Upon visiting this particular panel, I came upon a sorry sight.
http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/7578/1000377.jpg

I can only assume that this was the originally intended configuration.
http://img814.imageshack.us/img814/9623/1000378n.jpg

You can see an old ground clamp on the rod and partially burried in the
dirt. It must have been put on before the rod was driven because the
head was so mushroomed out that I had to cut it off before I could get a new
clamp on. Apparently, they just never bothered to finish the job, and the
wire wasn't bent or scored in such a way to suggest that it was ever
properly attached to anything.

Poor.

In article ,
ShadowTek wrote:

Upon visiting this particular panel, I came upon a sorry sight.
http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/7578/1000377.jpg



How big is your monitor, anyway? I had to shrink that down to 30% to see
the whole pic, and then the area of apparent interest was too small to
see. I've got a vocabulary word for you: Crop.

On 2010-10-15, Smitty Two wrote:

How big is your monitor, anyway? I had to shrink that down to 30% to see
the whole pic, and then the area of apparent interest was too small to
see.

My monitor size is irrelevant. This image is straight from my camera.


I've got a vocabulary word for you: Crop.

Get a better browser, or learn to use your current one.


Here's a few vocabulary words for you.

*Firefox*
This browser will automatically resize large resolution images by
default. Double-clicking on an image allows you to toggle between the full
and resized images.

*Google*
This service allows you to search for information, such as how to
configure Microsoft's default web browser to automatically resize large
resolution images that are larger than your desktop resolution.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/...utoresize.mspx

In article ,
ShadowTek wrote:

This image is straight from my camera.

That's the problem. Image editing is *your* responsibility. I don't need
to see a pic that is 90% weeds and 2% area of interest. Zoom in, crop,
rotate, reduce file size, etc. as appropriate. Take another round of
pics if the shot is blurry, underexposed, not from a good angle, etc.

Speaking of not from a good angle, few things are best photographed from
above. This is a prime example. It would have been much better
photographed from 2' off the ground.

I know how to view and manipulate photos. Making up for your laziness
isn't my responsibility. But carry on. I won't bother clicking your
links next time.

On Oct 15, 12:21*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,

*ShadowTek wrote:
This image is straight from my camera.

That's the problem. Image editing is *your* responsibility. I don't need
to see a pic that is 90% weeds and 2% area of interest. Zoom in, crop,
rotate, reduce file size, etc. as appropriate. Take another round of
pics if the shot is blurry, underexposed, not from a good angle, etc.

Speaking of not from a good angle, few things are best photographed from
above. This is a prime example. It would have been much better
photographed from 2' off the ground.

I know how to view and manipulate photos. Making up for your laziness
isn't my responsibility. But carry on. I won't bother clicking your
links next time.

Glad to see you caught this dangerous problem and corrected it.
I wonder how the initial job got a pass from the electrical inspector.

Smitty, if you come to a post and find the picture is causing you
great distress, please move on, we'll just have to do without your
wisdom
on that particular issue..........or you can figure out how to view
the image
on your computer. Came up perfectly on mine. I suspect that
continuing to
complain about the image, angle, light quality, weather etc are also
possibilities for you.

On 2010-10-15, Shecki wrote:

Glad to see you caught this dangerous problem and corrected it.
I wonder how the initial job got a pass from the electrical inspector.

I'm finding it difficult to believe that there ever was any inspection
of this house.
http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/703...thehouse01.jpg

On Oct 15, 9:41*pm, ShadowTek wrote:
On 2010-10-15, Shecki wrote:



Glad to see you caught this dangerous problem and corrected it.
I wonder how the initial job got a pass from the electrical inspector.

I'm finding it difficult to believe that there ever was any inspection
of this house.http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/703...thehouse01.jpg

OMG. This is the sort of thing you'd expect to see on Holmes on
Homes. Call him up - maybe you can get these guys on TV.

On 2010-10-16, schmidtd wrote:

OMG. This is the sort of thing you'd expect to see on Holmes on
Homes. Call him up - maybe you can get these guys on TV.

lol After looking them up on Wikipedia, I'll have to check out their
show.

Unfortunately, I'm quite a way from Canada.


Here's another head scratcher from the same house. See if you can spot the
problem with the support strategy where these two floor beams meet at
the center of the room.
http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/4...oorsupport.jpg

On 10/15/2010 9:41 PM, ShadowTek wrote:
On 2010-10-15, wrote:

Glad to see you caught this dangerous problem and corrected it.
I wonder how the initial job got a pass from the electrical inspector.

I'm finding it difficult to believe that there ever was any inspection
of this house.
http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/703...thehouse01.jpg

I didn't save the link, but every so often somebody posts on here the
URL for a web site run by some house inspection trade group, that has
dozens of horror pictures like that. I've seen plenty of (usually
owner-installed) fubars like that over the years, including several in
this house. While visiting my sister and BIL, I have walked him through
stuff like that, showing how to fix stuff so it was somewhere close to
code-compliant, and at least a lot safer than what the found condition
was. He never could quite grasp why J-boxes needed to be accessible, and
not buried in a wall. (And this is a well educated college professor in
a science field.)

At least what you posted was a trivial fix, assuming there was any slack
in the wires. (a pet peeve of mine is romex runs so tight you can strum
them...)
--
aem sends...

+1; Looks fine from here, too, in IE8 and FF. Sounds to me like it's not the
OP's problem but rather ...



In ,
Shecki typed:
On Oct 15, 12:21 pm, Smitty Two
wrote:
In article
,

ShadowTek wrote:
This image is straight from my camera.

That's the problem. Image editing is *your*
responsibility. I don't need to see a pic that is 90%
weeds and 2% area of interest. Zoom in, crop, rotate,
reduce file size, etc. as appropriate. Take another round
of pics if the shot is blurry, underexposed, not from a
good angle, etc.

Speaking of not from a good angle, few things are best
photographed from above. This is a prime example. It would
have been much better photographed from 2' off the ground.

I know how to view and manipulate photos. Making up for
your laziness isn't my responsibility. But carry on. I
won't bother clicking your links next time.

Glad to see you caught this dangerous problem and corrected
it.
I wonder how the initial job got a pass from the electrical
inspector.

Smitty, if you come to a post and find the picture is
causing you great distress, please move on, we'll just have
to do without your wisdom
on that particular issue..........or you can figure out how
to view the image
on your computer. Came up perfectly on mine. I suspect
that continuing to
complain about the image, angle, light quality, weather etc
are also possibilities for you.

Here's another one from today from the same house.

As I was replacing an outdoor wall light, I took a moment to admire the
work of the licenced electrician who recently installed this light box.
http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/6...ecklight01.jpg
http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/738...ecklight02.jpg

On 10/15/2010 8:41 PM, ShadowTek wrote:
On 2010-10-15, wrote:

Glad to see you caught this dangerous problem and corrected it.
I wonder how the initial job got a pass from the electrical inspector.

I'm finding it difficult to believe that there ever was any inspection
of this house.
http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/703...thehouse01.jpg

nice. i find those all the time in our quest to remodel rentals. It's
amazing. it takes me about 15 minutes to correct, so it couldn't have
taken more than about 30 seconds to do it right the first time.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email