epsilonGreedy

I like a shallow recess though from an historical point of view we are looking for the "150 year old plaster just crumbled off and so we decided to clean up the original brick face" look.

Indeed, we have even discussed lining up the header courses with the external brick wall header courses. I wonder how many visiting brick bond nerds will spot that!

Ross Davy in Grimsby did the same job for me. Ask for Alan Scoffin, he is an architectural technician. https://uk.linkedin.com/in/alan-scoffin-5087092a http://www.rossdavyltd.co.uk/

My brickie is asking for my pointing finish preference now that he is about to lay about 8m2 of internal facing brick wall? The room in question has been labelled "The Snug" and we are looking for an olde rural cottage theme in the room that will include a fireplace with a brick hearth, an exposed ceiling oak joist that will divide the snug from kitchen and a painted wood panelled wall below the facing bricks to dado rail height. My options are (1) bagged off which is the finish of the external wall, (2) recessed and (3) struck. More info: The bricks are a buff blend with patches of red with a sand coloured mortar.

Thin flow screeds present a bigger problem because there is less weight pushing down on the insulation sheet.

How many labels per cable do you recommend, just each end or also at mid points where cable runs are clustered?

Other evidence proves the reverse is true. The rise in the incidence of asthma in this country is inverse to measures introduced to create smoke free zones with resulting particulate reductions post the smogs of the 1950's. The rise of asthma tracks the rise of clean heating via gas central heating. The rise of asthma also tracks the rise in private motor car usage in this country.

Their failings were his filings, that is how a ship's company is judged particularly when an unequivocal event occurs such as a loss of a ship in combat. You seem to want to assess the issue like finger pointing sub contractors. None. Despite frequent contact with military types you debate with the mindset of a civilian barrister who has specialized in employment law.

Another self builder with potted plants on site well ahead of a finished house. Swmbo keeps asking me to move the ugly building stuff out of the way because it spoils her plant pot display. I concur with the issue of shelter though in my case my skirting is structural and this made the caravan feel much more stable in high winds. Yes heavy rain on the roof is a problem, sometime we have to crank up the TV volume up to deal with the noise.

Yet in your attempt to prove misrepresentation you actually demonstrated that most of my points were correct. The only point I got wrong was that Glasgow also had a radar contact in addition to the carrier and it was Glasgow that broadcast the warning. The misrepresentations and half truths originated from Navy. Captain Salt should have been ejected from the Navy in disgrace on two counts: He disobeyed orders. His admiral ordered him to take up a position in an aircraft radar picket line whereas he instead decided submarines were the principal threat. He compromised that picket function of protecting the fleet by zigzagging all over trying to save his ship by evading a submarine threat that did not materialize. His ship dismissed multiple intelligence reports about the exocet air threat. He was an arrogant submariner in the wrong command at the wrong time who thought he knew better than his fellow surface fleet commanders who were better acclimatised regarding contemporary threats to surface ships. There was a heavy cost for his arrogance. The second count for dismissal was that he and his officers had abandoned their posts at a time of high military threat. Sheffield had recently being transferred to the hot end of the picket line yet the captain was resting in his cabin. Meanwhile on Coventry that had just transferred to the quiet position the captain was present and able to make the split second decision to call actions stations. Your suggestion that the navy decided to report half truths at the time was out of concern for public morale is laughable. In the year following the Falklands War admiration for our armed forces and national jingoism was at an all-time-high. There was never a better time for the Navy to publicly report the failures behind the loss of Sheffield and take appropriate corrective action. Instead what happened is that those who failed in combat progressed to higher rank and those who excelled quit in disgust. This is a familiar story in Britain's military establishment and a significant contributory factor to the UK's declining reputation and capability as a warrior nation.

This is a perfect description of the initial official Royal Navy report on the loss of the Sheffield. It took another 25 to 30 years for the Royal Navy's halve truths to be exposed in a subsequent investigation demanded by veterans and families. We now know: Prior to the conflict the Sheffield had an establish reputation as an unlucky ship with a discontent crew. Her origin as the first of production batch vessel goes some way to explaining this. HMS Astute is a modern day example. Her captain had been appointed to that command a few months earlier and of more concern, he had recently transferred from the submarine branch and was considered inexperienced with surface warfare operations. Senior officers have subsequently questioned why a more suitable commander was not substituted before the ship was dispatched south. Let's fast forward to the 48 hours upto the missile strike. Admiral Woodford the fleet commander was concerned about something. He was positioned well East of the Falklands with a destroyer radar picket line between his fleet and Argentinian air threats. His main fleet was 20 miles further back than the radar picket line. Clearly his actions demonstrate he was extremely worried about air attacks which torpedos your assertion. Moving on... Admiral Woodford knew Sheffield was his weakest air defence ship which was why he positioned the more capable HMS Coventry in the hot seat of the picket line. Eventually after an intense period Coventry needed to fix some equipment and the crew rested, so Coventry took up Sheffield's quiet end of the picket line and Sheffield switched into the hot spot. A few minutes before missile impact a radar operator on one of the carriers called an air threat alert after seeing a brief ping, this was heard by the fleet but then countermanded by someone more senior on the carrier. Even so two ships on the radar picket line called actions stations including the Coventry in the quiet spot but the third ship the Sheffield did not. Absolutely not true as is now well established. It took many decades before the reason that Sheffield was ambling along in a lower state of readiness was revealed. At the time the carrier broadcast an air threat the 5 most senior officers on the Sheffield were absent from their posts. The captain was lounging in his private cabin and the warfare control room head was having a cup of tea & chat at the galley. The 5 officers most likely to have responded and called action stations, as did the other two destroyers, were not at their posts to make that call.

Any one of your points would persuade me, now I am utterly convinced not to follow that Hager video! My current thinking, to excuse the pun, is to create a partial 35mm recess in the inner wall block masonry with 65mm coursing bricks on their edge within the blockwork hole, then batten out the inner wall by another 30 to 40mm to create sufficient depth for the recess mounted CU. Schneider have the most attractive CU faces but I think I will go with a Hager because their recess box and mounting system looks the most thought through design.

That makes more sense. I was watching a Hager CU installation video on YouTube and that claimed the regulation height was 1400 from FFL to the row of CU switches + or - 50mm. However another Hager video demonstrated the fitting of a flush mounted CU in hole in a 100mm inner block wall. They pushed the metal recess box of the CU into the recess to the point it was backed up to the insulation cavity batts, the same video showed cables running down the cavity sandwiched between the inner blocks and cavity blocks which got me wondering is they were doing things correctly?

Quite often when an Argentinian warplane is inbound with Exocet ready to fire. These days with just 9 RN surface warships ready for action at 2 weeks notice, then the chances of the Royal Navy getting embroiled in anything like the Falklands War again is looking remote. In 1982 we had 65 commissioned frigates and destroyers, today there are 19 in theory though due to an horrendous procurement design error by the MOD the 6 newish Type 45s are lame ducks awaiting a substantial upgrade.

"state 1 readiness for action" sounds a lot like a combat zone to me. @Jeremy Harrishas imagined that I claimed deep fat fryers have been banished for evermore in the Royal Navy.

The hard won experiences of the Falklands War are still enshrined in Royal Navy operational procedure today, here are the standing orders for a Ship's galley: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/799484/20190502-20_04_03-_JSP_456_DCM_Pt_2_Vol_1_-_Ch_13_-_Royal_Navy_Catering_Management_Amndt_019.pdf

The Falklands War finished 7 years earlier and HMS Norfolk was not in a combat zone when you were onboard. Any sentient Briton over the age of 50 with a passing interest in the Royal Navy knows the Admiralty issued a stop order on using deep fat fryers after the loss of Sheffield. Why am I still able post on this forum if I had been fondling the live exposed copper core of a DNO cable last weekend? Earlier in this thread you mentioned it was possible to touch a live DNO cable and I did not assume you meant the live copper core. Why were you not able to apply the same degree of rational interpretation of human dialogue that I applied?

Yes though no one is mandating a wholescale replacement of such plastic CUs under stairs. However for a period of time plastic CUs were being fitted in new builds in accessible locations exposed to impact damage. I am happy to fit a metal CU in my new build in view of this risk.

The Admiralty did not agree with your opinion, hence the immediate instruction to the fleet during the Falklands War to decommission the deep fat fryers in the combat zone. Why did you post this? What do you imagine happened on my site at the weekend?

That is my plan for tomorrow, however talking it through with the lead brickie last night we cannot decide whether to build the hole and then slot the meterbox in or fit the box propped in position and then lay bricks around it.

In a new build is it possible that a vertical column of circuit breaker switches would result in some switches at the top or bottom being outside the permissible height range?

Are we sure that fire risk was the only driver of the change? When I heard that mobility regs required a CU be fitted in an accessible location about 4 feet off the ground my immediate that was "how long before someone dies after the metal ladder or bicycle being carried through the house swings into the wall, crunches through the plastic cover of the CU and contacts something live".

I am aware a live DNO supply cable can be touched, I spent a few hours at the weekend exposing my DNO supply cable in its trench prior to the meter box being lifted into the wall tomorrow as the wall goes up. Because of previous comments on this forum I was alert to the fact I was handling a potentially lethal cable with just a few mm of plastic protecting me from the live copper core, so I exposed the cable with the same level of care as an archaeologist uncovering the burial site of Queen Boudica. Where is the hazard you ask. The hazard is in the random unanticipated event. Think of it this way, many decades ago an MOD boffin was asked to assess whether it was safe to fit a deep fat fryer in the galley of a Type 42 Destroyer. Viewed in myopic isolation it was a reasonable safe thing to do, except the boffin did not anticipate an exocet missile ripping into the side of the ship, the jet engine consuming its remaining propellant and then the deep fat fryer igniting thus contributing to the conflagration leading to the demise of HMS Sheffield. The exocet missile missile on a building site is a digger. You cannot predict with any certainty what random lethal circuits might form should a digger bucket slice through both a DNO cable and other cable downstream of the CU. Your hostility and suggestion that a foot of separation between such cables is a dubious idea is unfathomable.

Her best friend has been renovating a house for 20 years and most years that has involved pulling it apart more than putting it back together again. I will use that other house as a reference should Swmbo complain. She seems happy with current progress.

I am pleased you prompted me on this... the floor designer has all the deflection numbers to hand per joist size. He says relative to 100% deflection (which I take to mean the max allowable by some industry standard) my original and improved defections numbers are: So that 14.63mm deflection seems significant though where most important on the landing there is a double J4 along the stairwell and a 3rd J4 less than 400mm away.