SteamyTea

That is very useful information, do you have a reference for it please.

OK, then, to be blunt, anyone that has proper scientific training. You can't say that anyone that shows curiosity 'is a scientist', that is just barmy, and you know it, would make everyone in the world a scientist. If you want to reject the whole concept of professionalism, convince the world that we do not need any standards, for anything, an opinion is just as valid as evidence. I have an interesting in art, I even create and sell some, does that make me an artist or a crafter? Depends who you ask, ask a painter and they say craft, ask a sculpturer, and they say art. Science is using the tool, that have been refined for thousands of year to get to the truth. I am quite happy for you to trust who you think is a scientist, but one word of causing, it they tell you that gravity is an illusion, don't step off a high bridge. Then why have we so much rejection of science, and the scientific method?

Or just follows the heating curve formula. T = 1-(e-kt)

It is the language of science, but in itself, not science. The classic question is to describe a number. What is a 2, or a 23, show me 7, or 439? This starts to go into philosophy, and the problems really start to show then. We have Bertrand Russel to thank for all this.

I have never liked the 'water' analogy to describe electrical circuits, so why not describe what actually happens. Or attempt to. If you take a piece of conducting material, metals are good one. They are composed of atoms, and the atoms are made, in the simplest model, of the nucleus and orbiting electrons. At normal temperatures, all is fairly stable and everything stays in place. There is a little jiggling of atoms going on, but on average, they cancel each other out. Now if you put a hot flame at one end of the metal, while holding the other end, after a short time, your fingers get hot. The energy from the flame has somehow travelled along the bit of metal. Electricity does exactly the same, and in the same way. What happens in a circuit is that the voltage has enough energy in it to overcome the inherent stability of the material. It does this by pushing an electron to a higher energy state. If there is enough voltage, the electro breaks free from its atom, leaving behind a space, which is called a 'hole'. Atoms hate to be unbalanced, and electron hate to be free. So at the very first opportunity, the hole will get filled by a free electron. Sometimes this is the same electron that it has just left, other times it is another free electron looking for a hole. This movement of electrons is what causes current, measured in amps. The more electrons moved, the greater the current being passed though the metal. The faster you can move those electron from their atoms to other atoms, the more current you have. So it is just down to voltage times amps, which we know is power (W = V x A). The level that the voltage is at, is what sets the speed the electrons 'move' at. The size, and therefore the amount of material, sets the amount of current that can pass for any given speed (or voltage). Basically a thicker wire has more atoms in it, so more electrons can be moved. Now imagine what happens when one set of flowing electrons meets another set, coming in the opposite direction. If the speed and amounts are the same, they will just cancel each other out, The laws of momentum tell us this. Mass times velocity, (M x v) + -(M X v) = 0. Now a PV system, after the inverter, runs an a slightly higher voltage than the incoming mains electricity (it senses this voltage, as well as the phase and resistance constantly). This means that no electricity can flow up the wires and circuits to heat up the PV modules until they emit light. Also when the PV is not generating, that pathway is blocked. When generating, the free electrons, that are looking for empty holes, find another path, the path of least resistance, until they do find those spare holes. Those holes will be on any connected circuit that has a load on it. This is really the definition of a circuit, no load and there is no connection between the negative side and the positive side. So by keeping the PV side at a slightly higher voltage than the incoming supply, electrons are forced to 'look' for those free holes, and if they cannot find any, because the are at a higher energy state, they can physically smash out an electron from the atom it is orbiting. In doing so, it looses energy, and plops into the vacated hole, leaving the displaced electron to do the same to the next electron. This bullying by the higher voltage electron eventually forces enough electrons to go back down the grid wires until they meet a load, which may be your neighbours lights. Now if there are not enough loads on a circuit, and you have two competing sources making free electrons floating about, you eventually get way to many at the elevated energy state. This causes the metal wire to heat up. Eventually the wire will get so hot that it will melt, this breaks the circuit and stops current flowing, even if the voltage is still high. This is why there is a circuit breaker on the PV circuit, it stops wires melting. Summing up, the higher voltage generated by the PV system allows the electrons to flow to the nearest load, if that nearest load happens to be miles down a wire, they will still flow there. But what usually happens on a long circuit is that all the pushing and shoving that the electrons do just heats up the wires, the conservation of energy tell us that. So to use up 'your' electricity, switch on a load, to use your neighbours electricity , or the grid electricity, turn on a load. To stop your neighbours using your electrify, turn on a load, or turn your incoming supply off, though that will also turn all your electricity off as well.

Are they emaillable? Could make interesting reading. I am not sure how much difference it makes where you are. I looked at the difference between mean temperatures in Newcastle and Cornwall once, seem to remember it was under 1°C. That does only tell part of the story though. Cornwall tends to have cool spring times as the ocean is cold.

Then spend 300 quid making an air tester.

I have often wondered that. I think it certainly needs something to make it airtight, but not trap any water, and last, forever. We used to silicone steam rooms to the tilled floor, but not the saunas.

Bit of both. £300 buys 2 or 3 PV modules. There is waste water heat recovery. A fair bit of sticky tape for airtightness detailing.

Moist and falls apart easy. You can work out the energy levels, Fermi did it years ago. for any given temperature, then you will see how little difference there will be. It gets worse after time as well. Too right. A watt is a joule per second. And a joule of energy is the force needed to move 1 kg, 1 metre. So 0.1 on your insulation us like moving an apple 0.01 is just the repairs if the core.

Couple of bent coat hangers stuck in some old biro pen cases. They won't help, but if you do miss all the buried services, you can claim they did, while stroking your wizard like beard.

The absolute temperature differences are very small, even when raised to the 4th power. Or read this. https://www.thermopedia.com/content/1082/

We have good standards to work to, but they are often ignored, or the caveats (limitations) are ignored. So getting this back to ASHPs. If the design side is not done properly, further down the line inconsistent results will emerge. So taking the same design methodology to different houses, without acknowledging the limits of the design process i.e. a wrong ACH figure, could easily make a system a failure or a success. This does not change the fundamental science i.e. to get a system into thermal equilibrium, the energy input needs to match the energy output.

And transistors. Except the vibrational model of atoms. The reason that CO2 absorbs and releases energy is a quantum affect. The atoms either absorb a photon, with the electrons going to higher energy state, or they release photons, where the electrons drop to a lower state. In some ways it is easier to understand at that level. A real scientist is a difficult one to describe. Just collecting data, or just thinking up experiments, are not, in themselves science. A Scientist is the person, or group, that can understand all the areas of their research and move the field forward, or show that a past result is robust. There should be a minimum understanding of a field of interest, not just lucky guessing. The Science Method allows a systematic approach so that any experiment is repeatable and has little opportunity to give inconsistent results. A negative result is as valid as a positive one. Using this repeatability, anyone, with enough resources, will be able to reproduce the same results. This is why scientists publish their work and methods. The multiple checking of results is what leads to the truth. Mathematics is not a science, nor is phycology or sociology, just using scientific language and techniques does not make subject a science. Mathematics is the really odd one out as it only accepts proofs, based on axioms, that hold true to infinity, or in all cases. There is no error margin. This is why there are some challenges in the subject, like predicting the location of prime numbers o the infinitely long number line. Truth in science is the easy one. It is the best description of what is happening.

It has been shown that in some medical trials, bias is built in. This is often the clinician inviting the healthiest of patients to take part, not the sickest. The control group is also usually given a placebo, so they are not 'normal' like the general population, and often have the illness that is being researched. This is why Platform and Adaptive trials were used during the COVID-19 drug trials. Adaptive trials work in a similar way to predictive temperature control, they use the previous results to modify the next trial. This can reduce the number of tests that need to be completed to get to a point where the Type 1 and 2 errors are reduced. One of the largest Platform trials was conducted to see if 10 existing drugs reduced the death rate from COVID-19, the advantage of this type of trial is that the patient base is already there, so easier to recruit. And no need for a control group. Not so different from what Jenner did when trailing the small pox vaccines. He noticed a group that seemed to be immune, found out what they had been exposed to, and ran with it. Luckily for us, there was less ethics involved back in 1796, though in Asia, it was not uncommon to inhale powdered small pox scabs to build up immunity, 100 years before. Any trial, of anything to be tested, has to be designed so carefully that there is such a small risk that a rogue result does not skew the numbers too much. It is not unusual to test a test, several times, for robustness, that test may be a bit of physical equipment, several replicas of the equipment or the statistical tests i.e. do a MWW parametric test and feed the results into an X2 test to see if there is a conflict. And Correlation is not Causation, so often forgotten. There needs to be a solid theoretical and proven evidence base, to explain the correlation. Not the result used to explain the evidence, that just leads to Jackanory narratives, and we have way too much of that.

Well yes and no. It depends how the experiment was initially set up. I think the idea of control group is not to change the null hypothesis of the experiment, it is a secondary experiment running in parallel. It may pick up extremes, but not the bit that is important. This is the trouble with medical and social research. There is a prior that the control group in normal. This has been shown to be wrong so many times. The Facebook soap dispenser was a classic example of this. It worked well in trials, but not in the field.

Cool wallpaper, very 1980s (a decade I enjoyed). If your MVHR is getting most of the house down to 50% RH, and short of having a boiling pan of water on the stove for 16 hours a day, I don't think that condensation will be a huge risk. You could fit secondary extraction in the kitchen, if it is large enough, it will draw dry air, from the rest of thee house, into the room.

You have misunderstood. A test is looking for a positive answer, but has nothing to say about a negative answer. You can test one thing against another, but it throws no light in the other. This is what makes it so hard designing tests, and why it is very dangerous to use already collected data. One of the most misused tests is the Chi Squared as it compares a test against an assumption. Useful in a properly designed experiment, but misleading in a poorly designed one.

You have just made me hungry for meatballs in gravy.

No idea if it is good value, @Onoff likes making things like this, he will knock you one up for 2050, and that is not ten to nine. What I can say about Sharps is that when they had a showroom in High Wycombe, we used to get out hair cut there. The woman that ran the place was a hairdresser/barber and did a great job out the back.

Yes

So Quantum Physics and Relavalistic Effect not exist then, or been written about. How it all moves forward, but I suspect the underlaying causes are the same. There is a methodology to science proofs that has not yet been bettered. There have been a number of academic that have tried to rewrite the science method, they all fall down in the end. I think the biggest problem is that when describing nature, models are used. At the early stages of peoples education, these are very simplistic models, the 'don't touch, it is hot' level. These move on a bit at school to putting a few words and maybe some theory to it i.e. temperature, energy, molecular movement. And for most people that is where it stops. This is why people still think low temperature, or low voltage, is equal to low energy, even though, they don't have a clue what energy is. Much of this confusion has come about because of the social and medial sciences. Trouble is, their burden of proof, or what us real scientists call truth, is so pitifully low i.e. a 95% confidence level, compared to 0.0000003% or nearly 17 million times less chance that it is a fluke. Also, when an idea is rejected, i.e. the research is on the wrong track, that does not prove any alternative is correct. So a simple medical experiment to see if taking a daily Aspirin reduces blood clotting, does not show anything about that not taking Aspirin. This is something that social and pseudo scientists, and especially pub bores do not adhere to at all. They use a negative result to show a proof in any other area that that fits their believes. This is hardly surprising as we have all been brought up a religious societies that thrive on 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence', which when you think about it, is a nonsense statement.

But a few minutes with the correct solvent, which is not acetone, would have solved it on site. I have told people what to buy for years, but no, seems everyone wants to carry on using acetone.

You have no intention of ever modifying it then.

You can wash it away easily with this.