Bemak

That gauge there.

No idea. I'm not too familiar with it all but my guess is what you suggest, that I was pushing water out of the system somewhere

Tank is old enough but the boiler is now. Installed last year. Don't see any overflow when trying to pressurize the system.

I don't see any motorized valves in the hot press or anywhere else. All I have in the boiler is a manual valve for the rads and off that another valve which seems to isolate the coil in the tank. Because last night I closed that valve, pressure built up, rads heated but no hot water

Sorry, I don't know the correct term - the loop that feeds the coil in the hot water tank.

No UFH. Sorry should have said. Even with air, surely the pressure should still rise?

Doing a bit of work to the house and had to remove a rad from the system so I got a local plumber to drain the system and remove the rad. He left a young fella back to fix it all up but ever since they've left the system just won't fill back up. The only time I've been able to get the pressure up is when I close the coil loop and just fill the radiators. When I do this the system fills as it should. Any idea why the pressure then drops when I open the coil loop?

just had a chat with the SE on this. He said he's happy with the 100mm wall from a loading point of view - the blockwork is more than sufficient in that sense. his only fear is lateral movement - if the beam was to move slightly because of movement upstairs the supporting wall could move/twist as a result and who's to say one of the blocks/cut lintels wouldn't pop out in that instance. But he's happy that the u-channel solution proposed by the contractor will resolve this

Ya it looked mighty thin before 😅 Think it will probably be fine but will have a backstop! Will keep ye posted. Thanks guys

100mm is the width. It's probably 200mm deep. Still not ideal but it's not 100x100 is all

forgot to say - the existing blockwork that the beam is sitting on goes down to the foundations - it's the remnants of the wall that was removed between kitchen and dining.

contractor ended up using concrete lintels (cut) to make up the difference between the existing and proposed. Probably more robust? will have a SE have a look anyway. I think the U-channel solution is a good fail safe

Doing a bit of a job on our kitchen at the moment and as part of the work we're removing an existing downstand beam in the dining room. The beam is only supporting a stud partition on the first floor and was installed by the previous, previous owner when they merged the kitchen and dining room into one room. We're replacing the existing beam with a new beam (152UC 37) which will be integrated into the ceiling. The new beam has a plate at the bottom to support the joists which will be cut to allow for the beam to fit into the ceiling. Part of the refurb involves opening up the back wall to put in a slider as the dining room is north-west facing. This ope is 4.2m wide so we have a big steel in supporting the external wall above. (203UC 60). I've attached extracts of the plans to give a sense of what's going on. The smaller beam bears on the larger beam at the external wall side and our intention was to reuse the existing pad that was supporting the downstand beam on the opposite side. However, on opening up the plasterboard we've found that the existing beam was just bearing on 100mm blockwork. We've proceed with the install as we're under time pressure but the smaller beam is still being propped while we let the new blockwork underneath cure. It's also giving us a chance to think about whether we need additional support on this side. I've attached a pic of beam as it is currently installed. The baseplate is making it look far more undersized than it actually is - the beam itself is 154mm wide - so it's overhanging the blockwork by 27mm each side. Not ideal. One solution is to reinforce the blockwork by bolting on a steel U-channel which will run from the base of the steel beam to the subfloor below. See last pic for diagram of this. While the 100mm bearing isn't ideal - is it that big a deal considering that the floor joists are preventing lateral movement? Don't get me wrong, I want to do the right thing here. I'm going to talk to a SE tomorrow in the office - just wondering what you guys think.

I'm very happy where the plan is at. I'm not at that same place with the elevations. I think I can make them work but we'll see. I'll keep ye posted 🤞🏻

This style of house is a common sight in the countryside at the moment as the "modern" take on the Irish vernacular. Standing seam, tight verge and eaves. There's nothing unique about it at this stage. Not a criticism of what you've drawn - just not my kinda thing Thanks for taking the time to do the sketch though!

Modelled this approach up as an old option with black timber cladding but the building isn't long enough so the other elevation looks too short. Also, a valley like that in an area with a lot of trees is only asking for trouble

I'll post up the final elevations when I get there - will avoid all this "kinda looks like this" etc. Thanks for all your comments!

this is a different animal - opes are a lot bigger than what I imagine - but it's a nice simple eaves - I think the roof is secondary

This apartment block captures the simplicity I'm after. Obviously it's a different scale but I think it gives a good idea.

Ya there's plenty of work to do on the expression yet. The plan isn't exactly square, (I just reference it as such) one side is longer than the other so there will be a ridge. It won't be a pyramid roof!

Another image from an old model.

These are two neighbouring houses. Think there are a lot of similarities.

Thanks kinda obvious though isn't it? That's an old 3D mind. I think it's simplified a lot since.

It's in Kerry. Would be very familiar with the rural design guides. Most counties have their own one - all of which are based on the cork one which was the original. Useful guide for general use but it's by no means the only way to do things. House is extremely well screened, the site is invisible really and I've been speaking to the planner and she's happy to give plenty of leeway in terms of design. We'll see. What I'm proposing is not a million miles away of existing houses in the vicinity so I think there is plenty of scope to argue the case. I would have carried out a lot of daylighting studies to get to where I'm at. I posted an L-shape plan earlier which would probably give a better 'cornflakes corner' but it's not that private from the road hence the change to the square. Everything needs to balance. I think I'll reduce the large west facing ope to become two smaller opes but I haven't had time to develop this further yet.