Radian

Rise times are both well under 5us EldoLED is the slower at around 1us and the Meanwell is probably around 100ns so both would shoot-through the mosfet. So both will be unregulated for a brief period. I don't see any great inconsistency in the EldoLED 24V. What does differ is the voltage decay when the driver transistors are off. The LED's will stop conducting when the voltage falls below their forward voltage (looks to be around 15V) so the Meanwell output staying high for around 200us suggests some additional driver output capacitance above the (apparently non-existent) EldoLED. Not sure why this would result in a visible difference becuase the LEDs are fully off in this period anyway, Very puzzling.

Just the mention of 'duty of care' was enough to spur him into action. I think it might of helped that he had only recently moved in when I spoke to him.

Yes, the datasheet specifically states that the drain-gate capacitance of the switching FET will cause it to turn fully on before the control circuitry has stabilized. A series inductor could be used In order to slow the rising edge to greater than 5us and not load the PWM driver (rather than using a parallel capacitor).

No active components that I can see surrounding the IC so probably an integrated back-to-back transistor pair configured as a constant current source.

LEDs with "Stabilized current design" will attempt to maintain constant power in the LEDs over a range of different voltages (within limits) "LINEARdrive driver output voltage 12 - 28V" might suggest a range of different output voltages - so dimming will only occur outside the LED tape's limits, and then the dimming will be patchy as the current is no longer equalized in LED strings. Maybe. Unusual driver topology if it really is linear and not PWM (although it could be filtered PWM)

There is a legal framework known as the measured duty of care which may be relevant. I had a similar issue with a neighbor's retaining wall (or lack of one to be precise) and mentioned that he had a "legal duty of care" regarding his collapsing ground and this prompted him to erect a retaining wall on his side of the boundary.

Every time I experience this exact same issue - I think of the building contractors who quote for a job on the basis of materials cost and time estimates. I honestly believe this is one of the few areas where they may actually be more skilled than me. Edit: I forgot - I'm still rubbish at plastering

The logic in my comment related to a single concrete block taken in isolation. It's an example that could possibly explain the (possibly dubious) thinking behind the SE's requirement. I don't credit or discredit it as a valid reason for the requirement. However, I would point out that there is virtually zero deflective strength in a mortar joint and viewed as a beam supported at two ends, a concrete block set vertically would take more load before fracturing than the same block laid flat. As I said before, it may be more a function of the conditions of the foundation that the SE is basing these requirements on. I just don't know.

For example - If you take a block, lay it flat with the ends supported on a couple of bricks then drop a sledgehammer in the middle it will be much more likely to break than if two upright blocks spanned the gap. How this observation relates to a built wall is another matter. On a weak foundation, yes it might be relevant. But yours is not exactly weak.

Oddly enough all our white edge strips are still white after 25 years. Personally I like metal edging on dark tiles and white on light tiles.

I guess I used a poor way to describe the size of the generating system. of course you're right to point out that the limit is with the inverter but the motivation here is to maximise the use of a minimal resource. I don't actually have any prime roof space left for an array so even if I did add more modules, they would be partially shaded.

SBR? But that's already what's in latex compound...

It's an interesting game. Play it right and you might save a whole tenner! Seriously though, batteries are the only practical solution but it's a toss-up for anyone over the age of 65 to ever see a payback. For this reason I'm on the lookout for ways to eek every last drop of self-use out of our investment. Until I actually had a few kW of generation available, It wasn't so obvious to me that appliances with resistive heaters could do with being less 'Watty' i.e. I wish we'd bought an 1800W kettle when we replaced our old one recently. The thing is, with a G98 three-and-a-bit kW array, even on the best days if you stick on your standard 3kW kettle, you'll nearly always be paying for some amount of imported energy. Sure you could have more PV with G99 but without a decent export tariff or batteries it's just more wasted investment. So with a more modest G98 three and a bit kW, most of the time a dishwasher or washing machine goes on, you're going to be importing. Typically plug-in appliances tend to have 2.5kW resistive heaters to get the maximum out of the available power to accomplish the task in the minimum amount of time but this doesn't leave much headroom. And it also requires a little care in staggering their use. This would therefore be so much simpler if they had more modest power requirements - I really couldn't care less if the wash cycle took twice as long if it meant I didn't see little import spikes on a sunny day. I did try this when testing my PV diverter using the kettle - a lot of pulsing but it got there after a couple of minutes. Fine! The same principle of incorporating PV diversion into other 'Watty' appliances would be the ideal solution, and while I doubt this could ever be commercialized, I could easily retrofit a few of my own appliances - were it not for the fact that many manufacturers controllers flag an error if a water heater doesn't respond in the time expected. "Solar friendly" gadgets might make a market appearance but I doubt it (solar immersions are an exception).

Look out, @pocster will be here soon waving his Black & Decker around 😆

I dug out a 1770 George III halfpenny piece right next to one of the pipes which dates it quite well. Considering their age and the fact they are still working, I really can't fault them.

Kind of addictive innit!😊 Great result. I have to wonder how much in total it generated i.e. what percentage self-use you achieved. Might the most cost effective addition be one that gets you 100% utilisation for instance?

I read in another topic that your flat roof insulation has a 50mm ventilation gap that communicates with the eaves. Is this photo taken in the same area? I'm not familiar with your project so I don't know much more than this. It sounds like there is no wall insulation - is there none planned to be installed?

Today I changed the plan to make it into a swimming pool 🙄

Almost inevitable when you post a photo on these forums I'm afraid - but you probably already knew that 😊 If you have no drawings and the builder isn't able to confirm, I'd say it's important enough to warrant carefully cutting out a little section to reveal the junction with the inner leaf. If its another layer of rigid insulation, then you should be able to lift the insulation up off the block and with the end of a tape measure 'probe' for the end of the sheet. Hopefully it extends more than 100mm (to get over the block) and possibly some way past (to cap the cavity) or maybe butt up to the cavity insulation. Either way, if the fitter used foam to make a continuous envelope I'd be amazed and delighted - although it might make the investigation a little bit harder. To the top right of your photo the insulation (50mm?) appears to sail over the top of the concrete blocks so the insulation above might follow it but you need to be sure it meets the cavity insulation. Speaking of which - what is in the cavity?

True. Going back to the subject of the gap, i'm guessing the insulation in the photo is a continuous run under the roof joists and that there's more above inbetween the joists. Hopefully the upper layer extends over the top of the inner leaf and makes a continuous thermal envelope with the cavity wall insulation? This would reduce the demand on insulating the gap but how effectively it prevents a cold bridge depends on how well the hidden joins are linked together. Filling the gap would still be an easy win (if it wasn't for the wiring).

Although they're sometimes a handy source of small masonry nails if you take the trouble to pull them out of the plastic saddle 🙂

Seeing as it definitely is a land drain, even though it may be silted-up, might it not still be active after heavy rain? We had a whole series of these that were cut through when digging the foundations for an extension. The trenches filled in no time after rain - just before the concrete pour. You can just see the broken pieces in a loose diagonal line: To stop this flooding our foundations and patio we dug a french drain and connected it to the land drains, and drained the whole lot along with the regular rain water.

I think I can see a couple of problems: So the void above the Xtratherm insulation is ventilated to the outside? If so, then so is the gap between the insulation and blockwork. You're right to want to extend the VCL to the wall but without continuous insulation through this gap, this junction will be a cold bridge. Also, in that gap, all I can see is T&E cable that looks to be supported on screws?! AFAIK, If there are no wall mounted switches or other visible electrical fittings at this height then this horizontal cable run is not in a 'safe zone' unless it's 50mm above the finished ceiling level.

Started stripping the topsoil for re-use in the raised beds. The plan is to create a perimeter using 125mm deep deck boards to define the plane and serve as screed rails to level the sharp sand fill. Then after a bit of a whackering, dry lay my reclaimed 450mm concrete slabs leaving two cutouts under the beds.

I think this may be worse for the timber as it could trap moisture. With a painted on protection, moisture can't get stuck in-between the two surfaces.