zit. As far as how everyone test the door I can only give advice from lessons learned the hard way. Check the door movement without the opener engaged first, then don't touch the door until the top panel is near vertical when closing the door using the opener.

Ya'll stay safe out there.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Vern Heiler

When I did the 2X6 that the end of the drive rail is attached to popped off the wall. The 2X6 was held to the wall with 12-15 2" ring shank flooring nails.

If that board is not bolted into the wall then don't try any type of testing.

As for the 2X4 test - STUPID. Liftmaster is currently re-evaluating their recommendation of this test. They're finally beginning to realize that what works with a board may not be the same with a five year old. In other words - you have no idea what pressure is required to reverse an operator while it's closing the door.

As for holding onto the door while it closes - no standard to go by. Let your report explain to the client how the operator's sensitivity settings work and let them adjust to their satisfaction.

Originally Posted by Eric Barker

As for the 2X4 test - STUPID.

The 2x4 test is ABSOLUTELY NOT "STUPID" ... providing that one realizes and understand the intent and requirement of the test.

If any test is a "STUPID" test, that test would be using the hand and stopping the door ... unless you are doing that test with the bottom of the door at less than 4 inches above the floor.

Liftmaster is currently re-evaluating their recommendation of this test. They're finally beginning to realize that what works with a board may not be the same with a five year old. In other words - you have no idea what pressure is required to reverse an operator while it's closing the door.

And you have no idea what pressure the door reverses at when holding your hand under the door, and you have no idea IF the door will reverse at the within 4 inches of the floor (again, unless you are trying to stop the door with your hand with the bottom of the door within 4 inches of the floor).

As for holding onto the door while it closes - no standard to go by.

Agreed.

Anyone using the hand test is not only fooling themselves, they are not doing their clients any real service or giving their clients any real information, and HOPEFULLY none of those inspector will be in court (as a result of an injury or death to someone, or even damage for that matter) defending their "hand test" when trying to explain when they used such a test instead of the mandated 2x4 test .

Either do the proper test or do not do ANY test ... simply explain to your client that testing the door TODAY, at this inspection, IN NO WAY determines if the reverse mechanism will work any other day or at any other given time of day or night, that they (your client) needs to have a garage door installation COMPANY (with deeper pockets than just "an installer") send out THEIR BEST (yes, make that request) technician who is TRAINED AND EXPERIENCED (make that request too) in adjusting garage door operators so that the garage door operators OPERATE PROPERLY AND REVERSE PROPERLY (request that too).

With those requests made by the client when requesting the service and adjustment, if the garage door COMPANY sends out someone who turns out to not be fully and properly qualified, and knowledgeable and experienced in adjusting garage door openers - the COMPANY set themselves up for writing a big check when the garage door opener fails to reverse properly.

That will protect you, the inspector, much better than doing a "hand test" which has no meaningful relationship to any actual test standard.

Originally Posted by Eric Barker

... Liftmaster is currently re-evaluating their recommendation of this test. They're finally beginning to realize that what works with a board may not be the same with a five year ....

IF Liftmaster gets DARSA (?) to write a different standard, then, I will use that standard.

Jerry
BTW, I don't consider using your hand a "Test".

noun

• 1.
  a procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of something,...

verb

• 1.
  take measures to check the quality, performance, or reliability of (something), ....

Not to drag this out. Interested in what you think about this Jerry? Here is the Standard I use.

https://www.federalregister.gov/arti...-operators#h-9

Tried to paste and embed the link but this site does some really funny things. You will have to copy and paste.


Here is the rule.


eCFR ? Code of Federal Regulations

Code of Federal Regulations
PART 1211—SAFETY STANDARD FOR AUTOMATIC RESIDENTIAL GARAGE DOOR OPERATORS

§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.

My hand is the obstruction.

Because I do not have any 6' tall blocks.

(bold is mine for highlighting)

Originally Posted by JeffGHooper

Code of Federal Regulations
PART 1211—SAFETY STANDARD FOR AUTOMATIC RESIDENTIAL GARAGE DOOR OPERATORS

§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.

My hand is the obstruction.

Because I do not have any 6' tall blocks.

Your hand is not the obstruction specified, thus it is not a recognized test - there is nothing to support that test or back up any results from such "games".

(bold is mine for highlighting)
"
(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.
(3) To test operators for compliance with requirements in paragraphs (a)(3), (f)(3), and (g)(3) of this section, § 1211.10(a)(6)(iii), and § 1211.13(c), a solid rectangular object measuring 4 inches (102 mm) high by 6 inches (152 mm) wide by a minimum of 6 inches (152 mm)long is to be placed on the floor of the test installation to provide a 4-inch (102 mm) high obstruction when operated from a partially open position.
"

Additionally, that says:

"
1211.14 [Amended]


(a) * * *
(b) Specific required instructions.
(1) * * *Show citation box:
(2) The User Instructions shall include the following instructionsThe garage door
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. Test door opener monthly. The garage door MUST reverse on contact with a 1 1/2 inch object (or a 2 by 4 board laid flat) on the floor. After adjusting either the force or the limit of travel, retest the door opener. Failure to adjust the opener properly may cause severe injury or death.
"

That is what I have been saying it says for years. The wording "on contact with" was in the standard for a long time, then was re-worded, and had not been re-worded back to what it was "on contact with".

The garage door MUST REVERSE ON CONTACT WITH the 2x4 ... not after the opener tries to crush the 2x4 down into a 1x8 , but "on contact with" the 2x4 ... not at some point in time later, not with 5 pounds of pressure, but "on contact with" the 2x4.

Cool, they changed the wording back to "on contact with".

Here is the current CFR Title 16, Part 1211 page:
- 16 CFR 1211 - SAFETY STANDARD FOR AUTOMATIC RESIDENTIAL GARAGE DOOR OPERATORS

Here is the Part 1211 for garage doors:
- SAFETY STANDARD FOR AUTOMATIC RESIDENTIAL GARAGE DOOR OPERATORS

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Here is the current CFR Title 16, Part 1211 page:
- 16 CFR 1211 - SAFETY STANDARD FOR AUTOMATIC RESIDENTIAL GARAGE DOOR OPERATORS

Here is the Part 1211 for garage doors:
- SAFETY STANDARD FOR AUTOMATIC RESIDENTIAL GARAGE DOOR OPERATORS

Yes, those I have. Actually the second link was the 2012, the first was 2007 proposed.

So how would you test (a)(1)? Say, between 24" below the first foot?

The reason I ask is because there is a difference between a reversing mechanism test and a force setting test. From a garage door safety site:

Monthly reversing mechanism test (if your door is equipped with an automatic opener system). Note: garage door openers manufactured after January 1, 1993, are required by federal law to be equipped with a reversing mechanism and a photo eye or edge sensor as added measures of safety to prevent entrapment. If your system does not have these features, replacement of your automatic operating system is recommended.

Monthly force setting test (if your door is equipped with an automatic opener system). With the door fully open, push your garage door opener’s transmitter or wall button to close the door. As the door is closing, hold up the bottom of the door with your hands outstretched and stiff. If the door does not easily reverse and continues to close, pull your hands away immediately. The closing force is excessive and the door should be serviced by a trained service technician.

From Chamberlain Garage doors: How do I adjust the manual travel and force limits?

Without a properly installed safety reversal system, persons (particularly small children) could be SERIOUSLY INJURED or KILLED by a closing garage door.
• Too much force on the garage door will interfere with proper operation of the safety reversal system.
• NEVER use force adjustments to compensate for a binding or sticking garage door.
• After ANY adjustments are made, the safety reversal system MUST be tested. Door MUST reverse on contact with 1-1/2" (3.8 cm) high object (or 2x4 laid flat) on floor.

Adjust Force Controls
Test the DOWN (close) force by following these steps:
1. Grasp the door bottom when the door is about halfway through DOWN (close) travel. The door should reverse. Reversal halfway through down travel does not guarantee reversal on a 1-1/2 inch obstruction.
2. If the door is hard to hold or doesn't reverse, decrease the DOWN (close) force by turning the control counterclockwise.
3. Make small adjustments until the door reverses normally. After each adjustment, run the opener through a complete cycle.

I guess the reason I got into this one is that I have been taught, and I have read, that both tests are needed.

Both are specified, by many manufacturers. It all depends if you are testing "FORCE" or "REVERSING MECHANISM"

Pella Garage Doors.
Pella® Garage Doors | Wood, Steel, Vinyl | Unique Designs. Exceptional Performance

Garage Door Opener Reversal Test

Make sure your opener has a reversing feature. If a reversing feature is not present, it should be replaced. Garage door openers manufactured after January 1, 1993 are required by federal law to have advanced safety features which comply with the latest U.L. 325 standards. Contact your manufacturer or installer for additional information.

Test the reversing feature every month.

First, test the balance of the door (see "Testing and Maintaining The Garage Door"). If the door is properly balanced, then proceed.

With the door fully open, place a 1-1/2" thick piece of wood (a 2"x 4" laid flat) on the floor in the center of the door.

Push the transmitter or wall button to close the door. The door must reverse when it strikes the wood. (Note that the bottom part of "one piece doors" must be rigid so that the door will not close without reversing.)

If the door does not reverse, have it repaired or replaced. Have a qualified individual adjust, repair or replace the opener or door.

Garage Door Opener 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 may be excessive and need adjusting. See your owner's manual for details on how to make the adjustment. Test the reversing feature after any adjustment.

The reason I am pointing this out with these three in a row posts, is there is a difference between the two tests and the original poster indicated, or at least I interpreted, that he was doing a force test and not a reversing test. They are different. The door might actually reverse due to force on a reversing test; however, that pressure may be so high that the damage, "broken neck", is already done.

Originally Posted by JeffGHooper

So how would you test (a)(1)? Say, between 24" below the first foot?

The reason I ask is because there is a difference between a reversing mechanism test and a force setting test. From a garage door safety site:

Monthly reversing mechanism test (if your door is equipped with an automatic opener system). Note: garage door openers manufactured after January 1, 1993, are required by federal law to be equipped with a reversing mechanism and a photo eye or edge sensor as added measures of safety to prevent entrapment. If your system does not have these features, replacement of your automatic operating system is recommended.

Monthly force setting test (if your door is equipped with an automatic opener system). With the door fully open, push your garage door opener’s transmitter or wall button to close the door. As the door is closing, hold up the bottom of the door with your hands outstretched and stiff. If the door does not easily reverse and continues to close, pull your hands away immediately. The closing force is excessive and the door should be serviced by a trained service technician.

You ask: "So how would you test (a)(1)? Say, between 24" below the first foot?"
- I don't, and didn't, as there is no "valid" test for that.

You continued with: "The reason I ask is because there is a difference between a reversing mechanism test and a force setting test. From a garage door safety site:"
- The "Monthly force setting test" contains too many variables for a reliable test for any repetitive results between testers - no "force" is given or stated, and what one tester may consider "easily reverse" (bold is mine - "As the door is closing, hold up the bottom of the door with your hands outstretched and stiff. If the door does not easily reverse and continues to close, pull your hands away immediately."), another tester may consider as not easily reversing.

What a big, strong, Mr. Weightlifter Homeowner or Ms. Weightlifter Homeowner may consider to "easily reverse" is unlikely to be the same as Ms. Petite Homeowner or Mr. Wimp Homeowner may consider as easily reversing.

DASMA Door and Access Systems Manufacturers Association
DASMA Door and Access Systems Manufacturers Association
DASMA Door and Access Systems Manufacturers Association
DASMA Door and Access Systems Manufacturers Association
DASMA - Safety Tips for Gate Openers (don't forget gates, swinging and rolling)
http://www.dasma.com/pdf/publication...ure6-23-11.pdf
http://www.dasma.com/PDF/Publication...s/302-2009.pdf

And some more "monthly tests": Garage door maintenance checklist, tips, tests - garage door tests to keep your garage door system running properly

(I'm sure you have the above, but others may not.)

Question (not just for you, Jeff, but for all who test with their hands): Do you stand inside when you test the door? Do you test the door with something below the door other than just the floor?

Outside.

From you post: DASMA Door and Access Systems Manufacturers Association

Test the reversing feature every month.
1. First, test the balance of the door. If the door is properly balanced, then proceed.
2. With the door fully open, place a 1-1/2" thick piece of wood (a 2" X 4" laid flat) on the floor in the center of the door.
3. Push the transmitter or wall button to close the door. The door must reverse when it strikes the obstruction. (Note that the bottom part of "one-piece doors" must be rigid so that the door will not close, but will reverse when it contacts the obstruction.)
4. If the door does not reverse, have it repaired or replaced. Have a qualified technician adjust, repair, or replace the opener or door.

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.


I agree that every person would consider the amount differently. I was just pointing out that there are different tests, and not just the block test. To counter, I would argue that the block test only tests the reversing mechanism. ( why it is called a reversing test) Imagine the block as your strong weightlifter type. And a roll of paper towels as the wimp. You do not know what down pressure caused the door to reverse as it may be 200 or 400 lbs., enough to kill someone. The numbers I have always heard, and have set doors too, are between 16 and 22 lbs. The block test and the force test are equally not scientific for this reason. Which is why I do both as earlier stated. I can no more tell you with reasonable certainty that the door reversed at 16 lbs. than you can tell me it did not take 200 lbs. Therein lies the problem.

And obviously the reason these threads get so long.

Originally Posted by JeffGHooper

Outside.

From you post: DASMA Door and Access Systems Manufacturers Association

Test the reversing feature every month.
1. First, test the balance of the door. If the door is properly balanced, then proceed.
2. With the door fully open, place a 1-1/2" thick piece of wood (a 2" X 4" laid flat) on the floor in the center of the door.
3. Push the transmitter or wall button to close the door. The door must reverse when it strikes the obstruction. (Note that the bottom part of "one-piece doors" must be rigid so that the door will not close, but will reverse when it contacts the obstruction.)
4. If the door does not reverse, have it repaired or replaced. Have a qualified technician adjust, repair, or replace the opener or door.

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.


I agree that every person would consider the amount differently. I was just pointing out that there are different tests, and not just the block test. To counter, I would argue that the block test only tests the reversing mechanism. ( why it is called a reversing test) Imagine the block as your strong weightlifter type. And a roll of paper towels as the wimp. You do not know what down pressure caused the door to reverse as it may be 200 or 400 lbs., enough to kill someone. The numbers I have always heard, and have set doors too, are between 16 and 22 lbs. The block test and the force test are equally not scientific for this reason. Which is why I do both as earlier stated. I can no more tell you with reasonable certainty that the door reversed at 16 lbs. than you can tell me it did not take 200 lbs. Therein lies the problem.

And obviously the reason these threads get so long.

The "reversing test" is somewhat of a misnomer. Several of the installation instructions call it the entrapment test or adjustment, which is much more descriptive of what the 2X4 block is testing. If you think of how the door is monitoring conditions it makes more sense. The harder the motor has to work the more current is used, and this is how it measures for "resistance". It does not know if the door is fully open or somewhere between fully closed. The entrapment test is to make sure the travel limit adjustment has not turned off the electronics, that monitors the current (resistance), before the door is very nearly closed. Before the travel limit is reached the door will reverse at some amount of resistance, it might be 5 or 200 lbs. but it will reverse. If a body part is trapped between the door and the floor after the limit switch is reached no amount of force will reverse the door.

The testing procedures listed in this thread are for the manufacture to meet the government mandated criteria. We are no more required to perform these test than we are to test siding and windows for wind driven rain. We do not test the TPR valve on a water heater even though the manufacturer says it should be tested monthly. Testing for venting problems with a mirror at a vent hood is not a test recommended by the mfg. but it is a test we use. Both the 2X4 test and the hand resistance test are valid tests but the hand resistance test is the only one required by the NCHILB.

I promised myself I would not get back into this when I posted the original post.

Originally Posted by Vern Heiler

The testing procedures listed in this thread are for the manufacture to meet the government mandated criteria. We are no more required to perform these test than we are to test siding and windows for wind driven rain. We do not test the TPR valve on a water heater even though the manufacturer says it should be tested monthly. Testing for venting problems with a mirror at a vent hood is not a test recommended by the mfg. but it is a test we use. Both the 2X4 test and the hand resistance test are valid tests but the hand resistance test is the only one required by the NCHILB.

I promised myself I would not get back into this when I posted the original post.

Why not, I did and do. Nothing prohibits an Inspector from exceeding his SOP where qualified to do so. I have always tested the TPR, always will. Nothing prohibits it, and the manufacturers recommend it. I choose to go the extra to protect my clients, as do most inspectors down here.

Originally Posted by JeffGHooper

Why not, I did and do. Nothing prohibits an Inspector from exceeding his SOP where qualified to do so. I have always tested the TPR, always will. Nothing prohibits it, and the manufacturers recommend it. I choose to go the extra to protect my clients, as do most inspectors down here.

Lifting of the valve lever is of minimal value and maximum liability. It does not test the temperature or pressure response of the valve and has high probability of not seating when closed.

Originally Posted by JeffGHooper

Outside.

Good, some do it inside where the door can fall on them.

From you post: DASMA Door and Access Systems Manufacturers Association

Test the reversing feature every month.
...

Force Setting Test
...

I agree that every person would consider the amount differently. I was just pointing out that there are different tests, and not just the block test.

I wouldn't say that they are "different tests"', I would call them "additional tests" (even though they are "different" tests) because one would not want to use the force setting test in place of the reversing feature test.

To me, the reversing test is the most important test, because the reversing test also tells you whether or not the force is too great (if the door does not reverse and keeps pressing down, the force is too great, however, if the door reverses "on contact with" the 2x4 - then the force is not too great ... which just kinda makes sense when one thinks about it).

To counter, I would argue that the block test only tests the reversing mechanism. ( why it is called a reversing test) Imagine the block as your strong weightlifter type. And a roll of paper towels as the wimp. You do not know what down pressure caused the door to reverse as it may be 200 or 400 lbs., enough to kill someone.

I don't need to know the numbers as long as the reversing test passes the reversing test of reversing "on contact with" the 2x4 block - that "on contact with" does not permit the door to try to crush the 2x4 block, it only meets the reversing test when the door reverses "on contact with", not "upon crushing", the 2x4 block.

It is that "on contact with" part which messes people up - if someone were to swing a 2x4 at you and reversed "on contact with" you, you may feel a little whoosh or a little touch, but it would not hurt - if it hurt, then they did not reverse their swing "on contact with" you ... and that would be the "OW, THAT HURT!" part.

"on contact with"

The numbers I have always heard, and have set doors too, are between 16 and 22 lbs. The block test and the force test are equally not scientific for this reason. Which is why I do both as earlier stated. I can no more tell you with reasonable certainty that the door reversed at 16 lbs. than you can tell me it did not take 200 lbs. Therein lies the problem.

Ah, but I can - if the door reversed "on contact with", then it could not have tried to crush the 2x4 block with 200 pounds of force, the door would have reverse "on contact with" ...

They could create a garage door bottom weather strip which has to electrically conductive contact strips in it, one on the upper side of the inside bottom of the weather strip and the other on the underside of the upper inside the weather strip. When the door closes and the weather strip is compressed against the floor (at the bottom of the doors travel), the two electrically conductive strips make contact ... but nothing happens because the door has reached the bottom of its travel limit. However, if the door closes onto an object above the bottom of it travel limit, as the door does so, the electrically conductive strips inside the weather strip make contact as the weather strip is compressed, and, before the door even actually makes contact pressure against the object ... the electrically conductive strips close a circuit which reverses the door travel, i.e., the door reverses "on contact with" the object, yet the actual door never makes contact with the object.

No one uses such a safety feature (not that I am aware of), but it would resolve the issue of pressure and reversing "on contact with" an object or person. The pressure would be the same pressure one would use to press their hand against the bottom weather strip and compress it upward.

Dang! Just gave up Retirement Idea #10,000 and got nothing for it too.

Originally Posted by Vern Heiler

Lifting of the valve lever is of minimal value and maximum liability. It does not test the temperature or pressure response of the valve and has high probability of not seating when closed.

Lots of thread drift here. If the valve is seized it is of maximum concern and a Life Safety Hazard. No liability here as long as I test, if it does not reseat, it is defective and needs to be replaced just like it would need to reseat if the water heater periodically released. I have reseated many and it is easy to do. Very few that I could not reseat when you know how to. Why bother testing GFCI, after all, it is just a recommended safety check recommended by the manufacturer. Just like TPR, garage door adjustment and other things. I would argue you have more liability if the water heater exploded after you inspected the house and it killed the occupants. Pick your poison. A little water leak, or an explosion? Keep the seller happy and realtors referring, or safeguard your client? The choice is yours. If your SOP does not require it, then why go beyond? Never seen or heard of anyone getting sued for doing more. Only less! Got one in court now. Little boy injured in Miami by missing tip bracket. Just some government (CPSC) requirement for the manufacturers to follow. The HI clearly did not check. I wonder if he will use your argument as an affirmative defense to the plaintiffs allegations?

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

They could create a garage door bottom weather strip which has to electrically conductive contact strips in it, one on the upper side of the inside bottom of the weather strip and the other on the underside of the upper inside the weather strip. When the door closes and the weather strip is compressed against the floor (at the bottom of the doors travel), the two electrically conductive strips make contact ... but nothing happens because the door has reached the bottom of its travel limit. However, if the door closes onto an object above the bottom of it travel limit, as the door does so, the electrically conductive strips inside the weather strip make contact as the weather strip is compressed, and, before the door even actually makes contact pressure against the object ... the electrically conductive strips close a circuit which reverses the door travel, i.e., the door reverses "on contact with" the object, yet the actual door never makes contact with the object.

And you have not done this yet, why?

Originally Posted by JeffGHooper

Lots of thread drift here. If the valve is seized it is of maximum concern and a Life Safety Hazard. No liability here as long as I test, if it does not reseat, it is defective and needs to be replaced just like it would need to reseat if the water heater periodically released. I have reseated many and it is easy to do. Very few that I could not reseat when you know how to. Why bother testing GFCI, after all, it is just a recommended safety check recommended by the manufacturer. Just like TPR, garage door adjustment and other things. I would argue you have more liability if the water heater exploded after you inspected the house and it killed the occupants. Pick your poison. A little water leak, or an explosion? Keep the seller happy and realtors referring, or safeguard your client? The choice is yours. If your SOP does not require it, then why go beyond? Never seen or heard of anyone getting sued for doing more. Only less! Got one in court now. Little boy injured in Miami by missing tip bracket. Just some government (CPSC) requirement for the manufacturers to follow. The HI clearly did not check. I wonder if he will use your argument as an affirmative defense to the plaintiffs allegations?

- - - Updated - - -

Thread drift for sure. Plenty of threads on this subject with many stating they do not test the T&P and why. I should have said "many of us don't test" instead of "we". My bad.

Originally Posted by JeffGHooper

I have always tested the TPR, always will. Nothing prohibits it, and the manufacturers recommend it. I choose to go the extra to protect my clients, as do most inspectors down here.

I always tested the T&P valve to see if it was stuck closed, which is what Jeff does.

Originally Posted by Vern Heiler

Lifting of the valve lever is of minimal value and maximum liability.

Quite the contrary - lifting the lever tells you if the valve is STUCK and has A LOT of value and no liability.

We've been through the T&P testing discussion before, and if one is afraid of testing a T&P valve, then so be it. But, as I have stated on the other discussions of testing T&P valves, go to your local Big Box store or hardware store and open and close some new T&P valves. Get a feel for the resistance of the spring loaded valve. Try it several times over a period of a few weeks or a month - soon you will know the "feel" of a T&P valve which is NOT "stuck".

Then go test your own T&P valve ... if you can lift the lever with approximately the same pressure, do so, but it lifting the lever takes a lot more pressure, then YOUR T&P valve is likely stuck and needs replacing. Go buy a replacement T&P valve, have it next to you, know where your cold water supply shut off for the water heater is (should be right there with the water heater), now force your T&P valve open - it "may" free itself, it also "may not" free itself and it "may very well" break internally (the valve will not open but the lever lifted) or it "may" open but you "may not" be able to get it to reseal itself. You now know what a stuck T&P valve feels like.

Replace your T&P valve.

It does not test the temperature or pressure response of the valve and has high probability of not seating when closed.

The lever IS NOT INTENDED to "test" the temperature and pressure response, all the lever IS INTENDED to do is make sure the valve opens and closes.

Remember, the T&P is a SAFETY VALVE, and a safety valve is required to be able to operate EVERY TIME.

I have written up T&P valves for being stuck, had agents say that a plumber went by and "unstuck" the valve ... I told them to have the plumber go back and "replace" the valve because it is a safety valve and is required to work EVERY TIME ... not just work after someone "unsticks" the valve. I then ask if the plumber is intending to come back daily and make sure the valve remains "unstuck" - never had a plumber plan on doing that, yet that safety valve is required to be operable daily (hourly, every minute, every second).

This has been discussed before, but there really is no reason for home inspector to NOT check a T&P valve to see if it is "stuck". Remember, if you apply the same typical pressure of those new valves and the valve resists opening - call for replacement, the valve is supposed to WORK EVERY TIME.

I've had agents tell me that the valve hasn't failed yet, why should the owners replace it - what they are meaning is that the valve *hasn't opened yet* ... yeah, that's what I reported ... the valve *didn't open* as it should have - and THAT is why the valve needs to be replaced.

When you check entry doors for opening and closing ... do you "test" them to make sure the keys work and work properly? Do you test them with a water spray to make sure they resist water properly? Do you test them to make sure they resist wind properly? If not, why to heck are you saying anything about not testing T&P valves because you are not testing for operation for temperature and pressure?

One can try to find all kinds of excuses for not testing what they do not want to test, and one can also come up with all kinds of reasons to test what they want to test. There is no reason not to operate (attempt to operate) the lever of a T&P valve to check to see if the valve is stuck or if it opens ... yes, there are excuses why one does not want to do so.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by JeffGHooper

And you have not done this yet, why?

How many "excuses" do you want me to come up with?

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

I always tested the T&P valve to see if it was stuck closed, which is what Jeff does.



Quite the contrary - lifting the lever tells you if the valve is STUCK and has A LOT of value and no liability.

We've been through the T&P testing discussion before, and if one is afraid of testing a T&P valve, then so be it. But, as I have stated on the other discussions of testing T&P valves, go to your local Big Box store or hardware store and open and close some new T&P valves. Get a feel for the resistance of the spring loaded valve. Try it several times over a period of a few weeks or a month - soon you will know the "feel" of a T&P valve which is NOT "stuck".

Then go test your own T&P valve ... if you can lift the lever with approximately the same pressure, do so, but it lifting the lever takes a lot more pressure, then YOUR T&P valve is likely stuck and needs replacing. Go buy a replacement T&P valve, have it next to you, know where your cold water supply shut off for the water heater is (should be right there with the water heater), now force your T&P valve open - it "may" free itself, it also "may not" free itself and it "may very well" break internally (the valve will not open but the lever lifted) or it "may" open but you "may not" be able to get it to reseal itself. You now know what a stuck T&P valve feels like.

Replace your T&P valve.



The lever IS NOT INTENDED to "test" the temperature and pressure response, all the lever IS INTENDED to do is make sure the valve opens and closes.

Remember, the T&P is a SAFETY VALVE, and a safety valve is required to be able to operate EVERY TIME.

I have written up T&P valves for being stuck, had agents say that a plumber went by and "unstuck" the valve ... I told them to have the plumber go back and "replace" the valve because it is a safety valve and is required to work EVERY TIME ... not just work after someone "unsticks" the valve. I then ask if the plumber is intending to come back daily and make sure the valve remains "unstuck" - never had a plumber plan on doing that, yet that safety valve is required to be operable daily (hourly, every minute, every second).

This has been discussed before, but there really is no reason for home inspector to NOT check a T&P valve to see if it is "stuck". Remember, if you apply the same typical pressure of those new valves and the valve resists opening - call for replacement, the valve is supposed to WORK EVERY TIME.

I've had agents tell me that the valve hasn't failed yet, why should the owners replace it - what they are meaning is that the valve *hasn't opened yet* ... yeah, that's what I reported ... the valve *didn't open* as it should have - and THAT is why the valve needs to be replaced.

When you check entry doors for opening and closing ... do you "test" them to make sure the keys work and work properly? Do you test them with a water spray to make sure they resist water properly? Do you test them to make sure they resist wind properly? If not, why to heck are you saying anything about not testing T&P valves because you are not testing for operation for temperature and pressure?

One can try to find all kinds of excuses for not testing what they do not want to test, and one can also come up with all kinds of reasons to test what they want to test. There is no reason not to operate (attempt to operate) the lever of a T&P valve to check to see if the valve is stuck or if it opens ... yes, there are excuses why one does not want to do so.

- - - Updated - - -



How many "excuses" do you want me to come up with?

Have you always been this easily distracted?

Sometimes it's fun to say "told ya". This thread is already heating up on its way to hot......

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

......

....l..- that "on contact with" does not permit the door to try to crush the 2x4 block, it only meets the reversing test when the door reverses "on contact with", not "upon crushing", the 2x4 block.

It is that "on contact with" part which messes people up - if someone were to swing a 2x4 at you and reversed "on contact with" you, you may feel a little whoosh or a little touch, but it would not hurt - if it hurt, then they did not reverse their swing "on contact with" you ... and that would be the "OW, THAT HURT!" part.

"on contact with"



Ah, but I can - if the door reversed "on contact with", then it could not have tried to crush the 2x4 block with 200 pounds of force, the door would have reverse "on contact with" ...

They could create a garage door bottom weather strip which has to electrically conductive contact strips in it, one on the upper side of the inside bottom of the weather strip and the other on the underside of the upper inside the weather strip. When the door closes and the weather strip is compressed against the floor (at the bottom of the doors travel), the two electrically conductive strips make contact ... but nothing happens because the door has reached the bottom of its travel limit. However, if the door closes onto an object above the bottom of it travel limit, as the door does so, the electrically conductive strips inside the weather strip make contact as the weather strip is compressed, and, before the door even actually makes contact pressure against the object ... the electrically conductive strips close a circuit which reverses the door travel, i.e., the door reverses "on contact with" the object, yet the actual door never makes contact with the object.

No one uses such a safety feature (not that I am aware of), but it would resolve the issue of pressure and reversing "on contact with" an object or person. The pressure would be the same pressure one would use to press their hand against the bottom weather strip and compress it upward.

Dang! Just gave up Retirement Idea #10,000 and got nothing for it too.

I really can not believe that you are back to your definition of "on contact with" nonsense. Maybe the fact that 2 years have come and gone and you forget.

Clarification for others, the door operator under discussion is residential and the reversing mechanism is internal to the operator. As opposed to commercial door operators that work differently. Also, there is a difference if there is an edge sensor being used. In the case of and edge sensor there is a PSI specification to the reversal activation by the edge sensor strip.

The "on contact" has nothing to do with the PSI encountered it is the door stopping for 2 seconds. PSI is not part of the equation for the residential door operator.

There is a portion of the instalation of the operator that the installer checks for reversal as the door is closing using their hand to check if the door will reverse before allowing it to go to the bottom of the opening.

As far as you isdea of there not being edge sensor strips, you need to get out more.

Here are a few links to look at:

Electric sensing edges

Garage Door Safety - Raynor Garage Doors

Clopay | Commercial Garage Doors | Safety Considerations

http://www.dasma.com/PDF/Publication...ics/TDS368.pdf

Bottom Sensing Edge | Garage Door Products & Accessories

North Shore ----Air sensor

Liftmaster Saftey Edge Air Hose 1/2IDX3/32WX100 MODEL 50103

Liftmaster Saftey Edge Air Hose 1/2IDX3/32WX100 MODEL 50103

As for "on cantact" and crushing a 2x4: And that you need to hear it from a source:::

From: "David Ziegenhorn" <david@gdcs.com>
To: <gsorrells@37.com>
Subject: RE: Door reversal PSI required?
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:53:28 -0500
Mr. Sorrells:

I will attempt to answer your question as best I can. For residential operators, most are rated as separation force or maximum lifting power if the operator is adjusted for maximum pulling power. Typical garage door operators have a separation force rating of 200 to 250 pounds, but the force adjustment should be adjusted by the operator installer so that the operator only applies slightly more force than is required to run the door a full cycle.

If both the door and operator are properly adjusted, the separation force to start a garage door moving in either direction could vary from 10 or 20 pounds for a single car lightweight door and up to 60 or 70 pounds for double car insulated doors. Therefore, the amount of force a garage door and operator applies to an obstruction can vary considerably depending on force settings “programmed” into the operator.

Some of the newest operators on the market have additional sensing capabilities that require little pressure on an obstruction before the unit detects the motor RPM’s slowing down and causes the motor to reverse.

Commercial operators do not have an anti-entrapment device built into them as standard equipment, but is an add-on and quality reversing edges require little force upon contact to make the door reverse.

Attached with this email is an instruction/owner’s manual for a popular LiftMaster chain drive unit. The instructions on setting the force limits may help you understand a little bit of what I’ve talked about.

I hope my explanation has been beneficial to you.

David

Then there is:

From: "Miller, James" <James.Miller@ul.com> To: "gsorrells" <> Subject: Re: Garage door reversal PSI required? Date: Fri 04/20/12 02:09 PM

Good afternoon Garry,

I was forwarded the inquiry regarding force requirements for entrapment protection devices.

Overhead roll up doors would be evaluated to UL 325, the Standard for Door, Drapery, Louver and Window Operators and Systems.

Contact sensors (such as edge sensors) relied upon for entrapment protection would be evaluated to Sec. 36 of UL 325. Edge sensors shall actuate upon the application of 15 lbf (66.7 N) or less of force. Below are some additional details on the test method taken directly from the standard.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if this answers your questions, or if there is anything else I may be able to help you with.

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.

Regards,

Jim Miller, P.E.
Senior Project Engineer
Product SafetyUL LLC
333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062-2096 USA
T: 847.664.2793 | F: 847.313.2793 | W: ul.com

Originally Posted by Garry Sorrells

I really can not believe that you are back to your definition of "on contact with" nonsense. Maybe the fact that 2 years have come and gone and you forget.
.
.
.
The "on contact" has nothing to do with the PSI encountered it is the door stopping for 2 seconds. PSI is not part of the equation for the residential door operator.

I really cannot believe that you are back to your 2 seconds and all your other stuff, when *IN THIS VERY THREAD* ... the CURRENT standard wording is back to "on contact with" ... or did you not bother to read that information which was posted?

It seems that you are quite hardheaded in ignoring what the CURRENT standard states and instead bring up other information as a ruse. Go back and review this CURRENT thread and the CURRENT wording in the CURRENT standard ... by golly, dang if it don't state "on contact with" ... do you want me to point it out AGAIN for you?

And that "on contact with" has nothing to do with your 2 seconds pounds force, the wording is exactly what it says ... "on contact with".

There is ALSO a 2 second part ... there are ALSO other parts ... and there is that dang part which you do not like - the "on contact with" wording.

Like it or not, that "on contact with" part IS there too.

Apparently those fancy "edge sensor" type openers haven't made it round these parts. I haven't seen any yet.

I read through the applicable parts of the "Code of Federal Regulations", which left me fearing for the future of our country, but further commentary on that becomes thread drift.

One can be forgiven for feeling some confusion after reading the Code on garage openers. There is a requirement for reversing in 2 seconds, use of an obstruction object of 1" thickness, use of a cylinder that is 1 7/8" dia., then another test with a block that is a 2x4 (1 1/2" thick), and then in part 1211.7 it says:
(3) To test operators for compliance with requirements in paragraphs (a)(3), (f)(3), and (g)(3) of this section, § 1211.10(a)(6)(iii), and § 1211.13(c), a solid rectangular object measuring 4 inches (102 mm) high by 6 inches (152 mm) wide by a minimum of 6 inches (152 mm)long is to be placed on the floor of the test installation to provide a 4-inch (102 mm) high obstruction when operated from a partially open position.

But for our purposes, the part that addresses manuals is the most applicable. It calls for a monthly 2x4 block test.

No where is found a mention of anything that could be described as a "hand" test. Yet, we see in some instruction manuals, a hand test for "Force Setting" which is basically a reverse test.

On one hand, kinda funny how this topic keeps coming up and generating so much heat. But on the other hand, it's an important topic and in my opinion, has two defensible opposing arguments.

I think you have a defense for either method and none for doing neither.

So Lon, that begs the question, which Authoritative Documents do you have to go by? A General requirement or a specific requirement? That is why this topic is, and has been for many years, a debated topic.

Inspectors have different ideas of what a specific requirement is verses a general requirement. Specific requirements take precedence over general requirements for the most part.

To me, the manufacturer requirements are in addition too the mandated requirements, meaning the Federal Requirements are the general requirement and meant to cover all doors, while the Manufacturers Requirements must meet the Federal requirements and MAY have additional specific requirements to their specific door, ie the hand test.

In reality, arguing about it is pointless unless you only want to have to do one or the other, (do less). I do not argue about the block test, or the hand test, because I do both and it only takes another 30 seconds to a minute out of my day. That also stops any inspector coming behind me from being able to say I did not do it right, or I did it wrong, because I did both. I do not look for ways to do less, which is why I have always felt this age old argument is pointless, and foolish. Do both, they are easy, there is documentation both ways, and only a fool would argue you should not do one or the other.

Can anyone actually point me to a Authoritative Document that says you cannot do the hand test, or the block test? I am not talking about some inspectors published document or opinion, I am talking about a Manufacturer or Federal Standard. There may be one, I just have never seen one, other than a bunch of Home Inspector Paraphernalia which to my knowledge does not have merit or standing with regard to technical specifications and safe operation of an overhead door.

Like I said earlier, I have not had the pleasure of seeing where a Home Inspector was sued for doing more, only less.

Originally Posted by JeffGHooper

So Lon, that begs the question, which Authoritative Documents do you have to go by? A General requirement or a specific requirement? That is why this topic is, and has been for many years, a debated topic.

Inspectors have different ideas of what a specific requirement is verses a general requirement. Specific requirements take precedence over general requirements for the most part.

To me, the manufacturer requirements are in addition too the mandated requirements, meaning the Federal Requirements are the general requirement and meant to cover all doors, while the Manufacturers Requirements must meet the Federal requirements and MAY have additional specific requirements to their specific door, ie the hand test.

In reality, arguing about it is pointless unless you only want to have to do one or the other, (do less). I do not argue about the block test, or the hand test, because I do both and it only takes another 30 seconds to a minute out of my day. That also stops any inspector coming behind me from being able to say I did not do it right, or I did it wrong, because I did both. I do not look for ways to do less, which is why I have always felt this age old argument is pointless, and foolish. Do both, they are easy, there is documentation both ways, and only a fool would argue you should not do one or the other.

Can anyone actually point me to a Authoritative Document that says you cannot do the hand test, or the block test? I am not talking about some inspectors published document or opinion, I am talking about a Manufacturer or Federal Standard. There may be one, I just have never seen one, other than a bunch of Home Inspector Paraphernalia which to my knowledge does not have merit or standing with regard to technical specifications and safe operation of an overhead door.

Like I said earlier, I have not had the pleasure of seeing where a Home Inspector was sued for doing more, only less.

So, you do the manufacture's monthly test of the hand pressure test, but ... do not do that test monthly? If you are not doing that test monthly, then you are not following the manual ... (just stirring the pot on simmer, don't want it to boil over )

- SAFETY STANDARD FOR AUTOMATIC RESIDENTIAL GARAGE DOOR OPERATORS

Volume: 2Date: 2012-01-01Original Date: 2012-01-01

1211.6 General entrapment protection requirements.

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.

(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. Whentested 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.

1211.14 Instruction manual

(b) Specific required instructions. (1) The Installation Instructions shall include the following instructions:

(2) The User Instructions shall include the following instructions:

5. Test door opener monthly. The garage door MUST reverse on contact with a 11/2 inch object (or a 2 by 4 board laid flat) on the floor. After adjusting either the force or the limit of travel, retest the door opener. Failure to adjust the opener properly may cause severe injury or death.

Jerry,
You are incorrectly parsing the sentences trying to make a point. You can not use one section of the regulation without reliance on the preceding sections. The document must be taken in totality as it speaks to the same concept in several places.

Your insistence that “Must reverse on contact”, extracted form the Installation Manual inclusion requirements, is the beginning and the end of the subject as far as specifications and that it is up to you to define the parameters of “on contact” is incorrect. Contact is determined previously within the specifications 1211.7(a)(1) and (b)(1). It is the “1211.7 Inherent entrapment protection requirements” which set the standard and definition that contact is determined by.

Consumer installation manuals are written for the basic understanding of what is involved to adequately install a devise. The manuals do not go into the testing criteria in depth and are purposely kept simple. So rather than get into the 2 seconds and other criteria after contact the installation manual just states (1211.14 (b) (2) 5 ) “…MUST reverse on contact with a 11/2 inch object (or a 2 by 4 board laid flat) on the floor.’

You draw you position from parsing what must be stated in the Instruction Manual provided with the opener. The requirements of inclusion include the description of the testing method, “with a 11/2 inch object (or a 2 by 4 board laid flat) on the floor.” This again is for the Instruction Manual which has it basis in 1211.7 (a)(1) “… door shall initiate reversal of the door within 2 seconds of contact with the obstruction as specified in paragraph (b) of this section. …” 1211.7 (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. …”
A point that I have reiterated in the past, the amount of pressure (PSI) that is exerted as the door makes contact with a solid object is not specified unless the door has an edge sensor. Again it is the 2 seconds that is specified upon contact as found in 1211.7(a)(1).

In most older operator models there is an adjustment for sensitivity to resistance that allowed the installer to manipulate the amount of resistance required to initiate the reversal function. This adjustment comes into play when the door meets the solid object on the floor at 1” to 1 ½” high. Sensitivity is usually set at the actor, but I do not know one installer that would rely on the factory setting. The installer checks the resistance before the door makes it to the floor, typically 3 or 4 feet from floor. Why you may ask. So that the door would not be damaged if the settings were off. A ½ hr operator can crush/damage a door very easily. The door or track will give out before the motor.

Jerry, I would love for you to bring to the discussion an outside source (in writing) from either the Underwriters Lab, governmental regulations authority or Consumer Product Safety Commission that will offer a different position on the meaning of “reversal of the door within 2 seconds of contact” and the later “reversal on contact” content. Choosing to use the testing regulations procedures or incorporating them for personal testing is the prerogative of the individual. But the base line requirements are set by the CPSC. Manufacture strive to meet these requirements or exceed them. To date I have not had any operator manufacturer state any thing (in writing) other than they meet the government requirements. I really do not think that the manufactures have much of a choice other than to print what the government says that they have to print. They can add to it but they can not print less.

In general very old operators did not have a anti-entrapment function, then the entrapment function was incorporated into the operators function and there was an adjustment for sensitivity to an obstruction or resistance to the motor. Newer operators (not all) are incorporating a movement sensor on the motor clutch that reacts far more quickly (and no longer use a resistance adjustment) that the older method sensitivity adjustments that were required at installation and were used to maintain adjustments over the years of operation.

(red is mine for highlighting)

Originally Posted by Garry Sorrells

- SAFETY STANDARD FOR AUTOMATIC RESIDENTIAL GARAGE DOOR OPERATORS

1211.14 Instruction manual

(b) Specific required instructions. (1) The Installation Instructions shall include the following instructions:

(2) The User Instructions shall include the following instructions:

5. Test door opener monthly. The garage door MUST reverse on contact with a 11/2 inch object (or a 2 by 4 board laid flat) on the floor. After adjusting either the force or the limit of travel, retest the door opener. Failure to adjust the opener properly may cause severe injury or death.

Jerry,
You are incorrectly parsing the sentences trying to make a point. You can not use one section of the regulation without reliance on the preceding sections. The document must be taken in totality as it speaks to the same concept in several places.

"You can not use one section of the regulation without reliance on the preceding sections."

You mean like you are doing when you say it does not have to reverse on contact with, that it has 2 seconds to reverse?

I have pointed out that there are additional sections to the one I keep pointing out, nonetheless, though, you keep saying it is not there (or not applicable, or some such nonsense).

The "on contact with" IS there, and IT IS the most restrictive with regard to reversing. Do the other sections too, but do not ignore that section - which you have been, and continue to do.

The standard has many things in it, INCLUDING that section about reversing "on contact with", yet here you are telling ME not to pick and choose section while YOU are picking and choosing sections ... your actions are speaking much louder than your words are.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

So, you do the manufacture's monthly test of the hand pressure test, but ... do not do that test monthly? If you are not doing that test monthly, then you are not following the manual ... (just stirring the pot on simmer, don't want it to boil over )

It's a conundrum........

Originally Posted by Lon Henderson

It's a conundrum........

Is that what is in the pot? I thought it as pasta ... Dang!

Jerry,
Not ignoring the different sections, just focusing on the ones that are germane to the sectional door meeting the obstruction at the floor (Inherent entrapment protection requirements). Not edge sensor or other sensors nor other operating functions of the door. I do not understand which sections you refer to that I an ignoring which are directly are applicable to the door meeting an obstruction as it closes to the last 1" (1 1/2") of downward movement.

§ 1211.7 Inherent entrapment protection requirements.(a)(1) and (b)(1) state what contact is "the operator of a downward moving residential garage door shall initiate reversal of the door within 2 seconds of contact with the obstruction".

§ 1211.14 Instruction manual. (b)(1)8. and (b)(2) 5. states what must be in included with equipment in the consumers manual. "The garage door MUST reverse on contact with a 1¹⁄₂ inch object (or a 2 by 4 board laid flat) on the floor."

Is it that you are differentiating between the words "of" and "on"?

Is it the time frame that is in question (2 seconds of contact) as stated in § 1211.7(a)(1)?
Is it the degree (PSI) of contact that is in question?
Is it a difference in 1" obstruction or a 1 1/2" object?
Is it that § 1211.7 and § 1211.14 exist totally independently from each other?
Is it that there is not a differentiation in § 1211.14 (b)(2) 5. between the operator motor and other type of sensors such as edge sensors to qualify what "contact" means?

Is it that the the § 1211.14 Instruction manual requirements do not refer back to § 1211.7 such as:
§ 1211.14 (b)(1)8. and (b)(2) 5. are subject to § 1211.7 (a)(1) and (b)(1) ;

Or that § 1211.14 (b)(2) 5. should rewritten to say "The garage door Must reverse on contact within 2 seconds of contact with a 1 1/2 inch object (or a 2 x 4 board laid flat) on the floor.";

Or that there need to be a statement in the § 1211.14 Instruction manual which states " all requirements listed below are subject to § 1211.7 Inherent entrapment protection requirements".

(I've added blue highlighting to your red so you might see it and grasp it)

Originally Posted by Garry Sorrells

§ 1211.14 Instruction manual. (b)(1)8. and (b)(2) 5. states what must be in included with equipment in the consumers manual. "The garage door MUST reverse on contact with a 1¹⁄₂ inch object (or a 2 by 4 board laid flat) on the floor."

Let me know if you don't understand those three words: "on" "contact" "with" and what it means when those three words are put together as "on contact with".

"of" and "on" do not have the same meaning or intent.

Jerry, I understand that you believe the 2X4 test tells us everything we need to know when testing the door reversing operation. I have stated in a previous thread that I believe it has value but does not tell everything we need to know. Very few of the doors I test by hand make it to the 2X4 test do to heavy pressure. What I don't understand is how anyone should be able to test the resistance of a T&P valve lever to determine if it is stuck, but couldn't be expected to know the difference between 5 and 20 pounds of force at a garage door .

Originally Posted by Vern Heiler

Jerry, I understand that you believe the 2X4 test tells us everything we need to know when testing the door reversing operation.

Not sure where you got that from, but I do not believe that - I do believe that the reversing test tells us the most important information - will it reverse properly, not entrap someone, and not injure them seriously ... the half-way-up (or whatever height you want) test does not tell us anything about the doors ability to reverse when the door is down at the level of potential entrapment.

I have stated in a previous thread that I believe it has value but does not tell everything we need to know. Very few of the doors I test by hand make it to the 2X4 test do to heavy pressure. What I don't understand is how anyone should be able to test the resistance of a T&P valve lever to determine if it is stuck, but couldn't be expected to know the difference between 5 and 20 pounds of force at a garage door .

It's not 'not being able' to tell the difference in resistant, it;s that the resistance test tells us NOTHING about the capacity or capability of the door to REVERSE when the door is at or near the floor. Testing the resistance/pressure tells us absolutely nothing about the critical test of reversing ... how many of those doors ... "Very few of the doors I test by hand make it to the 2X4 test do to heavy pressure." ... which did not make it to the 2x4 reversing test actually reversed properly? You simply do not know because the doors did not "make it to" the 2x4 test.

If a door does not pass the arbitrary resistance/pressure test but did pass the proper reversing test ... is the door still "bad", is the door still "dangerous"? Not anymore so than if you done all the other tests and found that the door did not pass all the other tests too - but what if the door did not pass all those other tests ... BUT DID reverse properly? Isn't the intent and all the tests to determine that the door WILL REVERSE and not entrap someone? Yet, that very feature may actually be working ... but you simply stop testing before you get there ... which means you did not even try the main test - to see if the door reverses.

The T&P valve lever, on the other hand, tells us whether or not the valve is stuck, yet you do not check those when there is one simple test which shows the valve as stuck (or not stuck - not stuck is good).

You've gone to great lengths to NOT test for THE critical reversing test, yet you don't test for a stuck T&P valve which could create an explosion hazard? I just don't get it.

I wanted to know if the door would reverse or not ... the "cause" of a door not reversing was of no concern ... the simple fact that a door did not reverse properly means the door/operator needs to be addressed/adjusted/maintained/replaced as necessary.

Whether or not the door is overweight because it has too many coats of paint on it, or, like my garage door, has rough sawn cedar plywood over it with 1x4 rough sawn cedar battens on it every 16" ... does not matter. If the door reverses as it should, then the entrapment feature is working (and, yes, the door would most likely NOT reverse if the door was too heavy and the springs not adjusted to properly counterbalance the door ... but that is not a concern (even though I can disconnect the door from the opener and raise the door from the floor up to the top of its travel).

I checked the doors for being able to lift them, not to determine "proper balance" but to determine that the door would not be a guillotine coming down on someone - if the door can be raised and lowered by hand, whether the door balances at half-way up, two-thirds up, or wherever - the intent is to allow the door to be raised and lowered safely by hand.

I have not found a door yet - yet - which would properly reverse and which was not also balanced such that the door could also be raised and lowered by hand ... it's one of those obvious things (at least to me) ... if the door is too heavy (springs not counterbalancing the door's weight) then the door is not going to be able to properly reverse.

Maybe I just see the obvious which others don't see? Maybe I just ignore the details between Point A and Point B and just check that the door goes from Point A to Point B properly and, obviously, the details must be within an acceptable range for that to happen ... or maybe I'm just always lucky (I doubt that, otherwise I would have won the Lottery many years ago - and every week since ).

Off the soap box now, you can have it back.

".......but you simply stop testing before you get there ... which means you did not even try the main test - to see if the door reverses." Jerry, I thought you were more knowledgeable in electromechanical function. The reversing of the door does not depend on the position of the door. If the door is counter balanced properly, as you said you always check, there is little or no difference if the door is fully open or nearly closed. It reverses as a function of motor resistance. Entrapment occurs when the sensing has been turned off and no amount of force will reverse the motor. By doing the hand test first, near fully closed, I normally identify a door that needs to be adjusted by a qualified person. End of test.

Originally Posted by Vern Heiler

".......but you simply stop testing before you get there ... which means you did not even try the main test - to see if the door reverses." Jerry, I thought you were more knowledgeable in electromechanical function. The reversing of the door does not depend on the position of the door. If the door is counter balanced properly, as you said you always check, there is little or no difference if the door is fully open or nearly closed. It reverses as a function of motor resistance.

Vern, I thought you were more knowledgeable in understanding where the entrapment takes place - at the bottom of the door closing where a person is between the immovable floor and the movable object (the door).

This seems to have escaped you: whether or not the door reverses at shoulder height, elbow height, waist height, etc., the intent of the reversing is not to not cause damage to a car which the door may be closing on - the intent is to not crush/injure/maim/kill someone between the closing door and the floor.

Thus, while it is all and good that the door may reverse at some mid-height or higher point, the point at which the reversing MUST take place is at or near the floor level - I understood you to be able to understand that aspect without having to point it out.

Entrapment occurs when the sensing has been turned off and no amount of force will reverse the motor.

No, entrapment can occur when the sensing is still operable but insufficient to: a) stop the door from closing further; b) reverse the door so that the door opens to its full height limit of travel.

Turning off the sensing system merely means that there is no longer any active (it is now inactive) system in place to stop and reverse the door, which means that someone could be injured or killed by becoming entrapped as the door closes and is approaching the floor.

By doing the hand test first, near fully closed, I normally identify a door that needs to be adjusted by a qualified person. End of test.

I want to make sure that I am following you: you are outside the door, the door is closing, you grasp the bottom of the door with your hand when the door is a few inches above the floor - that is what you are describing ... right? Certainly, you are not grasping the joints between the door panels where the panels are already closed together (not sure how you could do that even if you wanted to). And, also most certainly, you are not standing inside and grasping a door rib or reinforcing U-bar trying to stop the door. And I am also sure that you are not standing inside trying to grab the bottom of the door a few inches from the floor - right?

So, please describe your test - where you are standing/squatting/kneeling, where you are grabbing the door, and at what height above the floor the bottom of the door is.

Your description is not that of what has been presented as the proper description for testing pressure, so what is it you are testing?

"the intent of the reversing is not to not cause damage to a car which the door may be closing on - the intent is to not crush/injure/maim/kill someone between the closing door and the floor.

Thus, while it is all and good that the door may reverse at some mid-height or higher point, the point at which the reversing MUST take place is at or near the floor level - ."

Well, not exactly. The reason for the reversing below 12" from the top and down to the floor is to prevent damage to the door from making contact with a car or any other obstruction, broom handle left in track, and then damaging the door causing it to bow and to fall out of the track potentially injuring someone standing anywhere near the door. Or a person leaning against a car, on top of the car, or anywhere else. Or someone caught on the track, or sitting in a chair. Been looking for my photo of the door that bound and the operator kept working that fell on the guys car at my inspection. Thankfully, he was the one who pushed the button.

Besides, if the door did not reverse until the final 1 1/2" of the 2 x 4, how many people do you know that are only 1 1/2" thick? Not counting Ethiopians.

I stand inside the garage and grasp the bottom of the door approximately 6-10" from the closed position (top panel is nearly vertical). The fear of anything crashing down from above is minimal due to the door being in line with the force of the operator arm. The problem with testing with the 2X4 only is that the door WILL reverse when the downward pressure adjustment is reached. If the door is a good door, with little bending or give, you don't know how much force was applied before it reversed.
You like scenarios; well here is one to consider. The family is having a garage sale and Grandma has fallen asleep in the lawn chair beneath the garage door. Someone pushed the door opener button thinking it is a door bell. The legs of the chair straddle the optical sensors so the door continues toward the floor until granny and the aluminum chair are crushed by a 2hp motor. Knowing approximately what pressure the door will reverse at would have prevented granny from going to the hospital or worse. Being crushed is different than being entrapped. One could be entrapped without being crushed and that is where the 2X4 test has value. I don't care if the entrapment (door travel limit) is correct or not if the downward pressure adjustment is wrong. It needs to be fixed and that is the end of the testing.

Originally Posted by JeffGHooper

Well, not exactly. The reason for the reversing below 12" from the top and down to the floor is to prevent damage to the door from making contact with a car or any other obstruction, broom handle left in track, and then damaging the door causing it to bow and to fall out of the track potentially injuring someone standing anywhere near the door. Or a person leaning against a car, on top of the car, or anywhere else. Or someone caught on the track, or sitting in a chair. Been looking for my photo of the door that bound and the operator kept working that fell on the guys car at my inspection. Thankfully, he was the one who pushed the button.

The intent and reason for reversing has nothing to do with damaging the door, a car, or anything such as that - the intent and reason for revering is to not cause injury (or death) to a person.

(bold and underlining are mine)
1211.4 General requirements for protection against risk of injury.
- (a)If an automatically reset protective device is employed, automatic restarting of a motor shall not result in a risk of injury to persons.
- (b) A residential garage door operator is considered to comply with the requirement in paragraph (a) of this section if some means is provided to prevent the motor from restarting when the protector closes.
- -(c) An electronic or solid-state circuit that performs a back-up, limiting, or other function intended to reduce the risk of fire, electric shock, or injury to persons, including entrapment protection circuits, shall comply with the requirements in the Standard for Safety for Tests for Safety-Related Controls Employing Solid-State Devices, UL 991, second edition, dated June 23, 1995, including environmental and stress tests appropriate to the intended usage of the end-product. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from Global Engineering Documents, 15 Inverness Way East, Englewood, CO 80112, Telephone (800) 854-7179 or Global Engineering Documents, 7730 Carondelet Ave., Suite 470, Clayton, MO 63105, Telephone (800) 854-7179. Copies may be inspected at the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Office of the Secretary, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: Code of Federal Regulations Incorporation by Reference.

[QUOTE=Jerry Peck;254114]

(bold and underlining are mine)
1211.4 General requirements for protection against risk of injury.
- (a)If an automatically reset protective device is employed, automatic restarting of a motor shall not result in a risk of injury to persons.
[QUOTE]

Jerry, Risk of injury includes, "All Risks". Not just stated risks. You know very well that regulatory requirements are written that way and to protect against damage to property, "which could result in injury".

If codes and regulatory documents were written with every conceivable intent and result and every conceivable condition in them they would be hundreds of thousands of pages long.

Or should I argue to the contrary and ask you where it states in the codes that it applied to say my garage door on Thursdays?

Using your argument, where does it state when laying down on the floor under the door?

Risk of injury is "General" just like it is stated. "General requirements". All potential risk that could happen is the intent and what is implied.

Or should I argue like you do and say that only applies to when the motor re-starts!

If an automatically reset protective device is employed, automatic restarting of a motor shall not result in a risk of injury to persons.

Again, do both tests. One is no better than the other. One does not detect adjustment at all, the other does. Both result in reversing. So what is the point of going on and on about the 2x4? Quite frankly I prefer the hand test as in my professional opinion it is more reliable as I can kill two birds with one stone. Yet I do both.

Jeff,

The risks are not to the door or a car or ... as you said they were.

The risks are to people, as I said.

You can twist it any way you want to, but the risks being protected against are to people.

If the door crushes it self or falls apart ... the standard does not care.

If the door crushes a car ... the standard does not care.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Jeff,

The risks are not to the door or a car or ... as you said they were.

The risks are to people, as I said.

You can twist it any way you want to, but the risks being protected against are to people.

If the door crushes it self or falls apart ... the standard does not care.

If the door crushes a car ... the standard does not care.

If the door crushes Granny.......

Originally Posted by Vern Heiler

If the door crushes Granny.......

Granny is one of the people I am referring to that the standard is addressing and looking out for ...

... but when the door tries to crush Granny and Granny comes out on top and the door is crushed ... well - the standard does not care about that door.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Jeff,

The risks are not to the door or a car or ... as you said they were.

The risks are to people, as I said.

You can twist it any way you want to, but the risks being protected against are to people.

If the door crushes it self or falls apart ... the standard does not care.

If the door crushes a car ... the standard does not care.

That is not what I said. NO where did I say the risk was to a car. I said "damage to the door", which could cause risk to people. Damage to a door could cause risks to people. I could care less about the car, not really sure you are listening, as not once did I say anything about a car. I vehemently disagree with you about damage to the door that can cause injury to people. Read the Standards again, that is in there. I will say it again.

"All Risks". Not just stated risks. You know very well that regulatory requirements are written that way and to protect against damage to property, "which could result in injury".

Do you really need me to go through the code and point out examples? Of course not, you have them and can read them. Not sure when you became an advocate of the Building Departments and Contractors who do the least they can, but I guess something changed you. If I sound bitter, it is because I do not like people miss quoting me. You want to quote me, post the quote. Do not make up words and claim I said them.

To use something you say to others, the Authoritative Documents say what they say, not what you want them to say. IE Entrapment, not entrapment between the floor and door. ALL ENTRAPMENT, OF ANY KIND, IN ANY PLACE, AT ALL LEVELS, LIKE GRANNY IN THE CHAIR as someone said.

Again, the 2x4 test is a "reversing test", not a "force adjustment test". Two different things. You believe the 2x4 test checks both. I do not, I believe the hand test is a better indicator. At least I have a rough idea about the force in mine, reversing ability at all levels, whereas you have absolutely no way of knowing anything but reversing at floor level so we do not entrap that 1 1/2" tall midget. But to be safe I do both. That way I do not have to justify my procedure to anyone, on either side. We will just have to agree to disagree. You do it your way, I will do it mine.

A garage door is a system. That has cables, rollers, bar, panels, tracks, eyes and openers with rails. There is not a single garage door manufacture that advises operation of a door that has any one of the components damaged. In fact, they all say that severe injury to life or death may result. How the damage occurred, I do not care, faulty reverse, faulty adjustment, whatever. I just put it through the motions, all of the motions, and do not rely on a piece of wood as my determining factor, and turn a blind eye to all else.

Oh, and the Standard does care about the condition of the door, as it is based on a properly installed door, not an improperly installed door, or dangerous door.

To add. By Code garage doors half to be installed per the Listing and labeling, which includes these Standards. Correct?

Does this ring a bell?

The purpose of this code is to establish the minimum requirements to safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, adequate light and ventilation, energy conservation, and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment and to provide safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations.

Originally Posted by JeffGHooper

Oh, and the Standard does care about the condition of the door, as it is based on a properly installed door, not an improperly installed door, or dangerous door.

Twisting words again - the standard does not care if the door is damaged, the standard cares is people are injured.

Obviously, duh!, the door is required to be kept up, but the standard for the reversing for entrapment and that is what we are discussing, no matter how you try to twist it differently, is to protect PEOPLE ... NOT THE DOOR.

(Sorry, guys, Jeff and I have had knock-down, drag-out, beat-each-other-up, discussions about many things for years ... decades I believe ... sorry to drag everyone into another of our discourses. Oh, and like we do here many times, Jeff and I beat dead horses to a pulp, until even the glue factories won't take them. )

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Granny is one of the people I am referring to that the standard is addressing and looking out for ...

... but when the door tries to crush Granny and Granny comes out on top and the door is crushed ... well - the standard does not care about that door.

I'm sorry, you have lost me in your logic. I thought you were saying it does not matter what the downward pressure setting is as long as the door reverses when it contacts a solid piece of 2X4 at the floor. What about poor granny that is wadded up in the aluminum lawn chair that never made it to the 1 1/2" distance requirement of the floor?

If you and Jeff would look at what the opener circuitry is actually monitoring you might recognize the intent of the adjustments and tests.

The motor control only knows that if the door is told to close: 1) turn the shaft in the direction of closed. 2) reverse if the motor current exceeds a set level or optical sensor is blocked. 3) stop and turn off all sensing when the travel limit is met.

Stop and turn off all sensing is what the 2X4 test is all about. You don't want the door to stop sensing if someone or thing could be trapped, so the 2X4 test insures the door is still trying to close 1 1/2" from the floor. If it stops sensing at say 4" and a 4" neck is under the door it will not reverse no matter how strong your rescuers are but it will not crush your neck because it stopped at 4". If you have a 5" or 6" neck the door will reverse but not until it reaches the set level of resistance, which could be hundreds of pounds, that could hurt! You don't have to be on the floor to be injured by the door closing, as in Granny's case. The downward pressure adjustment is every bit as important as the 2X4 test but the pressure adjustment is more likely to cause injury or damage due to its effect being felt over the entire distance of door travel and the limited ability to get under the door without blocking the optical sensors.

Originally Posted by Vern Heiler

I'm sorry, you have lost me in your logic.......

Logic???? Consistency???? Evidence???

Vern, you may be asking for to much.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Jeff and I beat dead horses to a pulp, until even the glue factories won't take them.

Just softens them up.