MikeSharp01

I am just about to wire the distribution box, see pic below and drawing below, This distributes the incoming power from the meter panel next to it out to the garden room 1x80A fused unit (upper), the main house - 1x80A fused unit and a local commando socket (16A) and the garden lighting (1x small CU 16A / 6A breakers). I have three things I am not sure of so any ideas greatly appreciated; Should I use ferrules on the ends of all the 10 / 16 and 25mm2 tails across the cabinet (they are already on the internal wiring in the small CU). I would have though I would but installations I have seen don't always use them and the regs look agnostic (526.9.1 in 17th Ed)! To get the cables in and out of the CU I propose to just use simple grommets around the holes, I don't think I need to seal them although I could. Do I need to earth the earth connections, and run the earths through, on the Switch Fuse units as the earth common block will be used to terminate the earths from the cables these supply, it seems daft to introduce two additional points of failure by connecting the outgoing cable earths via the switch fuse units. The cables will all be held down on the board by cable ties through table tie plugs in the board. All and any thoughts appreciated.

Just did it, its PEDIT - Close.

Just click on the line it will show the nodes and then you can investigate each one, if you move a node and one line stays still there is your gap but IIRC you can close a shape with straight lines or curves and set a gap tolerance to close.

Looks like you are going to really poop his party on this one if you can find the sweet spot.

+1 For Henry. We have a VAX for wet dry work and a Henry for everyday it's very good at least as good as the VAX while the cable wind and two speed control make it excellent. Only brought it to clean our sons uni room when he moved out and we now love it.

I got a rather good O level with SMP, and I think I had a crush on the teacher - her name was miss slowly, wonder where she is now.

Yep - my bad - 292. Off day yesterday, have rechecked everything else I did yesterday and it looks like the only one though. Given all the above I guess you do have some levers you can pull, should you wish to, in your response to the application.

As they are clay you will have a double row at the bottom with the lower ones as half tiles then one stretching back over it as a full tile to the next batten up @Temp links show this as does yours.

There is a location plan on the main drawings, 400m2 is the total land area so they will need almost half of that as amenity space. I make the houses 7 x 8 meters (external - guess) = 56m2 x 2 =112 + 180 = 392 so a few m2 under the available area. Someone did their homework or are very lucky!

That was discussed in the programme as a mechanism for grid balancing. I guess it means that they guarantee to have your car fully charged by a given time when you put it on charge but they can fill it and empty is as many times as they like during the period.

Sorry Dave, maybe I came across badly. I felt the programme was focused on batteries and ranged far and wide across economics / physics / technology of wind / solar and storage technologies. It didn't seem to come down one way or another but gave some useful insights into the bigger picture.

Just listened to bbc R4 Bottom line on battery technology. Well worth a listen. "The last sentence is most interesting: went something like: UK and France have announced zero carbon emission cars by 2040 my guess is that ministers know there is a technology about to break." Is it lithium suphur?

Have you got that quite right @Pete you say that the 90mm screws are spaced at 50mm and the 75mm screws are spaced at 150mm. 50mm spacing must be overkill and going in 90mm when you have 35mm of mounted material - so 55mm into the sub strata while the other one only have 25mm seems too little or in the former case are the battens held on independently of the backer board? In which case less of a problem. In the end you need to go with what parex recommends as anything less might lead to problems if there is a problem - if you get my drift.

Welcome, sounds exciting, looking on with interest.

You're a cynical blighter today Ian. You never know things might get better although I appreciate that optimism is a grubby word thsee days.

Hey @Barney12 I thought your question, 'can anybody tell me exactly...' was a bit like the crystal maze for very 'clever' people as the number of ways of getting it wrong are myriad, the whole thing appears simple at the outset and for each situation there is only one right answer nestling like a needle in the haystack. Get a normal crapper or get a head ache. Alternatively you could settle back and wait for @onoff to finish his thread on boxing in because I think this same question is in there, and answered - well sort of, about page 10.

My Brother, not well known for his mathematical ability but still wealthier than me has calculated that since the invention of the ball point pen enough have been made to cover the planet in a layer 75mm (3 inches he said) thick but can you find one when you want one. Nope...

If I was a social scientist I might challenge this statement but I would not want to waste space on this social network

OMG, Yep - off ....

I find it hard to agree with your points here. Industry has not become more efficient over recent years - productivity is way down and nowhere near where our main competitors are at. There is also little evidence that the sold off state monopolies have improved things although I agree that at the outset they did. If you look at the railways you can see the effect very clearly. It takes approximately the same time today to get to Bournemouth on the very latest train as it did in the 1930s steam era and there are fewer trains and permile travel cost in relative terms much higher. The railways were private then almost as they are now. The government do require more money that is just growth - the efficient service problem may arise from two possibly three sources. Firstly a lot of services have been privatised and so some of the cream has to go to shareholders this means that the privatised efficiency gain has to be more for less and some for the shareholders. Teresa May is correct capitalism is the best system we have but it won't do everything because not every thing has a profit in. This brings me to the second source. Where there is no profit available to a direct capitalist the state has to subsidise the cost of a service - back to the railways we are! As the profit motive drives this along again the cream is given to the shareholders and the service is just commercially acceptable but no more. In some instances where the service is not acceptable the goverenment can take the contract back. However as there are very few companies of similar ilk it goes to one of the others where the cycle repeats and so the service is worse, the cost to the taxpayer higher and the companies concerned just think of it as churn and hence the cost of doing business. We also know that privatise services delivered to the public can have very high costs such as the American health care system which is insurance based. It does more tests and keeps people in longer because the procedures equal profit. This also leads to inefficiency and, as was the case in the USA before Obama care, affordability issues for the poorest in society. Which brings me to point 3. The poorest in society need our care and attention because if neglected they will find a voice somewhere and destabilise our society quite apart from the fact that we need them to be productive in society and able to access their share, through toil and enterprise, of the spoils hence Obama care. Without it the growing under class of people with no health care insurance was damaging productivity through sickness and increasing unrest and despite the right making headway even they have so far shyed away from closing it down and going back to how it was before Obama care came in. Finally and not a further point but a more general one is about regulation. Capitalism only works effectively if it's excesses are curbed by effective regulations (laws) which enures it does not do perverse things in the name of profit - complex financial instruments cone to mind. Hence perhaps the need for an albeit modified LVT in the house building sector at least. QED - well almost.

With some simple rules it could perhaps be made to work. Here are my not exhaustive thoughts. If LVT only applied to larger plots in one ownership - say more than 1 acre. Large areas being farmed would be exempt but land used for agriculture that was later developed would attract high stamp duty / one off LVT payment to prevent developers buying land and then turning it into a farm. If you are a large developer you get a discount on the LVT you pay on undeveloped land you own based upon the number of homes you complete with social and afford able homes attracting a bigger discount. The LVT would, for large plots, be based on the amout of council tax couple occupied plots on a high density basis on the land would generate. On smaller plots it would only apply if there was no council tax being paid IE no inhabitants and no building was being undertaken. So people sitting on small vacant plots would have to pay it or council tax! Land given outline planning would attract an increased LVT until the development was given full planning and the normal rate until building was complete. An accounting law would also accompany the LVT to ensure that land bank values could not be written down or up to massage profits / dividends. Just some thoughts.

Great news but the professionals need to be rigorously encouraged to do the full job in exchange for the agreed fee. Hold some of the fee back or get them to do the proper job. Otherwise the next person will get a slightly worse service until some one down the line complains. It a classic case of keep reducing the quality of the service until it is just fractionally below acceptable then inch it up. That way you minimise effort and maximise profit albeit usually only in the short term because you will eventually get caught out by competitive companies who go the extra mile.

Yes we have a datum based upon a survey nail in a sunken brick with two fixed back sights all set by our surveyor I think we do know the AOD of the brick but it us not used anywhere and our PP gives the FFL of the ground floor as 500mm above the datum and everything is linked back to that as the architects 0 datum. Looks like Ian has sorted his issue out, thanks to ANON - this is exactly the sort of thing this place can faciliate so all praise to them, but I was not sure how his AOD heights link back to his planning permission or if some other datum, in the way ours does, defines the heights. Given the drawings it looks like it is the OS so all should be well.

Wood burners are not a problem here, in the verdant grassland around the Kentish M25 in between the M20 and the M26 the animals like it better than diesel smoke and noise! I chop down a tree every year, log it and let it season before stuffing it up the chimney using simple combustion, perhaps I should stop. I worry however that my contribution will make little difference as this article points out that possibly the worlds 15 largest ships create more sulphur pollution than ALL the worlds cars put together and although it was a thought experiment by Prof Corbett they looked at it on more or less yesterday and found it to be a good one.

Perhaps an alternative would be a thermostat on the incoming pipe which switched off the ASHP if the flow temp gets too high.