jack

I don't know all that much about them, but there's presumably an upper reasonable limit on buffer size, and I can't imagine it corresponds to a huge amount of energy relative to an offset of, say, tens of watts? Do you have any feeling for the values that are likely to be involved?

I have an Eddi and it allows adjustment of both the export threshold and the export margin, although I doubt there's much granularity (it isn't going to allow fine-tuning to suit different meter types, for example).

Check out the tool loan forum: Unfortunately, two of the three units have gone missing in action, so we're about to implement a deposit system. Post over in the thread above and I'll add you to the list for the tool.

+1 I've had to drill through soft-ish brick slips, which probably have similar challenges to the tiles you'll be drilling. Ordinary masonry bits are far too blunt to make any sort of dent without a decent hammer action drill, but the hammer action risks cracking the tiles. Spear point bit and patience are your friends.

It isn't personally of much interest to me so I haven't really looked into it, but I believe you can use their IR system to control IR devices such as TVs. You can also control networked devices such as TVs, home theatre amps, etc, over ethernet or wireless. I doubt you can replicate every single function of the remotes - I suspect the aim is control the main functions (on/off, volume, input select, that sort of thing). If you were into home theatre and had a complex setup, you could, for example, program a button to enter home cinema mode, where Loxone turns on the TV and amp, selects the right inputs and outputs for the HT audio system, closes blinds, and sets the lights to a certain mood. In case you haven't found it yet, the Google Groups Loxone forum is a good place to ask more technical questions if needed: https://groups.google.com/g/loxone-english

That aluminium flex tubing is far from ideal as it has quite high internal resistance. It's also uninsulated, which isn't great given the system is in a garage (presumably not within the thermal envelope of the house). If you can, you're better off replacing the ducting that's outside the thermal envelope with proper insulated ducts like these. Ideally you'd also insulate the unit itself to reduce heat loss and condensation. Is there room to add rigid insulation as part of the boxing-in? And is there a condensation drain underneath the existing unit?

Short version: I think the choice of roof covering is probably a lot less important than the choice of roof installer. We went with Resitrix, which is a textured, reinforced EPDM layer over modified bitumen. As documented here more than once, the product is great. It's been up there over 7 years, and is still looking bombproof. The problem was that the product wasn't installed all that well. I'd raised questions about the quality of a number of the joint when it was first finished, especially around some of the outlets. I wasn't happy with the answers they gave, so I got the local rep out to inspect. He sent me an email confirming that the installation was of the high quality expected from their authorised installers. A few months later, we woke up the morning after a large downpour to water dripping around the downlights in our bedroom and the main bathroom. Two of the joined areas I'd expressed concerns about turned out to be even worse than I'd thought might be the case. The installers came out to rectify. I made them re-do the other similar joins: upon removing the original joins to replace, it appeared that another two had almost completely given way and would be be leaking in the very near future. I was up on the roof again just last weekend patching some joins that I wasn't happy with: Resitrix is clearly an amazing product, but the installation - both the details chosen, and then the way they were implemented by the installer - completely let the product down. Also, double-check what the guarantee covers. We have a transferable, insurance-backed guarantee, but it only covers materials. I don't know whether that's typical, but if so, it's of limited use.

Make sure all your windows and doors are properly adjusted (assuming they're adjustable). That can make a difference. If you have any incoming ducts for water, electricity, etc, that are open to the outside world, make sure they're sealed at the house end before the test.

Agreed that this is the right answer, once you've checked a couple of other things. The main question is: what does the contract actually say? Without knowing that, everything else is just speculation. I wouldn't assume that any particular company deeply understands the contracts they use with their customers, so double check what has been paid for, where the copyright ends up, and what rights the customer has in the circumstances. The last bit may not be explicit, especially if their contract assumes the customer will always use the TF company for construction. If (and it's still a big "if" based on what we know) you pay someone to design a building, you have an implied right to build that building without further permission or payment, even if the designer retains copyright as a result of the contract. But the contract may also say that they only design as part of a package and don't grant rights to use drawings separately, for example. Strictly speaking that could be a problem.

In practical terms, you may well be right that the TF company won't sue, but this: ... is 100% wrong. And even if you're right on the practical reality, the OP didn't ask whether they can or should just press on irrespective of the legal position. They asked: The plain answer is no, because nothing can stop the TF company proceeding as far along the process as they choose. They might decide it's worth at least a letter before action even if they have no intention of litigating. Do you think a letter from a lawyer threatening the OP's friend with court will lower her stress levels?

I change the filters every few months when the filter light comes on. Other than that, if it looks dirty when changing the filters I give it a good clean out and a wipe down with antiseptic. Sometimes it can get a bit grotty by the end of winter with all the condensation it deals with, so this is often a job for spring. I assume that I'll probably need to change the bearings at some point. If I can get through winter without any of the bearings going, I may take the whole unit out and give it a thorough once over - new bearings, cleaning out bits I can't get to easily get to while it's installed, checking as far up into the ducts as I can, checking inside the sound attenuator, that sort of thing. I haven't done any of those things since moving into the house just before Christmas 2015.

Not even slightly. They have a written evidence trail showing that she engaged them to do design work for her, that they did the work and gave her the drawings, that she changed her mind and is now building something very similar with a couple of walls and a velux moved. The public planning submissions will show them exactly what she's planning to build, too, so she can't even rely on them being ignorant of her actual intentions. Even if she's paid a design fee, the amount paid may have been set on the understanding that she was going to use the TF company for the build. In that case, the amount she paid may not have been what she'd have expected to pay for just the design work alone. So not "free", but you can't conclude that just because something was paid that there's no moral case to be made against her using the plans. Also (and as you say), even having paid a reasonable fee might not grant rights in any circumstances other than the TF company doing the build. Many (most?) architects and architectural design companies will retain copyright in their designs even if they're paid for. No. Unlike some other forms of IP like patents and trademarks, there is a subjective element to infringing copyright. The clue is in the name: copyright. If you do what's in the claims of someone else's patent, or you use someone else's registered trademark, it isn't relevant whether you copied it or came up with the idea entirely independently. The question is simply whether what you're doing infringes the registered rights. Copyright is different in that you need to show actual copying. If a potential infringer can show that they came up with even exactly the same design without knowing about the earlier work, then they won't be found to infringe (look at the recent Ed Sheeran case, which dealt with this issue). This is why showing that what's being built is similar to something else found online is irrelevant to whether the design was copied. It was by definition "copied" because that's what the evidence says. The test allows for variations from what's been copied. Showing that you've made changes is not enough to show you haven't copied. Making changes specifically to avoid copyright is even less likely to get you off the hook. You also can't avoid infringement by showing that elements of the design are known. It's the work as a whole that needs to be assessed.

Even if she was completely in the right, nothing can stop the company threatening her. However, in this case she's probably not in the right. Changing cladding, moving a velux, and adjusting a couple of walls upstairs is extremely unlikely to overcome copyright. More to the point, your friend has basically had the equivalent of an architect or at least architectural designer design her an entire house. Why would she expect to have the benefit of that work product for free? I base this on your statement that the timber frame company did the "plans and designs". If they just did construction drawings based off someone else's designs, that would likely be a different thing. A constraint that a different designer would likely not deal with in an identical manner. If you give 10 architects a footprint, you won't get 10 identical designs. I know, because we had a footprint constraint on our site, and the various initial sketches we got back from the architects we approached were different from each other (in some cases wildly so). Copyright is in the design, not the construction method. Changing construction method has zero impact on whether she'll infringe copyright in the original design. If she copies the design, minor changes like these will not save her, especially if it's seen that the changes are to try and get around copyright.

I've noticed over the last year or so that the fans are making a bit of noise. Perhaps the bearings are starting to wear nearly 7 years after installation. It still isn't loud though - it's in a cupboard in our pantry, and I can hear nothing with the doors closed (despite a small gap between the doors), and it makes just a small amount of noise with the door open. I can't hear it at all at any inlet/outlet unless it's on boost. It might be that most of the runs are fairly long, but I do run it at a pretty low speed as well. For reference, even very quiet sounds annoy me when I'm trying to get to sleep. Whether it's mosquito in the hallway or the slight buzz of the power supply for my wife's alarm clock on the other side of the bed, pretty much anything will keep me awake if I don't distract myself from it. Things keep me awake that my wife claims to not even be able to hear!

That looks like a very supportive case. Good spot!

Yes, we have 2700k lighting and try to keep it turned on as low as possible in the evenings. Televisions can be really bad. Newer TVs (especially HDR) are massive and output an enormous amount of light across a huge proportion of your field of view. I have to turn ours down to the lowest brightness setting to watch it at night. If I don't, I find very bright scenes very painful.

I'm far from an expert, but my recollection is that implementing daisy chain wiring at the cabinet (basically star wiring but with terminations to convert to daisy chain) will cause issues due to noise caused by reflections. You could look up the spec - sometimes there's guidance about what's allowable where a star wiring approach is taken. Search for "star wiring modbus".

We have a flat roof with parapet wall (yes, I know). A couple of issues have arisen that I'd like to address before they get any worse. The problems are a combination of crappy installation detail and crappy actual installation. The first is the junction between the outer edge of the parapet wall and the EPDM-based membrane that covers the roof. The current detail is pretty poor. The parapet wall slopes inwards slightly. There's an aluminium drip trim that hangs over the outer edge, extending along the top surface towards the inner edge. The membrane is hot-welded to the top of the trim, such that it leaves about 100 mm of the trim exposed adjacent the outer edge. One problem is that the trims are in 3 m long sections, with an expansion joint between them. The welds have failed at several points at or adjacent to the joints, presumably due to the stresses of expansion and contraction. You can see where this has happened just to the right of the joint in the above picture. Because the top of the wall slopes towards the membrane, water tends to pool at the joint, meaning it can easily work its way under the failed sections. I'd like to fix this issue before it gets any worse. I've considered laying a strip of EPDM along the outer edge (i.e., right up to and maybe even slightly overlapping the edge itself), such that it covers the join between the existing membrane and the trim. While water might still pool a little bit, it would be on top of a solid layer of EPDM rather than being along a join. I was thinking of sticking the EPDM down with some sort of permanently flexible roofing sealant. Any thoughts about this as a plan? And if the plan looks okay, does anyone have any recommendations for specific products? I was thinking something like this, which is reasonably priced and stays quite flexible (I've used it for other stuff on the past). Thanks as always.

I assume you mean 1.1? 0.11 would indeed be impressive for Uw! And on a cloudy summer solstice, it'll be worth little to nothing in terms of solar gain. Also, even highly insulating windows are generally a net negative in terms of heating. Yes, they allow for solar gain (when the sun is out - obviously not always the case in a British winter!), but they leak heat 24/7. In your case, that's at a rate of something like 5-10 times greater than the rest of your insulating elements, and almost certainly more than any solar gain they enable. With large areas of south-facing glass, I'd be way more concerned about overheating in summer. Unless you have external shading, I'll bet dollars to donuts that you're going to cook without active cooling.

It hasn't happened yet, so it won't happen. Got it.

So would I, but no government (any government, although the batch of Tories we've had for the last few years is particularly bad) is brave enough to be honest with people about what we need to do. I'd add that we're so far down the wrong path that I just don't see way out that involves less than a decade of significant pain.

With what though? Where is the money going to come from in the next handful of years given how deep in the hole we already are with energy, the NHS, etc (etc, etc, etc)? It's the apocryphal story of asking the farmer for directions and being told "Well I wouldn't start from here". Imagine if we'd spent all the HS2 money, and 90% of the track and trace + PPE scandal money on renewables?

[Deleted my response because I'm genuinely not interested]

Not sure I agree with this characterisation of the situation. At best, HMRC's current practice (which is repeatedly rejected in several of the tribunal cases above) is to use entry onto the valuation list as prima facie evidence of completion. However, the notes themselves do not even hint that mere entry is enough. They say: "we'll accept one of the following documents" does not mean "we'll go and look up a database after you rely on the completion certificate". In plain English, it means if the applicant chooses to rely on a different document, the applicant can supply a copy of that document, and the three months runs from then. I take your general point though, and it's not a bad worst-case position to start from. If HMRC is willing to use the VOA date in this way (i.e., without you electing to rely upon it), then there is a real risk the valuation officer is in practice the one controlling the date HMRC will start with when deciding whether you've applied in time. It may be that you'll win on appeal, but there are no guarantees, and even if you win, appeals are highly stressful and time-consuming.

I remember one scene very clearly, where the wife was talking about how lovely it was to sit with a glass of wine and watch the ships go by. I thought (and probably said on here at the time) that they could have done that with a very pleasant four bedroom home that was half the size and a third the cost. It does seem like Grand Designs buildings come up for sale pretty often, sometimes not that long after they're built.