jack

I'd have assumed at least the above ground stuff would be taken away, although it's always better when these things are specified up-front. Do you have anything at all in writing - even an email is good enough. It seems very unusual that they'd demolish, then go away while you clear, then come back and scrape/level. On the other hand, if they're saying you're responsible for getting rid of the spoil, then they've just officially stolen from you by taking the metals, windows, and wood etc that by their own argument was your responsibility. Up to you whether you want to push back. Our demo guys were nice enough but there's no way I'd have stood toe to toe with them in an argument.

At least they responded and gave an honest answer. Neither is necessarily a given!

+1 I nearly got bounced off one going over what seemed like a reasonably small bump at moderate speed. I hadn't strapped in because I was only moving it a short way, but it gave me new respect for what those big bouncy tyres could potentially do.

Resilient bar

Do whatever you can to reduce noise via the floors, imo. One of the things I'm disappointed by with our build is how bad sound transmission is from the (carpeted) upstairs floors. My noisiest, danciest child has the room immediately above my study and at times it sounds like elephants are being thrown around. If I were doing this again, I'd insist on a screed upstairs rather than relying on chipboard and sound insulation. That said, I'm highly sensitive to noise, and it doesn't really worry my wife.

No, it's extracts from comments made in relation to a single test performed on a single installed unit (+ control installation) in Australia.

That was the best one I saw. There are a few under different brand names that look familiar, from memory. Not sure if they actually contain the same "guts". I had to break into the property we were renting when we locked ourselves out. Climbed from a wheelie bin onto the flat roof over the kitchen, then used a screwdriver to lever open the PVC window to a bedroom enough to get in a bit of bent steel and turn the lever to open. In within 30 seconds! The takeaway was that even upstairs windows should be deadlocked, although I suspect that's of far less importance if you have decent wooden windows.

Yes, it is. However, I can't see why the fact that you don't personally choose the website wording is relevant. One way or the other, your company is contradicting itself. If you know what she means, then can you please explain it to me? I understand what you mean by the desirability of keeping it collegiate. I'd prefer that option myself, but we've now had pages of dialogue without a straight answer to some pretty fundamental questions. I'd actually love it if it were shown properly that this system works, because that would mean that there's clearly something we don't understand about the chemistry of water and dissolved minerals. It would also mean an opportunity for getting most of the benefits of softened water without the cost of salt and the environmental impact of wasted water used for regeneration. I think you're probably right. This is about the fifth time I've responded where I've thought "that's it, if there isn't a straight answer this time, I'm out"!

I disagree that I've said or done anything unfair. @Polly told us earlier that she has a scientific background, so I assume that when she refers to a "colloidal suspension", she knows what that means. A colloidal suspension of aragonite comprises crystalline solids in water, so everything I've said on that point applies. @Polly has had several opportunities to correct my understanding, and/or clarify or add to her own statements about this. She's chosen not to. [Edited this section a bit after posting] No, not unfair. You've posted their quote plus my first sentence. The very next thing I said was: "And if your answer is that this phrasing is intended to involve a comparison with actual soft water rather than implying you're doing any softening, then in my opinion this sentence intentionally misleads through the use of "softer" instead of "soft"." I think the language intentionally misleads the reader to think that the water is being softened, rather than this being a comparison with softened water. That's my reasoned opinion, which I understand you might disagree with. I don't, however, think I've said anything unfair. Again, @Polly chose not to address this point. What about this, on the page you end up at if you click on "Domestic" from the home page: Seems pretty unequivocal to me. All that said, I posted a page or two ago that they may actually meet at least one definition of "soft" water. So why do they keep pushing the "we don't soften, we condition" line? Do they soften, as they say in the quote above, or do they condition but not soften, as they repeatedly emphasise elsewhere in this thread? I just want unambiguous language and straight answers to straight questions. If you think that's unfair, cool.

We stayed in a holiday unit last year that used one of these (one of the most common units you see, with a very well known brand name and rotary dial code). As we were packing up to leave, we learned that my younger son had had a bit of a play with the key safe and accidentally changed the code before shutting it. After trying for a few minutes to open it with various combinations near the old one, I did an internet search to see how easy they were to get into. I was surprised to learn that a sliver of aluminium from a drink can and 30 seconds was all that was needed for me to get in on my first attempt. I reckon that with practice you could be in within 10 seconds. I spent a bit of time looking for higher security versions after this, but wasn't convinced about any of the options I could find. Personally, when we get around to this, I'll likely conceal a hardened, key-lockable version somewhere well out of sight in the back garden, and then put the key to that and the garden gate in a code-lockable one near the front door. It's only likely to be used in emergencies, as we have good friends and family nearby who keep spare keys anyway.

Thanks for that. In my opinion, the document you supplied isn't evidence that would be accepted by anyone with a scientific background. Science aside, it involves a test (not "tests") that happened over 30 years ago, and the original documents upon which it is based are very unlikely to be available for cross-checking. If others are interested, I'm sure they can ask for your document themselves. The Advertising Standards Authority doesn't care what your job title is. If you're making laudatory statements about your company's products in such a way as to encourage people to buy them, then you're advertising, end of. As for aragonite formation, I know my chemistry knowledge is pretty weak, but these two posts seem to contradict each other: Which is it? As I understand it, aragonite is a crystalline solid, hence must be a precipitate. If "Aragonite is formed inside the device", it must therefore "precipitates inside the unit itself", surely? If not, how else is aragonite formed inside the device? This is a fairly simple question that still hasn't been addressed despite having been asked by different posters in different ways.

Would aragonite crystal revert to calcite directly, or would it dissolve back into solution from where it re-precipitates out as calcite (assuming the relevant conditions are present)?

My apologies. I assumed that if a company is so secretive that expired patents that it didn't even own are so commercially sensitive they can't be identified, then test results would be super duper tip top secret. If it can be attached to an email, it can be provided as a PDF on a website. You could also (or alternatively) provide a brief summary, such as what institutions did the work, what they tested and what the results were. Again, if the science is good, none of this should be an issue. And since these results aren't commercially sensitive, can you PM them to me please? I'm really interested in what they say. The tension between these two statements is the crux, imo. I can't recall whether Halcyan has specifically said when aragonite is formed. Since there is no plausible way that dissolved ions can retain a memory that would allow aragonite crystals to selectively be formed downstream when conditions of heat etc arise, it seems to me that precipitation at the device is the only other alternative. Halcyan's definitive answer on this point would be useful. I very much look forward to your answer, because if all CaCO3 is precipitated as aragonite, then pH should change measurably. If, on the other hand, you're saying that aragonite is precipitated somewhere downstream rather than at the device, then I think you have considerably more explaining to do. I disagree.

I don't think that's what they're alleging happens Jeremy. I think they're saying that the device causes the CaCO3 to precipitate out as aragonite as it's treated, not at some later stage. Precipitation should be easy enough to test. Confirming that it's aragonite will be harder. Based on their own argument, aragonite doesn't bind to itself or anything else. Accordingly, unless a very significant proportion of the CaCO3 is precipitated as aragonite, I can't think of any mechanism for preventing the remaining CaCO3 from precipitating as limescale in the usual way. But hey, I don't pretend to be a chemist/physicist, and I'm open to evidence (note: "evidence", not reviews or testimonials). The "independent industry tests" (which, incidentally, you've mentioned once, not "a few times") intrigue me. They're apparently so commercially sensitive that you won't publish them. If I had tests that proved my product worked in spite of its proposed operating principles violating the known laws of physics, I'd be shouting about them from the rooftops, not forcing people to contact me for them. Can you not see how this looks to the average potential purchaser of your product? Also, if the existing "independent industry test" results are so good, why are you: Are the existing results not good enough to prove your point? Reviews and testimonials are no sort of proof. They can be faked, cherry picked, and in any event are unreliable because most people see what they want to see. Your own "technical information/data" isn't independent, so is entirely worthless. If what you say is happening is really happening, testing is straightforward. Run some water through your system, filter out the colloidal precipitate, and check whether what you've filtered out is aragonite or calcite. Conductivity should fall due to the reduction in ions, pH should fall due to the reduction in dissolved CaCO3. I'm sure someone with more than A level chemistry will be able to propose other simple tests too. And as for this: From the landing page of your website: Are you saying that your product provides "softer water" without softening? Surely that's internally inconsistent? And if your answer is that this phrasing is intended to involve a comparison with actual soft water rather than implying you're doing any softening, then in my opinion this sentence intentionally misleads through the use of "softer" instead of "soft". I don't know what impression you think your posts as a whole will make on people who find them in the future, but at the moment my gut feeling is that they're doing your company more harm than good. Edited to add: still awaiting an answer to my question above about why "pH does not change at detectable levels" if aragonite is being precipitated in any significant amount.

Welcome! Find the right sub-forum and ask away.

By coincidence, I was recently in contact with the plumbing firm we all used and he expressed an interest in doing more work for self-builders (I think we're faster payers than most of the developers he's worked with!) I believe they work mainly in Surrey and Southwest London, but anyone interested in talking to him can drop me a pm.

The way you introduced the topic of mineral content with the phrase "but please remember" sounded to me like you were suggesting the effect somehow wasn't testable. Apologies if that wasn't intended, but as I think the conversation to date has made abundantly clear, several members understand completely what you're alleging happens. Any tests are hardly going to just involve checking for calcium carbonate. Why not? I'm no chemistry expert, but from my A-levels a few decades ago I seem to recall that pH should change if you precipitate a significant proportion of calcium carbonate ions out of solution to form aragonite.

But you allege that aragonite is formed. Aragonite is a solid, and hence must reduce the concentration of ions. While one would expect dried solids to be the same upon evaporation, conductivity and pH, for example, should be different.

For drainage with a slight fall, it also offers the best combination of flow rates for small and large volumes of water. Small volumes of water in a square (flat down) pipe would flow quite slowly.

Most magistrates are pretty good at sorting out what's what. I doubt any would consider that any benefit was gained from what's been done to date (especially given the costs of remediating the piers, assuming it can be shown that they were damaged by the first builder). That said, I'd be tempted to accept that £120 extra is a small price for dodging this bullet. Also, the last thing you want is to make an enemy of someone locally well known. Personally, I'd consider accepting the loss, diverting my time and attention back to what's being done now by the new guy, and chalking up the extra as a price paid for useful experience. Probably not what you want to hear given the horrible job that was done, but your time, energy and emotional well-being have a price too.

I think I saw something else he did (lab tables with removable tops?) on the forum you mentioned above. Extremely tidy work, and in stainless too!

Yep, already thinking about a strip of epdm or nitrile rubber along the bottom. Concrete floors make something like this a must! I hear you on the costs of galvanising etc. We've started getting quotes for galvanising and powder coating our gates and I've been surprised at some (well, nearly all) of the prices coming back.

... and we did the same with @JSHarris There's quite a chain (a few chains, actually). Lovely to see it being continued as each new link in the chain moves forward.

That applies to everything - the guys who turned up to do ours expected us to supply EPDM for under our doors and compriband for where the external blind rails meet the cill. They asked for this in both cases on the day they actually needed the materials, despite the fact that they'd been onsite for days and we'd asked them when they were quoting whether they needed us to supply any materials.

I agree. I don't know what's underneath - there could well be more to it than you can see. I'm a little concerned about the amount of leverage that could be put onto fixings into the bottom of the table if they just go through the flat bar where it links the tops of the legs. I think that at the very least there should be a couple of tabs extending along the underside of the table surface, or (as you say) rails linking the legs and attached to the underside.