-rick-

My aim for any new install is to have cct lights. I want them for three main reasons: 1. As dawn simulation to help me wake up even in the middle of winter with dark mornings. Using home automation to gradually introduce light over a period of time before the alarm goes off. Used to have a wake up light that does similar but expect an installed version with bright LEDs to be better. 2. As daylight augmentation during winter. I hate the dark days when cloud comes out and it’s dark enough inside to need to turn the light on but when you do the lights have such a different tone that I feel it better to close the curtains even hours before dusk. Again with automation and light sensors I believe it should be possible to have the lights turn on ct matched to the daylight and boost the light without feeling the jarring effect. 3. As dusk simulation. As per (1) but the other way round with ct moving from cool to warm as the evening goes on and help the body naturally prepare for sleep. In this case it’s moving dusk later during the dark months. * I’m not really bothered by multicoloured lights though do like the idea of having red low level lights come on dimly if I wake up and move around in the middle of the night. Suspect not worth the hassle and will just use very dim white for this.

Well Blue Origin just landed their rocket on their second ever launch so a true competitor to Starlink might not be so far away.

I don't feel particularly well equipped to comment in detail on this but have to say that this doesn't feel 'right' to me. The upper level of the entry way just feels wrong and out of proportion. This is not my area so don't pay much attention to my ideas here but things I would try to see if it helped: 1. Reduce the size of the upper window significantly 2. Replace upper window with multiple smaller ones 3. Use a wider front door (possibly door with side lights) or add a window beside the door 4. Replace the canopy/wall with something softer/less boxy 5. Windows on the sides of the bit that sticks out (possibly in lieu of front windows) Overall, the original plan seems better to me but I do get the massing issue that others have raised and it could do with some refinement.

The simpliest way should be to disable DHCP, make sure the IP address on the router is set to something that doesn't clash with the rest of your network (on the same IP range/subnet) and then move the ethernet connection from a WAN port to a LAN port. That should be it.

You'll have electric in there so can put a tiny thermostatic tubular heater in there on a low setting keep as insurance for the really cold days (wont be enough without the insulation though).

Welcome! That's an unexpected combination I have to say! 😆

Upon reflection I feel I should clarify this. All the 'transformerless' inverters I've looked at in detail in fact have transformers but I'm not saying that there are zero truely transformerless inverters out there. Electrically it's possible to create something truely transformerless. Transformerless has been used as short hand for 'doesn't have the whacking great 50Hz transformer'.

I'm pretty sure you and Steamy know this, but transformerless inverters are not transformerless. The transformers are just smaller, higher frequency ones. The amount of isolation provided is down to the manufacturer and is a separate parameter. High frequency ('transformerless') inverters have got a bad rep, because it is newer technology and plenty of manufacturers made mistakes in there design but I think we should be at mature technology now, and the efficiency and weight/size advantages are not to be sniffed at. Victron who for years made a big fuss about how their traditional low frequency inverters were so robust have now launched high frequency inverters (MultiRS/InverterRS) and have stated that they are now comfortable that the technology is robust enough (though admittedly even their first revision of the MultiRS apparently had issues). Most newer inverters now that promise high efficiency >97% are likely to be high frequency as low frequency has inherently more losses.

They realise that they are far behind and if they don't start building a network (and learning how to run it) they don't stand a chance so yes they are throwing money at it. But my general concern with them does seem to be that they have too much money so are building very traditionally and not doing much different from the Boeings of this world. I expect that will mean that even once they have a reusable rocket it will still cost a lot more per launch than SpaceX and they will have to spend a lot more time and money fixing that (if it's fixable). Even their pockets aren't deep enough to launch 10's of thousands of satellites using those high cost launch platforms. Amen, though don't expect the Chinese systems to get licenses to operate in the west (and that brings up another point, Starlink has been buying up all the radio frequency licenses building an even bigger wall around themselves).

This is probably a bit of a highjack (sorry), but what are peoples thoughts on using something like this gutterbrush as an alternative to the traps discussed above? https://www.guttersupplies.co.uk/gutterbrush-4mtr-black-box-of-10-p-GB4PK10/

Not sure how relevant this is to self-builders as I haven't seen their name come up here, but I'd guess any reduction in capacity has knock on effects: https://www.constructionenquirer.com/2025/11/04/building-control-giant-assent-ceases-trading/

I doubt any competitor will be truely competitive until they are launching on reusable launchers (like SpaceX). Before that the costs just don't add up. Other reusable launchers are coming (Blue Origin has its second launch scheduled this week) and RocketLab are working on one but SpaceX has a very large head start.

So long as you know what you are doing. From experience, you are going to discover something that doesn't work through double NAT (wifi calling, video conferencing, some random app that you need to make something work) at the most inconvenient time and have to rush to rejigger things. So I suggest grasping the nettle earlier at lesuire rather than in a frustrated hurry after wasting a couple of hours trying to figure out why it isn't working.

If you can locate the two cylinders close to point of use you save wasting water warming up the pipes when the tap/shower gets turned on (or installing a pumped loop - which has a maintenance/energy cost). When you do get to the teenage stage the separate cylinders will stop the kids draining the adults hot water and vice versa which removes one reason for arguments. Don't see the need for separate boilers especially if you think you might have a lot of excess solar to keep the tanks topped off with heat. Have the two tanks piped in parallel to the boiler which should minimise recharge time. If you feel like you want two boilers and have money to throw at it, consider a heatpump and a boiler. Heatpump for most heating (run off solar energy when possible) and boiler as top up/insurance. You might end up finding you don't actually need the boiler in the end and even if you do you are using more of your solar energy.

This sounds like the answer to me. They know they can't charge you to cover the cost of fixing it and know it's going to be expensive to fix so do everything they can to avoid the cost.

Have you reconfigured this router to act as a bridge or is it still acting as a router? Generally when you plug something into a WAN point the router will apply NAT/firewalling to that network and create a separate network with it's own DHCP, etc, on it's end. This may cause issues down the line if this is not what you intended.

Good news! Depending on how much the remaining problems annoy you I'm sure you could get them out by additional jacks and possibly if needed applying weight to areas that are floating high. Maybe a good caravan shouldn't require this but if yours is a little bent out of shape you should be able to move it back a few mm here an there if needed.

Yeh I get that. Your issue comes down to not getting what you expected which is frustrating and hopefully your complaint will lead to documentation changes from Volvo, but at least you haven't been put in a situation where the vehicle just doesn't work for you. The volvo docs do seem quite poor. When I first saw this thread I googled for Volvo PHEV charging and the first hit was a document that clearly covered the limitations but the document you linked to doesn't.

So in the vast majority of cases you will always be able to fully charge your car every day (even twice a day) without much hassle?

Not entirely sure of you overall result here. Neither end is plugged into your home network and is connected to it via Wifi? All bridged networking, no routing? As long as it works, can't complain about the price.

I thought you could get black as well OEM? Maybe I'm thinking of another manufacturer but sure I've seen something.

Clearly you are pissed off feeling decieved (fair) but I wonder how much difference the 3.7k vs 6.4kw charging will make to you in practice. How big is the battery?

BTW I did quickly look at the Zappi install instructions. They appear to have phase monitoring circuitry so it wouldn't work supplying more than one phase if you didn't have a true 3 phase supply, even if the car doesn't actually need separated phases, just power supplied on multiple legs of the connection.

That's not 2-phase though. Both supplies are from the same phase, if the car was relying on the phase rotation (which I very much doubt) then it wouldn't work.

Almost non-existant here, but again I think you should think of 2-phase as 3-phase (where they aren't using the whole capacity). 3-phase charging is relatively available here but again limited at homes.