Thread: "Hot" wall switch

I inspected a new construction today, and when operating a wall switch that controlled 6 recessed 65 watt lights in the living room, I noticed that the mounting screws were very warm. Attached are the photos of the 2 adjacent switches and the hot switch and the temperature measurement I took with my IR thermometer. My question: Is this too hot (I think so), and is the heat a function of the number of lights on the circuit?

Thanks all...

Similar Threads:

• Light switch location
• Light switch position.
• Crack in the wall
• Porch Re-Roof - How Should This Be "Flashed"
• Staining on exterior wall near A/C

I found this article on the web which may be helpful. I do know that the front panel on modern dimmers is aluminum and acts as a heat sink for the electronics. Sometimes when dimmers are ganged, the installer removes some of the cooling fins (probably the case here since the end dimmers are running cooler). This, coupled with a plastic gang box may cause the thermal conditions. I believe Lutron considers 110º F as acceptable, but I would check the heatsink fins for cutting and consult the dimmer manufacturer.


Wall Switch Dimmers Generating too Much Heat?

Joe

" do know that the front panel on modern dimmers is aluminum and acts as a heat sink for the electronics. Sometimes when dimmers are ganged, the installer removes some of the cooling fins (probably the case here since the end dimmers are running cooler). This, coupled with a plastic gang box may cause the thermal conditions. I believe Lutron considers 110º F as acceptable, but I would check the heatsink fins for cutting"

All you said is good, but those don't look like dimmers to me.

Mike
Could be a loose connection in the switch.

Thanks for the link, Joe. This paragraph from it that was of interest to me:

Using multiple dimmers in the same junction box

If you are using 2 or more dimmers within the same junction box, you must derate the wattage capacity of each switch. What the derating will be depends on the switch. Our most popular dimmer (SwitchLinc) is 600 watts but when next to another dimmer it must be derated to 400 watts. If it is in between two dimmers, the derating is doubled so the total wattage capacity is 200 watts while the dimmers on the outside are 400 watts each.

The switch that is hot is sandwiched between 2 other "toggle" style dimmers - and has a total wattage of 6 X 65 = 390. Sounds like this could be the problem. Anyway, I wrote it up. The builder will have to investigate, and I'll sleep better.

Thanks again...

Looking at the photos again, it appears that there are small slider tabs next to the toggles on switches #1-#3 (left to right) which I believe are used to set the dimming level. Mike would be able to clarify this.

I may be mistaken.

That switch being checked for temperature is a dimmer. Look to the right of the toggle lever and notice the small slider. That is the dimming mechanism.



Heat level depends on the load and percentage of dimming.
Here is a link to the Lutron FAQs.

Lutron Technical Information Technical Guides >> FAQ

Joe

I looked at the photos again, they are dimmers. My bad.

Actually it was my bad. I work with dimmers and light fixtures every day and being that close to the product I made an assumption.

The UL listing for dimmers allows them to operate at up to 65° above ambient room temp. with a max operating temp. of 90°C. UL has approved the operating temp in plastic boxes with plastic covers. YES, this is hot enough to burn skin. One way around running a dimmer at the max temps or close is to use a larger rated dimmer, say a 1000 watt in place of the standard 600 watt - something often required and often ignored due to dimmer de-rating issues. BUT, UL still says max. temps. of 90°C are OK.

A small point here. WHY are you checking home wiring with an IR thermometer? Where in the code book is this required? IF you are doing this I would point out that this is a specialty area in the electrical trades and requires special training to interpret results.

I can probably tell you what the builder is thinking about now.

Look at this another way. New house, unoccupied, hot day, cloudless, windows and doors closed, no curtains. The ambient temp in the house could exceed your high reading without any lights being turned on.

Originally Posted by Bill Kriegh

A small point here. WHY are you checking home wiring with an IR thermometer?

Probably because it felt hot.

Where in the code book is this required?

Fortunately, HIs do not need to limit themselves to the code book.

IF you are doing this I would point out that this is a specialty area in the electrical trades and requires special training to interpret results.

I do believe he went looking for answers.

Bill, many times your posts look down on home inspectors who are doing WHAT THEY SHOULD be doing, saying that trades should do that, and yet it is the trades who ARE NOT BOTHERING to do those things.

You really need to think outside you code/electrician/whatever box you have trapped yourself in and think about the greater aspects of what is going on.

You do provide some good information, sometimes you provide it snubbing your nose at those here, just like you did in your post above.

JP: BK's attitude is all too common among tradesmen of all types. Because they specialize in this or that they are unable to appreciate knowledgeable generalists such as competent inspectors. They must feel threatened. That sort of paranoia is often exhibited by members of the trades who understand a lot about one thing and not too much about anything else.

This sort of wrong thinking is always counterproductive. In Texas, for example, the HVAC technicians rallied to pass laws preventing HIs from dismantling HVAC equipment or using gauges to ascertain equipment pressures. All the HI will do with the information he gleans is to pass it along to the customer along with the suggestion that they hire a competent professional for further evaluation, repair, whatever.

Ditto for the Texas electricians and plumbers. They are ceaselessly pissing around their perimeter with no particular advantage to be gained. While we are sending them business hand-over-fist, they belittle us without provocation.

Annually I have some drooling, frothing-at-the-mouth wrench slinger or the other from the Texas Board of Plumbing Examiners call me to inform me that I cannot inspect plumbing installations on new construction sites. Of course, this is a crock, but that does not stop them from barking.

During my 20 years of building and remodeling houses and light commercial buildings I hired and fired hundreds of tradesmen. I gained a real respect for the true professionals among them and learned to truly despise those who can only criticize others who choose not to be so licensed.

My point of view comes from writing many letters to various entities explaining why a HI "concern" isn't really a concern. I don't look down on the HI profession at all, you guys are a real source of income, but both because somebody did a professional job and because somebody didn't. I would also unhesitatingly point out that the hack brothers in my trade provide significant income opportunities for me as well. No secret there.

To me, difference between a professional and a wannabe is the point at which you find the answer to questions - after you do the job isn't the time. That wasn't done here and I felt that needed to be pointed out. Sorry if you think I came on too strong - there are help lines and web sites so you can get your answers to questions like this and that would likely have been discovered had any time been spent in research BEFORE providing a report to somebody.

What DOES concern me is that somebody is going to unnecessarily wind up spending money, likely several hundred dollars if an electrician gets involved, looking for a non-existent problem. It would be prudent in cases where the inspector doesn't know how something should be to find out rather than guess, and do this before rather than after issuing a report. You feed the attitude that the HI business is a three ring circus and any idiot with a clip board can be a HI when you produce items like this in a report. I'll guarantee you which of the legitimate problems and the "non problems" will be related to others when this report gets discussed in the future.

You guys should be as aware as anybody that it takes forever to build credibility and speculating or guessing about something can undo all that credibility in short order.

As to preconcieved notions or perceptions, well, don't know what to tell you. I don't look down on anybody or their trade because I feel or think a certain way about them. Everybody has a place. How you go about the things you do does change my opinions rather quickly however.

Originally Posted by Bill Kriegh

I would also unhesitatingly point out that the hack brothers in my trade provide significant income opportunities for me as well. No secret there.

They are also the same ones who keep HIs in business.

Kudos to them.

To me, difference between a professional and a wannabe is the point at which you find the answer to questions - after you do the job isn't the time.

Let me get this straight: YOU have NEVER seen something ON A JOB that YOU did not ALREADY know everything about - right?

Man, either your ego is HUGE or you simply cannot admit that you do not know everything.

Which would lead one to understand that you know less than you think because those who KNOW quite a bit also KNOW there is a lot more they DO NOT KNOW, and obviously from your statement there is nothing you do not know.

You guys should be as aware as anybody that it takes forever to build credibility and speculating or guessing about something can undo all that credibility in short order.

And your credibility has dropped considerably with recent posts above.

Gee Jerry - here we go yet again. I've never claimed to know it all, unlike some of us do. My point wasn't hard to understand I didn't think. It is simply if you don't know something you ask before you do the work, not after. That's what I do. That's what I get paid to do. Yes, I STOP the part of the job I'm not sure about till I get an answer. The difference here is that my not knowing before I do something puts life and property at risk while a HI not knowing leaves existing situations unreported - hardly a good thing but it hasn't made an existing situation worse or created a new one.

As to my credibility, I know what I know and I know what you seem think you know (and possibly what you seem to think I know)- and that hardly makes you a judge of my credibility. I'm fully aware that at the end of every day I've learned something new. You, on the other hand, have no problem running Peckisms past the folks here as facts in spite of perfectly valid interpretations to the contrary. You want exchanges on a professional level and yet when presented with facts you don't like or interpretations you disagree with you treat people like peasants on a barony.

I read with great concern about things being or attempting to be put off limits to inspectors. Having read the original and followup from the OP here I suspect a thinking person might begin to suspect where some of these attitudes come from. I'm not saying the OP is a bad person. I'm saying that it was NOT a good idea to call something that's gonna cost somebody to check out before doing some research. To say otherwise puts you on the perch people tend to accuse you of being on.

I'm all for professional exchanges. The "I slept better because" is not at all a professional attitude because at the end of the job you still didn't know the answer and somebody paid for that. If I was footing the bill for checking out the dimmers I'd be pretty upset and suspect you would be too if you'd admit it.

Originally Posted by Bill Kriegh

Gee Jerry - here we go yet again. I've never claimed to know it all, unlike some of us do. My point wasn't hard to understand I didn't think. It is simply if you don't know something you ask before you do the work, not after.

Gee Bill - here we go yet again.

Please explain HOW *YOU* KNOW what to ask BEFORE you go out there and find out what you do not know.

That would help all the other billions of people on this planet we call Earth - knowing how to know something one does not yet know they do not know ... with that answer, you should be a billionaire, and, for all I know (see, I KNOW I DON'T *know*) you are already a billionaire.

That's what I do.

That is what I am asking, HOW do you KNOW YOU DON'T KNOW about something you don't know about until you go out there and see it?

Please, explain that mystery of life to me.

That's what I get paid to do. Yes, I STOP the part of the job I'm not sure about till I get an answer.

Oh, so YOU DO THE SAME THING Mike did? But you said you didn't?

Now you have really got yourself all confused, downgrading Mike and others for doing what you just admitted you did.

You are one screwed up guy, that is for sure.

The difference here is that my not knowing before I do something puts life and property at risk while a HI not knowing leaves existing situations unreported - hardly a good thing but it hasn't made an existing situation worse or created a new one.

Huh?

Mike put "life and property at risk" how?

You really have gone off the deep end now.

I'm all for professional exchanges.

Great, then start doing so.

Jerry, you evidently have trouble with reading comprehension. Check back when you can show me I said I knew it all before I went to a job. All I saw was a note that if I wasn't sure I stopped till I found out.

If you are insinuating here that the province of a HI is report any and everything without knowing the facts then so be it. What the heck would have been the harm in delaying the report till inquiries had been made concerning the dimmers? Time issues?

Originally Posted by Bill Kriegh

Jerry, you evidently have trouble with reading comprehension. Check back when you can show me I said I knew it all before I went to a job. All I saw was a note that if I wasn't sure I stopped till I found out.

Which is exactly what he did, and you faulted him for it.

I think it is you who needs to go back through and re-read the posts, all of them, and your replies, so you can see your errors in presuming someone guilty for doing the same thing you say makes you not guilty.

What the heck would have been the harm in delaying the report till inquiries had been made concerning the dimmers? Time issues?

Ummm ... Bill ... are you on earth or have you already gone back out to space?

THAT *IS* exactly what he was doing.

Earth to Bill ... are you there ...

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

Annually I have some drooling, frothing-at-the-mouth wrench slinger or the other from the Texas Board of Plumbing Examiners call me to inform me that I cannot inspect plumbing installations on new construction sites. Of course, this is a crock, but that does not stop them from barking.

Why do you say this is a crock? Do you have the required license to inspect plumbing for compliance?

Now if you are just doing it as a courtesy inspection and not a compliance inspection, or you are performing inspections in jurisdictions with a population of 5000 or less then I would say you are correct. However IF you are inspecting for compliance without the proper credentials they will get you and that can be a hefty fine!

I had never felt a wall switch that hot before, which is why I posted here... to help find answers. My concern was chance of a fire. The builder will not be upset that I pointed this out - he's a professional and wants to make sure the clients are well informed and taken care of.

Thanks for the info on the max temp, Bill, 90C is certainly Hot! Its hard to believe that UL would allow something that hot - that would blister anyone.

Always learning... Thanks, Jerry.

Wonderful response Mike. I was just questioning your timing.

Jerry, what part of "Anyway, I wrote it up. The builder will have to investigate, and I'll sleep better" tells you Mike checked here first before submitting the report?

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

JP: BK's attitude is all too common among tradesmen of all types. Because they specialize in this or that they are unable to appreciate knowledgeable generalists such as competent inspectors. They must feel threatened. That sort of paranoia is often exhibited by members of the trades who understand a lot about one thing and not too much about anything else.

This sort of wrong thinking is always counterproductive. In Texas, for example, the HVAC technicians rallied to pass laws preventing HIs from dismantling HVAC equipment or using gauges to ascertain equipment pressures. All the HI will do with the information he gleans is to pass it along to the customer along with the suggestion that they hire a competent professional for further evaluation, repair, whatever.

Ditto for the Texas electricians and plumbers. They are ceaselessly pissing around their perimeter with no particular advantage to be gained. While we are sending them business hand-over-fist, they belittle us without provocation.

Annually I have some drooling, frothing-at-the-mouth wrench slinger or the other from the Texas Board of Plumbing Examiners call me to inform me that I cannot inspect plumbing installations on new construction sites. Of course, this is a crock, but that does not stop them from barking.

During my 20 years of building and remodeling houses and light commercial buildings I hired and fired hundreds of tradesmen. I gained a real respect for the true professionals among them and learned to truly despise those who can only criticize others who choose not to be so licensed.

The red highlight above is kinda, sorts not true but true in some cases as Wayne has said above. I have run into that on many occasions but in some jurisdictions I have no problem.

Originally Posted by Bill Kriegh

Jerry, what part of "Anyway, I wrote it up. The builder will have to investigate, and I'll sleep better" tells you Mike checked here first before submitting the report?

Bill, what part of:

Yesterday, 08:15 PM #1
and
Yesterday, 09:56 PM #4

... do you not understand.

Mike got two answers, proceeded with the report, then got further explanations and information.

There is nothing wrong with writing up a dimmer which is too hot, even if that is not beyond the UL limits.

It is the home inspector JOB to point those things out.

It is the electricians JOB to explain why something would could cause injury may still be okay to leave installed.

A GOOD electrician will KNOW that installing multiple dimmers side-by-side-side will DRAMATICALLY lower the rating of the dimmer.

When I was doing work and the builder wanted three dimmers like that, heck, even two dimmer like that, we always told him he needed to use a 1000 W dimmer, or even a 1500 dimmer.

That now left the builder with two choices: a) install two 1500 dimmers side-by-side with fins broken off and greatly decreased ratings, or b) install the two dimmer in separate boxes, which allows for proper heat dissipation from each dimmer.

Now add that third dimmer and the problem multiplies. In that case, most like I would have said install two two-gang boxes, derate the two dimmers in the one box dramatically (two dimmers side-by-side needed more derating than with a dimmer-and-switch-side-by-side) and derate the dimmer with the switch as needed because the fins were broken off to allow for installation next to the switch.

Just because something IS ALLOWED does not make it right or even good. All being allowed means is that you can pass MINIMUM CODE.

MINIMUM CODE was never my goal.

working late tonight
my two cents:
Use common sense and when in doubt always write it up. there are many mistakes in code books,

Jus a couple other examples: I have seen more than one inspector that has certain code books without the latest revisions or erratas...
I have also seen more than one contractor with more than one revision of drawings floating around the job site...

when in doubt always write it up and sleep in peace..let someone else have the headache... sometimes I leave open a particular issue and will call back latter whoever in charge to tell them yay or nei..don't be shy of telling someone that you need to research something...

also be a man if you made a mistake and admit it...including apologize...presidents and judges also make mistakes all the time...I see many complications on the work place just because some people have big egos and don't admit they are wrong..

These were the longest two cents...
Cheers!

Originally Posted by Wayne Carlisle

Why do you say this is a crock? Do you have the required license to inspect plumbing for compliance?

Now if you are just doing it as a courtesy inspection and not a compliance inspection, or you are performing inspections in jurisdictions with a population of 5000 or less then I would say you are correct. However IF you are inspecting for compliance without the proper credentials they will get you and that can be a hefty fine!

WC: My attorney pointed out to the dimwits in question that the law in Texas only states that I cannot be employed by a municipal building inspection department as a "plumbing inspector". Now it has also been pointed out to you.

Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, when constructing houses in unincorporated areas of Texas I do indeed carry all of the licenses and certifications required by the State to perform plumbing inspections.

Like many, if not all AHJs, you need to do some research before you begin making broad-sweeping, uniformed, and false statements.

My attorney says there will be no fines forthcoming. After these dozen years without a fine, he must be right.

A.D.

Bold is mine;
This is where your attorney is getting his information.

(8) "Plumbing inspector" means a person who:
(A) is employed by a political subdivision, or contracts as an independent contractor with a political subdivision, to inspect plumbing in connection with health and safety laws, including ordinances, and plumbing and gas codes; and
(B) has passed the required examination and fulfilled the other requirements of the board.

However you need to read the entire law not just bits and pieces that fit your situation. If I am reading the law wrong please point it out to me because I am actually one of those AHJ's that like to do the right thing.

OCCUPATIONS CODE
TITLE 8. REGULATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND INDUSTRIAL TRADES
CHAPTER 1301. PLUMBERS
"THE PLUMBING LICENSE LAW"
SEPTEMBER 1, 2007

Sec. 1301.255. ADOPTION OF PLUMBING CODES.
(e) Plumbing installed in compliance with a code adopted under Subsection (a), (b), or (d) must be inspected by a plumbing inspector. To perform the inspection, the political subdivision may contract with any plumbing inspector or qualified plumbing inspection business, as determined by the political subdivision, that is paid directly by the political subdivision.

SUBCHAPTER G. LICENSE, ENDORSEMENT, AND REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS

Sec. 1301.351. LICENSE, ENDORSEMENT, OR REGISTRATION REQUIRED.
(a) A person may not engage in the business of plumbing unless:
(1) the person holds a license or endorsement or is registered under this chapter; or
(2) the person's work is supervised and controlled by a person licensed under this chapter.
(b) A person may not serve as a plumbing inspector unless the person is licensed under this chapter as a plumbing inspector.

Sec. 1301.352. EXAMINATION REQUIRED.
The board shall issue a license or endorsement as a master plumber, journeyman plumber, plumbing inspector, tradesman plumber-limited license holder, medical gas piping installation endorsement holder, or water supply protection specialist to a person who demonstrates the fitness, competence, and qualifications to receive the license or endorsement by passing a uniform, reasonable examination.
Sec. 1301.551. MUNICIPAL PLUMBING ORDINANCES AND PERMITS.
(a) A municipality with more than 5,000 inhabitants shall regulate by ordinance or bylaw the material, construction, alteration, and inspection of any pipe, faucet, tank, valve, water heater, or other fixture by or through which a supply of water, gas, or sewage is used or carried.
(b) Any other municipality may regulate by ordinance or bylaw the matters described by Subsection (a).
(c) A municipality that adopts an ordinance or bylaw under this section shall provide by ordinance or bylaw that a person must obtain a permit before the person performs plumbing, other than the repairing of leaks. The municipality may prescribe the terms on which the permit is issued.
(d) A plumbing inspection in a municipality that adopts an ordinance or bylaw under this section must be performed by a plumbing inspector.



Looks to me if you inspect plumbing you must be a plumbing inspector with the appropriate license.

You stated: Like many, if not all AHJs, you need to do some research before you begin making broad-sweeping, uniformed, and false statements.

I stated: Now if you are just doing it as a courtesy inspection and not a compliance inspection, or you are performing inspections in jurisdictions with a population of 5000 or less then I would say you are correct. However IF you are inspecting for compliance without the proper credentials they will get you and that can be a hefty fine!

Okay explain to me where I made a false statement.


But all of this is null and void because you say you have the proper credentials. I guess that's why you haven't been fined.

Originally Posted by Wayne Carlisle

A.D.

Bold is mine;
This is where your attorney is getting his information.

(8) "Plumbing inspector" means a person who:
(A) is employed by a political subdivision, or contracts as an independent contractor with a political subdivision, to inspect plumbing in connection with health and safety laws, including ordinances, and plumbing and gas codes; and
(B) has passed the required examination and fulfilled the other requirements of the board.

However you need to read the entire law not just bits and pieces that fit your situation. If I am reading the law wrong please point it out to me because I am actually one of those AHJ's that like to do the right thing.

OCCUPATIONS CODE
TITLE 8. REGULATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND INDUSTRIAL TRADES
CHAPTER 1301. PLUMBERS
"THE PLUMBING LICENSE LAW"
SEPTEMBER 1, 2007

Sec. 1301.255. ADOPTION OF PLUMBING CODES.
(e) Plumbing installed in compliance with a code adopted under Subsection (a), (b), or (d) must be inspected by a plumbing inspector. To perform the inspection, the political subdivision may contract with any plumbing inspector or qualified plumbing inspection business, as determined by the political subdivision, that is paid directly by the political subdivision.

SUBCHAPTER G. LICENSE, ENDORSEMENT, AND REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS

Sec. 1301.351. LICENSE, ENDORSEMENT, OR REGISTRATION REQUIRED.
(a) A person may not engage in the business of plumbing unless:
(1) the person holds a license or endorsement or is registered under this chapter; or
(2) the person's work is supervised and controlled by a person licensed under this chapter.
(b) A person may not serve as a plumbing inspector unless the person is licensed under this chapter as a plumbing inspector.

Sec. 1301.352. EXAMINATION REQUIRED.
The board shall issue a license or endorsement as a master plumber, journeyman plumber, plumbing inspector, tradesman plumber-limited license holder, medical gas piping installation endorsement holder, or water supply protection specialist to a person who demonstrates the fitness, competence, and qualifications to receive the license or endorsement by passing a uniform, reasonable examination.
Sec. 1301.551. MUNICIPAL PLUMBING ORDINANCES AND PERMITS.
(a) A municipality with more than 5,000 inhabitants shall regulate by ordinance or bylaw the material, construction, alteration, and inspection of any pipe, faucet, tank, valve, water heater, or other fixture by or through which a supply of water, gas, or sewage is used or carried.
(b) Any other municipality may regulate by ordinance or bylaw the matters described by Subsection (a).
(c) A municipality that adopts an ordinance or bylaw under this section shall provide by ordinance or bylaw that a person must obtain a permit before the person performs plumbing, other than the repairing of leaks. The municipality may prescribe the terms on which the permit is issued.
(d) A plumbing inspection in a municipality that adopts an ordinance or bylaw under this section must be performed by a plumbing inspector.



Looks to me if you inspect plumbing you must be a plumbing inspector with the appropriate license.

You stated: Like many, if not all AHJs, you need to do some research before you begin making broad-sweeping, uniformed, and false statements.

I stated: Now if you are just doing it as a courtesy inspection and not a compliance inspection, or you are performing inspections in jurisdictions with a population of 5000 or less then I would say you are correct. However IF you are inspecting for compliance without the proper credentials they will get you and that can be a hefty fine!

OK explain to me where I made a false statement.


But all of this is null and void because you say you have the proper credentials. I guess that's why you haven't been fined.

WC: OK then, let us take this scenario. It is, by the way, not hypothetical. I am leaving to do one of these just as soon as I finish typing this and have another scheduled for tomorrow.

Here's the picture. Client is having a house built on his own lot in an unincorporated area of the county. TRCC says it must be "inspected" during three stages of construction. Do you call these inspections "courtesy" inspections, or is the purpose of these to insure code compliance?

And what do you call the municipal inspections that I follow behind each and every week on new buildings where the AHJ's field representative has overlooked a laundry list of code compliance issues? I call those "discourtesy inspections", my South Texas friend.

By the way, in the above stated scenario, who do you think the AHJ actually is?

Peck said: Fortunately, HIs do not need to limit themselves to the code book.


Amen

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

Here's the picture. Client is having a house built on his own lot in an unincorporated area of the county. TRCC says it must be "inspected" during three stages of construction. Do you call these inspections "courtesy" inspections, or is the purpose of these to insure code compliance?

You are exempt from having a plumbing inspectors license because the area you are inspecting in is not within the jurisdiction and less than 5000.

The TRCC recently implemented that all new construction in unincoporated areas must be inspected as if located within a city. The TRCC requires that in order to inspect under their guidlines that you must register with the TRCC. So if you fall within one of the catagories below and are registered with the TRCC and in good standing then you can inspect plumbing in unincoporated areas.

Here are those rules:

Texas Administrative Code

Next Rule>>TITLE 10COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTPART 7TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION COMMISSIONCHAPTER 307INSPECTIONS OF HOMES IN AREAS WITHOUT MUNICIPAL INSPECTIONSRULE §307.3Qualified Fee Inspectors(a) To serve as a fee inspector under this chapter, an individual must be one of the following:
(1) a professional engineer licensed by the Texas Board of Engineering;
(2) an architect registered with the Texas Board of Architectural Examiners;
(3) a professional inspector licensed by the Texas Real Estate Commission; or
(4) a third-party inspector registered with the commission under Chapter 303, Subchapter C of this title.


If you inspect plumbing for compliance to the code inside a municipality with over 5000 population then you must be either a licensed plumbing inspector or a 3rd party inspector.

Pretty plain and simple.

Let me know when you are performing an illegal plumbing inspection and I'll have the state plumbing board representative over compliance meet you at the job site!

On the statement you made: By the way, in the above stated scenario, who do you think the AHJ actually is?

I would say the TRCC until August 31 then it will no longer exist.........so you can make all of those unincoporated inspections without having to deal with the TRCC. But I don;t need to tell you that though do I? You seem to know everything!

No more comments from me, I know the law. Sorry for hijacking the thread!

I must give my two cents:
This is the background for my argumet:
I know Many registered engineers that are out of the circle regarding electrical inspections..
Same for architects: I know some architects that have little experience with electrical codes..

Does this makes them 'Bad" engineers or architects? absolutely not. Almost all of them are great professionals...

Here is my point:
If i am comfortable doing the job that I am doing and sleep at night knowing where is the info that I need to research in case I need it, I have no fear about state inspection...the "code" should be only one and not subject to the interpretation of people that are fortunate or not enough to be architects or engineers. As a matter of fact, I really believe that if the owner has approved drawings by the building official in which there is no clear statement about one being a certified "inspector", there is no liability as long as everything was recorded in the inspection and it was indeed in good code compliance.

This not mean that we all don't make mistakes, just to clarify...Like is all over written on this board by many people, one does not know it all. And, I have seen when unlicensed inspectors bowed to licensed ones but I have also seen the opposite .
note to stop rambling !/

ps..did I even said that i know unlicensed consultants?

Bill Kriegh, you are correct in pointing out that Mike is going beyond the SOP. The builder can put in 20 watt light bulbs and be under the safe limits of the dimmers. After the house is bought the new owners can put in 60 or 100 watt bulbs and exceed the dimmer limits. We are not responsible to check the manufactures limits on any system in a house. As a Construction / Litigation Consultant, Jerry might be required to test these limits but us HI don't have too.

Originally Posted by Tony Mount

Bill Kriegh, you are correct in pointing out that Mike is going beyond the SOP.

Tony,

Please explain why you think it is a bad thing to go beyond the SoP, which are not "guidelines" but "minimum requirements".

As a Construction / Litigation Consultant, Jerry might be required to test these limits but us HI don't have too.

Tony, were in there did you get that Mike "had to"?

As a good HI doing a good home inspection, Mike "did" check something he felt was overly hot.

Are you telling us here in public, for all attorneys to witness, that if YOU felt something overly hot you would not report it and not try to find out about it?

Are you telling us here in public, for all attorneys to witness, that if YOU felt something overly hot you would not report it and not try to find out about it? I ' am not afraid to do my job which is very well spelled out by the SOP. Any thing above and beyond that SOP leads to a much greater chance of law suits than the minimum standard. All I' am saying is that I can go to sleep at night knowing that I' am not responsible to check light switches for heat or if they are exceeding there limits. If I felt a dimmer switch that I know by their normal use is warm or hot to the touch. I would NOT go out and buy a digital thermometer to see how hot it is, or check to see if the wattage of the bulbs are correct or remove the dimmer to see what it is rated for. None of the following is part of a visual inspection and so is absent of malice. If any home inspector uses any instrument considered to be technically exhaustive on one system and fails to use a similar instrument on another system. That inspector can be sued if a problem arises and he did not find it because he did not have the equipment to thoroughly check that system. So, NO I WILL NOT GO BEYOND THE SOP.

Originally Posted by Tony Mount

Are you telling us here in public, for all attorneys to witness, that if YOU felt something overly hot you would not report it and not try to find out about it? I ' am not afraid to do my job which is very well spelled out by the SOP. Any thing above and beyond that SOP leads to a much greater chance of law suits than the minimum standard. All I' am saying is that I can go to sleep at night knowing that I' am not responsible to check light switches for heat or if they are exceeding there limits. If I felt a dimmer switch that I know by their normal use is warm or hot to the touch. I would NOT go out and buy a digital thermometer to see how hot it is, or check to see if the wattage of the bulbs are correct or remove the dimmer to see what it is rated for. None of the following is part of a visual inspection and so is absent of malice. If any home inspector uses any instrument considered to be technically exhaustive on one system and fails to use a similar instrument on another system. That inspector can be sued if a problem arises and he did not find it because he did not have the equipment to thoroughly check that system. So, NO I WILL NOT GO BEYOND THE SOP.

Just wanted to save that for posterity and for when people ask about you and I tell them you are a minimalist and do not exceed the SoP, and they do not believe me as they "know" no one could be that stupid as to only do the minimum spelled out in the SoP.

Tony,

The SoP is "the MINIMUM" you are required to do.

The SoP is not a upper limit of what you are EXPECTED to do.

I would be more than happy to let any Home Inspector that uses techniques and instruments beyond the SOP inspect my house. In fact I would recommend to everyone on this board to do the same. Find the inspector that is the most technically exhaustive inspect your house. If anything goes wrong with your house you have every right to sue him for not finding the problem by using the proper tools. It only takes one instrument to be qualified especially those of you that use thermal imaging. If you image my house and anything happens regardless of time, I find a problem your paying for it. Jerry, I' am not the only inspector out of the thousands out there that sticks to the standards. Not very many industries out there allow members to go beyond the standards, and in most cases it not even profitable. What electrician would install more than the mininumn required to do the job? Yea, that would be stupid would it not? I rest my case...

Originally Posted by Tony Mount

I would be more than happy to let any Home Inspector that uses techniques and instruments beyond the SOP inspect my house. In fact I would recommend to everyone on this board to do the same. Find the inspector that is the most technically exhaustive inspect your house. If anything goes wrong with your house you have every right to sue him for not finding the problem by using the proper tools. It only takes one instrument to be qualified especially those of you that use thermal imaging. If you image my house and anything happens regardless of time, I find a problem your paying for it. Jerry, I' am not the only inspector out of the thousands out there that sticks to the standards. Not very many industries out there allow members to go beyond the standards, and in most cases it not even profitable. What electrician would install more than the minimum required to do the job? Yea, that would be stupid would it not? I rest my case...

Tony, where do you come up with this stuff?
Can you name one inspector that has ever been sued much less successfully sued for going above the minimum standards?

I would be more than happy

TM: Must be some really good stuff in that pipe.

Find the inspector that is the most technically exhaustive inspect your house. If anything goes wrong with your house you have every right to sue him for not finding the problem by using the proper tools.

TM: Sadly, many "people" "think" along these lines.

What electrician would install more than the minimum required to do the job? Yea, that would be stupid would it not?

TM: So you are a minimalist. We get that.

I rest my case...

Oh, would you?

Some interesting attitudes here. Code minimum is perfectly legal. Code minimum is also what many builders look for as the bottom line is their only concern.

Personally, I see no problem doing the job you get paid to do as long as it meets code. The apparent attitude I see here is you pay for a Chevy and get a Cadillac. Many people in the trades would rather not work on tract housing but when you need to provide for your family you do what you have to. You are competing with folks who don't provide legal employees, don't pay required costs like worker's comp, provide benefits, etc. etc. and you guys get on a high horse about a job being done to code minimums. What kind of fantasy land do you live in?

In my business I have and take the opportunity to sit down with the clients and thoroughly discuss decisions and their ramifications. Many people in the trades don't have that opportunity and have to count on a third party for direction. How does that make them some sort of lowlife?

Sounds like some of you HI folks are as guilty of looking down on people as you accuse us to be. We all know about hacks, but now you appear to be looking down on somebody who did a good job to code minimums rather than the job they were "expected" to do. {The SoP is not a upper limit of what you are EXPECTED to do.; Please explain why you think it is a bad thing to go beyond the SoP, which are not "guidelines" but "minimum requirements". "MINIMUM CODE was never my goal".} What the he**? Exactly what does YOUR GOAL have to do with a job done to code on a job where a tradesman has no choice in the matter as to the size and quality of installed materials. Is it your head I'm beginning to see over the horizon?

In the case presented by the OP here, it is very likely that a question by the electrician about installing higher rated dimmers would have been met with questions from a GC wanting to know why a 600 watt dimmer won't handle a 390 watt load. They don't give a rats *ss whether it gets hot as long as it's to code. I'd have done it differently given the opportunity but I'm sure the tradesman on this job didn't have the option. Do any of you guys really expect it's the job of the tradesman to stand the upgrade on their own nickel? I call BS at this point.

Originally Posted by Bill Kriegh

Some interesting attitudes here. Code minimum is perfectly legal. Code minimum is also what many builders look for as the bottom line is their only concern.

Which is completely different than what Tony is professing, but it sounds like you are Tony are becoming more alike all the time, you have my sympathies for the company you are keeping.

The apparent attitude I see here is you pay for a Chevy and get a Cadillac.

No, the attitude here is to do as much as the standard of care is in your area, and if you want to do a better job, help raise that standard of care to a higher level.

You are promoting 'minimum code' for pricing reasons, Tony is promoting minimum code for, as he says, doing anything above minimum code will get you sued.

See the difference Bill?

you guys get on a high horse about a job being done to code minimums. What kind of fantasy land do you live in?

No, we start looking for that high horse when reporting jobs which do not even meet code minimums, but we cannot find that high horse as you already are on it.

Many people in the trades don't have that opportunity and have to count on a third party for direction.

You keep trying to direct the conversation from home inspections where each home inspector set his/her own standard someplace above the SoP.

We all know about hacks, but now you appear to be looking down on somebody who did a good job to code minimums rather than the job they were "expected" to do. {The SoP is not a upper limit of what you are EXPECTED to do.; Please explain why you think it is a bad thing to go beyond the SoP, which are not "guidelines" but "minimum requirements". "MINIMUM CODE was never my goal".} What the he**?

When a contractor (here you go again, trying to direct the conversation back to trades and away from the discussion on home inspection - this discussion started out as one about home inspections, but you cannot defend your position talking about home inspections, so you keep trying to drag the conversation over to the trades) is PAID TO DO MORE, i.e., they quoted, implied, said, advertised "quality", "luxury", "custom", etc., then, no, they should not be held to "minimums", they should be held to what they advertised.

Exactly what does YOUR GOAL have to do with a job done to code on a job where a tradesman has no choice in the matter as to the size and quality of installed materials.

The tradesman (jeez, you can't keep on track with the discussion, can you?) has a choice of materials - meets codes and used better materials, that is THEIR CHOICE, or does not use better materials, also THEIR CHOICE.

Is it your head I'm beginning to see over the horizon?

Nope. That's just a mirror you are looking at.

Jerry, Jerry, Jerry

Your schoolyard "I know you are but what am I?" comebacks really have a place here.

I didn't direct the subject here to trades from HI, you did that when you drag into the discussion about "somebody" doing a code minimum job. Unless the customer paid extra for the extra effort to go above and beyond code, they got what they paid for.

"No, we start looking for that high horse when reporting jobs which do not even meet code minimums" NO, what I read in your responses is that code minimum isn't good enough.

Which is it?

I don't bid jobs that are just code minimum. It's reasonably clear ( if it wasn't it should be now) we agree that a job should be done above and beyond code minimum. A number of my customers are people who walk into a code minimum home who are fully aware of what they're buying. They immediately rip out brand new carpets and install hardwood because they can get it done cheaper than the builder will do it. Junk countertops get replaced by granite for the same cost reasons. Low end dimmers get replaced with upsized quality dimmers. None of this stuff ever happens when you pay for code minimum. Are you saying you expect it to?

What I'm concerned about here is that you appear to be blurring the line between the facts that bonified deficiencies that don't meet code minimum and opinions about things that do meet code not being good enough.

Originally Posted by Bill Kriegh

Jerry, Jerry, Jerry

Your schoolyard "I know you are but what am I?" comebacks really have a place here.

Met me get this straight, now, the pot is calling the kettle black and is now complaining when the kettle points out that the pot is black?

Talk about schoolyard intelligent responses.

What I'm concerned about here is that you appear to be blurring the line between the facts that bonified deficiencies that don't meet code minimum and opinions about things that do meet code not being good enough.

What you should be concerned about is what I keep repeating time and time again and you still do not understand it and do not seem to learn it: home inspections ARE NOT minimum code inspections, home inspectors are not limited to looking at code minimums.

You you ever "get it"?

When the home inspectors feels a need to report something OUT OF THE ORDINARY, code or not code, THERE IS NOTHING wrong with the home inspector doing so - in fact IT IS THEIR JOB to report it and point it out.

It then becomes (for electrical) YOUR JOB to state why it is okay. It IS NOT your job to then try to degrade the home inspector for doing their job, and when you do, it now becomes fair game for the home inspector to disparage any and all work you did which does not meet the higher standard of "yep, that would have been the better way to have done it" ... regardless of whether or not it would have cost more for you to have done it that way. Once you open that door to degrade another for doing their job, do not expect to be able to close that door behind you, as the judge says in court "YOU opened that door, they now get to ... (whatever is being discussed) ... ".

You seem to know a lot, you do not seem to know that if you do not keep your responses to what you know and instead try to tell someone else what they should or should not do that you are not open to be told the same thing.

Your choice: Keep it to the technical stuff you know and we can respond to that information, of, keep diverting to other things such as telling others what they should do or not do and we can and will respond to that information - whether you like it or not.

The solution is simple: Don't want to open that door if you don't want to hear back on what you said.

No, my job is NOT explaining away why a HI doesn't like something. It's either OK, its not OK, or you don't know and it needs to be evaluated by a professional. Nobody died and left you in charge.

Originally Posted by Bill Kriegh

No, my job is NOT explaining away why a HI doesn't like something. It's either OK, its not OK, or you don't know and it needs to be evaluated by a professional. Nobody died and left you in charge.

BK: The demise of another is not necessarily a prerequisite for the ascension of a cognoscente to a seat of authority. If, on the other hand, you believe it is so, who did you kill?

Aaron,

Apparently, Bill thought he killed me off or I died of natural causes (i.e., he thought he ran over me with a train and therefore, and quite naturally, died from that cause ) what Bill did not realize that I was not in charge, and therefore he is not in charge now either ... even though I am undead.

Poor Jerry, The man just can't see the forest for the trees. Jerry, can't you see that you are the KING of "You seem to know a lot, you do not seem to know that if you do not keep your responses to what you know and instead try to tell someone else what they should or should not do that you are not open to be told the same thing. Is this not your favorite phrase? " in fact IT IS THEIR JOB to" post # 40, and WHAT THEY SHOULD be doing, Post # 10, and "There is nothing wrong with writing up a dimmer which is too hot, even if that is not beyond the UL limits." 'It is the home inspector JOB to point those things out."( NO its NOT ) Post # 22 and "Just because something IS ALLOWED does not make it right or even good. All being allowed means is that you can pass MINIMUM CODE". "MINIMUM CODE was never my goal." ( Implying that code is NOT good enough) post # 22,and ""know" no one could be that stupid as to only do the minimum spelled out in the SoP." ( only a dumb ass would go beyond the SoP) The SoP is not a upper limit of what you are EXPECTED to do. ( I' am expected to perform to the SoP and that's IT ) Post # 33 your biggest hypocritical post # 38 When a contractor (here you go again, trying to direct the conversation back to trades and away from the discussion on home inspection - this discussion started out as one about home inspections, but you cannot defend your position talking about home inspections, so you keep trying to drag the conversation over to the trades) is PAID TO DO MORE, i.e., they quoted, implied, said, advertised "quality", "luxury", "custom", etc., then, no, they should not be held to "minimums", they should be held to what they advertised.( Why should a home inspector have to provided more than the SoP )and lastly post # 40" home inspections ARE NOT minimum code inspections, home inspectors are not limited to looking at code minimums." ( WHY BECAUSE YOU SAY SO? Inspector GOD or what?)

Tony,

The one thing I see missing throughout your post is ... common sense.

Common sense answers all, or most, of your questions regarding why.

Most, if not all or almost all, home inspectors on this board "get it", I believe you and Bill, possibly including Jim Port, do not seem able to grasp what the other 99.99% of the population does grasp - that "code" and "SoP" are "minimums" and that "minimums" are what you are not allowed to do less than, and contain no restrictions on doing more than the "minimum" stated.

Tony, this is not rocket science stuff here, this is plain old common sense which even you should be able to grasp ... "minimum" is just that: "minimum".

If you need me to post some definitions for "minimum", just let me know and I will gladly do so.

Here, to save having to post some definitions, I will provide you with an example:
- You are traveling down an interstate expressway and you see a speed limit sign which states "40 MPH MINIMUM", now does that sign mean you are not allowed to go 41 mph? How about 50 mph?

All that sign states is that you are required to go "at least" "40 mph" "minimum".

Q. - How fast are you allowed to go by that sign?
A. - As fast as you want to go.

Now, 1/2 mile down the expressway you see another sign which states "SPEED LIMIT 70 MPH ". THAT sign says you are not allowed to go faster than 70 mph.

This is where common sense comes into play: If you are required to go "at least" 40 mph and are not allowed to go "faster than" 70 mph:
- how fast are you allowed to go?
- how slow are you allowed to go?

Now back to "codes" and "SoP" "minimums" - that is the least you are required to go/do. There are no speed limits involved, there is no top end limit - you can go/do as fast/much as you want above the minimum codes and SoP.

Jerry, if you are going to argue with others about stuff and invoke my name in the process, at least understand my position.

I fully understand the difference between the minimums required and the ability to go beyond them. I don't, however, believe that it's necessary (or profitable) to go beyond these minimums when minimum is what is being paid for. As I stated, I don't bid work that involves not being able to work above code minimums. If you feel others need to be doing this I'm sure your financial contribution to allow the "above and beyond" would be quite welcome.

Seeing every job done above minimum standards is something I'd like to see but I don't ever expect to. Where we get crosswise appears to be that don't see an issue with writing up code compliant items because they just meet minimums. This is one thing if specifications detail things to be above minimum and quite another if the contract is "wire to code".

Now if I'm wrong about your position on this how about you detail what your position is so the repartee we can indulge in can be a bit more enjoyable for the both of us and the audience.

Jerry, Thank you, you finally got it! " Common sense answers all, or most, of your questions regarding why". "All that sign states is that you are required to go "at least" "40 mph" "minimum".

Q. - How fast are you allowed to go by that sign?
A. - As fast as you want to go.

Common sense tells you the sign is there for your protection! (Same as the SoP) to go over that is up to you and the risk is greater the faster you go.

You are trying to tell everyone on this board that the SoP is not good enough, that only the BEST inspectors go way over the SoP to the point of DANGER.

There are close to 10,000 members on this board, and only the ones like me that is confident in what they do will be willing to face the scrutiny of this board. I don't see very many posters, but I do see lots of readers, and I believe the readers are on my side

I think it is dumb that you are willing to personally take on the added expense to upgrade any bid, contract, or job that you do, just to improve on your industries public image.

Originally Posted by Tony Mount

Jerry, Thank you, you finally got it! " Common sense answers all, or most, of your questions regarding why". "All that sign states is that you are required to go "at least" "40 mph" "minimum".

Q. - How fast are you allowed to go by that sign?
A. - As fast as you want to go.

Common sense tells you the sign is there for your protection! (Same as the SoP) to go over that is up to you and the risk is greater the faster you go.

Tony, once again you have displayed a lack of common sense.

You should have noticed that I said, and you said, that is the minimum.

That minimum is so that you are not a hazard to others, which not only offers you *some* limited protection, but offers others much greater protection than if you were on the expressway driving 10 mph.

At the minimum speed you are at least going in the direction of traffic with reduced closing time between them and you to allow them to see you and avoid running over your butt.

The minimum speed is in no way there for you NOT TO EXCEED.

You are trying to tell everyone on this board that the SoP is not good enough,

Yep, the SoP is like the minimum speed you are required to do.

that only the BEST inspectors go way over the SoP

Correct, that only GOOD, BETTER and BEST inspectors exceed the MINIMUM speed and SoP.

to the point of DANGER.

Earth to Tony, are you real, are you there, ... earth to Tony, your lifeline has broken and you are drifting out into space ...

There are close to 10,000 members on this board, and only the ones like me that is confident in what they do will be willing to face the scrutiny of this board. I don't see very many posters, but I do see lots of readers, and I believe the readers are on my side

Tony, you have really gone off the deep end, it is time you go back to the kiddie pool where the deep end is only knee deep, you should be safe there.

I think it is dumb that you are willing to personally take on the added expense to upgrade any bid, contract, or job that you do, just to improve on your industries public image.

Yes, you think it is dumb to know more than, and do more than, minimum required, however, the rest of us KNOW that the only way to do your client what your client needs and act in their best interest is to use the SoP as your starting point, doing as much more than the SoP are you know and can.

I am sure that you think your post above was favorable to you and putting you in a favorable light, and, if it did, then you are lower than I imagined as I could not previously imagine anyone being low enough to think that such a post would be beneficial to their professional standing.

Tony, you have now established an new low bottom feeder record.

Using the speed analogy Jerry, why does it seem like you are always saying that a person driving 40 MPH in the 40 MPH minimum zone is not driving fast enough?

This seems to be your attitude towards a tradesmen that has installed a Code compliant install. You seem to want something extra or a different methodology to have been used. As others have pointed out unless the customer is paying a premium they will get whatever the Code allows and nothing else.

Originally Posted by Jim Port

Using the speed analogy Jerry, why does it seem like you are always saying that a person driving 40 MPH in the 40 MPH minimum zone is not driving fast enough?

Jeez, Jim, that should be obvious from your driving days and learning to drive - SLOW(ER) MOVING vehicles are hazards to other. That is WHY there is a "minimum" speed - to help reduce and limit that hazard.

This seems to be your attitude towards a tradesmen that has installed a Code compliant install.

Depends on which hat I am wearing:
- Code inspector - "MINIMUM code compliant" = Okay *IF* that is also what is shown on the plans, *IF* the plans show something above "MINIMUM" code compliant (and most will) then a "code compliant" installation IS DEFICIENT.

Would you think otherwise? If so, please explain why a "less than per approved plans" "but meets code" is okay.

If I am a home inspector inspecting new construction, it needs to be as "good as promised" in all things said, advertised, and promoted.

If I am a construction consultant it needs to be at least as good as *ALL* the codes, plans, drawings, specifications, and installations state it needs to be.

You seem to want something extra or a different methodology to have been used. As others have pointed out unless the customer is paying a premium they will get whatever the Code allows and nothing else.

You are making some assumptions which are incorrect. MANY contractor KNOW it is just plain old GOOD BUSINESS to give more than minimum code even when they do not charge for it. *THEY* are the ones who get repeat business and referrals for their *SATISFIED* clients.

You seem to want to think that no business person wants to give anything more than code unless they charge for it. I imagine that shows through to your work ethic and work effort too.

tony,jim,bill,
you are arguing with jp about doing 40 miles an hour in a 40 mph minimum zone and the guy has a garage full of classic kitties that the speedometer starts at 50 mph tough one to win on that point.

No its not Brian,

Just because someone goes 50 does not make the 40 mph driver illegal.

Why did someone feel they needed to cloud the issue by bring up job specs? This isn't about job specs and whether they are above the Code requirement. This was about NEC and what is allowed or not allowed by it. Pure and simple.

Originally Posted by Jim Luttrall

Tony, where do you come up with this stuff?
Can you name one inspector that has ever been sued much less successfully sued for going above the minimum standards?

JL: Actually, it almost came to that. Several years ago a pompous ass who worked as the AHJ of a Dallas suburb and held sway over large inspection seminars at a university in another suburb of Dallas filed a formal complaint against me with the TREC for exceeding the TREC SOP and using code citations in my reports. He filed this in conjunction with the presidents of the local ICC and the NAHB.

To make a long story short, I hired an attorney and quashed the move against me before it got really bloody. But, the point is, there are certainly those out there who would make your life miserable for exceeding the standards, if they could.

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

JP: BK's attitude is all too common among tradesmen of all types. Because they specialize in this or that they are unable to appreciate knowledgeable generalists such as competent inspectors. They must feel threatened. That sort of paranoia is often exhibited by members of the trades who understand a lot about one thing and not too much about anything else.

AD, at the risk of perpetuation this mess of a thread, I can assure you, it is NOT an issue of feeling threatened, nor is it paranoia.

In fact, this situation goes both ways.
We professional tradesmen sometimes are called on things that are NOT credible issues, but an H-I makes it one.
Fact is the "I" in H-I stands for "inspector". Lay people are quite impressed by this word. We very often hear, "The Inspector said this and that MUST be done". If the situation does not call for immediate action, and we downplay the significance of it, WE look like the bad guys. It does not matter how it is written up or what the details are. Bottom line to most folks is: the inspector said so.

This would not be so bad if not for the fact that there are as many hack H-I's out there as good ones, or so it would seem. Some of what I have seen and read on reports amazes me. A recent thread was about the fact that the H-I did not know what a split buss panel was. I have seen this numerous times, where the H-I call this out for "No main breaker", yet the installation is perfectly safe and legal. This is just one example.
I think you understand this concept since you did use the word "competent" in the sentence I quoted above.

At the same time I personally know a couple of TOP notch H-I's who I would pretty much trust with my life.

In fact, this situation goes both ways.

SP: Agreed.

Speedy
You posted:
"A recent thread was about the fact that the H-I did not know what a split buss panel was. "
Is this the thread you are referring to?

Split bus ?
I know there should be no more than 6 breakers to shut off everything.
On a panel with a single main, no problem, but how do you tell how many ( and which) breakers on a split bus panel are the controlling breakers? For that matter how do you determine it is a split bus and not just breakers on a panel without a main?
__________________

I posted that thread.
My question was not what is a split panel.
I knew what a split panel was.
The question was how do you identify which breakers are on the split and which are not.
I asked this because I had a spa installed at my home.
The bottom was full of half-size breakers, so there was no room to add the breaker there. He put the breakers in the top.
Adding the breakers now exceeded the 6 breakers allowed.
I asked the electrician about this and was given a sack of BS.

So, anyhow, the question was asked because;
a should be knowledgeable and qualified electrician added the breaker to the top half of the panel, that now exceeded 6 breakers.
I spotted it and verified my suspicions on this forum, then called it out to him.

Do you know more about electrical systems than I do, you should.

You point out that an HI lacks knowledge, when in fact, you may not know the whole story and make a presumption based on what you think was said.
(But maybe you were looking at a different post.)

If you have the opportunity to educate someone, remember someone took time to educate you when you had questions.

Knowledge and opinions are not the same.
Someone with an opinion may say.
You don't know what you are doing.
Someone with knowledge will say.
There is a better way to do this, do you want to know how?

Do you know something that you can teach to someone?
Or are you just another anonymous, and faceless opinionated know it all, on the Internet?

Rick,

If you can post a picture of the panel it should be fairly easy to tell you how to determine if the panel has a split buss and what breakers are part of those allowed for a service disconnect, and if there are too many.

Here are a couple of photos from this morning's inspection. Please note that this panel was wired by a licensed electrician and not a home inspector.

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

I posted that thread.
My question was not what is a split panel.
I knew what a split panel was.
The question was how do you identify which breakers are on the split and which are not.
I asked this because I had a spa installed at my home.
The bottom was full of half-size breakers, so there was no room to add the breaker there. He put the breakers in the top.
Adding the breakers now exceeded the 6 breakers allowed.
I asked the electrician about this and was given a sack of BS.

So, anyhow, the question was asked because;
a should be knowledgeable and qualified electrician added the breaker to the top half of the panel, that now exceeded 6 breakers.
I spotted it and verified my suspicions on this forum, then called it out to him.

Do you know more about electrical systems than I do, you should.

I will admit I did not read every post in that thread. My comments were NOT an attack on you, I was just making a point. Fact is there are H-Is who do not know what a split buss panel is or what one looks like. I have seen other threads on other boards on this very subject. Again, it was just an example.

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

You point out that an HI lacks knowledge, when in fact, you may not know the whole story and make a presumption based on what you think was said.
(But maybe you were looking at a different post.)

See above. I have seen and experienced this. It is not a presumption.

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

If you have the opportunity to educate someone, remember someone took time to educate you when you had questions.

Which is exactly why I am here. I have nothing to gain here other than the satisfaction of helping others. If you notice, I rarely stray from the electrical boards.
I know a lot about a lot. But I know really a lot about one area. I would not claim to know enough to make educated comments on the required size of a framing header or the size of a plumbing vent.

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

Do you know something that you can teach to someone?
Or are you just another anonymous, and faceless opinionated know it all, on the Internet?

Yes on both points.

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

Here are a couple of photos from this morning's inspection. Please note that this panel was wired by a licensed electrician and not a home inspector.

A licensed electrician who does not know the code very well or the concept of "workmanlike".

"My comments were NOT an attack on you"

I did not think it was


Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell
Do you know something that you can teach to someone?
Or are you just another anonymous, and faceless opinionated know it all, on the Internet?


Yes on both points.

Something to teach...

Anonymous, faceless and opinionated...
At least you accept it well.

Know it all..
We'll see.

So 130 degrees is ok?

Thought i forgot the pics.

Originally Posted by mathew stouffer

So 130 degrees is ok?

Hey Mat you E. is at e96 was that on a metal screw ? if so your off on your temp settings. May be a lot hotter then you think.

Best

Ron