NACHI, Illinois, and Massachusetts approved continuing education material

(Joe Tedesco) #1

http://joetedesco.org/mybook/tedesconachi.pdf

This book is available to NACHI members only for $15 each. It is written by a NACHI member and approved for use by schools and trainers who offer NACHI approved continuing education.

To order via credit card call Aimee Jalowsky at (303) 258 7271 or by mail by sending $15 to "NACHI Foundation", 1750 30th Street, Boulder, CO 80301. Ships within 24 hours.

Proceeds from this great 75 page unbinded book written by NEC Consultant and NACHI trainer/member Joe Tedesco benefits The NACHI Foundation. This book is a home inspector *must have. *

Thank you Joe!

http://www.joetedesco.org

http://www.nachi.org/images/product-seal-small.gif

(rmyers1) #2

Joe:

I shall attempt to address your post in as professional manner as possible.

As you know, I am not into playing NACHI politics or prone to intrusions into affairs which do not immediately affect me. However, as your message is directed to the Education Committee, and as Chairman of this Committee, I shall consider it my responsibility to address this matter.

It was our understanding, you had been banned from NACHI, for a period of one year.

In as much as you were prohibited from assuming any roles, or allowed participation in any functions within NACHI, the Illinois license for the referenced course materials was not reapplied for, as per State of Illinois requirements.

Therefore, this course is not presently licensed in the State of Illinois.

With that being said, we can also advise you, the course materials are still available for licensing. All that is required for a continuation of licensing, is for NACHI to submit the appropriate fee, to the NACHI, State of Illinois Educational Administrator.

You reference yourself as being a ( Provider for both areas ).

Unless you have become a Licensed Educational Provider within the framework of the Illinois Dept. of Financial and Professional Regulations within the past few days, I suggest this statement be incorrect.

NACHI, is the licensed Educational Provider, and as such, was also the referenced course materials; ie, the course you prepared and provided to NACHI, was also licensed as a NACHI Educational course.

We do not fault you on this reference, due to the fact, every State / Province has different rules and regulations, making it somewhat difficult to
understand.

As far as Massachusetts, further investigation may be required.

Unless, or until an official notice, or something is received in writing, we shall continue to abide by the standing NACHI, MAB / SOP Board rulings.

We hope you can understand our position, and address the matters accordingly.

We look forward to working with you again in the near future.

(Joe Tedesco) #3

Russ:

The attached list shows where I am a Massachusetts Provider for the Massachusetts SOP Home Inspector 6 hour training. My Illinois course was accepted, but now as you point out is not, it is still recognized by NACHI.

I am no longer banned, and I am a Member of NACHI as indicated in the information attached to the seal.

What type of announcement were you looking for? The comments in Members Only from John Bowman should have been sufficient.

Also, I wondered if the new electrical course was passed through the Education Committee for review, and as I understand it it will be available to members. I would appreciate the opportunity to review it.

Best regards

(rmyers1) #4

I shall investigate further. Am also requesting Mr. John Bowman to respond accordingly, as I find no reference to this matter on the current Message Board.

(John Bowman, Executive Director) #5

Mr. Myers,

In response to your request.  Mr. Tedesco sent Mr. Gromicko and myself a nice New year's greeting letter.  

We totally believed in his sincerity and accepted Mr. Tedesco back as a member of NACHI.
(William J. Decker) #6

I hate it when someone who Mom said should be punished by sitting in the corner for an hour gets out early.:roll:

I always had to stay there the whole hour.

(A Dan Leleika) #7

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Unreal

(rmyers1) #8

Mr. Bowman

Your message has been received, and understood.

(rmyers1) #9

Joe Tedesco

As per Mr. Bowman's reply, welcome back.

Your request for an opportunity to review the Educational Course entitled, Electrical Home Inspection Checklists, may be directed to the President of your local NACHI Chapter.

This course is available, upon request, to all NACHI Chapters. In the absence of a local NACHI Chapter, the materials are available to approved Instructors.
However, in this instance, Mass. does have a local NACHI Chapter

In response to your other question, if this particular course was submitted and approved by the Education Committee. Yes. The course and other related materials, were submitted to NACHI, and approved by the previous Members of the Education Committee, before making an application for licensing to the State of Illinois.

As related to offering your course entitled, Basic Checklists for Building Electrical Inspection, to the Education Committee for review, yes. Any NACHI Member may submit courses for approval.

I do not clearly understand the need for this request, due to the fact, the materials have been previously accepted by NACHI, and within various States / Provinces.

However, if it is your intent to change or alter the course materials, then new applications would be required of NACHI and those States / Provinces in which the material is licensed. In it's present state, it is still available to the NACHI Membership.

As you have already posted a link for this Course on the NACHI Education site, we will await further responses from the Members of the Education Committee, before making any decisions, if that is your desire.

The new Education Committee works together as a whole, no independent decisions. therefore, your request will receive an unbiased opinion. Each member of the Committee will review your course materials, and collectively, submit a recommendation to the appropriate NACHI authorities.

(William J. Decker) #10

Joe;

You might want to update / change / review the PowerPoint presentation that I prepared for NACHI when you course was submitted for state approval. What was submitted, as I saw it, was just a copy of your booklet. I, at NACHI's direction, prepared a PowerPoint presentation and wrote the test questions and answers. When I talked to you, you said that you could not take the time to do this, so I did.

I am just letting you know so that you have the chance to produce a PowerPoint and test that you may feel more comfortable with.

Hope this helps.

(Joe Tedesco) #11

Thanks Russ:

My book is a good read, and it will stand as my contribution to the industry.

It actually was excerpted from my larger publication, and as Will suggests the results of some additional work related to power points will make it better.

So, the education committee doesn't have to review it.

I will use the slides that I have, and add more, as it stands now I have shelf ready programs and have had them for each cycle of the NEC for the last 10 or more code cycles.

I only want to help and see the Chicago Land seminar become a success!

Will, send the files to me Please, I will not find any mistakes or errors right?

How are you handling Knob and Tube, BX, Romex, and SE Cable? From what I gather the Chicago Land Inspectors don't see much of these wiring methods, Yes or No?

(William J. Decker) #12

Joe;

1) All NACHI education, and especially education submitted to the states for state approved CE, must be approved by NACHI. It is NACHI's provider license and submitted through them.

2) I don't have the Powerpoint or the test for your course anymore. I sent it to Russ and NACHI. It isn't mine, it's NACHIs.

3) We see plenty of older K&T, BX and ROMEX. Most local code authorities allow it by grandfathering. With all new construction, ROMEX is banned in the state with the exception of a small area around, but not in, Joliet. BX can be used only for short whips (6' max but most areas only like to see 3'). Most AHJ's want everything in EMT or rigid, although EMT is common. (unions, go figure).

Call or e-mail if I can be of help.

(Joe Tedesco) #13

Electrical Modules Sections 1 - 4.

ELECTRICITY, ITS CHARACTERISTICS, AND some basic physics.
http://www.nachi.org/electricalmodule.htm

Thanks for this information please define the source

(William J. Decker) #14

Joe;

Most of the Physics is wrong, or at least oversimplified to the point of being meaningless.

Cetrifigal force is the force pulling IN in a spinning, orbital like system. Centripital force is the outward force, which is a result of the centrifical force and the angular momentum of the system. I will leave out the vector analysis. I don't know what the 'second law of physics' means. I never heard of it. Centrifigal force is a phenomena of mechanistic physics, not quantum mechanics, which is VERY weird.

All electrons. regardless of their orbit, join in the principle of valence.

Electrical force is NOT the flor of electrons, it is the propogation of the holes in the electron shells that occur when electrons migrate from atom to atom. Since electrons are (kind of) matter, they cannot move at the speed of light (the speed of electrical 'current', roughly). The 'holes' can. Electrons in a 120 volt circuit artually move an about 15 MPH or there abouts. The holes they leave in the electron shells propogate at close to the speed of light.

This is all because Ben Franklin picked the wrong 'polarity' when he had to choose between the silk cloth and the glass rod. Therefore, electrons are 'negative', notg positive.

As to frequency, What's nu? E/h. Nu is the greek letter that is used to designate frequency. Frequency = energy divided by Planks' Constant. The higher the frequency the higher the energy of the electromagnetic radiations.

As to energy, it is not the flow that is energy, it is F=ma or F=mv (force = mass times acceleration or force = mass time velocity when there is a constant flow. In other words, the electromagnetic force is equal to the number of electrons times the velocity of the electrons. Watts = amps x volts. Watts is the unit of work which is equal to the force.

Electrons are not solid particles, they are 'existence probabilities'. They are the particles of the electromagnetic force. All force particles (electrons and their anti-matter counterparts, positrons, Gravitons, gluons and, partially, mesons) have no rest mass and therefore are not matter.

Don't take analogies too far. They are good working theroies, but not directly analogous.

The 'watts' or force it what kills you. There are metal cutters that will cut 1" thich steel with very little water, but with great velocity.

The numbers of the amount of current that can harm assumes that the electricity os being applied directly to underlying tissues. I can grab the conducting parts of battery cables with both hands (great 300 amps and 12 volts = 3600 watts) but that does not take into account my skin as an insulator.

Just some thoughts.

Hope this helps.

(Joe Tedesco) #15

Will:

Thanks, this should be reconsidered if you are not happy with the information which is also found elsewhere on the Internet, like here:

http://www.elec-toolbox.com/theory.htm

Whenever I want to be sure that the author of any text posted in their name without some courtesy as to where it came from, I copy and paste about 3 paragraphs into Google and search, that's how I found the NEC and 70E on line.

PS: What came first the "chicken" or the "egg"?

(Joe Farsetta) #16

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:

[FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial][size=2][FONT=Arial][size=2]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.[/size] [/FONT]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. [/size][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]As to injuries sustained by electricity, it is commonly held as truth that 5ma is enough to kill a person...[/FONT]

(Joe Farsetta) #17

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) #18

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.

:mrgreen:

(Joe Farsetta) #19

No, no... Not a wise A$$ 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) #20

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.