oldkettle

Only the strictest possible definition of what any government can touch / regulate. No way to extend these limits (like US have done with "Interstate commerce").

DHP481Z 18V Li-ion LXT Brushless Combi Drill - Batteries and Charger Not Included - £99.95 https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00NIEJAFQ Switch the seller to amazon to get this price.

Getting control group right (which from my limited knowledge means controlling for all possible differences to start with) is indubitably ? a proper scientific problem but without those we'd not have any medicine nowadays. Including Covid vaccine. Where as soap dispensers are likely created by designers with a bit of input from engineers (I hope so at least). Testing under different conditions wouldn't be a familiar concept to the former.

@ToughButterCup I think you are absolutely right, you and @SteamyTea are just talking about slightly different points. My understanding is 1) In the experiment as described those not taking Aspirin are the control group. 2) Whatever the control group members experience cannot be used to prove any statements about not taking Aspirin. Or maybe I misunderstood as well ?

Gas is already 40% more expensive than last year and electricity is up as well, then there is a good chance both will move even higher in a few months when the government accepts the inevitable and lifts the cap. So I guess for you it's OK, nothing to worry about, an extra 50 or even a 100 a month won't make much difference, right? Yet I am sure you know there are many who can't afford such a rise. We do not live in a world of unlimited resources. There are better ways of spending our money.

So - nothing about me being aggressive, right? I thought so. But you are incensed, offended that my opinion doesn't conform? Grow up. People have the right to have opinions that you dislike. I understand it's difficult but this is the only way. Repeating BS about the biggest problem humanity has ever faced - FCOL, I grew up being afraid of the nuclear war, climate change is really nothing in comparison. And the self-righteousness, oh, you know, selfishness, all that. You know nothing about me. You have no idea how much stuff I buy, how often I fly etc. You may be greener than I am or not - I could not care less. I buy stuff with the money I earn, I don't steal. Until such time it is illegal to do so I will continue doing what I believe is best for my family and myself - like most normal people do in reality. Humility, you really need to learn what that is.

My posts are often opinionated, but care to show where I was aggressive? And don't reference my reply to @SteamyTea - it won't do.

You know, nowadays being labelled a denier (by whom?) is a rather positive sign. With regard to what we know and what we don't: if we don't know whether we are going to be OK then we certainly don't know what will happen with the climate. I posted a link to IPCC report, there's enough there to make a very clear conclusion: if their projections are correct, then the consequences are nothing to be afraid of. Aware of - yes, prepare to - certainly. And with regard to the population growth... India, Nigeria, Indonesia, not much we can do about their population. This terrible notion (for some) - economic growth - is the only chance because usually the wealthier the people are, the fewer children they have on average. With regard to the endangered species,I certainly don't have an answer. But I do know that Nature abhors a vacuum. Wherever something disappears, something else will come. Such is life.

I am slightly tired if your highly aggressive opinionated messages. I understand that you are a lawyer... don't pretend to be more than that.

Do you feel a better person having written this? A happier one? By the way, Judith Curry is a better scientist than you ever were. Somehow she and quite a few others are very clear on what we don't need to worry about. Any sane person knows that the Earth will be fine should the temperature rise another 2 degrees (which it may not do). And so will the humanity. Nothing to fear but the fear itself.

I hope there is a healthy share of sarcasm or tongue in cheek in this message. Because of course anybody can persuade him/herself that the second coming is near and we are all going to die. Surprisingly, we still have a chance to decide for ourselves whether to agree with this or not. So the alternative is to say 1) yes, the latest IPCC report does mention a specific projected interval for a temperature rise (one might notice that 8 degree BS has all but disappeared). 2) yes, this will likely mean the sea level is going to rise somewhat more and there may be some other unpleasant changes with varying degrees of the likelihood. BUT on the other hand 1) There are no projections of hundreds or tens of millions of deaths in the actual report - this is obvious BS (although of course every year about 10^8 people will die regardless) 2) Anybody who actually cares to have a look at the bloody report just a little (https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf) will find the details that haven't made it into the "policy summary", i.e. there is no high confidence whatsoever in attributing flooding to the warming - see 11.5, in particular, 11.5.4 for river level and 11.6.4.1 for droughts. Obviously, there are some projections that claim they know ("high confidence") what will happen should the temperature increase another degree. I won't say this is impossible - but won't trust these people. I much prefer to notice that the report does mention the obvious - water management and land use as other contributing factors. 3) anybody who cared to look at the costs will notice that the projected impact of all this nightmare is miniscule in comparison to the one been forced upon as right now: compound growth rate takes care of this. 4) so - and there are incomparably smarter people than I am saying exactly this - it really doesn't look like we must drop FF right now, we just need to be prepared to deal with the consequences. Only morons destroy existing houses before building new ones - ouch, isn't it exactly what the leader of the free world just did in Afghanistan. 5) We do have alternative solutions for the problems that might be caused by the warming which we must consider before doing something drastic But hey - free money that grows on trees is what everybody needs right now, free lunch for all really worked well in every previous experiment. I can't believe the next one is so likely to hit me again, I thought this stupidity finally ended in 1991 for all but the most incapable of learning from other people's mistakes. ?

Apologies, not sure I understand. Just to clarify : this is planned as PD even though the overall size is relatively large. 2m from boundary etc. We will ask for lawful development certificate later. Do you mean 3m eaves in the lowest corner can cause issues? I was not going to try and hide anything as from what I read including an appeal decision the rules are clear enough.

Absolutely. I have checked the rules for my own piece of mind and also because with a 1300mm difference in levels between corners we would be in a difficult situation. The way things stand eaves are going to be about 2m at the back where neighbours can see it and nobody cares about the front.

Thank you. Extensions are different AFAIK. Re. 2.5 limit, I think this is to minimise the impact on the neighbours. In our case they are even higher up the slope hence we are not going to upset them unless we really push it. I've removed a row of 4m+ conifers between us earlier this year so they are quite happy.

Thanks Joe I look at roof trusses and they seem to sit on top of the wall plate which is good enough for me. Then yes, as you said, rafter, insulation, battens and tiles. I suspect 500mm should be enough to cover this.

Thank you Gus I am pretty sure that the height is measured from the highest natural point, not the lowest though, at least in England. I also have done soil test and involved SE for insulated raft design already. But my main question is different. I want to understand how high my eaves have to be for a specific ceiling height. Is there a way to say "for 2500 ceiling you will need at least 2750 walls and 2900 or 3200 eaves"? Again, we are talking about well insulated building, not a shed.

Indeed, it's great they didn't, you had enough grief from them.

Oops, it seems the rules say otherwise (which kind of makes sense to be honest) "Eaves height is measured from ground level at the base of the. outside wall to the point where that wall would, if projected. upwards, meet the lowest point of the upper surface of the roof – the overhang should be ignored for the purposes of measurement. " https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/830643/190910_Tech_Guide_for_publishing.pdf

Thank you Joe. What wall height did you need then? 3m+? As I understand it a lot depends also on where the insulation goes: between and below rafters probably requires less depth than a proper warm roof with insulation above. Does it also mean eaves are measured at the end of the roof, not above the wall? By the way, I've found this drawing as an illustration but obviously this is not for the purpose of PD.

Is there any approximate rule to figure out what wall height I need to achieve a certain ceiling height / eaves height? I am trying to figure out how high we need to go to have 2.5m ceilings but still stay within PD rules limit. In our case we dig deep into a slope (about 1000mm) so we have substantially more than standard 2.5m but obviously don't want to anger the neighbours. The walls are planned as ICF if this makes a difference. The structure will hopefully be some kind of a warm roof, either fink trusses or SIPs, not sure what will be the cheaper option by the time we get to this. Thanks in advance.

I am using large 600mm concrete paving slabs. I am planning to put the garage sections in the middle of the perimeter slabs and then was planning to put smaller 450mm ones outside to have a nice wide path to walk around. So I guess I have to set this edge in a mix as you describe and then just use sand. Great, much cheaper than grit it seems. The only issue is edging will have to sit between the perimeter and path slabs which is a bit of a pain. Thank you, will give this a go then.

Thanks George I know the site and checked it several times. The issue is there is a slightly different advice in different places. They show how to use sand for paving stones but do mention the mix somewhere else. I need to understand whether I have to arrange a rigid border around the whole thing or not to keep the base stable and what is the simplest way forward in my specific case: sand, 2-6mm grit or some mortar mix. If it was just a garden path or a patio I wouldn't bother too much.

Bump. I appreciate this is much less exciting than Brexit. I am quite close (am I?) yet can't get this finished properly without some guidance.

It is clear there are no seriously overweight people in your house! ?

If you move the tall unit to the wall then it's going to look much less bulky. It's a really nice entrance hall, plenty of space.