All Activity

Here's that post I made reference to above

Doesn't really help you make a decision one way or another but I'm expecting to use a combination of chased runs and some battened areas. My thoughts: Chased runs should make the build quicker, and will reduce the materials/labour that would be needed if all walls were battened and then plaster boarded. Granted, some of that cost might still be needed for conduits as @Nickfromwales pointed out but overall there should still be a saving. I don't think the reduced insulation in areas where the chased cables are mounted will be sufficiently great as to impact the EPC/thermal value of the envelope. Not battening all walls religiously gives more space internally. 100mm/4" isn't much but it's a lot to some...😳 Having said that, I'm keeping my mind open to whether some areas might benefit from having battens behind the plaster board. For example if there are a lot of ethernet cables coming down a wall into a server/switch area; perhaps even where UFH pipes are emerging into a manifold. Remain flexible.

Use your words lol. “The dogs bollocks” . When you see these, and then the standard valves you really do think “why did I fit these to my beautiful new home?”. There are some very nice intermediate options vs the ‘service station toilet’ ones……. 🤢🤮 so look at your options before buying; some which don't need the plaster-in skillset / time / money. These are a doddle to do after the 1st ones in.

Just remember you can’t run cables directly in EPS or other insulation, you MUST use containment such as conduit / trunking etc; that’s why “service voids” exist

I think @Oz07 was asking if that was ‘supply and fit’….. methinks not!! If it was, I have a full time job to offer him lol. Please do, and tag me in, as I don’t have enough hours in the day atm (and would be glad to outsource this if he’s robust).

Chased in with a hot knife - I posted a video on here when I did it. Most services are in our web joist ceilings. We also have the standard 0.24 U blocks. We didn't go bonkers with AT and got a 1.8 result. I've since blocked up some major known leak points but can't be bothered with a retest. Our heating was not on much last winter.

About 300mm in my case

Interesting stuff John, thanks for sharing. I've long had ideas about doing something similar but I doubt it'll get to the top of my to do list until a couple of years into my retirement (the start of which is still way too far off for my liking).

When the client is clever and pragmatic enough to ask them to do so, and to be happy to pay them to do it . Anything else is wishful thinking and short-sightedness on the clients side. Pay people to take time to plan and discuss, and they will, which is why I am flat out busy working for self builders who want something better / more robust than making daft assumptions that “it’s all going to go well”…. . Not aimed at you @Mr Blobby, just a point to consider moving forwards, to help you get what you thought you’d be getting. Half a days wages would have likely mitigated this type of misunderstanding / faux-pas out, but you as the client also need to be present, often, and with some time to invest, if you really want to influence things and bolster the outcome. How many car journeys do you set out on, wearing a blindfold?

Same here with large trees. Doesn't make any difference as long as you're not under trees all the time.

UFH loops connect to manifold. Heat source connects to end ports on UFH manifold. Heat source feeds in and is returned by the pipes on the left, loops are the pipes in the vertical. You can do UFH loops first and connect to manifold. Then once you have the ASHP run the pipes from it. Or you do everything together once UFH is in position, it's pretty flexible how you do it.

This has been a thing I have worked on and off for a while, but never really got to a model I liked. Had a play with AI and a few iterations later fell on to an energy based system similar to @TerryE but implementing is slightly different. I have an ASHP and heat meter, so came up with a closed loop system. It establishes a rolling energy target for next 24 hours and splits in to 3 chunks, we try to deplete the 8 hours worth of energy in a the Cosy cheap rate window. Down to about 5 degs we should be able to. Below that we allow an over run in to running from battery. We also have a carry over to next cheap slot. If below 2kWh we allow it move to the next slot, if above 2kWh we extend the run time to deplete to 0.1kWh. A flow chart is attached. If this is fails, we loose internet etc or we have issues.in general, a thermostat comes into play and we run on WC. As long as we stay with Octopus the automation stays true, as it's run via the octopus integration in home assistant and we use the cheap rate trigger to define the cheap windows.

Saw this ☝️ Seems to take the vehicle DC output from the fast charge port and use a dc-dc converter to step the voltage down a bit (depending on your battery architecture). Then connect it to the mppt panel inputs on a solar inverter moving a string of solar panels. I can see this as being quite clever - especially if the inverter has spare solar inputs. You could have your panels on 1 and 2 and your car on 3. If the box can talk to your inverter to get the house demand it could then set it's "solar panel string" to provide the appropriate output either to just match the homemload or provide enough for export.

Each manifold needs to have an MLCP supply and return, these were something I didn't understand at all in terms of when they are installed in the sequence. These are separate from the heating loops and, as I understand, need to be insulated. Yes, the same person is doing both elements and will also be helping me to spec the whole heating and ventilation system by the looks of it. Probably PV too.

What do you mean route the supply and returns? As in physically put them in? Is it the same person doing heat loss and ufh layout?

Always the case with stoves! Presumably you want to get this up and running before the heating season? The chimney shouldn’t be an issue as long as you have a suitable and properly installed liner. I would be inclined to cover the existing materials rather than cut them back. The regs do allow for combustibles less than 200mm from the flue as long as there is an air gap of 40mm.

Reducing the size of the window would lower the energy input into the room.

😁 Naaah, the GPS signal is poor here - shaded by trees. Now if they did a robotic strimmer on the other hand

Get a Kress, good German engineering.

There's nothing incompatible with low maintenance and lots of plants and trees. The terms Low maintenance and plants and trees mean different things to different people. SWMBO designed our planting for exactly those criteria. Easy to maintain (self maintaining) trees, zero mowing, and no-faff plants. It took her two years ( or a lifetime depending on you POV ) to design it. There's a lot of fun in thinking about it and visiting places to get ideas. And lots of friendship in chatting to anyone and everyone about their ideas. My criterion? Zero mowing. ✅

Aren’t you having an Aco channel drain along the front of the concrete at the entrance?

Thanks for your reply. I do appreciate they are really busy, and not looking for them to come up with the solutions. We are having issues with the B5 compliance, we had contacted the fire service who said they needed to talk to the building control officer. Our officer said to forward the information over to him which we did immediately. This was 2 weeks ago and he is not replying to any of our attempts to contact him, even though he has mentioned the issue to our structural engineer while disusing a different issue. Its cost us money and time. We are now unsure of how to proceed. Firstly.. Thankyou to everyone that took the time out to respond and apologies for taking so long to say thanks, I Hadn't checked or seen that we had so many responses. I am starting to remember that the admin is one of the reasons I stopped social media. So the update is positive, I think we finally figured out how building control works. We had thought part of their role was in an advisory capacity and no-one, including them would tell us specifically what their role and responsibilities were, who they were accountable too, how the game plays out and what the game rules were, so when they just wouldn't respond to our emails or anyone in the company would answer the phone, and then would make extraordinary demands of us with no other additional information or guidance, we felt like we were being taken on a merry dance. We have since figured out that they are as a general rule NOT working in an advisory capacity, because if you build something they advised on and passed, and something went wrong, they are then liable, which makes perfect sense why they would be reticent to pass on their knowledge. The B5 requirement was a headache because the impression we got was that we HAD to install this HUGE turning area that would dominate our land and involve taking out a lot of trees to produce. This has now been satisfied with a sprinkler system installed in the house, of which a certificate from the company installing is enough and it was this extreme request that was solved with a simple solution that broke the camels back and we figured out the way this particular inspector seems to work. He will throw at us the worst case scenario, we find the simplest solution to solve it and as long as it is reasonable and under someone elses name, he is happy. I know it may sound daft and we are slow learners, but the parameters with which it all operates just isn't written down anywhere and my brain needs to fully understand the system we have to work within, before it can function. Anyhoos...We got there, we submitted our actions and we got the go ahead from building control at the end of last week so WE'RE OFF. Thankyou everyone and I am sure we will be back with more further down the line.

How much concrete is visible outside when the garage door is down? My garage door will be a sectional door that sits behind the reveals. My whole ground floor is beam and block at the same level, but the house will be 175 insulation and 50mm screed. The step down into the garage would be 225mm - the thickness of the garage floor concrete slab. So if its 125mm at the back of the garage, then there's 100mm minimum step down. A.I suggests 100 is the minimum step down for a flat floor, or the floor needs to slope outwards. My approved plans seriously lack detail which is poor. My drive slopes away from the garage door but there's not much in it. About 70mm over 17m. The channel is the cavity wall, ill probably fill it with the end of the slab so theres a good strength at the end.

That's cheap.

@Gus Potter, apologies for the delayed reply, I have been out of the country this week. Initial searches have revealed a problem with the land title which may stop us proceeding. In any case I really appreciate your suggestions and, if we do go ahead I will be in touch.