andyscotland

Members
  • Content Count

    172
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

49 Neutral

About andyscotland

  • Rank
    Regular Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. That depends on the doorset. For the Green Building Store performance range an 800mm clear opening has a 1039 frame and needs a 1060 opening. Rational auraplus was I think 998 frame for 800 opening, haven't gone with them so didn't double check that size. Don't know about composite but suspect a 900 opening will be tight?
  2. Not sure where you've got the 900mm figure from, I believe the minimum clear opening entrance door for a private dwelling is 775mm in England & Wales, 800mm in Scotland? There's a diagram in Doc M of how the clear opening is measured, but I decided was easier to spec the door based on the clear opening it needed to achieve and then asked the manufacturer to provide the structural opening dimensions. And then built a hole to fit the door unit.
  3. Sounds like you just need a bigger ratchet (as the cheapest solution). If you over drill the pilot holes then there will not be enough thread gripping the timber. Buy a long wheel-nut bar for your socket set. Or slide your existing ratchet up a rigid pipe/box section/whatever to extend the lever arm.
  4. @zoothorn it may reassure you to know that one major cause of weak concrete is actually allowing it to get too dry during curing. One acceptable method of avoiding that (not especially common in UK as a polythene sheet is cheaper and fine in our climate) is to pond cure the concrete - by building a dam round it and flooding the area above and keeping it flooded for a couple of weeks. Water in the trenches when you pour, or very very heavy rain during the pour, may mix with the concrete and make the mix to wet. As soon as you stop moving it though it will very quickly form a skin and then cure as expected. This of course is why you never pour cement mixer/tool rinses down the drain as they will quite happily solidify in the u-bend etc. You do ideally want to avoid fast flowing water over the surface as that may drag cement / fines out of the top of the mix and make it flaky. Not the end of the world for foundations tho unless extreme. If it's trench fill and you have a full-on river flowing over the site you may actually be better sticking timber/earth round the trench edges to form a small pond and slow down the flow at surface level. If you're just covering the bottom of the trench any water that gets in after isn't going to hurt. You've said a few times your builder is experienced and well respected, I'd be inclined to trust him. He will have worked in the rain before. There will probably be a reason he's pulled off those to do yours tho. They may be waiting on materials arriving / plaster drying / concrete curing / trades turning up / whatever so not automatically easy to swap them about. Few (good) builders just jump between sites whenever they feel like it.
  5. I would, the pressure treatment doesn't always get all the way through especially on thicker stock. Not going to cost a lot/take long and worth it for the peace of mind.
  6. Also extra sockets. And if there's any possibility a bedroom might get rearranged in future, I would put the bedroom lights on wireless switches so you can more easily move them to be next to the head of wherever the bed gets shifted to. Once stayed in a B&B where, lying in bed with the room light on you were staring across at a pair of lightswitches either side of the dresser thinking wouldn't it be handy if they were on this wall! Similarly, sockets on every wall at least in the bedroom. Don't have downlights in the bedroom, ceiling or wall wash is much nicer. Make sure you have supplies to the bathroom counter/cabinet/mirror for shavers, toothbrushes etc. Put sockets and Cat6 in all your cupboards, never know where you're going to end up wanting to put a charger/audio controller/WiFi repeater/smart device. Likewise the attic/eaves space if you have one. If you have a porch (or even a hall) with some glazing an inside light connected to the outside PIR with a slight time delay is a nice touch - welcoming, bit more light to find your keys, saves finding the inside light after you open the door and as it looks like someone's coming to the door can be a good deterrent. Don't forget about socket(s) in sensible locations on the drive & in the garden.
  7. @Ed Davies Or, better example, it's not uncommon in a venue to find a permanently installed 63/3 or 125/3 commando socket or even a set of 300A powerloks off radials with much lower ratings. Sometimes you even find one of each all on the same 63A circuit.. They're provided because touring dimming & distribution kit commonly has those plugs and the load/diversity is then managed downstream. Of course that environment usually counts as being under competent supervision, but it's definitely possible.
  8. A lot of sparks would frown at it but AFAIK there's nothing specific in 7671 to stop you. The round pin lighting sockets were really more to avoid a nasty surprise when you plugged the iron in and plunged the room into darkness. A socket on a lighting circuit might also have thrown up issues like RCD protection under previous regs, less of a problem now RCDs are more widespread. Off the top of my head there's various general regs that would apply - safety on power failure (the iron example), nuisance tripping, clarity of what circuit actually supplies the socket (to allow for maintenance isolation) etc. Most of those can be dealt with one way or another. But in general so long as any cable is appropriately protected upstream for its current carrying capacity I don't think there's an insurmountable issue. It's ultimately not that different to populating a consumer unit with 200A worth of MCBS on a 60A incomer.
  9. @Carrerahill All fair points and I wasn't aware of the MIET report. Nonetheless, I'm still not a fan of the failure modes for ring circuits especially for DIY design & install. For benefit of others (this won't be new to you) the cable protection depends on a reasonable division of current between the two halves of the ring. If the ring is broken, or has local areas of higher resistance due to damaged conductors, it can appear to function but be dangerously overloading one leg. This can continue for long periods without detection causing insulation breakdown (or more rapid overheating). With a radial a loose connection can still cause local arcing, which can often be smelt, but a damaged or disconnected conductor will usually cause the circuit to fail and/or trip. Granted, my background is in theatre/event/industrial where almost everything was radial so I probably have an innate dislike of ring. To be honest in the modern world I don't think a 20A radial to a few 13A sockets is all that limiting (outside perhaps a kitchen or workshop or other special locations). There are very few high-current devices these days. But even if it had to be on 4mm then personally speaking that's probably the way I'd go.
  10. Personally, I would use a radial for the sockets too. With a ring there are a lot more ways in which poor design or a loose / overtight connection, damage to a cable etc can leave it in a state where it's working but dangerous (fire risk, primarily). The testing is also more complex. Depending on load, a radial may require slightly thicker cable (but half as much of it), but is a lot more bulletproof.
  11. Quite. Of course, they don't and almost certainly won't. I suspect the government's argument would be that the panels are equipment and so standard rated the same as e.g. your consumer unit or any other fixed components of your domestic electrical installation. But of course buying solar panels you're effectively pre-paying for the electricity they generate so it does seem reasonable they should be taxed the same as other forms of energy.
  12. Seems about as short sighted as usual. Could be justifiable on a new build as part of the trade-offs in SAP, so really doesn't need to be zero-rated there but will be by default. While for retrofit, which is where the bigger carbon saving potential lies, as you say with no FIT and full VAT it's a much trickier sell...
  13. That's what I hoped you'd say, hate those wee moments of self-build-self-doubt! Onwards!
  14. Lord no, that would be insane! Would be sure to miss some again putting it back on so it'd be a never-ending job 😂 I took out the screws that missed as they went in and replaced a centimetre or so away. So the holes they left are empty. Almost all of the holes that missed still scraped the joist so would probably be tricky to tape reliably from below, as they're right in the corner of joist/OSB. But as I have another VCL going on the bottom of the joists/above the ceiling I'm not overly worried. At least I think I'm not. 😂 I could try and squirt a bit of expanding foam in to close the hole in the insulation layer, but I think that'd be pretty messy given they're such narrow holes.
  15. Any thoughts, anyone? I'm thinking leave them but wouldn't mind a sanity check!