NACHI, Illinois, and Massachusetts approved continuing education material

[Joe Farsetta]

Will,

I am not a physicist, but the following explanation, while may being technically simplified to a physicist, is nevertheless, a usefull explanation when explaining some theories as to the workings of electrical flow. This is what I have regarding the second law of physics and centrufugal force:

The law of centrifugal force is the second law of physics. It states that a spinning object will pull away from its center point and that the faster it spins, the greater the centrifugal force becomes. An example of this would be to tie an object to a string and spin it around, it will try to pull away from you. The faster the object spins, the greater the force that tries to pull the object away. Centrifugal force prevents the electron from falling into the nucleus of the atom. The faster an electron spins, the farther away from the nucleus it will be.

As to an explanation of the flow of electrons, here's what I found, which offers a much better mental picture of what is going on, then speaking of holes:

Electrical current is the flow of electrons. It is produced when an electron from one atom knocks electrons of another atom out of orbit. When an atom contains only one valence electron, that electron is easily given up when struck by another electron. The striking electron gives its energy to the electron being struck. The striking electron settles into orbit around the atom, and the electron that was struck moves off to strike another electron. This same effect in the game of pool. If the moving cue ball strikes a stationary ball. The stationary ball then moves off with the most of the cue ball's energy, and the cue ball stops moving. The stationary ball did not move off with all the energy of the cue ball. It moved off with most of the energy of the cue ball. Some of the cue ball's energy was lost to heat when it struck the stationary ball. Some energy is also lost when one electron strikes another. That is why a wire heats when current flows through it. If too much current flows through a wire, overheating will damage the wire and possibly become a fire hazard.

Again, perhaps this is a bit, technically oversimplified. I personally believe that the way for folks to perceive what is going on, especially during a short course, is for them to draw a mental picture.

As to injuries sustained by electricity, it is commonly held as truth that 5ma is enough to kill a person...

[Joe Farsetta]

Will,

Here's another explanation...

The ball and pivot example

For example, consider a ball that swings around a stationary pivot to which it is tethered by a light, strong rope. There is tension in the rope, pulling inwards on the ball (the centripetal force) and simultaneously pulling outwards on the pivot (the reaction force). The tension is real, so these two forces still exist if we move to a corotating frame. However, in the rotating frame there is also a centrifugal force that pulls outwards on the ball. It is distinct from the reaction force that pulls outward on the pivot.
When solving statics problems in the rotating frame (e.g. when calculating the internal stesses in a flywheel) it is convenient to think of the centrifugal force as being transmitted through the rope and becoming the pull on the pivot. In statics one often considers a force "the same" before and after it has been conveyed by a structural element, so according to this view the reaction force on the pivot is the centrifugal force.
This identification often leads to confusion about the "fictitious" nature of the centrifugal force, because the pull on the pivot is a perfectly real force. The confusion can be resolved by noting that the distinction between fictitious and real forces is only relevant if we plan to switch between different frames of reference. On the other hand, considering the reaction force to be the centrifugal force is only valid in statics, that is, once we have decided to always use that particular reference frame in which the entire system is stationary. The convenience of viewing a transmitted force as the same as the original force comes at the cost of a meaningful distinction between whether a force is real or fictitious.

[William J. Decker]

Joe;

First, I must appologize for the tome of my post. I was a little under the weather when I wrote it and not being my most diplomatic.

My point is two fold:

a) When ever one searches the web for information, one must remember that the internet has no guarentee of truth. Pleasel are free to post whatever the want and are under no obligation to be factual or completely accurate.

b) When I went to college, there were two education tracks for the Calculus sequence, one for mathemeticians, chemists, phyicists and the like and one for accountants. They were taught very differently because of the two different groups and their needs. Both courses allowed the students to perform calculus computations and get good working answers, but the approached the subject differently.

The posted links describe the phenomena of electromagnetism in a fashion so as to bring some 'theoretical' understanding, but they are not completely accurate in describing the actual, correct "why" of the thing. Of course, it is not necessary for an electrician (or a home inspector) to understand the principles of quantum mechanics in order to install or inspect a service equipment panel, so they teach it in an analogy method instead of teaching actual theory.

The difference is one of knowledge vs. working knowledge.

It just kind of rubbed the Physicist in me the wrong way. Same as if I refered to the NEC code in less than accurate terms in your eyes.

Different worldviews, different approaches, different required end results.

This is what I meant when I talked to you and tried to explain that, while you are an undeniable genius in your field, the way in which your field approaches electrical inspection is very different from the way a home inspector should. Different people we are serving, different end results, different understandings and different needs.

Hope this helps. Please accept my appology for being such a wise rear end.

[Joe Farsetta]

No, no... Not a wise ***** at all. In fact, the correctless of your explanation was great... to me. A little tough to follow, but still great. I think the important thing to remember, especially as you prepare course materials for folks, is to try and find some common denominator which the masses can possibly relate to. I personally like the explanation I posted, as I can relate to two pool balls colliding, and can visually understand the transfer of energy between the two. When the loss of energy is explained as heat, which in turn explains how and why wires heat up, it kind of crystallized it for me.

As I am not a fan of quoting any code, whether electrical or not, I always try and relate the applicability, at a level the person I am speaking with can grasp, in the two-minute timeframe in which the discussion takes place.

You didnt upset me at all. In fact, if nothing else, your absolute understanding of what is going on can only help folks grasp the hows and whys. All I ask, and it can be a challenge, is to keep in mind that, sometimes, the technical pureists explanation can get lost in the sauce if the recipient eyes glaze over. From the technical standpoint, you may make your point, but may have lost the value and applicability of the lesson in the process.

In the mean time, encyclopedias are a great tool for folks like me...

[William J. Decker]

Joe F.;

I was addressing my wise butt coments to Joe T, to previously posted and who I have believed that I might have offended.

You are right. I have taught Physics at the college level. When speaking to Physics majors, I use one approach. When speaking to the general student population (I also taught a 'core curriculum' physics survey course - no math) I spoke another way.

When speaking to clients, our real intended audience, I speak a third way. This way is intended to relate to them an understanding of the defect concepts.

Perfectly understand. I was just getting on my high horse a little (maybe a lot?).

But your comments are agreed with. Teach to the room, not just to hear yourself talk.

My aim was to try to have Joe T see this concept with regards to home inspectors and NEC experts.

Hope this helps.

[jtedesco1]

WillI am Joe T. and I was not offended at all. My message called attention to NACHI Educational Information and included material that covered some Physics. Your comments, based upon your training, seemed to show where some questions about clarity was brought to the table.The subject of my experience versus the HI Electrical experience has been discussed before. I believe that we could learn a great deal about this part of an inspection by an actual field inspection.We should sit down around a table at the convention and discuss this process through the eyes of those with knowledge and training in the electrical field, why we have some people here that have that experience and offer it freely. I too try to help and some do see where I am coming from, I think?

[William J. Decker]

Joe T.;

That's kind of the point. All I needed to know to do a home inspection electrical inspection, following the SOP of the state and NACHI, I already learned (classroom and lab) in the state approved pre-license class, taught by experienced home inspectors who had been doing it for years and were themselves, licensed.

Now, with education, the rule is the more the better. But if I even attempt to do an inspection that comes anywhere near that that can be performed by a code inspector or a master electrician, I am just crusing for a brusin', liability and legal wise.

When you say 'actual field inspection' you are talking about a whole different thing than a home inspection. I don't think that you see the difference.

[jtedesco1]

Will

When I mentioned a "field inspection" I was thinking about one where we would both go to a home and inspect the electrical system.

I would keep my mouth shut, while you made an inspection of the service equipment, removing the cover(s), and system grounding., later to do the same.

Believe me Will, I understand that you want to CYA, while I would want to be as complete as possible listing all of the defects, not just a few.

[A Dan Leleika]

Originally Posted by jtedesco1

Will

When I mentioned a "field inspection" I was thinking about one where we would both go to a home and inspect the electrical system.

I would keep my mouth shut, while you made an inspection of the service equipment, removing the cover(s), and system grounding., later to do the same.

Believe me Will, I understand that you want to CYA, while I would want to be as complete as possible listing all of the defects, not just a few.

Do you have a clear image of one of the panels you inspected in the past? If so post it or should I post one, maybe even someone else.

why do you feel you need to police Home Inspectors....like Will. Why do you find it necessary to try and find fault in an electrical panel inspection he has done. I think if he had something he was unsure of he has the necessary humility to ask for help but I think will is pretty competent and secure in what he does. Yet it seems from your posts that you are challenging him to show you a pic of an electrical panel and want to view his evaluation of that panel so you can ridicule it....like you did with that other bulletin board post.

Am I wrong....that is what I am reading into it Joe...maybe your coming on to strong.

[jtedesco1]

Yes you are wrong, I deleted the last sentence and meant no harm and I am not policing anyone.

[William J. Decker]

Guys;

This seems to be going far afield. This media is not the best place for trying to convey nuanced concepts. I will try to clarify.

I used to do handyman work, part time. I had a family that wanted a) Upgrade from 100 amp to 12o amp service, b) their entire basement (35 x 20) wired / rewired in preperation to finish it off as living space, c) add a bathroom. This family and I had a pervious relationship and the trusted me. They had been previously burned by a 'contractor' on an addition, where I had cleaned up the 'contactors' mess.

First , I took inventory of what I (and my brother) could do and what we couldn't do. (BTW: This was before I even thought about becoming an inspector.)

I called in an electrician I knew and had him a) coordinate with Com Ed to change the drop and the meter (equipped with an exterior disconnect), b) Change out the weather head to a new rigid pipe one (the old one was flexible cable) and c) run new 3/0 AWG service entrance conductor from the utility company splice right through to the old service equipment panel (no subs).

Next, I bought a new Square D 200 amp panel and breakers. On a Saturday, when the family was gone, I killed the power at the meter disconnect, removed the old panel and installed the new one. I then installed a new ground rod on the exterior and using rated parts, correctly bonded the ground rod to a #2 ground conductor which I pulled in via the service entrance rigid pipe.

I bonded the panel with the ground and neutral at the service equipment and made sure that all the old conduit (EMT) was also bonded. Then I hooked up the two legs, put in the breakers and hooked up the old branch service conductors, matching their gauge with the breaker rating. I had to pull one new branch (the wires were old and not long enough to reach the new breaker) on the kitchen refrigerator branch. I used 10 AWG for this (20 amp) and the old branch was on #14 (a defect right there, wire was #15, old breaker was 20 amp). I also had to run a new neutral from one bedroom because it was sharing its neutral with a bathroom. All the existing EMT was 3/4" so this was not a problem.

I made sure that all the bedroom branches had their own neutral and I installed AFCI breakers for the bedrooms.

Checked everything, twice, turned on the power and everything worked. I double checked every outlet with a suretest. Everything OK. AFCIs worked and ground reading was > .4 ohms everwhere.

Next weekend I layed the new conduit for the basement. 6 new branches, 2 for wall outlets, 2 for lights (10 in ceiling can lights, 5 on each branch) 1 for the new bathroom outlets and 1 20 amp circuit for the bathroom ceiling fan which was also equipped with an electric heating unit. I checked the bonding of the ground all around. For the 15 amp circuits, I used 12 AWG. For the one 20 amp run I used #10. Hooked it all up, double checked it and switched on the power. I even ran 2 seperate (on two separate raceways to the bathroom) green ground wires for connection of the 2 GFCI outlets and the ceiling fan to a dedicated ground.

When the village inspector came (the owner had obtained the permits) he was floored. He said that he had never seen such careful work. He was a little perplexed that I had oversized the new wires by one size, but I explained that given the history of owner 'modifications' (the two sons were engineers and felt they were qualified to up breakers without upping the wire), I decided to over engineer it. He passed it right away.

He didn't quite understand why I put a weatherproof cable from the disposer to the jbox, but I explained that it was a wet area. Maybe electricians don't get shocked when they are under a kitchen sink, but handymen shure do, when the are changing out the kitchen faucet. Additional cost, $2.10. Well worth it.

As a handyman, I had different concerns for the electrical than an electrician would. My oldest friend, Master electrician, former asst chief electrical inspector for the City of Chicago and currently an instructor at the IBEW union school in Justice, IL, said that I over engineer. As an electrician, be does things to the lowest standard that he can get away with. More profit for him. As a handyman, I did things to a standard that would best serve the family I was doing the work for, make them happy with the job I did and make sure that they never had to call me back to 'fix' something that I had worked on.

Joe, if the NEC code was universal, if every AHJ in the country adopted the NEC exactly as it is written (and very few do, at least around here), maybe your position would be more tenable. But even if that is the case, there are plenty of things that are allowed under the NEC that are not the 'best' way to do it, nor are they the safest way for the consumer.

Local codes allow houses, built before GFCIs existed, to have bathrooms without GFCIs. It meets code, but is it safe.

I have, regularly, called out lack of GFCIs in older bathrooms and recommended evaluation by a licensed and isured electrican. More than once, I get a call from the sparky that the seller hired with him telling me that the house meets code. I then ask him is he is willing to put in writing (on his letterhead with his license number and E&O insurance certification (most electricians do not even carry E&O)), that the electrica system is safe. He just comes back with "it's code". He cannot possibly even concieve of the notion that there is any standard other than code.

He lives and works and understands things in a different worldview.

Home inspectors must live and work and understand things in a realm that, in many cases, exceed mere codes. This does not mean that codes are worthless of bad or that home inspectors shouldn't know and understand the codes (even though, where I work, there are about 25 very different codes that I have to know). It just means that codes are a minimum standard, denoting what must be met as a minimum by contractors in order to get local AHJ approval of their work.

Home inspectors must under, at least, our state's law, inspect to the standard of safety. A very different world.

Hope this helps.

[jtedesco1]

Home inspectors must under, at least, our state's law, inspect to the standard of safety. A very different world.

Will:

Please expand on this statement and direct me to the law you describe.

[William J. Decker]

The state of illinois home inspection act, linked here:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs...59&ChapAct=225 ILCS 441/&ChapterID=24&ChapterName=PROFESSIONS+AND+OCCUPATI ONS&ActName=Home+Inspector+License+Act%2E

and the laws administrative rules, which stem from the law:

http://www.ilga.gov/commission/jcar/...0sections.html

To make it easier, the state SOP says that inspectors must call out all 'significanty deficient systems, components or items'.

'Significantly Deficient', in the administrative rules 1410.100, a, 10 as "Unsafe of not functioning. If a water heater is 'not functioning', for whatever reason, it is 'Significantly Deficient' Unsafe is also defined, in 1410.100, a, 15:

"Unsafe: A condition in a system or component that is a significant risk of personal injury or property damage during normal, day-to-day use. The risk may be due to damage, deterioration, improper installation or a change in accepted residential construction standards."

In other words, if something poses a 'significant risk' of personal injury or property damage. 'Significant Risk' here has been shown, in case law to mean if the risk itself is significant, not if the risk is probable. A 1% change of death is significant risk. A 80% chance of cutting yourself is not significant risk. The risk is a measure of the damage or injury, not the probability of damage or injury happening.

Notice the last phrase. Sure, we all know about outlets that are damaged, deteriorated or improperly installed. That a code inspection would find and defect. But the last sentence is what I am talking about. "change in accepted residential construction standards". Not local codes or even NEC changes (although NEC would have greater weight than the local codes of the Village of Riverwoods). If an "accepted construction standard" changes, like the rules on GFCIs and AFCIs, which the NEC now requires because they are safer than before, we, as home inspectors must recognize the new standard of safety and call it out.

True Sory, from 5 months ago:
House built in 2005. Built in the Village of Round Lake (about 25 miles north of me) by Pasqinalli builders. No AFCI protection. Village code does not require AFCI protection (even though NEC does).

By 'Code' and according to the AHJ code inspectors, who I talked to, and the builder and the Union Journeyman, who I also talked to, OK. And I agree, as far as code goes.

My state mandated job, according to the law I just quoted above, and that anyone is free to check for themsleves as I (and my Lawyer) has, is to recognize the new 'accepted construction standard' as set forth, in this case, by the NEC, is to call out the lack of AFCI protection as a 'significantly defective' component.

If I don't and a fire starts because some jamoke had his dresser sitting on an extension cord and a the house burns down, I am liable. Not the AHJ, not the builder, not the electrician (a good guy, BTW, who agreed with me but wanted to keep his job with the builder) and not you. Just me. My E&O takes the hit. I loose my license forever (probably) because I ignored the state SOP and I loose my NACHI membership because NACHI requires that I comply with every state law.

If you inspected it, you would say "it's code" and you would be correct.

But would it be safe.

When we broke bread together, I posed such a question to you and you warned me that if I followed this course of action I "would be laughed off the place" by the electricians.

You live in the world of electricians, where "code" is the highest authority. There is nothing 'wrong' with that. That is your job and you are, not just good, but a wonder in your field. You are a good man. You are very highly accomplished. I also had the privledge of observing you teach, and you are also a great teacher. You are blessed with gifts in that you a) "know your fecal material" and b) know how to teach. A rare combination.

But in the world of home inspectors, especially in licensed states with other standards from the world you live in, you are, I am deeply sad to say (because I like and respect you, both as a man and as an educator), dangerous.

This is because you seem to be incapable of extending yourself out of your world and your experience and your routine and your deep love for what you do (and do well) into another, wholly different world.

You have had, in the past (and the past is past, at least in my book) chosen to take a financially advantagous trip into our world, found it 'curious' and went back to your world and had a good laugh with your buddys. But, Joe, it was at our expense.

I really, truely and prayerfully, hope that you can understand this. I, and many others, would simply LOVE for you to finally understand this difference in worldview and "come on down" to our side. You are a resource. I can't say it any more respectively or hopefully.

But that is just me.

[Greg Bell]

Hi Joe,

That is the same point I was trying to make with you on the LIRR.

Will,

Thank you that is the same way I felt after meeting Joe in Long Island.
Very well said.

[William J. Decker]

Greg;

Please understand. I am, in myself, a jerk.

I don't want to start anything here, but I constantly fight against myself.

Joe is a good guy. He just doesn't get it.

I am 6'8" tall and hate basketball (I was a member of the 1979 American National Team in Rugby, though). People look at me and say, like my Mom, "G_d gave you height. To not play Basketball is against His will". (I love my Mom, but she is an incurable 'jock'!)

Joe does what he does, and very exceptionally. Like I said, I broke bread with the man and that is not something I do without thought (especially when I am paying for it!).

I am begging Joe out of his comfort zone. Out of his worldview into ours.

He has so much to offer, to teach, to give in service.

Joe, would you rather be comfortable or would you rather have joy?

You choice.

Always has been.

Hope this helps

Baruch HaShem