Thread: Drop voltage

How do I approach drop volage in my report?
Do you include Vd in your inspection reports.
If so, above what percent and why.
Thanks in advance.

Similar Threads:

• Voltage Drop
• high voltage drop under load
• Low Voltage routed with High Voltage
• Low-Voltage Protection
• Low voltage lighting.

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

How do I approach drop volage in my report?
Do you include Vd in your inspection reports.
If so, above what percent and why.
Thanks in advance.

The problem with reporting on voltage drop is that it generally goes well beyond the current definition of a home inspection. First, take a look at the standards that you use, whether they are an association or a state standard. If you start going beyond the scope of a home inspection, then you start setting yourself up for greater liability.

Originally Posted by Gunnar Alquist

The problem with reporting on voltage drop is that it generally goes well beyond the current definition of a home inspection. First, take a look at the standards that you use, whether they are an association or a state standard. If you start going beyond the scope of a home inspection, then you start setting yourself up for greater liability.

Gunnar,

Was that you saying that?

Going beyond the MINIMUM scope and SoP for home inspections reduces liability ... going only for the minimum scope and SoP means a home inspector has an excellent chance of not even meeting the minimum requirements of the scope of, and SoP of, a home inspection, in which case the liability meter just pegged itself at 'Sue Me' ...

There is nothing wrong with reporting on voltage drop ... one might well be way ahead of the crowd of home inspectors who do not report it, but one must remember that 'using a moisture meter' was, at one time, way beyond the scope, SoP, and even the 'Standard of Care' of a home inspection.

From the ASHI SoP: (underlining is mine)
- 2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
- - 2.1 The purpose of this document is to establish a minimum standard (Standard) for home inspections performed by home inspectors who subscribe to this Standard. Home inspections performed using this Standard are intended to provide the client with information about the condition of inspected systems and components at the time of the home inspection.
- - 2.2 The inspector shall:
- - - A. inspect readily accessible, visually observable, installed systems and components listed in this Standard.
- - 2.3 This Standard is not intended to limit the inspector from:
- - - A. including other services or systems and components in addition to those required in Section 2.2.A.
- - - B. designing or specifying repairs, provided the inspector is appropriately qualified and willing to do so.
- - - C. excluding systems and components from the inspection if requested or agreed to by the client.

The ASHI SoP (and, from my recollection, most others) are "minimum" standards which are "required to be met" and which state that they are "not intended to limit" the inspection.

Meeting the minimum SoP for a home inspection is like a contractor "meeting code' but never exceeding it - the probability of trying to "meet but not exceed" code results in not even meeting code - which, naturally, is what helps keep home inspectors in business.

So, if one is to extend the above out, home inspectors trying to 'meet their SoP' while not exceeding it naturally opens them up to litigation - and is what helps keep attorneys in business.

Originally Posted by Gunnar Alquist

The problem with reporting on voltage drop is that it generally goes well beyond the current definition of a home inspection.

Thanks, Gunner.
I have aerospace and engineering firms referring me to colleagues. It's because of my assessment methodology.
Mr. Young, do you measure Vd, Reversed polarity, Continuity, Ground?
I get about 10 prospective clients ask, do I measure EMF?

Gunner, wouldn't the same advice be made using Sperry 3 bulb tester or IR.

Originally Posted by Gunnar Alquist

First, take a look at the standards that you use, whether they are an association or a state standard. If you start going beyond the scope of a home inspection, then you start setting yourself up for greater liability.

I personally see no related problems reporting drop voltage. Certainly not a deal killer.

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

I get about 10 prospective clients ask, do I measure EMF?

Robert,

EMF as in electromotive force (voltage) or as in electromagnetic fields?

If you mean the latter, do you mean ELF-EMF?

If you are going to test voltage drop and want to seriously backup your voltage drop reading, the photos show a tester which produces indisputable results.

The ammeter reads the amperage during the test and allows setting the amperage to whatever amount is desired.

The Suretest reads the voltage and you can watch the voltage drop.

The red heat gun can be set to either 700 watts (5.8 amps) or 1400 watts (11.7 amps).

The black heat gun can be set from 250 watts (2.0 amps) to 1350 watts (11.25 amps) in increments of 100 watts (0.8 amps), this allows a close adjustment of amperage to a given target amps.

While some 'insist' that a 15 amp circuit will only ever have the 'code permissible' (actually, it would be 'code design') 12 amps, a 15 amp circuit can be loaded to 14.9 amps and not trip (shouldn't trip) the breaker, so testing a 15 amp circuit at 13-14-<15 amps should not wrinkle anybody's feathers ...

A 20 amp circuit is similar - test it at 18-19-<20 amps for voltage drop.

This tester will provide real-world conditions, such as heating of the conductors and their connections.

The Suretest puts a 15 amp load on it for (this may have changed over the years, but this was the test method at one time, I am sure someone will look it up and correct me with the correct testing procedure) 8 half cycles - so it did put a 15 amp load on the circuit, but very short duration. The 20 amp load was calculated based on the 15 amp load test.

The results which I have tested and compared with the Suretest put the Suretest in a favorable light as the results are close to the Suretest results (the Suretest typically reads a little lower as I recall, probably due to the heating component of the longer test).

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Robert,

EMF as in electromotive force (voltage) or as in electromagnetic fields?

If you mean the latter, do you mean ELF-EMF?

Thanks for chiming in.
I agree Vd should be reported as well as explained to the client.

As for EMF, I know the difference.
Been measuring EMF force for 2 plus years.
Mostly for young families but the occasional company with high voltage.

Did you know many cell phones emit 10 times the accepted 2.5 gauss limit.
I had readings as high as 27 gauss on my phone.
Whoo!

Sigh...I thought Mr. Johnson was acting funny glowing light at night the way it did.
Made reading easy, though.Hmmm?
Time get the phone of my belt and hip and to place the phone with my Surface Pro II in a carry case.
Come to think of it maybe I can find some nice lady that likes to read at night under the covers.
You never know! Stranger things have happened:-)

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

As for EMF, I know the difference.
Been measuring EMF force for 2 plus years.

I am sure you know the difference, but you have not stated or clarified which you are referring to (albeit I am sure it is ELF-EMF).

Did you know many cell phones emit 10 times the accepted 2.5 gauss limit.
I had readings as high as 27 gauss on my phone.

Where did you get the 2.5 gauss limit, and what are you using to measure it with (not the same instrument used for measuring ELF-EMF as they are frequency dependent for measurement)?

Amazon.com: General Tools EMF1390 Electromagnetic Field Radiation Level Tester: Home Improvement
Single axis.
Looking to upgrade shortly.

Magnetic, not locomotive energy:-)

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

Did you know many cell phones emit 10 times the accepted 2.5 gauss limit.
I had readings as high as 27 gauss on my phone.

Don't use it for your phone - outside the frequency range of the instrument (30 Hz to 300 Hz).

Also, it only reads in mguass, not gauss, and maxes out at 199.9 mg or 0.1999 gauss. A reading of 27 on your meter would be 27 mgauss, or 0.027 gauss.

General EMF1390
Digital Electromagnetic Field Tester
Quickly & reliably measures electromagnetic field radiation levels around power lines, home appliances, computer monitors, video machinery and industrial devices
Displays readings in microTeslas ( T) ormilli Gauss (mG) on triple readout 3-1/2 digitLCD
Compact & lightweight
Large LCD display
Range: 0.1 to 199.9 mG
Band width: 30 Hz to 300 Hz
Resolution: 0.1 mG
Accuracy: +/-4% + 3 digits
Power source: 1 "9-volt" battery

I do not test for voltage drop, that is an electricians job. Since I do not offer such testing its obvious its not included in the report. Did you take specialized training in order to interpret or use the testing device?

However since it falls outside the scope of a visual inspection and the SOP you leave yourself open to a suit as you would if the testing was part of the SOP, should you fail to live up to your contractual terms, and/or be sued for negligent misrepresentation for the 5 reasons expressed in Queen v. Cognos as articulated in the Supreme Court of Canada ruling fwiw.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Did you take specialized training in order to interpret or use the testing device?

No special training is needed for using the Suretest to check voltage drop ... unless learning to read English (to read the printing on the Suretest) and numbers is considered "specialized training".

However since it falls outside the scope of a visual inspection and the SOP you leave yourself open to a suit as you would if the testing was part of the SOP, should you fail to live up to your contractual terms, and/or be sued for negligent misrepresentation for the 5 reasons expressed in Queen v. Cognos as articulated in the Supreme Court of Canada ruling fwiw.[/QUOTE]

Raymond,

Do you use a 3-light tester to test circuits? Is that "specifically within" your SOP? A moisture meter? A flashlight? Screwdriver?

What ... "specifically" ... does your SOP include as far as tools go? Anything not specifically mentioned and you are "outside the SOP".

What ... "specifically" ... are you "required" to inspect by your SOP?

What ... "specifically" ... is "outside your SOP"?

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Don't use it for your phone - outside the frequency range of the instrument (30 Hz to 300 Hz).

Also, it only reads in mguass, not gauss, and maxes out at 199.9 mg or 0.1999 gauss. A reading of 27 on your meter would be 27 mgauss, or 0.027 gauss.

Big thanks as always!
m Gauss.

I posted the wrong model as well, ops.
TESS1390.
0.1m - 1999m Gauss.
3-1/2 digits.
Max. indication 1999
Range 200 / 2000 milli Gauss
200 micro Tesla Resolution 0.1 / 1 milli Gauss 0.01 / 0.1 micro Tesla
Number of Axis Single axis
Band Width 30 Hz to 300 Hz
Accuracy +/- (3% + 3d) at 50Hz / 60Hz

Big apology your way.
Looks like I forgot most of what I use to remember.
Must be the cell phone

I will get back to the post once I get my HI documents back online.
I have 2 Corsair LX 480 SSD drives offline.
The drives would not partition when I introduced them into my new build.
I will do that tomorrow and refresh my memory.

I saved what appears to be credible literature on EMF and how several European countries are taken electric magnetic frequency more seriously than Canada.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

No special training is needed for using the Suretest to check voltage drop ... unless learning to read English (to read the printing on the Suretest) and numbers is considered "specialized training".

Damn, I knew there was a caveat.
What if someone reads it to me?

I use a CT70: AFCI, GFCI and AC Circuit Analyzer
A Amperes (Current)
V Voltage
Vd Voltage Drop
% Percent Voltage Drop
VL Voltage load
Z Impedance
Hz Hertz (cycles per second)
Ω Ohms (Resistance)
mS Milliseconds
ASCC Available Short Circuit Current
Peak Ground to positive peak measurement
RMS Root Mean Square
GFCI Ground Fault
EPD Equipment Protection Device test
NEUT Neutral
OL Overload
m, M, k Unit of measure prefixes: milli, mega, and kilo

Range and Resolution Accuracy
Line Voltage 100.0 to 250.0 VAC ± (1.0% + 0.2V)
Peak Line Voltage 121.0 to 350.0 VAC ± (1.0% + 0.2V)
Frequency 45.0 to 65.0 Hz ± (1.0% + 0.2Hz)
Voltage drop (%) 0.1 to 99.9% ± (2.5% + 0.2%)
Voltage (under load) 10.0 to 250.0 VAC ± (2.5% + 0.2V)
Neutral to Ground Voltage 0.0 to 10.0 VAC ± (2.5% + 0.2V)
0.00 to 3.00 Ω (Hot) ± (2.5% + 0.02Ω)
Impedance
>3 Ω (Neutral, Ground) Unspecified
GFCI Trip Current 6.0 to 9.0mA ± (1.0% + 0.2mA)
EPD Trip Current 30.0 to 37.0mA ± (1.0% + 0.2mA)

Love to be your neigbour.
Love the testing setup for your SureTest.
I read somewhere online and heard colleagues discuss one of the older SureTest circuit load tester models misinterpreted and even missed bootleg ground.

Thanks for the updated information on the instrument.

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

Max. indication 1999
Range 200 / 2000 milli Gauss

Max reading on that one would be 1.999 gauss (rounded off to 2 gauss or 2000 milligauss).

The '3 1/2 digits' means it shows 3 full digits (the 3 '0's shown) plus a half-digit to the left which can show as '1' or '-1'. That allows for the instrument to show .000 to .999, 1.000 then up to 1.999 (no need for that to show a '-' [minus] sign as it would be difficult to have a 'minus' magnetic field).

Tri-axial measurements are better than single-axis measurements.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Thanks for the updated information on the instrument.



Max reading on that one would be 1.999 gauss (rounded off to 2 gauss or 2000 milligauss).

The '3 1/2 digits' means it shows 3 full digits (the 3 '0's shown) plus a half-digit to the left which can show as '1' or '-1'. That allows for the instrument to show .000 to .999, 1.000 then up to 1.999 (no need for that to show a '-' [minus] sign as it would be difficult to have a 'minus' magnetic field).

Tri-axial measurements are better than single-axis measurements.

Your welcome.

I concur.
Next booking I will purchase Tri-axial model.
Almost had one two weeks ago.
They run about $450.00

What's the hell is Raymond ranting about going beyond SOP?
He using candles for lighting, doing lick tests on bus bars, and writing reports on birch bark with a quill filled with berry dyes again.
Ontario's Hutterite Inspector. Offering Radical Reformation Inspections.
Just pulling your leg, Ray.

Interesting, Robert. I don't have the training so I would not report on Vd, but after measuring for a few months might start to see how to differentiate good from bad. I imagine that can't be learned from an online course or pamphlet that came with the meter.

I would question and possibly report Vd in country locations where the power can be split or daisy-chained from building to building. So without getting really technical, measure voltage at the far location with a DMM, compare it to voltage close to the service drop.

Usually here they will have had an electrician install the right gauge of feeder, so the Vd is a non-issue.

NEC recommends that the maximum combined voltage drop for both the a. feeder and b. branch circuit shouldn't exceed 5%.
John, I try to test every outlet I can every inspection.
What causes Vd?
1: Poor splices anywhere in the circuit
2: Loose or intermittent connections anywhere in the circuit
3: Corroded connections anywhere in the circuit
4: Inadequate seating of wire in the slot connection on back wired “push-in type“ receptacles and switches. Stab Loc connections.
5: Excessive runs.

Jerry mentioned in a thread how many electrical errors he reports on an average home.
I did some home inspector behind the scenes to see why.
Now I am starting to reason reasonably.

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

Your welcome.

What's the hell is Raymond ranting about going beyond SOP?
He using candles for lighting, doing lick tests on bus bars, and writing reports on birch bark with a quill filled with berry dyes again.
Ontario's Hutterite Inspector. Offering Radical Reformation Inspections.
Just pulling your leg, Ray.

Reread what I wrote, above.

However since it falls outside the scope of a visual inspection and the SOP you leave yourself open to a suit as you would if the testing was part of the SOP, should you fail to live up to your contractual terms, and/or be sued for negligent misrepresentation for the 5 reasons expressed in Queen v. Cognos as articulated in the Supreme Court of Canada ruling fwiw.

and then to further demonstrate what I wrote Robert, you wrote this -

I read somewhere online and heard colleagues discuss one of the older SureTest circuit load tester models misinterpreted and even missed bootleg ground.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

However since it falls outside the scope of a visual inspection and the SOP ...

Again, would you please post the SOP you are referring to - thanks.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by John Kogel

Interesting, Robert. I don't have the training so I would not report on Vd ...

If you can use a Suretest you have the training to check VD.

Reporting it is based on given parameters, such as in the NEC.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Reread what I wrote, above.

However since it falls outside the scope of a visual inspection and the SOP you leave yourself open to a suit as you would if the testing was part of the SOP, should you fail to live up to your contractual terms, and/or be sued for negligent misrepresentation for the 5 reasons expressed in Queen v. Cognos as articulated in the Supreme Court of Canada ruling fwiw.

and then to further demonstrate what I wrote Robert, you wrote this -

Raymond, I can not see anything above. I think it might be below.

Raymond,can we agree that one may hypothesize to reason reasonably one eliminates room for error?

Raymond, can we agree one must have controversy prior litigation and the subject of the controversy worth the effort monetarily during a real estate contract unless the plaintiff has the means to follow the claim though and defend reasoning?
Raymond, can we agree the sword cuts both ways.

Raymond, can we agree on the pretense that, where a piece of equipment is rendered as evidence the manufacturers instructions are scrutinized as well as the equipment, are they not?
a. What if several pieces of equipment are used to prevent skewed results?
b. What if a professional is recommended in the report to assess the condition.

The point I am trying to make is that to be a business/man you invest in your business.
I purchase equipment, brand-name by the way, to ensure results are not skewed.

That leaves misinterpretation and I promise, what is said and reported are separated then followed by a recommendation to have a licensed RBQ trades professional or bonded technician assess and improve if required or make safe what I reported.

A flashlight, hand full of builders tools and recording the effort for prosperity on paper checklists while marketing with smoke signals and the telegraph wire or pony expressing fliers to other counties is over for the most part, although I suspect some still do.
I can imagine those Poor Souls still have black and white TV's I bet longing for the days of Andy Griffith or The Jacky Gleason Show with those lovely scantily dressed June Taylor Dancers and those kicking legs that left many a married man staring irresistibly as their spouse brought them back home to reality at the end of the show saying, TAKE OUT THE GARBAGE! before you come to bed. I saw how you ogled those dancers! Your sleeping in the other room tonight! Do I make myself clear!!!!!

Ops, sorry, Ray.
I was thinking of how one's that live in the past must think.

Any-Who..Technology allows a better testing result. Ensure you have a good SOP and have fun:-)
Want to borrow one of MY TWO IR cameras. I won't tell anyone, honest.

I recommend if you feel so strongly about this talk to the companies selling the equipment to unsuspecting home inspectors because they are liable as well. And if they are falsely advertising and making erroneous claims, which seem to be another bee you keep tucked in your ever widening bonnet, I am certain they will do something about it, but don't hold your breath...

Ray, you use to tell me something frequently and to this day continually reflecting on that sound piece of advice and will return the favor, friend, KISS.

Years ago I used the Suretest to measure voltage drops, manly in new construction inspections. The builders would not do anything about it, their electricians did not understand it, and the clients did not seem to care that voltage drops were too high. Getting the voltage drops down would require the builders or electricians to spend more money. That was a loosing battle. I gave up. I'm not saying that you should not do it. Just sharing my experience.

Regarding the results, it was pretty interesting. You could pretty much guess the results knowing where you were in relation to the service panel. If I recall, in larger houses second floor readings at the opposite end of the house from the service panel were often in the 10-12% range and sometimes even a little higher. That was with a 15 ampere load. I think most circuits exceeded the 5% recommendation, except at close receptacles and dedicated circuits.

While the results were not good, in most cases circuits probably are not that heavily loaded, so the voltage drop would not be as bad.

I also recall checking some knot and tube wiring and getting low numbers. No daisy chaining.

Originally Posted by Mark Reinmiller

Years ago I used the Suretest to measure voltage drops, manly in new construction inspections. The builders would not do anything about it, their electricians did not understand it, and the clients did not seem to care that voltage drops were too high. Getting the voltage drops down would require the builders or electricians to spend more money. That was a loosing battle. I gave up. I'm not saying that you should not do it. Just sharing my experience.

Similar experience here - I didn't give up ... just kept hammering away at it, and several other inspectors down where I was are still hammering away at it.

The better builders of the larger houses recognized that, regardless of their electricians laissez–faire attitude toward voltage drop, the negative feedback from their well-to-do clients eventually get their attention as a builder's negative responses to client issues slowly turns into clients walking away after talking with other clients at the clubhouse, yacht club, etc.

I assembled my testing device when some questioned the Suretest, to which I replied "I will show you exactly how much voltage drop you have and it will be indisputable because you will see the voltage drop." And they did see the voltage drop as the amperage went up - literally ... they watched the 123.6 volts drop with each increase in the amp draw on the circuit, a few went all the way down to 103 volts (16.7%) .. the beginning voltage varied depending upon location, and the % was simply a calculation of the ending voltage divided by the beginning voltage, with the result subtracted from 1.0 (103 volts / 123.6 volts = 0.8333 and 1.0 - 0.8333 = 0.1667 which = 16.67% ).

If one can read a volt meter (and a Suretest is an easy to read voltmeter), and if one can decipher the voltage as being an issue if the voltage is 103 volts, then one 'has the training and knowledge' to use the Suretest to check voltage drop (which does everything for you and displays the voltage drop in %).

The only thing the operator needs to know is 'what is an acceptable threshold for voltage drop and what is not acceptable', and that is answered by the NEC, and being as you are measuring the entire voltage drop of feeders and branch circuits, the NEC says 5% at 210.19(A): (underlining is mine)
- Informational Note No. 4: Conductors for branch circuits as defined in Article 100, sized to prevent voltage drop exceeding 3 percent at the farthest outlet of power, heating, and lighting loads, or a combination of such loads, and where the maximum total voltage drop on both feeders and branch circuits to the farthest outlet does not exceed 5 percent, provide reasonable efficiency of operation. See Informational Note No 2. of 215.2(A)(4) for voltage drop on feeder conductors.

The key is this: The 3% and 5% limitations is to provide "reasonable efficiency of operation" ... thus, if the voltage drop is greater than the 3% and 5% limitations ... what is the opposite of "reasonable efficiency of operation"?

Note: If one wanted to check the voltage drop on the feeder conductors, they could subtract that voltage drop percentage from the total voltage drop percentage and use the 3 percent for the branch circuits only ... if one wanted to go to all that trouble.

Originally Posted by Mark Reinmiller

I'm not saying that you should not do it. Just sharing my experience.

This is why I started the thread.
Thanks, much appreciated.
I am not going to stop after 12 months.

Thanks again big time.

This was well worth the read.

https://www.nachi.org/forum/f19/warr...ections-20969/

Thanks, Ray.

Raymond, I apologize if my posts offended you.

It appears a repeated SOP theme emerges when equipment or methods are used.

The link to the INACHI thread is skewed. 9/23/07 is about 9 years ago and much of the equipment was not available, manufactured or beyond the financial reach for most home inspectors.
Reports were mostly checklists and images rarely used in reports.
Home inspections and reporting is evolving and expanding.

My SOP:1.1 A general home inspection is a non-invasive, visual examination of the accessible areas of a residential property (as delineated below), performed for a fee, which is designed to identify defects within specific systems and components defined by these Standards that are both observed and deemed material by the inspector. The scope of work may be modified by the Client and Inspector prior to the inspection process.

One can say, and rightly so, they modify the scope.

1. The general home inspection is based on the observations made on the date of the inspection, and not a prediction of future conditions.

Meridian dictionary; Full definition of Visual

1. of, relating to, or used in vision <visual organs>
2. 2: attained or maintained by sight <visual impressions>
3. 3: visible <visual objects>
4. 4: producing mental images : vivid
5. 5: done or executed by sight only <visual navigation>
6. 6: of, relating to, or employing visual aids.

Raymond, I am a simple man, or feel that I am, as you well know.
I do not like being boxed in and will contest when others try to define what has already been defined.

Have a good day as always, Raymond.
Best regards.
Robert

Robert wrote in part ...

The link to the INACHI thread is skewed. 9/23/07 9 years ago much of the equipment was not available, manufactured or beyond financial reach for most home inspectors.
Reports were mostly checklists and images rarely used in reports.
Home inspections and reporting is evolving and expanding.

I know its dated, the point of posting was to give you further insight into how the measurements can be skewed, why, and why the testing may not be of value due to runs, loads, et ceteras as pointed out in the discussion and from the pov from electricians.

No offence taken Robert. You know me, I am outspoken and think political correctness is the demise of civilization, particularly in Canada, where you can no longer say much of anything without offending someone or a special interest group or a minority.

Thats why I like Donald Trump, we need someone like him here, who is not afraid to tell it like it is, and he is not a lawyer and professional lying politician. Whooops, was that not a politically correct statement? Too bad!

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Robert wrote in part ...


I know its dated, the point of posting was to give you further insight into how the measurements can be skewed, why, and why the testing may not be of value due to runs, loads, et ceteras as pointed out in the discussion and from the pov from electricians.

1: Equipment has advanced.
2: Manufactured equipment. The accuracy is provided including operational instructions.
3: The end result is the recommendation.
There is always room for error.
Only one leader is perfect:-)
The promise, everlasting love without bondage and family.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

No offence taken Robert. You know me, I am outspoken and think political correctness is the demise of civilization, particularly in Canada, where you can no longer say much of anything without offending someone or a special interest group or a minority.

I know.
Always appreciated.
You know me.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Thats why I like Donald Trump, we need someone like him here, who is not afraid to tell it like it is, and he is not a lawyer and professional lying politician. Whooops, was that not a politically correct statement? Too bad!

Ray, I never knew you were racially prejudice, spoke badly about women, paid individuals to fill stadiums to hear your prejudice mantra, invoked rioting in the streets of the USA and civil disobedience if others disagree.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Gunnar, Was that you saying that?
Going beyond the MINIMUM scope and SoP for home inspections reduces liability ... going only for the minimum scope and SoP means a home inspector has an excellent chance of not even meeting the minimum requirements of the scope of, and SoP of, a home inspection, in which case the liability meter just pegged itself at 'Sue Me' ...
There is nothing wrong with reporting on voltage drop ... one might well be way ahead of the crowd of home inspectors who do not report it, but one must remember that 'using a moisture meter' was, at one time, way beyond the scope, SoP, and even the 'Standard of Care' of a home inspection.
From the ASHI SoP:
- 2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
- - 2.1 The purpose of this document is to establish a minimum standard (Standard) for home inspections performed by home inspectors who subscribe to this Standard. Home inspections performed using this Standard are intended to provide the client with information about the condition of inspected systems and components at the time of the home inspection.
- - 2.2 The inspector shall:
- - - A. inspect readily accessible, visually observable, installed systems and components listed in this Standard.
- - 2.3 This Standard is not intended to limit the inspector from:
- - - A. including other services or systems and components in addition to those required in Section 2.2.A.
The ASHI SoP (and, from my recollection, most others) are "minimum" standards which are "required to be met" and which state that they are "not intended to limit" the inspection.
Meeting the minimum SoP for a home inspection is like a contractor "meeting code' but never exceeding it - the probability of trying to "meet but not exceed" code results in not even meeting code - which, naturally, is what helps keep home inspectors in business.
So, if one is to extend the above out, home inspectors trying to 'meet their SoP' while not exceeding it naturally opens them up to litigation - and is what helps keep attorneys in business.

Hi Jerry,

Yes, that was me who said that. Here is my reasoning:

Home inspections originally were quick evaluations of homes, typically by general contractors, to give a buyer a sense of whether or not the house was a "lemon", "money-pit" or a sound investment. Initially, it was more of a general feeling for the home to bring up safety issues and areas of significant cost. Over the years, standards have evolved that did several things. Foremost, it helped to bring the providers in line with each other, so a client could be assured of some uniformity when obtaining an inspection. As this has happened, the consumer has benefited from the increased knowledge that is available for inspectors. However, as more knowledge and information circulates, the expectations - and liability - increases.

By no means am I saying this is a bad thing, but it does have pitfalls.

For example, when I go to my GP for a physical exam, he performs a series of standard tests that tend to bring to light common health problems. Diabetes, cholesterol levels, hypertension, heart disease, basic neuro/motor evaluation, etc. I have no expectation that I will receive a "full-body scan" and I understand that these tests will not indicate less common diseases/conditions. If he orders a test that is outside of the standard battery without cause, he will not be compensated. Further, if he orders an additional test, but not a test for a condition that I have (thereby missing a diagnosis), an attorney will nail him to the wall.

I believe that the statement that ASHI, CREIA, etc. standards are minimum is misleading. All standards are, by default, minimum. There is no such thing as a maximum standard (at least, not in home inspection). The problem is that many of us (myself included), in order to be more competitive, are upping the standards of care at no extra charge. Evaluation of voltage drop, I believe, would be moving into "technically exhaustive".

From the ASHI SoP:
13.1 General limitations:
B. Inspections performed in accordance with these Standards of Practice:
1. are not technically exhaustive.

When you were inspecting, you were going well beyond the scope of any SOP and your inspections took multiple days. I scanned one of your reports a few years ago and it was more along the lines of a code compliant inspection than a home inspection conforming to ASHI standards. However (if I remember correctly), you charged hourly and were compensated for your time and knowledge. Nothing at all wrong with that. Inspecting obscenely over-the-top homes sounds challenging and fun.

The reality is that most home buyers are not in the position to pay a couple thousand dollars for a complete code evaluation of a home. In order to provide an affordable service that covers as much of a home as practical, it is necessary for home inspectors to have defined standards and to stay within shouting distance of those standards; unless we are charging extra for an in-depth, ancillary service. Within those parameters, I am all for doing more than this "minimum". But, it needs to be clear that pulling receptacle outlets from boxes, removing circuit breakers, dismantling heat exchangers, moving building insulation, removing cement roof tiles, (and, I believe, checking voltage drop) etc. are outside of the recognized scope of a home inspection.

Okay, I'm done.

Originally Posted by Gunnar Alquist

Hi Jerry,

Yes, that was me who said that. Here is my reasoning:

Home inspections originally were quick evaluations of homes, typically by general contractors, to give a buyer a sense of whether or not the house was a "lemon", "money-pit" or a sound investment. Initially, it was more of a general feeling for the home to bring up safety issues and areas of significant cost. Over the years, standards have evolved that did several things. Foremost, it helped to bring the providers in line with each other, so a client could be assured of some uniformity when obtaining an inspection. As this has happened, the consumer has benefited from the increased knowledge that is available for inspectors. However, as more knowledge and information circulates, the expectations - and liability - increases.

By no means am I saying this is a bad thing, but it does have pitfalls.

It also has advantages as it allows the inspector to find more out about the house and not 'guess' as much about as many things - thereby reducing liability.

Think about the inspections you did your first year in business ... and if you did those types of inspections now ... YIKES! ... would likely be your response, right?

For example, when I go to my GP for a physical exam, he performs a series of standard tests that tend to bring to light common health problems. Diabetes, cholesterol levels, hypertension, heart disease, basic neuro/motor evaluation, etc.

And your doctor is checking more things now, with more and better instruments, than your doctor did 5-10-15 years ago ... right?

Are you saying that home inspections would be better off if done as they were done 15 years ago?

If you are ... you won't be selling that to me.

I believe that the statement that ASHI, CREIA, etc. standards are minimum is misleading. All standards are, by default, minimum. There is no such thing as a maximum standard (at least, not in home inspection). The problem is that many of us (myself included), in order to be more competitive, are upping the standards of care at no extra charge. Evaluation of voltage drop, I believe, would be moving into "technically exhaustive".[/quote]

Nope.

Technically exhaustive would include megging out the conductors for insulation verifcation, removal of devices to verify connections, disassembly of connections to verify they were done properly, and other such "technically exhaustive" things - basically what would be done during a fire investigation for the cause of a fire (although, fire investigators seem to go with 'if it had electrical power, "the cause was electrical in origin"), or a forensic investigation to determine why someone was electrocuted.

When you were inspecting, you were going well beyond the scope of any SOP and your inspections took multiple days. I scanned one of your reports a few years ago and it was more along the lines of a code compliant inspection than a home inspection conforming to ASHI standards.

They 'conformed to ASHI standards' as they meant the ASHI minimum SOP, including:
- 2.3 This Standard is not intended to limit the inspector from:
- - A. including other services or systems and components in addition to those required in Section 2.2.A.
- - B. designing or specifying repairs, provided the inspector is appropriately qualified and willing to do so.
- - C. excluding systems and components from the inspection if requested or agreed to by the client.

ASHI SOP met.

The reality is that most home buyers are not in the position to pay a couple thousand dollars for a complete code evaluation of a home. In order to provide an affordable service that covers as much of a home as practical, it is necessary for home inspectors to have defined standards and to stay within shouting distance of those standards; unless we are charging extra for an in-depth, ancillary service. Within those parameters, I am all for doing more than this "minimum". But, it needs to be clear that pulling receptacle outlets from boxes, removing circuit breakers, dismantling heat exchangers, moving building insulation, removing cement roof tiles, (and, I believe, checking voltage drop) etc. are outside of the recognized scope of a home inspection.

I agree with the above ... except for the simple test of checking voltage drop ... non-invasive and non-destructive, really nothing more than plugging the tester in and reading whether the proper two lights are lit on a 3-light tester, just reading what the Suretest displays.

If you plugged a voltmeter into a receptacle outlet and it read 98 volts - would you include in your report?

If not, why not?

If yes, what is the difference from reporting voltage drop?

Is reporting voltage drop really any different than reporting a double glazed window which is fogged up as having a failed seal? You can't see the failed seal. You are not checking to verify that it is actually moisture in there. You are simply reporting what your experience and the experience of others has determined to be the cause of a fogged double glazed window ... at least with a Suretest you know what you are talking about when you report as the Suretest actually measured the voltage drop at 15 amps.