MikeSharp01

Well essentially because I want 2 pipes going up the wall and 3 pipes going down so I thought this was quite elegant in its way, the ball valves are full bore and fast to operate.

I have come up with a manifold (I need 2 one for hot and one for cold) that is fabricated from soldered copper. Before I put them into manufacture I thought I would seek the collective wisdom's view on the idea - what have I missed / got wrong / forgotten. It has single 22mm inlet two main runs leading to 15mm outputs with a central balancing support run. We have good water pressure, 3 Bar at this point and very good flow. See image below and let.

We have Norrsken and air tightness is perfect- we scored 0.2 on PH basis with only the locks leaking a bit so we put the keys in for the air test and even without them blocked I don't suppose there would have been a measurable difference but the whistling was annoying before we blocked them.

DO THIS FIRST DO NOT START ON SITE - NOTHING GET THE CIL EXEMPTION IN FIRST.

Sadly this appears NOT to be reasonable but sadly it seems to be par for the course. We have had quite a few discussions about this on here and the conclusion is usually the same. Anecdotally the grant just adds to the normal, whatever that is, price. You do need to remember that there is a thing called supply and demand which brings a few more challenges. Firstly high demand often brings a lot of sub standard supply - so we see a lot of expensive but poor quality as companies bundle into the vacuum. So finding a reliable installer adds to one's angst. Secondly because a "proper" (note the quote marks) install needs MCS approval which drags in over specification which amplifies the issue above so increasing costs. You do have some options. For a saving on an MCS install seek out an umbrella scheme- which allows you to do a load of the work and the MCS installer just does the design and commissioning drawing down the grant for you. Alternatively do it all yourself with some advice on here to help you size the pump a local plumber and electrician to wire it all up. It will need planning permission to go this route.

You could interpret this as just trying it on, the apparently poor MCS size matching and perhaps a lack of technical knowledge / understanding by many putative installers has been discussed here, and elsewhere, frequently and the experience we see above tends to reinforce this.

onshape is very good, free - as long as you don't mind your drawings being public. and although a bit more complex than sketchup it is full featured.

We have just bitten the bullet and put an ensuite wet room off the snug area, which also serves as an accessible WC.

Will do, when they finally tie down the spec, as things stand it keeps coming and going from their web site, something to do with MCS certification.

The one we are looking at has a Panasonic DC Inverter Compressor - which is the real heart of the machine I guess.

The ASHP we are looking at says the COPs up to 5.56 is that the limit should I be looking for one that get up to 8 or is the quote from the manufacturer based on some output value?

here are the basic logo's ! Not dimmable: Dimmable:

Some of them yes. Look out for the logo on the box.

Not if you use the right approach (Trailing edge / phase-cut) suitably choked surely!

Look at the Whitewing driver units for either LV LED or 240V LED, we have one, not yet commissioned, controls 16 channels of 240 LED lights DMX controlled and fully dimmable, all in a single DIN rail mounting unit about 200mm x 120mm. Here is one we have: https://whitewing.co.uk/acdim.html I think others on here have these as well.

Its a long story, we have 1600mm x 600mm x 600 and this is directly below the MVHR unit. At this point the house is single story and it is close to the outer wall so everything is tight. The original plan was a Sunamp unit where we are now thinking we will put the UVC the Sunamp being much lower. However given the tribulations with the Sunamp units we have chosen to go for a UVC instead run from the heat pump but also chargeable via cheap electricity (Octopus agile / solar PV). So the space is limited by the original plan. We can get a Telford tempest (200l) in there, just but only if we can turn directly out of the top of the unit. Their 170 & 150 units fit with plenty of head room. There is only two of us and the house is just two bedrooms, two bathrooms, albeit spread of 153m2.

Is that not a G3 / MCS requirement - 100mm clear run of pipe straight out of the top! (I was told this was a requirement by one of the possible suppliers we investigated for our system.)

Had a look at the Telford Tempest, 200l we are only a two bedroom home so that should be OK and I am confident we cannot fit 300l into the space we have. Although if I could do away with 100mm of straight pipe from the outlet we could go 100mm higher but max Diameter I 600mm.

I have been looking for a 200l cylinder, we only need about 150l, and I have not found on that has a coil that big, I have found one with 1.9m2 if you connect both the main and secondary coils in series.

The Latham's door does have a passive house certificate, but it isn't clear to me that includes the lock: https://www.lathamtimber.co.uk/contentfiles/files/z_moralt_moralt-passiv-klima-klimasoft-firesafe-akustik_en_2015.pdf Interesting link, the certificate says is valid only until 2015 but it looks like a current product on their website, it must come with a lock and if it is a certified product then that's you sorted. Judging by the video on the web site about the Moralt system it look like you specify what you want and they build it.

Couple of things. 1. The company selling the door should offer a U value for the door and frame including the lock and the package will be certified so no need to worry about that. 2. When we had our air test the leak through the mortise locks were vey noticeable so we will need to fit covers on then eventually. We still managed 0.2 on the Passive house scale but every little helps.

Time we started a bit of gentle lobbying perhaps. Here is a note I have just sent to the BBC Today programme to ask them to ask an appropriate minister. "Here is a question you might like ask of an appropriate minister if they continue to say that the only route to cheaper electricity is to increase renewable generation. While I agree we should be increasing renewable generation there is a problem lurking at the core of this statement from government. The chart above is from this document (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/675c0ca798302e574b915336/eep-report-2023-2050.pdf) published in December 2024 by Ed Miliband's department. It clearly shows that we will be using as much gas in 2050 as we are using now to generate electricity despite a massive increase in renewables. This means that unless the link between the gas price and the electricity price is broken the price for electricity will still be set by Gas. How does the minister square this circle? If we are going to delink why don't we do it now - perhaps it is because the renewable generators are getting a great price for their electricity. If we are not delinking how will the electricity prices not be tied back to a fossil fuel with all that entails. " Let's see if anything comes of it.

the menu will probably have a setting to fix the speed of the RS485 connection and get its address, if not use 9600 Bps and 1 and see what gives. You will need something like this (https://thepihut.com/products/rs232-rs485-to-rj45-ethernet-serial-server-poe-port) to talk to it and an ethernet connection to plug it into the RS485 wire can be as long as you need - even Buckingham palace does not extend so far that RS485 won't reach.

It looks like something has got to give as things are unsustainable. That report from Mr Milibands department in December clearly shows that we will still be burning as much gas as we are today although as a smaller proportion of overall generation. So it follows that gas will still set the price unless it is delinked from doing so. Given we assume that the department knows what it is doing the calculation must be that at some point the link will need to be broken by some means as yet unknown. This brings us back to what @SteamyTea says might be a tactic in the minds of the windfarm builders to push this date back so they can make hay while the wind blows.

No Apparently you don't need any more up there. According to your man from Octopus the marginal cost of production up there is something silly like 7p kWh but the companies get paid something like 12p kWh just to keep them turned off. Its all madder than a mad things mad thing!