MortarThePoint

Looking at table 3.1 in Part K it looks clear that the minimum height for internal elements in a single family dwelling is 900mm. A block of flats however would require 1100mm as would an external balcony of a family dwelling. I just got spooked by a call with Richard Burbidge where they said I need 1100mm even for a singe dwelling. I checked with my BCO to make sure and he says 900mm. -----

Looks smart, but I'm using a shoe rather than pipe straight in so I'll use something with a grate on the top surface

I'll have to check my levels, but may struggle to get a rested bend in and have a good gradient as well (1:40). The longest run is going to be about 28m so 1:40 would need 700mm which may be optimistic even from the surface let alone a rested bend. Most of the run will be under paving so can be near the surface.

Where do they get in, through the ring seals?

No, it's running its own DHCP etc so the network is fragmented, but OK for now. Means I won't be able to access any shared drives or remote desktop from that end, but that's OK for now.

Gullies or traps are essential if the rainwater joins the sewage system. That's not the case for me as it's a separate system going to a drainage ditch. I have shoes for the bottom of my downpipes. Bottle gullies on first look seem like a good idea, but I have seen people elsewhere saying they aren't the right thing to use but with no clear justification. I know they can be expensive, but that's not the reason. I think it may be that the bottle gully would need to be right up against the brickwork, rather than having a hopper arrangement like Marley's UG47 which they proposed to use with a Marley UG44 trap (shown at bottom of this post). These traps aren't roddable and bottle gullies are in theory, but would they be in practice? If you have a branch (tributary) coming away from the house at right angle, I suspect the rod wouldn't be able to curve down into the trap's outflow and so it ends up unroddable. A different matter if you use an inline bottle gully, but that requires the pipe run to be close to the wall and I am keen to have a bit of separation (also need to go round a chimney outcrop). Perhaps putting the branch at 45 degrees would help with rodding access, but the ultimate access would be provided by an inspection chamber of access where it joins the main pipe. That seems over the top though. Is rodding access a red herring for rainwater as the blockages are local to the trap and not in the pipe sections? What do others think if the right approach? Marley UG47 and UG44: Looks like you have to solvent weld a length of pipe to UG44 since there's no rubber seal and anyway the outflow is higher. Toolstation's Aquaflow has a ring seal but that feels like tempting fate as it's still below outflow:

Pre-existing WiFi Router <~~~> WiFi Range Extender with Ethernet port <--> 100m Ethernet Cable <--> WAN Ethernet port on a WiFi Router <~~~> WiFi devices (e.g. Laptop)

I couldn't find anything that combined a long range wireless bridge and WiFi access point / client into a single product that only takes a power connection. I didn't want the hassle of Ethernet to a wireless bridge at each end, so I've actually kind of done the opposite since I already had the bits: WiFi Range Extender with Ethernet port <--> 100m Ethernet Cable <--> WAN Ethernet port on a WiFi Router. The WiFi Range Extender with Ethernet port is a TL-WA850RE V6 by TP-Link and the WiFi Router is a 4G+ Router (B535-333) that I am no longer using for 4G. In theory, that could provide 4G backup as well, but I don't have a SIM in at the moment. Cost is minimal at £75 (£14 for TL-WA850RE, ~£50 for 100m of Kenable direct bury cable, £20 on eBay for the4G+ Router). Hopefully it won't get struck by lightening as I have just draped the cable along the ground. I think I could have a WiFi Range Extender with Ethernet port at each end, but I didn't have two. Manuals for TL-WA850RE if needed. 1910012385_TL-WA850RE_UG_REV6.0.1.pdf 1910013049_Range Extender Setup Help_REV1.0.0.pdf 7106508795_TL-WA850RE(EU)_QIG_REV7.0.1.pdf

Good thought, but that won't apply as both houses have sewage treatment plants

More straight forward with a private supply as I am sure it would be OK to share that. I like the idea of a borehole, but was led to believe it would cost around £20k and with ongoing maintenance/filtering costs. We have mains water o supply to the house which we are living in during the build, so it would be easy to piggy back off that

Two relatively simple questions: Will Building Control sign off a house without a finished water connection? Is it legal to take the water supply from an existing dwelling that you also own? That second option is a possible short to medium term option that avoids the delays associated with the water company connection as well as possibly the cost if it became more permanent. I would be paying the water bill for both houses anyway.

Not so much. It's to connect between two buildings about 100m apart which is a common requirement (e.g. garden office, garage, workshop, barn etc). A good approach, but I have convenient mains sockets and not ethernet sockets. This must be a common scenario for the domestic market as most people have housewide WiFi rather than ethernet.

I've thought about all this a while back. I like something more like 48V as it's still considered safe under dry conditions and I think meets SELV. The higher voltage means lower current. 10no. 6W bulbs at the end of 50m of 1.5mm2 copper would have a total current of 1.25A. The round trip cable resistance would be about 1.2R, so the voltage drop would be 1.5V or about 3%, but I think this is a bit of a pessimistic model. You could just regulate down to a lower voltage (45V) or better efficiency to have a switched mode constant current supply at the bulb that allows dimming.

I want a product that consists of two mains powered units: 1. Connects to WiFi and has a wireless bridge 2. Connects to wireless bridge and has a WiFi access point (WAP) Clearly the units could be the same hardware configured to different roles. Ideally, you'd tell end (1) the WiFi credentials and end (2) would automatically use those for it's WAP. Then any WiFi device moved between locations (1) and (2) would easily connect. I've seen loads that connect to wired LAN, but not spotted ones that connect to WiFi. This has to be the most common consumer level requirement.

I'm making an cut stringer staircase where spindle placement needs to be considered more carefully than with a normal closed stringer stair where the spindles' positions don't need to bear any relation to the treads. We need at least 2 spindles per tread to satisfy the <100mm gap required by buildings regs. The common approach seems to be to align the front edge of the front spindle with the front face of the riser. I have shown this in the first two CAD images. I think I prefer to centre the spindles on the tread (excluding nosing and 'back nosing'), but that has the following two 'characteristics': Spindles 'clash' with Newel posts, which I think looks OK but maybe that's because I have looked at it like that for too long, Nosing of the next step up gets close (14.5mm) to the back edge of the back spindle Which way do you prefer? Do you have any other thoughts? 32mm spindles, 222mm going. Spindles centred on tread: The normal way (as far as I can tell): Gap from newel to first spindle 66mm, gap to last spindle is 34mm. Sorry about the bit of skirting board shown in the background.