Grounded conductors

[Speedy Petey]

All I can say is WOW!
I disagree with something, make my feelings known, WITHOUT profanity or insults, and now I am subject to this attack? What do you two guys do if someone disagrees with you in person? I hope neither one of you is armed.

Frank, you two seem to hate me. Because I sometimes disagree with Joe T and agree with Mike? Because I speak my mind? Whatever it is.
That's OK. I'm fine with that. I have gotten plenty of positive fedback from others which is nice.
I'm pretty sure members have an ignore feature on this board. I suggest you use it on me.

Sorry Joe, I don't do the real name thing on the internet. Mainly because of folks like you. I have enough stalkers already. Most only want my autograph though.
Tell you what, next time you are in the Hudson Valley let me know. I can be the professional electrician that you call in for an evaluation. We can have coffee afterwards.

[Mike Whitt]

Petey

Are you changing your user name?

I see that you have a real fan that wants you to.

[William J. Decker]

Joe;

In my opinion, you are out of line.

Settle down.

There are many "licensed" and "union" (which is Chicago is the same thing) who have no clue as to wnat the current NEC says or the meanings (documented, by a national association or professional) of the reason for not sharing neutrals or for ground / neutral bonding only at the service equipment and not in distribution panels in condo units.

Just consider the source (frustrated, no education, and not properly licensed. trained or licensed idiots).

Speedy has always been helpful, even when I disagree with him.

It's not about personalities, it's about professionalism.

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by Mike Whitt

Out of curiosity how do you write it up when you find more than one under a screw?

The reason I ask this question is because as an electrician when I am called in to evaluate the write up if the panel was installed before the adoption of the 2002 code cycle I write in my report:
This installation is in compliance with all codes at the time of installation. I recommend that the problem be addressed as a safety issue for future maintenance of circuits but it poses no hazard as installed.

It may "pose no hazard" based upon you covering you butt by hiding behind old codes.

But that is not the questions.

The only real question, and the only one that you should be concerned with is is it SAFE, based upon the best information and national codes that exist now.

Gee wiz. Knob and tube where OK many years ago. Does that mean that a 60 year old installation is OK now?

40 years ago, there were no GFCIs. Does that mean that kitchens and exterior recepticals that are not GFCI are SAFE now?

10 years ago, there was no AFCI. Does that mean that 20 year old houses without AFCI protection are SAFE new?

It's not about covering you butt. It's ALL about covering the client's safety NOW.

It's called fiduciary responsibility.

It's what seperates professionals from mere tradesmen.


That's my position (and my clients know that and keep hiring me).

Go figure.

[rbrady]

I'm no electrician, but I have a very good understanding of electrical circuits.
From what I understand the only real-life problem with multiple neutrals under one screw is if one of the neutrals is part of a multi-branch circuit and it comes loose during removal of the second wire. This remote instance may cause damage to an appliance plugged into the multi-branch circuit.

First of all, wouldn't most electricians turn off the main breaker before undertaking this type of repair.

Secondly, without quoting code, how would you describe the risk in your report comment. The hardest part for me on my comments is coming up with the risk.

For example a sub panel with ground and neutral tied together should be corrected due to "the risk of nuisance electrical shocks and/or radio interference".

I never say "it has issues and should be evaluated and corrected".

I would agree for the same reason that you do not double tap a breaker, that it is not good practice. The risk involved with this is "untimely failure due to poor electrical contact". I don't think fire is an issue due to the location in an electrical box.

[Mike Whitt]

Mr. Decker

I do believe I have said from the start that it should be called by a Home Inspector.
The only point I am trying to make is that as an electrician when I am called in to do an evaluation of the system I make the evaluation based on the year the installation was done.

My job as the electrician also revolves around trust also.

When called in to do an evaluation I have one of two choices. I can start out ragging on the electrical system and handing out a bid to replace the system no matter what condition the system is in or I can give an honest evaluation of the system.
.
I tell my client the honest truth about the system and don’t start with a bunch of bad mouthing about what the Home Inspector had to say about the system.

If the Home Inspector wrote in his report that the house has a 60 amp service with Knob and Tube wiring, no GFCI protection in the areas that today’s codes require them and fuses in the panel I do an honest evaluation of the system. If the fuses are the correct size and the wiring is sound I say this in my report. I also state that prior to the 1971 edition of the NEC GFCI was not required in those areas.

We both have given an honest appraisal of the system and neither of us should have ill feeling toward each other. It now lies in the hands of the seller and the buyer and we have no future involvement in the matter. We both have acted like the professionals that we are.

It is when I run into some to the remarks like seen posted here that I start having a problem. I can honestly say that I have not had this problem but twice in the past several years where I had to stand up to a Home Inspector. Most act like a professional and I never hear anything about my evaluations but when it happens I am always ready for the challenge.

The problem between the Home Inspectors and the trades seems to be a growing problem and misinformation is the culprit. I hear more and more problems that arise between Home Inspectors and code enforcement officials. It seems like for the past year or so every inspector’s class someone has a story they tell about some problem with a house that a Home Inspector has wrote something up about and the inspection department is called.

The only answer that I see to this ever increasing problem is through education. This education on everyone’s part is going to require the education to be proper and not a bunch of post on a web page where most people have a tendency to post opinion instead of fact.

One fact that is sure and certain. If I understand why you wrote in you report and you understand why I wrote in my report we will both have a better understanding of each other. One way this can happen is through sites such as this one but that will never happen until we are both willing to listen to what the other has to say. There will always be those who have a problem on sites such as this as can be seen through these words. Let me warn you that these are some very foul and ugly words and you might not want to see them. This is what I would call a true professional person EDITED OUT THE LINK or a drunk.

I truly understand why you would point out to the buyer of a home that a 60 amp service with Knob and Tube wiring might not be what they are wanting but you need to also understand why I am telling the seller of the house why the same system was in compliance when it was installed. Now that we have explained to our clients our findings we should be enough of professionals that we can sit down at the supper table and break bread with no ill feelings. While we sit and eat we could tell some old war stories of some to the things we find everyday and both learn from each other.

[Larry D. Kage]

Originally Posted by Mike Whitt

The only point I am trying to make is that as an electrician when I am called in to do an evaluation of the system I make the evaluation based on the year the installation was done.

My job as the electrician also revolves around trust also.


If the Home Inspector wrote in his report... no GFCI protection in the areas that today’s codes require them... I also state that prior to the 1971 edition of the NEC GFCI was not required in those areas.

If the home does not have GFCI's in areas that weren't required at the time it was built I will recommend them for enhanced safety.

If an electrician goes to the home and states that they were not required at the time the home was built, and leaves his comment at that, I think he /she is doing a disservice to (confusing) the client.

Originally Posted by Mike Whitt

We both have given an honest appraisal of the system and neither of us should have ill feeling toward each other.

I would hope that we both have the clients best interest in mind.

[Mike Whitt]

Originally Posted by lkage

If the home does not have GFCI's in areas that weren't required at the time it was built I will recommend them for enhanced safety.

If an electrician goes to the home and states that they were not required at the time the home was built, and leaves his comment at that, I think he /she is doing a disservice to (confusing) the client.


I would hope that we both have the clients best interest in mind.

Larry

If I was called to do an evaluation of a system and the Home Inspector did not make mention to his client concerning the lack of GFCI protection in areas that they should be I would agree that that person did their client a disservice.

If I did not let my client know what the codes that was in affect at the time of installation I would also be doing my client a disservice. This seems to be where the conflict lies with a lot to Home Inspectors and the trades.

Remember that we both are hired for different reasons. It is not either of our jobs to make the other look bad but instead to give the advice to our client that we were hired to do. Yours is to look after the best interest of your client and mine to look after interest of mine.
It is sort of like two lawyers in the courtroom. One is there for the plaintiff and the other for the defendant. They argue the point of law and when the case is over they both go on about their business with no hard feelings toward each other. They have lunch and play golf tell jokes and are still friends. This is the professional attitude of the two people. This is how it should be between the Home Inspectors and the trade’s people.

I did not advise my client of the codes that were in effect at the time of installation in order to make the Home Inspector look bad I did it simply because my client was paying me do look after his/her best interest. You didn’t call it out to make the installer look bad you did it in the best interest of your client.
Why should either of us have any animosity toward the other? Did we not both do just what we were hired to do?

[Larry D. Kage]

Originally Posted by Mike Whitt

Larry

If I was called to do an evaluation of a system and the Home Inspector did not make mention to his client concerning the lack of GFCI protection in areas that they should be I would agree that that person did their client a disservice.

If I did not let my client know what the codes that was in affect at the time of installation I would also be doing my client a disservice. This seems to be where the conflict lies with a lot to Home Inspectors and the trades.

Remember that we both are hired for different reasons. It is not either of our jobs to make the other look bad but instead to give the advice to our client that we were hired to do. Yours is to look after the best interest of your client and mine to look after interest of mine.
It is sort of like two lawyers in the courtroom. One is there for the plaintiff and the other for the defendant. They argue the point of law and when the case is over they both go on about their business with no hard feelings toward each other. They have lunch and play golf tell jokes and are still friends. This is the professional attitude of the two people. This is how it should be between the Home Inspectors and the trade’s people.

I did not advise my client of the codes that were in effect at the time of installation in order to make the Home Inspector look bad I did it simply because my client was paying me do look after his/her best interest. You didn’t call it out to make the installer look bad you did it in the best interest of your client.
Why should either of us have any animosity toward the other? Did we not both do just what we were hired to do?

Mike, what i don't understand is the above underlined in your post.

Would you not agree that a GFCI recommended for enhanced safety is a good idea and communicate that to the client?

[jtedesco1]

This is the message where that link was discovered! See it near the bottom of the following message:

http://www.nachi.org/forum/showpost....3&postcount=67

[Mike Whitt]

Originally Posted by fcarrio

Mr. Whitt!
You have hacked into the NACHI BB control panel. This link leads to privileged and PRIVATE information!

You have removed any and all doubt that I might have had as to what your motives are. You are here to create problems and to stir up *****!

I would love to meet you face to face so that we could "discuss" this issue.

PLEASE come to New Hampshire so that we can discuss this issue!

Hey Dude, are you admitting that you are the one that sent me that red flag? That link is to my own messages. I did not hack anything simply clicked where the red arrow shows.




Just what did you say in your PM to me this morning? What account did you say that I had hacked into to achieve this information in that PM?
Be careful my friend as you are telling on yourself. Remember that once it is sent to me it becomes my property to do with as I see fit. Both messages was sent to me and they both are mine now.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jtedesco1

This is the message where that link was discovered! See it near the bottom of the following message:

http://www.nachi.org/forum/showpost....3&postcount=67

Joe If you cut and paste the link to your own control panel, when someone clicks on it they will get their own control panel, not yours.

[jtedesco1]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Joe If you cut and paste the link to your own control panel, when someone clicks on it they will get their own control panel, not yours.

That's the point I knew that it is the link that takes everyone to their control panel

http://www.nachi.org/forum/showpost....3&postcount=67

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jtedesco1

That's the point I knew that it is the link that takes everyone to their control panel

http://www.nachi.org/forum/showpost....3&postcount=67

Joe, Why is that a problem? He probably thought that the link would take you to his contol panel and reputation to see an example of the comments he gets.

There is no hack that has occured and no one can get to your contol panel and change anything.

[Larry D. Kage]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Joe If you cut and paste the link to your own control panel, when someone clicks on it they will get their own control panel, not yours.

What the h&ll are you talkin' about, Michael. You mean that I can click on that link, like clicking on my own control panel, and change my profile and have access to my own PM's and make changes any old time I want to, to my own stuff, without others knowing about it? Talk about being in control! Jeeeze!

Thank you, I didn't see the problem either.