MortarThePoint

Walls are blockwork and are to be wet plastered. Plasterer specifically asked for Catnic beads, though said the BG ones are good too. I'm sure it's a matter of whatever you are used to, but I wanted to get as asked. I've ordered these, but they have a 23mm bit. Do you know who does a 40mm one? I'm guessing he wants the scrim tape for the plasterboard ceilings and partitions

Mostly hairline in mortar lines

I have to tidy up a bit too as there are piles of various materials everywhere.

I'm preparing for the Plasterer who is coming next week which is exciting. He's going to be plasterboarding the reveals and doing all the beads and scrim tape. Is it best to use moisture resistant plasterboard in window reveals? Is there anything I should do with blockwork cracks? Mesh? I've got them under the longer windows. I'm now frantically creating piles of sawdust as I prepare the window boards and door linings.

I was thinking to do that I've also found these hole reducers which are a good use of a laser cutter. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/123992774715 You can get fire rated too but not so DIY https://www.downlights.co.uk/integral-hole-converter-plate-for-70-100mm-hole-sizes-evo-fire.html?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI7eDLzOKy_QIVE49oCR1DlQ7REAQYDyABEgIh9PD_BwE#hole-converter-plate-for-70-100mm-hole-sizes-integral

Yes, so I'm thinking quite diffuse / wide angle is best. Those ones claim 110 degrees

Good point! Benefits to staying standard.

So many ways to get it wrong I like these (link) which give off a nice diffuse light. They are very slim, but require a large (105mm) hole. Lumens per watt figure isn't great though. https://auroralighting.com/Products/Download/EN-PL06B?Code=EN-PL06B&IsMicrolights=False&Brand=Enlite

I think the wife wins it then, fat lot of good you lot were 🤣 Just kidding, all good thoughts and you've won me round. Looking at it from the main entrance you're not going to perceive the difference and walking along the hall from one end to the other the blue line would grate. Closer to the wall may be an option, but I think the panelling and general aesthetic will mean the Orange line wins the day. Where's my humble pie cook book, in some dusty corner somewhere.

The left three are equally space, but the right most one is moved closer to the others by about 15% due to being in an alcove. Not sure that discrepancy will be evident from the main entrance

Could have the end two centred in doors and middle two centred on ceiling

Yes I've seen that done nicely too. Not sure it would work so well here with two by doors. We're also planning to use panelling on that wall.

That would be telling 🙂 Hers is probably the right choice 😂

The downstairs hall has the landing above and will have 4 downlighters along under the landing. I've shown this below. The red line is the edge of the landing which is further over than previously expected due to the steel beam bearing on the right hand side. We're unsure which line is best for the downlighters: Orange: centred on the doors at each end Blue: centred on the ceiling section under the landing The wife and I are not in agreement as to which is the better choice and I'd like to see what others think 🙂 Arguments for each approach would be much appreciated. For reference, the lateral positions of the 4 downlights is centred on the stair turn, middle of each double door and then middle of WC door.

I sympathise with the brickies on this one. It's like changing the gate of your stride. It can be done but chances are it will mess up. I thought there was an upper limit as well but couldn't find it on a quick Google. There are enough variables with brick style, mortar and bond. We went Flemish, but I also like Monk Bond. English Bond can suit a certain style.

Why do they want to make the new wall plate inline with the old? They haven't done a lap joint so it's not like they are tying them together. I agree with @PeterW, you can't put straps on that. I'm not sure I see the point in wider timber, but I can't see it would do any harm. Did the SE have any detail on this? How have they tied old and new masonry together? I'm not very experienced, so don't take it from me, but I thought it was usual to have an expansion joint at such a join?

I think that is elbow dominated and using bends instead has a big reduction in sound levels. They were targeting 30dB(A) or less and the AluPEX 16mm bends were able to satisfy that at even 4m/s. AluPEX is the closest thing they have to Hep2O.

Some useful sound data in this paper. Looks like it is worth keeping the flow velocity under 1m/s. Pipe size 1.0m/s 1.5m/s 10mm 2.2 L/min 3.3 L/min 15mm 6.0 L/min 9.0 L/min 22mm 15 L/min 23 L/min 28mm 24L/min 36 L/min

This paper has some interesting data on pipe flow noise.

I was wondering whether Hep2O is good for the flow at return pipes to UFH manifolds? Originally I had a NuHeat design (feeds section below), but then swapped to WUNDA who didn't give a pipe spec for the manifold Flow an Return pipes. The design was also tweaked to be 3 manifolds. NuHeat said 35mm Copper for the higher flow pipes and 28mm Copper for the lower flow ones. The highest flow rate in the design is 22.8 L/min in 35mm Copper. That makes for a flow velocity of 0.46m/s in the 35mm Copper pipe (32.6mm ID). The largest Hep2O pipe is 28mm OD and the flow velocity would be 0.94m/s (22.7mm ID). NuHeat had a branched design though and I'm sure @Nickfromwales will advise 1-to-1 layout from the source (I'm learning). Then I'd only have a highest flow rate of 10.5L/min = 0.18 kg/s --> 0.45m/s pipe velocity. At what sort of flow velocity do I have to worry about a pipe getting noisy? The house we are currently in has noisy heating pipes, so I definitely want to avoid that. [Power check: f=22.8 L/min, dT=5C --> Q=0.38kg/s * 4.2kJ/kgK * 5K = 8kW. 11.2kW ASHP so may want a bit more flow or dT=7C] Wunda did give a flow for their manifold designs and the highest was 20.3ltrs which I presume is 20.3 L/min, so about double NuHeat and back to the around 0.9m/s pipe velocity. but I think that's over based on the power check, unless we only heat downstairs. ______

Are the hood manufacturers' numbers absurd, just designed to sell more expensive units, and the Building Regulations numbers more sensible? @Radian you may have some interesting thoughts after your recent beef burning. Power Use due to Extractor Fan: Building Regs sets out a requirement of 30 L/s if "cooker hood extracting to the outside" or 60 L/s if "no cooker hood or cooker hood does not extract to the outside". Cooker hood manufacturers on the other hand take account of the room size and base it on 10 air changes per hour [1][2]. Our kitchen is 6.4m x 4.7m x 2.6m, so about 80m3. That works out as 800m3/h or 220 L/s. In winter that is sucking out warm air to be replaced by outside air. The thermal heat flow is then: Q = flow(m3/s) * dT(K) * 1kJ/K.m3 = 0.22m3/s * 10K * 1kJ/K.m3 Q = 2.2kW (e.g. with dT=10K) If your cooker hood is part of you MVHR and it has an efficiency of nu_1 and your heat generation (e.g. ASHP) has an efficiency of nu_2 then the electrical power consumption is: P = (P_fan) + (Q * (1 - nu_1) / nu_2) In my case nu_1=0 (i.e. no MVHR which is a whole different discussion). If dT=10C (e.g. 20C in, 10C out) and the ASHP nu_2 is at 300% then that suggests a power consumption of: P = (240W) + (2.2kW * 1 / 3) = 1.0kW And 75% of the electricity consumption is related to the heat flow rather than the fan's direct electricity consumption. Based on cooking for 30 minutes per day, that works out as about 20p/day or £73/yr based on current (high, but perhaps to stay) prices. Running the Building Regs numbers (based on 30 L/s and scaling P_fan): P = (33W) + (0.3kW * 1 / 3) = 0.13kW ==> about £10/yr. A big difference. Hood Fan efficiency: The numbers in the table below are the maxima, not an actual operating point. But if it was an operating point, the efficiency of the fan itself would be: nu_fan = P_flow / P_electricity nu_fan = (Flow(m/s) * Pressure(Pa)) / P_electricity(W) = ((600/3600) * 520) / 250 = 35% That's not too bad but isn't an actual operating point so the efficiency is probably 20-25% in INTENSIVE mode. In mode 1, unadjusted nu_fan = 18%, mode 2, unadjusted nu_fan = 31%, and mode 3, unadjusted nu_fan = 35%. You're probably looking at an efficiency of around 20% best case. Remember, fans are really inefficient. but in extraction it doesn't really matter so much. https://www.faberhoods.co.uk/hoods/victory-2-0-integrated-cooker-hood/

But looks like the window could count as an alternative so extractor fans not actually required for toilets (without bath or shower). I'm a but surprised so would need double checking with BCO. If extractor not required you could add one in a non compliant position.

Part F of Building Regs: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1045918/ADF1.pdf

____________ ____________ ____________ From these, I'd guess 150mm Round to 204x60 Rectangular using a 150mm Round Bend and then Adapter would be about 30Pa @80l/s so much improved over the Plenum (~90Pa @ 80l/s) if space allows.

Using the values in that Nuaire PDF, the total resistance becomes: 150mm Round Straight 600mm 1.1 150mm Round Bend 16.6 150mm Round Straight 200mm 0.4 150mm Round Tee 14.5 150mm Round to 204x60 Rectangular Spigot 90est. <<<< 204x60 Rectangular Straight 1450mm 11.3 204x60 Rectangular to 125mm Round Adaptor 14.3 125mm Round Straight 450mm 1.8 125mm Round Bend 26.4 125mm Round Straight 350mm 1.4 125mm Round Vent/Grating ?? TOTAL: 177Pa @ 80l/s (288m3/h) Half of that is from the plenum (aka "150mm Round to 204x60 Rectangular Spigot") which you'd almost always have in a system using rectangular ducting.