saveasteading

Agreed. Their muscles, your attention to detail. Hanging about watching the labour can annoy people, but doing something else nearby can work.

I find I can potter all day. Anything much more physical is doable but writes off the next day. So I make a point of having a few different jobs on the go, heavy mixed with light, and so the posture and muscle use change. I am instructed by experts, that resistance work is crucial to long-term fitness too. They confirm that shovelling, carrying, barrowing all tick that, but I half fill the barrow. In the garden, hedge cutting is the most tiring and causes strain. I used to have a big 'look at what I've achieved' session. Now spread over 2 or 3 days, and there is plenty else to do. I heartily recommend 'no-dig' cultivation. No digging obviously, but it grows vegetables much better too. What's most difficult? standing up from kneeling. I'd like a remedy for that.

= 12.5 half of 5 = 2.5. 35 less 2.5 = 32.5. less 20 = 12.5. = -35 ie 35- 5 =30. Then divide by 2 = 15, then subtract 20. from left to right after first doing the stuff in brackets. If there is officially another protocol or convention in some fields of design then its important we all know. These results are drastically different. Buildings will collapse. It's not personal preference, but crucial.

I don't know this exact material. But the advice above is good, based on rock in different parts of the country. When well graded, like Type 1, it is getting very close to the original density when well laid and compacted. There are now an infinite number of fissure for dampness to go through, up or down, instead of solid rock, but any quantity of water and it will run over the surface and erode it, or puddle. With a single size graded stone there will be gaps at first , and drain nicely, but can erode with foot or vehicle traffic and become of poor permeability...and perhaps dusty or sloshy. Very hard rock doesn't have this problem. So It is quite a big risk unless you can see it in use nearby, preferably with a couple of years use. As above, a geotextile is essential and not a huge cost. Get "non-woven" as it is much better for keeping weeds underneath it. Beneath the membrane the stone can be cheaper, unless for heavy use. BTW I recently got prices for a footpath covering (light use) and it was £45/t for pea gravel, or £120/t for crushed stone. I went mean, and know it will get displaced and mucky, but it was a quick fix.

Ditto. I ended up ripping it all out. That was easy. Then a rebuild. Once the boards are stripped you'll probably find it's worse than it looks, and repairs would be temporary. What has caused it to rot? Don't rebuild the same way.

I cant do sums on this, but my take is this. I studied hydraulics and flow and designed pipelines and channels, a very long time ago. I long ago forgot the maths of it, so this is based on observation and 'feeling'. And I have stood in front of units and observed that the airflow can be considerable. . The outlet is at the front and the chilled air is thrust into open space, and away. Meanwhile it needs to draw in exactly as much air through the back. Your positioning constrains air flow to the back, so it will reduce, the fan will try to work harder, and you don't get the full amount of air through. so it less efficient, and quite a lot I feel. Just increasing from 100mm to 200mm at rear and side should make a big difference...twice as much air flow. It will also be less likely to clog with leaves and webs. If the manufacturer says otherwise, then do what they say.

The ashp could seriously underperform. Its purpose is to be efficient, and you are right to question the arrangement. Is it tucked in this recess for tidiness or due to space constraints? Have you the opportunity to change this?

It's all rather close together, including the heat pump. Will any of the exhaust air be drawn back into the ventilation? Probably, so not ideal, and a bit inefficient. Likewise the ashp is in a recess, so draws in ambient air from a limited area, so is more likely to draw back its own expelled (cold) air, and thus not be totally efficient. Is there a reason it can't be further from the wall?

Aren't these pipes going to be the biggest heat loss of the whole system? I've always overdone it if anything, and would be very inclined to put a boxing around it even after it is properly wrapped. We all put 150mm under a new floor slab, over a big area. Why not £20 more expense at this small improvement / easy gain? Payback one week?

Which suggests that they don't carry the right kit, and tjey work day to day with a bit on the way past from SF, that will fit. So the whole installation is of concern, especially when they lie, or make an excuse or just don't know much, whichever it is. I'd check their insurance too. What is the betting that they reluctantlypripose to fit some economy pipe insulation that will be feeble but also fail in the outdoors.

Preferred by non-technical people and some fitters to escalate the credibility of the fitter who is being sent. Technician is a good term. I'd rather have my meter changed, as last week, by a trained technician than by a Chartered Electrical Engineer. My personal annoyance is a man with a shovel having "Civil Engineer" on his van. However good he is at it. Better him on the shovel than me, as long as he doesn't tell me that a building is designed badly.... they often do. The less knowledge, the more certainty. It's not a protected term like "Architect". But even that seems to be under threat by new terms like 'Technical Architect' with capitals: meaning I think, draughtsman, or architectural technician. Again nothing wrong with the role, but perhaps misleading the public. Architect seems to be appropriated by the software industry too. So I do make a point of a capital E for professionals, and never use the word where it should be technician. Snobby? No. Accurate and informative.

From. so 180 is south, 270 is west . as you say the prevailing wind is SW so 225. That could be a bit sheltered or cause funnelling. But the design guides allow for that, ie not allowing any reduction for real or perceived shelter. No, this is all very sensible. If you keep to standard detailing all will be good. As Gus says, the exposed edges are most vulnerable rather than the whole roof. After gales you will often see loose bits of roof hanging off, but seldom an area of roof. On the steel buildings I worked with mostly. there were standard details for fixings and the eaves corners received twice as many screws as the mid sections.

I hadn't seen this vent theory as being accepted practice. Do you have any backup to it as I'd love to know more? The main thing is never to build a bonfire against a timber-clad house.

Firstly Envirograf. My favourite in this field as they understand fire and the products, many of which they first produced. I haven't contacted them for years but always found their advice interested, realistic and worthwhile. The BCO unfortunately probably will want to see a test certificate for exactly the situation. The purpose of the strip is to stop the spread of flame, and a lump of wood or metal would do it fine. But nobody has tested that as there is no market. A product exists so you probably have to use it. If the manufacturer made the exact same product but wrapped in red , and tested with timber, or wrapped in blue and tested in metal cladding, then those would be the test certificate that existed, and you have to use the red or the blue. How about intumescent paint on a timber block or metal profile? A pragmatic and knowledgeable BCO might agree to it: after all it has the magic word intumescent. I'm not guessing btw. I've worked on this a lot, including a high level course, but there were no qualifications awarded. Yes, but the effect of heat rising is still there. A fire spreads very rapidly upwards, chimney effect or not, as the material above is preheated, and then a flash flame can occur.

They will only be cutting out a thin bit at the top, and with a hand held grinder. If the concrete is wetted beforehand the dust will settle adjacent. You appear to be a worrier. These things are minor. The builder seems to be competent. Relax.

Agreed. As a main contractor I've had problems with window installation only a few times. Hundreds done by specialists with no problems (or maybe they had issues but sorted them without me knowing). One by specialist they had mismeasured a door. I changed the design and had the steel erectors enlarge the framing so that it would fit. This is simply a good relationship. Same job, my mistake in not informing them of a client chchange. They altered it without charge (I guess because of the favour, above.) One Job had all sorts of issues.....because we thought our own guys could do it and we would save lots of money. Mistake: its not easy. Morals: perhaps a joiner could fit them relatively efficiently, otherwise specialist fitters only and a god manager for the measuring and ordering. I'm sure they add 20% or more but its worth it. There are lots of risks and the costs of errors and bad workmanship are high. One dodgy installer I met (and didn't use) let out that he always allowed 20mm all round to make sure windows fitted, then loads of mastic.

Would it be possible to tell us what that equates to on £/m2 of window ? It's always interesting and a good starting point in a costing exercise.... and I am out of date in my wbb. (Wee black book).

Yes i do agree, thats what i was saying, maybe worded unclearly.

It's there on the graphs. 100% death rate. That's serious. It's an ad for supplements with hype added to graphs to impress. No, i don't believe that the comments are by the doctors quoted, or scientists. Seriously can i ask why you are hyping this? We are here to help on building but anything to ease your troubles.

That's a big assumption. I think that only applies if it is demobstrably or agriculture. I imagine it is taken seriously if discovered, otherwise farmers would be building speculatively everywhere: farm shed becomes domestic, then office then house and big gains.

Plastic rings are supposedly formers for a concrete surround but that is seldom done on private projects. The seals may have distorted during backfilling. Is it a big job to expose and reset the chamber, and concrete it in? Wrapping it in a bentonite or similar membrane would be belt and braces and worth considering. If the volume leaking in is signigicant then it is, indeed, an issue as the contents will flush through too quickly and mucky stuff go to the soakaway/ drainage field.

Exactly. Graphs without context are not to be trusted. The annotations are clearly not by independent parties. Scientists fo not write like that. i.e. it's added by a vitamin seller or antivaxer. Or one of Putin's troublemakers. Cause or effect? Dead people have low vitamin counts, and very ill people can't convert vitamins. Well people don't need supplements. Could you explain what log-rank test p = 0.076 means? We need context. Thanks for sharing this though to show us how dangerous these antivax people are, and don't distribute it among the general public or you may cause deaths.

The lesson learnt by the company was, I assume, to always get the concrete in quickly, ie pump. Also the recipe for a pump mix is different, so flows better even if barrowed.

Thanks. Very traumatic and expensive. What was the obvious sign that there was a problem with the slab?

Was there a discussion on BH? I'd be interested to see it. A date or other reference?