MortarThePoint

Interesting (bit of an issue with the website, but hopefully fine tomorrow). I don't need failsafe operation really since it's a bit of a bonus system. I quite like the ideal of a retrofit approach, but those bolt on ones look a bit weak. There are some stronger looking ones, but still not very satisfactory. I might see if I can 3D print a large cog and pinion arrangement, but that starts to look like a long term project.

I'm not sure I understand, how would no flor represent a leak? I'm still going to be drinking the water downstream of the check valve so want something drinking water approved

Does anyone if these water meters are noisy? Pulsed Cold Water Meter - 20mm, 3/4" BSP TM The Pulsed Cold Water Meter (20mm, 3/4" BSP TM) is designed for accurate monitoring of cold water consumption, typically linked to energy monitoring systems. Featuring a 20 mm nominal bore and 3/4" BSP TM thread, this meter ensures precise measurement with a pulse rate of 1 pulse per litre. [https://www.bes.co.uk/pulsed-cold-water-meter-3-4in-22976/]

Two considerations on leak detection are: a) cracking pressure of check valves: if measured up stream of check valves, a leak down stream of any check valve needs to lower the pressure enough for any check valves to open. I don't know the exact cracking pressure of check valves, but I would guess they are a fraction of a bar. b) supply pressure variation: not an issue as supply is isolated during a leak test. It does affect the working range of the sensor though. I'll have a PRV (pressure regulating valve) set to something like 5 bar (hopefully). I don't know how much of a pressure drop is considered a leak by the likes of the Moen Flo. I could conduct some tests, but my gut feeling at this point feels like a 0.5bar drop across 5 minutes would be a reasonable threshold. One retro fit option for a pressure sensor is to use a camera to observe the pressure gauge of the PRV. An ESP32 could WIFI an couple of images to a PC for analysis.

There are various products (e.g. Moen Flo) on the market that effectively include the following elements: Wireless brain with some combination of WIFI, Zigbee and Bluetooth Motorised valve Flowrate sensor Pressure sensor It's a deal breaker for me to have something that requires a subscription (ongoing cost, dead device when cloud disappears,...) and most of the off the shelf ones are such. Consequently, I am tempted to roll my own and have identified the following parts as good options: Brain [£10] Lots of choice, ESP32 likely candidate. Relays likely needed to control mains voltages ... needs more thought Motorised valve [£30] You don't want a spring return one as that would require constant powering and also cut off your water whenever there was a power cut. There are various cheap options on the likes of Amazon (link) but they won't be WRAS approved. You can also get retrofit actuators (link) that operate an existing lever valve though these look like they would struggle with a stiff valve, but that approach does resolve the WRAS requirement. You can get wireless connected valves (eg link) that would allow connection to a home automation system to close the loop. Flowrate sensor [£50] There are plenty of off the shelf meters with digital pulses. For example this one from BES that does 1 pulse per litre. Would be WRAS Pressure sensor [£20] I haven't found one that is approved for drinking water (e.g. WRAS approved), but this is the sort of thing: https://www.dfrobot.com/product-1675.html A bit of elbow grease and some additional fittings and you can make your own system for around £100 that wouldn't go obsolete. The pressure sensor is the main issue at this point as it is required for leak detection (shut off water and see if pressure drops) but I haven't found one that is WRAS approved of claims to be OK for drinking water.

I think I will, just in case. If the metal profile is two part, do you have the sealant (a) just onto the inner profile part of (b) covering both. I'm expecting you'd say (b) but wanted to be sure. second sealant side shown in light green as may not be present in an ideal world 🤣 I suppose you could have (b) on the external junction and (a) on the internal junction, but stull feels like (b) might be best all round. Interested to have your thoughts.

Cool, so from where I am now (without sealant between the profile and the wall) I'll have sealant in the following junctions. At bottom of profile between tray and wall (applied before fitting the profile) Down full height of profile internally Down the full height of the profile externally Around the profile to tray junction externally That's pretty much what I was thinking, though wondered about holding it up from the bottom a bit for the internal sealant [2] to allow any water that has got in to drain out in case the sealant of [1] blocks that from happening.

Is that as well a sealing externally for the verticals? If so that creates a continuous seal with the sealant round the external edge of the profile to tray junction.

Thankfully, I did remember to do that joint for the reasons you explain. It is a shame the instructions don't suggest it. That's the only place there is sealant at this point though so I don't have a bead trapped between the profile and wall. I'm guessing you still put a bead of sealant around the join between the enclosure and the tray though. Is that put on after or done mid profile like for the vertical profiles? Does CT1 tool OK with the Cramer silicone tools?

Instructions say to silicone around the outside for the shower enclosure metal profiles (profile to wall and profile to tray) rather than around the inside. I understand the logic, you don't want to trap water in the gap and it's best to assume water will get in there. However, I can't remember if I silicone sealed the screws in the tiling that were used to secure the metal profiles. If water gets into the gap, it could then make its way behind the tiles if those holes are not silicone sealed. I wonder about sealing the inner edge of the profile to wall down to about 100mm above the tray. That is below the last screw hole (I hope). That would hopefully avoid water getting trapped but also protect the screw holes. What did others do?

I think I recall that you're in Scotland and my 'research' suggested DCV are required by regulations in Scotland, but not in England. I am attempting to make the lowest sacrifice (in terms of flow rate) alternative out of single check valves. That's why there is a single check valve on each branch thus making a pair of check valves between branch and main. The intermediate drain allows verification testing. The outside tap drain allows air in to drain the pipe through the wall. Without that drain, the water would just stay in the pipe. Garage will have a hose on for washing the car with softened water. Drinking is just going to the kitchen. It's OK to drink softened water as far as I understand so not the end of the world if someone drinks water from a bathroom tap.

Below if a rough out of the fittings I plan to put in before the 22mm copper that the plumber used for my tank, manifolds etc install. It works out as a hell of a lot of compression fittings, no pipes shown. I'd rather go with Pressfit, but don't have the expensive tool and if done carefully (inc Jet-lube V2), hopefully I'll have no leaks. I could only use solder fittings for tees and elbows so wouldn't actually reduce the number of compression joints as much as you'd think. 39 + 12 = 51 compression joints in total including the softener pipework. Singe check valves (aka non-return valves) are highlighted with blue stars. Double check valves (DCV) are highlighted with pink stars. I've heard conflicting things abut whether a DCV is required first thing, but I do know I am supposed to have at least a single check valve before the water softener. I am effectively creating a double (DCV) by using two in series, hence the 15mm single on the unsoftened (drinking and garden) branch. I've put a drain off between these check valves to allow verification as you'd have with a DCV. Contaminating outlets are protected against by DCVs. I should have a second branch like the garage one (inc isolator, DCV, drain) for machines (dishwasher, washing machine). Can anyone confirm that the long tail type A drain off cock is OK for compression fittings? Would have been good to notice you can get a DCV with isolator [link1] and that would have saved cost and joints. Likewise, you can get drain tees [link2] [link3]. The ultimate would be a combined DCV, isolator and drain off, but I haven't seen that at a sensible price and link1+link2 is a great option.

I've decided to go with one of the Plasson adaptors so I can use a lever full bore valve instead of a stopcock. If the BCO says I need to change to a standard stopcock, I'll do that with confidence provided by contributors to this thread.

I have a hinge jig, but the slots are a bit larger than the hinge and The hinge positions have conspired against me

Well I have fitted my first fire door and it's got too big a gap at the top. 🤬 Any advice welcome. I only pilot drilled half the holes in the door lining, but I'd like full support really. They're 76mm / 102mm = 3" x 4" hinges (photo below). Is it possible to get these with a different screw hole pattern so that I'm dealing with fresh wood for the screws once I have adjusted the routed slots? Is there an easier solution I'm missing?

I was already thinking I would have a lever handle ball valve, but I was thinking to have it downstream of the stopcock as those stopcocks are so standard I assumed that I'd have to have one for regs. I'll have a PRV downstream as well.

I have a 25mm MDPE pipe that I want to connect to 22mm copper and have a stopcock. I could either use a coupler, 25mm MDPE to 22mm copper, and a 22mm stopcock or use a stopcock that has a compression fitting onto the 25mm MDPE itself. How robust is a compression fitting onto the MDPE as that's one hell of a place to have a failure! I know Plasson make a combined pushfit adapter and stopcock, but availability is low, the price is high and I'm not so keen on a plastic tap.

Has anyone got experience with corrugated stainless flexis for water plumbing? They look to solve a lot to the issues with the standard rubber + braided stainless flexi: Improved bore size No kink No perishable rubber tubing https://ridgelinetubes.com/flexis/ https://www.monsterplumb.co.uk/ridgeline-flexible-connectors Ridgeline even sell the pipe to do your whole system in corrugated stainless. I think I have only seen this sort of thing in gas connections before, but I might be mistaken.

That should have said lateral forces towards and away from the house are much more of a concern ...

Thanks Gus. The main thoughts on the Staddle Stone thread are along the lines of assuming the top of the post is constrained by a connection that leave it free to rotate, would the Staddle Stone be a point of failure. So only really considering if the Staddle Stone could constrain the post vertically and horizontally, but not rotationally. I then assume that if you have a rigid body translationally constrained in two separate locations, it is then also rotationally constrained. Interesting, I was so focused on whether the posts were sufficiently supported in terms of tipping away or towards the house walls that I forgot to consider them tipping parallel to the walls. I can see that OSB/plywood on top or sandwiching the rafters would prevent that. I was hoping to have V-groove on top of the rafters so this could work as plywood. This has been my main quandary. Really I want the loggia to only place a vertical load on the outer leaf of the house. The weight of the tiles onto the top ledger should be about ((1.375m / 2) / COS(46)) * 77kg/m2 = 76.8kg/m -> 0.8kN/m. If I crudely double that for snow etc, I'm looking at 1.6kN/m order of magnitude which is the weight of 1m height of brickwork [ (1m*0.1m*1600kg/m3) = 160kg -> 1.6kN ], so easily within scope. Lateral forces on the brickwork are much more of a concern as they rely on the wall ties and or weight of brickwork above as I understand it. The weight of brickwork above isn't much for most of it at the possible height of any ceiling ties and is tiny at the height of the top ledger due to a large group of windows. I should have shared that image earlier I suppose, sorry. The knee braces could work aesthetically if they are needed structurally. The foundation pads are around 600x600x600 poured on top of larger concrete pads of around 1m x 1m x 1.25m. I agree that the vaulting with no ceiling ties is a much more attractive look.

Are you saying the non-return valves have a sieve/filter in? I didn't know the ones for mounting on pipes had those. I see the ones in the shower valves do though so makes sense.

B&L ltd probably didn't add a check valve which there should be on an outside tap. You could use a double check valve as the coupler for extending the pipe vertically. Not sure it check valves cope well with freezing though

@Nickfromwales It feels completely pointless to me to have check valves at mixer taps, showers etc if there isn't proper separation between the hot and cold at the Caleffi 533201 combined PRV and monobloc manifold. Outside taps, and appliances make sense as they contain other contaminants. What are your thoughts?

Thanks Gus, nice examples of Glulams On another thread I has detailed changing to using Staddle Stones and my rough calculations there suggest a lateral force capacity at the bottom of the post of at least 80kg (without pin and resin into concrete below stone) and I'd expect much more (with pin and resin into concrete). The main structural question I am struggling with is whether I need ceiling level timber ties back to the house structure. I'd consider the coupling between the post and the staddle stone to be free to rotate, so just providing lateral and vertical constraint but not rotary. More discussion here:

Was hoping to leave it on show and paint it. Using screws internally to the glulam would allow three faces to have no fixings showing