Stewpot

I'd suggest some decent repointing might go a long way to a smarter appearance. But make sure you get someone skilled, who can do a neat job, unlike what you have now. There is a technique called tuck pointing, which is a highly skilled restoration method - the narrow pinstripes may not be quite what you need, but someone who can tuck point may have the skill to improve the appearance of your place. www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyNY_MU62iA www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4uNGxkTlJY (warning: background music; use mute button) Note that in America, 'tuck pointing' seems to mean ordinary pointing, leading to much internet confusion.

Part of the problem is that the plot is past the last house on the lane. I'm as certain as I can certainly be that there are no utility services going under the site. I can see no reason why a water pipe would come this far up the lane - I've scouted around for stopcock covers, and suchlike, but nothing obvious, and local knowledge was not particularly helpful on this matter. However, I was pleasantly surprised at the route the electricity cable took (it comes up the lane, only to go back down someone's driveway) which provides me with a nearby connection point, albeit on the other side of the road. Maybe I'll get lucky with the water, too. I'll see if the solicitor has any information before I blow thirty quid on a plans service.

It's often much simpler to speak to someone face to face. So far, in this Big Adventure, most things have been fairly straightforward[1], and most people have been friendly and helpful; even the SW people were friendly, they just didn't seem to be on top of the information, and so were not very helpful. [1] Mind you, I haven't actually started to build anything yet.

Actually, Scottish Power have provided a map with a new connection marked on it - very interesting, as the nearest suitable cable is much nearer than the nearest neighbouring house, so considerably cheaper that I was fearing (still an arm and half a leg, mind). They didn't tell me that. At this stage, I don't yet own the plot, so making an application is a bit previous. I just want some idea of the total cost, so that I can put something of a budget together. Ha! maybe. But the distance to the nearest water main could be the deciding factor in whether to go for a borehole, in these parts. So SW get a grand for nothing.

Now that's what I call helpful information. How come Scottish Water themselves couldn't point me in that direction? Haven't completed on the purchase yet, but I've yet to find a conveyancing solicitor who wants to get involved in the utility connections. That's interesting. How long ago was that? Maybe things have changed recently. I did get the impression that the people I spoke to on the phone didn't really know how to deal with my enquiry, but they were adamant that they do no more than the actual connection of the pipe that somebody else has dug the trench for. They actually told me that I had to dig up the road myself (I'm willing to try, but I doubt I'd get away with that). At the moment, I don't even know if digging the road is necessary, but I'll pursue one of the plans providers Onoff has pointed me to.

Welcome. I'm not that far away from you, but am currently buying a building plot in northern territories. And best wishes with your project - I've seen what Alzheimer's can do, and sadly, wishes alone won't be enough.

I'm getting quotes in for the utility connections to my prospective plot. Scottish Electricity were straight forward and simple enough, with a 'budget quote' arriving within 24 hours. Scottish Water, on the other hand... They don't dig the trench, they don't have a list of approved contractors, and they can't even tell me where the nearest water main is. Two unhelpful phone calls, and I'm none the wiser about any of it. So, how do I make progress with this? Is there a map of where the water mains run? Even if there is, how do I know what would be suitable for making a new connection to? Who would have this information? Plot is in Scottish Borders.

One of the conditions of the outline permission on the plot I am buying is that it should be a 1½ storey house. I've just phoned the council to see if they had a definition of this. As it turns out, they had talked about this recently in a meeting, and the planning officer I spoke to sent me a copy of a sketch that they had informally discussed. He was keen to stress that this was not definitive, but it gives an indication of their thinking. It surprised me - 1½ storeys does not refer to the height of the property at all, but rather the relative widths of the two storeys. Look carefully, and you'll see that a 1½ storey house has a second storey that is half the width of the ground floor; in a 1¾ storey house, the second storey is three quarters the width. Go figure. 1.5 storey.pdf

Your point is quite correct (and shame on me for not having done that maths), but his use of a bucket is simply disguising his misunderstanding of how to use a water level. Most water levels just consist of a tube (often with a graduated vile at each end), and the mistake he makes would result in a 50% error.

The size of the hose is not a factor, and the fact that he's using a bucket as a 'base station' is somewhat distracting. It's his understanding of how the water level works that is wrong. He (and he's far from alone in this, if the videos on Youtube are anything to go by) is of the opinion that the level of water will always be at the same height, regardless of what relative positions the ends of the tube are at. This would be much more marked if both ends of the tube were the same diameter. So, yes, you are right - you have to mark the tube itself with the initial level, and thereafter, you always have to align the water level with that mark to get a meaningful reading.

...wins the prize Consider this: he starts off next to his base station bucket, and the level on his measuring staff reads (let's say) 20". Now he goes away from the base station, and the measuring staff reads 30". He tells us that he is now 10" lower than he was, but he is wrong. This is because he has filled 10" more tubing with water, and the only place that water can have come from is the bucket, which means that the level in the bucket is lower than it was when he started. Because the level at the measuring staff is the same as the level in the bucket, that is also lower than when he started So he must be more than 10" lower. Now he takes his measuring staff to another point and finds that it reads 15". He tells us that he is therefore 5" higher than the base station, but he is wrong. This is because there is 5" less tube filled with water, and the only place that water has to go to is into the bucket, so the level in the bucket is higher than it was when he started. The level at the measuring staff is therefore higher as well, so he is less than 5" higher. If he was using a conventional, two-ended tube, with one end fixed in place at the starting point, instead of his base station bucket, the error would be more obvious - if you raise one end of the tube, the water will drain out of that end and into the other. The water stays at the same level relative to itself, but not relative to the starting point. His mistake is to have fixed the tube to the measuring pole. This is how he should do it to get accurate results: Start off at the base station, with the tube held against the measuring staff. With a marker pen, mark the water level on the tube. Now, he takes the tube and the measuring staff somewhere else, and holds the tube against the staff again. But now he adjusts the tube up or down until the water level is at the mark. At this point the water level is at the same place as it was when he started. Now he can read the level off against the measuring staff, and will have an accurate measure of how much higher or lower he is. The important thing is, you must align the water level with the mark on the tube before you can gauge any meaningful change in the height of the staff. A ready made water level will have calibrated ends, to save you the trouble of marking it - you just note the number on the calibration. The beauty of this is that you don't have to see both ends of the tube - if one end is at the calibration mark, the other must be as well. That means you can be out of sight of the other end of the tube, perhaps round a corner, or the other side of a wall - as long as the water is at that calibration mark, you can measure a change in height with it. Alternatively, if you were to use a measuring staff at both ends, with the level fixed to them both, you could simply measure the difference in height between them, without needing to use a calibration mark, but you would need to be able to take the readings at both ends at the same time, which probably requires a second person. You can use a water level indoors, outdoor, round corners, over walls, in bright sunlight, it will never become inaccurate, never need recharging or new batteries, doesn't need a receiver, and only costs eight quid.

In anticipation of me soon completing on the plot I'm buying, I've just bought an old fashioned water level. I did think about a laser level, but it seems to me that they just have too many limitations to be of much use. And the affordable ones have questionable accuracy (apparently). Now, I think I understand the water level pretty well - it's dead simple; water always finds it's own level, so two ends of a tube filled with water, even if they are separated by a distance will show the same level. But, in fact, in its simplicity, it is deceptive. There are a great many videos on Youtube that show how to use a water level. Nearly all of them are wrong. Some of them, at best, don't really demonstrate the tool to its best ability, but most of the ones I've seen simply don't understand the principle they're demonstrating. Here is one of many typical examples - can you figure out why he's wrong? www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NdKsIp1KdU

Be careful if you use it in the toilet - seriously. If it's like the stuff I put down a blocked bog a while ago, it's pretty much pure sulphuric acid. I followed the instructions exactly, but after only a little had gone into the pan, there was a pop, and the porcelain cracked. I presume it was a thermal reaction with the water, though someone else may have a better idea. That could've been a very bad day, except that Wickes had a near-identical toilet pan on the shelf, and at a discount. The old pan was out, and the new one in before my morning tea was cold. Has to be said, previously I've used it successfully and without problem.

Is that because there was no bootable USB drive plugged in? I seem to remember my laptop only shows a boot-from-USB option if something is actually plugged into the USB slot.

Who can forget Judith Hann, on Tomorrow's World, picking up a red hot heat-shield tile from the early days of the space shuttle - I don't know what the material was, but it was such a poor thermal conductor that the heat therein didn't get transmitted to her hand.

I wonder if they can do single phase with 1 wire, using the ground as neutral as well as earth.

That's interesting - they allowed you to install your own ducting in their trench, and the other utilities were happy to use it? Presumably different ducts for each utility. Did that mean Scottish Water had to dig deeper? How did you terminate the outside end of the duct? On the original topic - an induction motor is better suited to three phase, and it will run more smoothly and I would guess more efficiently. If you have the option of machine tools, or plant with three phase motors, it might be a good option. I'm in the process of purchasing a plot which has three strands of cable going overhead (11kV, I presume), and the local farmer said that was because he wanted three phase, so I've assumed 3 wires = 3 phase and 2 wires = 1 phase.

The planning portal (as accessed via your council's website) should be able to tell you of any application that has been made in at least the past ten years, whether the permission was granted or refused, or the application was withdrawn. If you have already done a search, then you will probably already have seen all there is to see. Each local authority has their own corner of the planning portal, and there does seem to be some variation in how comprehensive is their implementation of it, but most of the authorities I've searched give a map-search option, where you can choose a point on a map, and the search results will all be within a certain distance of there. This is useful if the location does not yet have an address. Rather than get involved in cussed uplift clauses, you could make an offer that is conditional upon PP. That is to say, you apply for planning permission (probably outline at this stage), and if it is granted, you go ahead with the purchase. If it is refused, you are not committed to the purchase. A solicitor will advise you in detail, but this is a conventional way to buy land, and is possible because you don't have to own land that you are applying for the permission on. The down side is, that your offer will, inevitably, need to be higher, because you are circumventing the risk, and are buying a plot with PP (even though you paid for the permission). Also, if the PP is granted, but you still withdraw, the seller has a valuable piece of land to sell, and you will get no return for your cost and effort to get the permission

Reviving an old thread, I know, but I've been looking at some Chinesium laser levels, most at stupid-cheap prices. Two new questions come up: 1) I understand the "3D 12 line" concept - it actually projects three laser beams along the three dimensional planes, so if you put the device in a cube (eg, a room) you get two crossing lines on each wall. But the latest ones are "4D 16 line" devices. Actually we are talking about a device that projects a fourth laser plane horizontally, so you get two horizontal lines on each wall. You have no control over how far apart these lines are, so how is this useful? 2) Some devices are being marketed with a blue line laser. I know the green lasers are meant to be more visible in daylight than the red ones, but does anyone know what the blue lasers are about?

If there are houses either side, then I would guess that there is an improved chance of getting PP - it will be within an established development area. BUT, farmers are canny people - if it's likely to get PP, they will have thought about this; they may already have turned down several offers from other people like you, because they know it has development value. You may get lucky, but I think the odds are against you getting any sort of a bargain - though that may not be your main objective. You may also fine that the neighbours will prefer having tumble down barns next door rather than another house, and will object to any plans. Have you searched the planning portal, to see if anyone else has applied for PP in the last few years? If someone has, and it's been refused, then you know to move on. Also, it'd probably be worth six quid to get the title register and title plan from the land registry website - that may tell you lots, including if there are any charges that would hinder your plans. Good luck.

Is the problem that you are drawing air into the pipe as it draws water from the burn? Can you make some sort of catch pool in the burn, so that the pickup of the pipe is deeper under water? I would guess in a natural flow of water, it will always be getting pretty aerated. You could perhaps try adding an additional length of vertical pipe at the highest part of the pipe run, which would give the air somewhere to collect. Ideally you'd put a bleed valve at the top of it - if a manual one, you'd have to periodically open it to let the air out.

What's a rumbling drain?

Excellent advice (I hope to be following it myself, before long).

I would guess that long branches like that are going to syphon as the water flowing down them heads to the stack. Air-admittance valves may solve this - I'd put one near the washing machine, the bathroom basin, and the top left sink. But I dunno how that squares with the regs.

The problem is, that's the one rule that dickheads think doesn't apply to them. But who am I to talk - I hate going up ladders, but have done so many times, and over the years have got away with some real stupidity. Fortunately, I find my fear of ladders, and such like, increases as I get older, so I'm less inclined to go very high on them, and less likely to be stupid[1]. [1] Not necessarily in a general sense, of course.