SteamyTea

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.

But the RMP is generally low. It is extremely rare that they are running at full fan speed. I used to live in a rally isolated, rural place, all I could hear was my tinnitus most of the time. I hated it, any unexpected noise just worried me. I had the radio on 24/7 to mask the silence. Oddly though, my sister, who is pretty deaf, hated the 'rural' noise when she moved to the country 'for peace and quiet'. I did warn her that agriculture was not silent.

Wasn't it electrical resistance heating that caused problems. @TerryE only has resistance heating.

Same reason as this.

Not been the experience of people, on here, that have properly designed system.

Good stuff

Or just create a new house in the metaverse.

My view is that a buffer would always be designed in with a heat pump system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-cleaning_glass Or get a Latvian in, the guy that does my neighbours is excellent.

Generally it is the proportion of fillers that reduce shrinkage in PU foams. We used to add on 3% for shrinkage when moulding cushions and dashboards. But it was also affected by ambient conditions when moulding, tool temperature, raw material stock temperature. I have always been concerned about shrinkage with SIPs. Seen panels that are bowed at a show and when I questioned the salesperson, he just shrugged.