All Activity

600mm is the minimum overlap. Your BCO will fail if this is 300-400mm. They got a tape measure out and checked the one I’m on now, so beware!

comes from a bore hole 30m up the hill behind --120m deep in sloid rock all the way

I think insulation is part of my problem --too much and the batteries +invertor for the solar are in there == plus washing machine and condensing dryer may be i need some positive ventilation in there? vent at bottom of wall and one at ceiling level but that would not stop it getting hot in the space between floors I suspect they did not insulate the SHP pipes to the controller and tank which is upstairs in center of house house is 22m long granite with TF built inside it

temp of accumulator and filters etc in plant room today with thermal temp gun 24c when i ran the tap in the kitchen it started off at 23 c then after 1min of running it went up to 30c then eventually it went down to 18c and i also checked where it comes in the house from the borehole--same temp I do have a UV on the system would that not protect from legonella ?

neither of you addressed the question I take it from that there are no regulations about insulation of pipes inside house

When joining kitchen units together, is there a standard practice for placement of connectors. I'll be putting one connector behind the back panel... Ta

Sure. All that has to be taken into account. However, I believe that stirling engines could be made totally sealed so that the outside environment had no real bearing on their longevity. They would be costly but multiple times the efficiency and if fully sealed could be built to last a significant period of time without any maintenance. When that maintenance is needed it's a unit swap, not on-site repair. I don't know enough about TEC solutions in this space but I would guess there would be a lot of expensive engineering to produce modules that could deal with the movement at sea, especially maintaining seals against seawater and interconnections in will inevitably be a large expanse of thin material that needs connecting together in quite long strings to generate sufficient voltage to be efficiently used by big scale inverters. Or lots and lots of smaller modules with separate inverters that then need connecting together in a robust way. In summary, I suspect the engineering behind a stirling heat engine would be significantly lower risk, lower cost and longer life than a thermoelectric solution.

Just found the BBA certificate (BBA 19/5617 PS1 Issue 2) of the BuildLite product and that gives a psi value of 0.4 W/m.K for similar make up but different geometry (100mm wide Marmox) :

You haven't said what your floor surfaces are upstairs. If you go for the surface-mounted spigots then you will have to consider how to "end" your surface covering, whether carpet or boarding etc right above your glulam. I went for a surface-mounted option per JohnMo's suggestion and I can heartily recommed FH Brundle and their product offering (pics below) - the pricing was incredibly keen Link here: https://www.fhbrundle.co.uk/products/18SB19B__Includes_19mm_Glass?campaign=506233955&content=&keyword=&hsa_acc=1133268878&hsa_cam=506233955&hsa_grp=1271037173114202&hsa_ad=&hsa_src=s&hsa_tgt=pla-4583039411608752&hsa_kw=&hsa_mt=e&hsa_net=adwords&hsa_ver=3&msclkid=ec2a85bb0fc1131b4c0fefd760f900b2 Regards Tet

Not being overly familiar with this type of design I find this interesting. That thermal design asks a lot of the Marmox thermal blocks as they are the only line of defence between the cold bricks of the outer leaf and the warm concrete of the raft. The Marmox blocks have vertical columns of epoxy/stone concrete surrounded by XPS, so the vertical direction is the worst from a thermal transfer perspective, but only 6.3% [1] of that sectional area looks to be solid concrete. I am not a thermal expert by any stretch - just trying to ballpark the numbers. Assuming an XPS lambda of 0.033 W/m.K and a concrete lambda of 2.3 W/m.K [0] results in an average vertical lambda of 0.176 W/m.K [2] which is noticeably higher than the value they advertise of 0.05 W/m.K. That may be because the horizontal performance is much better and they quote that value. If using the 65mm Marmox thermal blocks that's going to create a vertical thermal bridge of 0.379 W/m.K . There would also be a lesser thermal path out sideways trough the Marmox block to the soil, but using a total value of 0.4 W/m.K would probably be indicative. This is similar in magnitude to a standard steel lintel, as used above a window. At an average 10C difference for 6 months that would loose 17.3 kWh/m or £1.21/yr per metre based on a heating system COP of 3 (low) and electricity price of 21p/kWh (high). The overall thermal bridge would have to consider the thermal transfer through the slab as well, which I have ignored, but that feels reasonable given the high thermal conductivity of concrete and rebar. [0] IMPORTANT TO NOTE: the Marmox epoxy concrete may be thermally better than standard concrete and mean this value, and subsequent values, should be lower. [1] (pi*(30/2)^2) / ((50+30)*140) = 6.3% [2] (2.3*6.3%) + (0.033*(100% - 6.3%) = 0.176 W/m.K [3] 0.176*(0.140*1) / 0.065 = 0.379 W/m.K [4] 0.4*10*(24*180)/1000 = 17.28 kWh/yr.m I have a make up on my garage raft which is essentially the same without the Marmox thermal block. That's an oversight, but it is a garage rather than a house. However, I think I can improve matters by putting a thin layer of XPS between the blockwork and the soil. The blockwork at the bottom of the outer leaf is a course of engineering bricks and a course of Stranlite 140mm 10N blocks. With the change as pictured below, ignoring horizontal heat flow through the insulation (yellow) and assuming perfect thermal conductivity in both the slab concrete (light grey) and engineering brick (brown), I can consider just the vertical heat flow through the Stranlite block (dark grey). It has a lambda of 0.43 W/m.K , so that works out as a thermal bridge of 0.43*0.140/0.215 = 0.28 W/m.K which is actually comparable to the Marmox thermal block. Interesting. Looks like I have an improvement worth making there. Tweak to include horizontal heat loss through the added XPS: 50mm of XPS would have a sideways thermal bridge of 0.033*0.215/0.050 = 0.14 W/m.K which can probably be halved assuming a linear temperature gradient across the height of the Stranlite block. 0.28 + (0.14 / 2) = 0.35 W/m.K , so still similar to the Marmox thermal block. Now: Improved:

Actually the psiclops software is awesome, ignoring any use for SAP10.3 etc. I didn't really look to hard at anything except the final report on the E16 psi-value and the fRsi result, which both look good. However I then had a bit of a dig around looking at the computed output for the modelled junction before it is used for a report. Here you can seen the meshing used, the thermoplots and another output using the FEM, an interstitial condensation plot using vapour pressures. This has highlighted an interstitial condensation risk with my junction. I didn't believe it to start with as I thought my walls, which have been designed with fully taped Durelis VapourBlock, had cleared the condensation hurdle. So this morning I then modelled my walls and ran this through psiclops and got the answers I expected. Good thermal performance and no condensation risk. I have now really dug into this to understand why the junction has a problem but the flanking walls do not and the highlighted risk is real! Thankfully I have not started any work so I can do something about this now. The cause is the Durelis VapourBlock which while being an ACVL is great for air tightness but not so great for vapour. At least I now have some real data that I can use to look at my design and see what I need to do to prevent the risk highlighted I have attached the condensation risk analysis for both the wall and the junction so you can see for yourselves

And no vapour control layers, insulation, ventilation control. Many then had a large gas boiler fitted that was run on a timer, this caused condensation issues. (I had a 1910 terrace and it was awful, but if I had known in 1984 what I know now, I could have improved it no end)

Cant seem to edit the above. I misread the regs. Cavity is a considered a concealed space. Not sealed!! So that statement above is incorrect.

Like most things it hits a fundamental physical limit. I think one of the problems in engineering is we all got duped by Moore's Law. While this held true for micro electronics, it was not true for engineering in general. Moore's Law was really an engineering/manufacturing/quality challenge, not something fundamental about silicone. (Someone on here described building a chip as akin to making a pinhead sized working replica of a Spitfire, but only using normal hand tools)

How did you sort the 63mm battens? Did you fit them on site, or were you able to order it as part of your TF package? Is it doing double duty as a service void? With your ~200mm of rockwool, how are you finding acoustics?

Well, yes, if by 'better' you mean more efficient. But they also have moving parts to wear out and require expensive and dangerous maintenance. A TEG could be positioned off a continental shelf and just left to work for 20 years. In an open sea environment, 'better' has a different meaning. HAWT are much more efficient than VAWT, but they are also more difficult to assemble at sea (blades have to be fitted after the tower is up), have higher maintenance requirements, and require repairs at great hights as the generator is at the top. New VAWT designs are starting to make more financial sense, even though less 'efficient'. They can be floated out fully assembled, then (after anchoring), the ballest end is flooded and they pop up almost ready to go. VAWT have less stresses induced in operation, and maintenance on the generator can be done at sea level. Over a 30 year operating life the cost savings outweigh the lower generating efficiencies. Deep sea is where the real wind blows - the further away from a continental shelf you can get, the better the generation, but then you have to anchor floating turbines. It is much harder to install a floating HAWT. Logically, the next 10 years should see alot more VAWT in deep sea locations, despite being 'worse' than other types of wind machine. Now imagine the same scenario, but with no moving parts to maintain. I doubt that 3% efficiency would provide enough generation to cover cost savings though! There must have been some TEG advancement in the 30 odd years since I was last interested in this. What happened to all the carbon nano magic everyone was talking about a decade ago?

You are right to resolve if it is a big deal or toutine. The majority of such issues I've looked at over decades have needed attention but only maintenance. A boss once used this as standard advice to worried owners.... can you get a pound coin into the gap? No, don't worry but it needs attention. Yes, let's have a look and sort the cause. A 1910 house doesn't usually have good damp resistance. They had fires indoors, opened lots of windows and lived with it. Again, tell more.

There are a few issues, damp and multiple internal cracks. I thought pulling them together in a document would help. It's not intended to be contractual merely informative. I was asking this forum for advice how to choose someone to check them out. We were going to get some work done, but wanted to know if we needed new wall ties, or roof, or structural remedial work first, because this will inform us how much of the 'improvement ' things we can do. Should I set up another post and put sone pictures in? Should I focus on one issues at a time, as there are multiple? I just don't know how to approach this. Thanks for your advice about the document, that was useful. If I share pictures, you'll have a better idea of who I need?

Cracks may require SE but may be routine.. How extensive and how wide? Pictures would be helpful. Damp probably not SE.... it's usually a maintenance issue ... gutters, ground levels.. pics again and descriptions. and maybe we can point you in the right direction at no cost.

It was AI generated. We're firstly looking to sort out issues before we decide how much money left for improvement work. Initially we wanted an idea of how much it would cost to sort out damp and crack issues.

Sane living means ease of use. And that means efficient storage. Efficient storage means reduced self-build stress.

I don't know why you think I'm personally attacking you. I'm just giving valid criticism of what often happens on the forum lately. Someone will start a topic saying let's discuss A or B then C gets bought up. Again I can understand why in some cases but this topic didn't really warrant it. Also I think its disingenuous to say 75mm of insulation over a poor b&b floor is crap. These systems have 150mm between the beams then either 75 or 150 over the top. They can hit or better the 2022 u values of .13 for floors. I dont think .13 is crap by any stretch of the imagination. With this project im not going to start agonising for weeks trying to improve u levels by a certain percentage. It sends you mad. I'd much rather accept a certain running cost to the house and focus my efforts elsewhere. Again sorry if I offended you the forum has changed a lot since the earlier days. I also believe ai does have a place for answering quick queries. There is no guarantee but the same can be said with anonymous strangers on forums.

A good benefit is reduced dig out compared to normal b&b with closer matching ground levels. Think you can get the difference between ground level outside and under slab to around 300mm

To -rick- point about self signed. The requirement is not self signed but signed by a competent person, although there is no measure of this 'competency'. For sure a junction or junctions could be done by a manufacturer under point 3) and sign this as having being done by a competent person but the junction would have to be representative of the junction detail actually used and it must be modelled to BR497 and using ISO 10211 software. How practical this would be I do not know and it may drive a manufacturers to option 2) as ACD's can no longer be used. The point on insurance is interesting as there is no requirement for the report on junctions to be backed by a person that has insurance and having insurance isn't a measure of competency. Taking data from a recognised database also carries no insurance cover for the submitter to the database or indeed the database owner so I unclear about how insurance plays out here. Unsurprisingly, the quotes I have had from thermal engineers to do a psi value report for my build contained disclaimers about their liability regarding accuracy of the output. I have given the product a go and downloaded a report. This is exactly the output unedited. The report automatically included the 2d FEM solved I-Joist wall bay together with the E16 corner junction, which is what I asked to be reported. The corner is constructed using the the I-Joist wall bay together with internal and and external insulation and finishing. The wall has an additional rain screen externally the external boundary is to a ventilated cavity not to external air so it's bit more complex than a standard corner but this was included in the boundary conditions available. My House Thermal Performance Report.pdf

I'm not sure I follow. Item 2) Details from a reputable non-government database containing independently assessed thermal junction details precludes using data from a manufacturer directly but does not prevent the use of manufacturer data via a reputable non-government database, for example LABC constructions details, BRE certified thermal details etc . These should only contain independently assessed details. What is also prevented is the use of ACD's which had, to some extent, been hijacked by manufacturers. I'm also not sure I understand your (block, insulation etc, etc). These sort of elements will be used in a table K1 assembly (corner, jamb etc) but these element have U-values not Psi-values. The use of manufacturer declared thermal resistance, permeability etc are not affected it is just the table K1 assemblies that I have been referring to. Having clarity about this is clearly very important as the consequences for a build that fails are potentially highly significant. I am not trying to be difficult or obstructive. Building is an increasing difficult and red tape filled world that is horrendously expensive. Recent work done shows that the Future Homes Standard which has spawned SAP10.3 and HEM, will add £000's to the regulatory cost of any build. Getting U values is easy and free but getting psi values is not. If you have specific objections that would make psiclops unusable for SAP10.3 I would really genuinely like to know. BTW I have read the SAP10.3 document top to bottom many times. I'm also a chartered engineer and have a degree that covers thermal dynamics, thermal physics, finite element analysis and fluid flow and the work behind psiclops, which can be viewed on the verification page and in the FAQ, looks to be well beyond THERM in terms of meshing lets alone it's ease of use. I have also used Flixio on a 30 day trial. It knocks THERM into a cocked hat but it doesn't know about BR 497 and the rules and boundary conditions it demands, although it is ISO 10211 verified. Incidentally psiclops passes the exact same verification standard used to verify both THERM and Flixio.