saveasteading

Some sort of cowl or cover is essential to keep out birds and rain. We have 3 woodburners in a different place. The first is an old inefficient burner from 20 years ago and just ducts up an old-fashioned chimney. On top is a wire insert to keep the crows out. It is the least efficient but perhaps that is the fire and brick chimney. The second is also up a chimney which has a rainproof masonry capping. Sparrows loved it but are now kept out by expanded metal (chicken wire not small enough!. This works nicely with the occasional backdraught when cold, never when hot. The build-up of resin on the wire is interesting.....if the holes are too small it blocks the fumes...if big enough it coats the wire but leaves enough vent area....so that must be to do with hot resin hitting cold metal. The stove itself is modern and efficient. The third fire has this rotating thing. It turns with the slightest breeze and whizzes in the wind. I wonder how long until the bearings fail. This is the easiest to light. perhaps too much forced ventilation when not wanted though? Isn't the OH clever but also intensely ugly? I have seen them one-sided perhaps called an OJ ?? These stove cowls are very much cheaper outside the UK. ( I mean a third). the twirly one cost me E30 and it appears to be £100 online.

Let me tidy a few points up. It is not a fiasco, and it would be unwise to suggest that to your Engineer. I foresee a solution 1. Trees will the the issue here. 2.4m depth is normal enough if the trees are, or will be be tall, with high water demand, and the ground is liable to shrinkage. 2. Clay is the worst*. It expands and shrinks seasonally. If the ground was sandy, or the trees were pine or bushes really, the requirement would not be for 2.4m 3. The foundations are designed for the eventual heights of the trees not the current. 4. the depth is less elsewhere because it is further from the trees, and nothing to do with the building size. Now, you say the trees will be 'knocked down'. Does the Engineer know this? Even if he does, the trees' effect on the ground will continue. They could grow again if the stumps remain. For at least the next year after the trees are removed, the ground will move as the conditions have changed. the likelihood is that the ground will slowly get wetter, to many metres, and the clay will swell, and the ground will rise. Discuss this with the Engineer and ask for confirmation. then don't build your foundations for a while. The trees should then be removed asap, to let the winter water seep slowly into the ground (again clay is the worst for this, and will take time to wetten. BTW underpinning has to be done in 1m lengths or there is no support and the wall falls down. * Clay is made of millions of layers of silt washed into a lake a very long time ago. These layers allow water between them and expand. Then trees suck the water out and it shrinks again. At 2.4m down the tree does not drink the water, hence taking the foundations down to there.

Yes but the balls would be influenced. I did an indoor bowling centre once with 4 lanes. the concrete was in tolerance but did veer off at one corner by a few mm. This became home advantage. Once the concrete is dry, roll a golf ball and see how it swerves.

I think that will be fine. An inspiring boss once dealt with this by chucking a pound coin into the puddle, and asking the client if he was now ok with it. He later explained that the water was deeper than the coin but that this always works up to 3mm, which is the tolerance. Remember that the slab will be a bit high and a bit low variously so this can exaggerate the effect. You will not notice this in real life and does not need an overscreed, If you ever see a leak in the fanciest of retail sheds, you will see just the same. The official test is a 3m long straight-edge (or an unusually straight piece of wood). Lay it anywhere and look for a 3mm or more gap. I suspect you will not have that. The water is good for your concrete anyway.

Adsibob, that is a very good point and I had simultaneously picked it up from jack on the ongoing string elsewhere particulates in your house than if you didn't have a fire. You are right , and I will add it to the list later. I got smoke back into the room tonight from a wood burner..not immediately when lighting it but when opening the door to add wood for the first time.

What do you think of cowls. Keeping birds out, keeping the rain out, preventing downdraught, and the rotating ones sucking air up? I have had enough of sparrows finding their way in to chimneys through the tiniest gap, or onto the tiniest ledge. Then the young not getting out and falling into the stove: dead ones to dispose of and live ones to assist outside.

I was intending to install a duct to an adjacent position, and with a grille on it. Then we have control and, an additional air vent if wanted (stack effectively), and without the capital. Yes, downward smoke is not nice. I have always (no, learnt how to) overcome this with a lot of effort, just as with the first fire with a cold, damp brick chimney. A small hot fire to start with (paper and kindling, and then it is ok. Once you have mastered an Inglenook, a stove is a doddle......or is Inverness weather different?

There are rules about how gas pipes are carried through a building. Ducts have to be ventilated in case there is any gas leak and build-up. I had this on a project where the highly professional M and Contractor didn't know it but the building inspector pointed it out. Or to be fair, perhaps we built the box-out with out discussing it. Could have been a big issue. Probably applies to any void that the pipe goes through. There will be more, to do with the risk of damage/ differential movement. So yes, it really needs looking at early.

My response became so long that I have put it in a new thread rather than hijack this discussion.

I was about to reply on another thread, and realised I was hijacking it, so here is a new thread. We are putting 2 log burners into our highland conversion, and I consider myself eco considerate (got a badge for it). I'd be interested to hear if you disagree with any or all of these. FOR 1. It is very rural so it is not going to annoy or harm anyone nearby. 2. For the first 2 years there will be demolition timber, which would otherwise go where? A big bonfire probably. 3. They will provide quick heat whenever UFH is going to struggle, and allow us to keep the background heat down. A surprise change in the weather is readily dealt with. 4. Lots of surplus wood in the commercial forests around. Not the best and will require work, but otherwise it will probably be piled and burnt at some stage. 5. Aesthetically it is very attractive 6. We have an area of woods....rather lovely primitive, soggy woodland, but some can be harvested. I also favour planting some timber for pollarding. 7. The burners we are intending (Spanish) are 82% efficient. This is realistic as we have one already and it burns 30 big logs to every tiny ashpan. It has air inlets at the back to burn the fumes and you can see this working. This compares with.....what? isn't electricity 25% efficient by the time it reaches us? 8. In a well-insulated house it won't be a very big burner, or used much. 9. Other local houses have them too, and it doesn't seem to be causing any issues. 10.The flues create air flow and ventilation by stack effect, even when 'closed'. 11. There are are umpteen mills around, all with waste to get rid of. They seem to sell it even though the price doesn't seem that great to me. Otherwise it goes where? 12. If selling, they would be expected by most people. 13. We don't have to use the fires. AGAINST 1. Burning is burning, and makes fumes. 2. The air is so incredibly pure around, and there is lichen on the trees that depends on clean air. 3, Perhaps the smoke will hang around and be a nuisance. 4. The flues create air flow and heat loss when not in use. 5. Capital cost. 6. Holes in the roof. 12 against 6 isn't the issue as the weightings could be different.

Yes get this too. They are seldom used on commercial sites as the book says use a helmet. But they are practical especially when you know that nothing can fall on you. It keeps the muck out of your hair, the hair and sun out of your eyes. Safety-wise, they are great at protecting your head from nails sticking through roofs, and the odd bump from a batten or sheet of plasterboard that might overturn. I have trusted a small plasterboard sheet to stay in place while reaching for something, and been grateful for the cap spreading the thump. You will wear this when a helmet would be a pain. Get a red one and it doubles for a MAGA cap at any fancy dress.

As a newby Site Engineer I sought a red helmet but it wasn't allowed. Similarly we lusted after a tartan lined donkey jacket, but that required 2 years service. Helmets mostly used when it was raining or to hold nails back then.

One of the big questions in construction. Wrong to have colours according to hierarchy, but sensible to mark out a banksman for easy recognition. It should be a bright colour, and so yellow, orange or white depending on which will show up best on your site. Red and blue don't show up so well, and black is lunacy (for managers determined to have a different colour)

Why? I thought this was just aesthetics. Such products must be used with great care. The house is old and has kept the rain out for a long time. It is unlikely to benefit (and could be harmed) from a coat of silicon. Looking again at the photo, is it only the black streaks below the windows that concern you? I expect this is a damper area of wall where water is running off the window sill, attracting either dirt or mould. The problem is probably the sills, as water should drip off the fronts, not run off the ends.

That is scientific method. Keep ruling out things that are not proven. I thought your arguments were intended to be anti-science but it appears not. Is anything ever proven? Do you really exist or is it all computer generated. At some stage something is clearly proven beyond all reasonable doubt. I don't understand gravity but I believe in it. Likewise all reasonable evidence leads to man-made climate change. The sociologist's can then take over and predict what the poor people in new deserts or flooded lands will do. I would predict famines, wars and mass migration. Oh and an end to heat pump grants as first mentioned 12 pages ago,

Yes, beware. A brick is not normally the same all the way through. If you remove the surface you will likely find a different colour underneath and it may not be so water resistant. I remember that on British Rail projects (a lot of soot around) they specified a particular product for cleaning old walls such as railway arches. Unusually, nobody ever suggested anything as an alternative, so it must have been ok. I think it was an acid gel. I think a web search is called for. It will be a messy and tiring job, with full PPE and scaffold, so expensive. A pressure wash will clean the bricks but might damage the mortar. I think I would grow to like the sooty look.

Yes it is, but you should still tell your insurer first and ask for their advice/instruction. 1. if you don't, then the garage basically becomes uninsured in my opinion. 2. they might pay for it all, and if it is easy enough simply permit you to do it and give you the money for it and your own work. Also they might pick up some other issues that can be fixed at the same time. 3. when you sell the house, the garage will be properly constructed. The next surveyor might notice that it has been altered and create an issue,

This is worth a read. I will start now, but suspect the deniers will be too busy to do the same.https://opr.ca.gov/facts/common-denier-arguments.html here is the first extract I clicked on “Scientists are out for personal gain, publishing alarmist studies to capture research grants.” There is no evidence to support this argument. Scientists who participate in the IPCC climate assessments are not paid, nor are those who participate in panels for the National Academy of Sciences. Career advancement in the sciences is not based on holding popular views, but on publishing original research. By contrast, many deniers have received funding from entities with a financial stake in fossil fuel-based energy system.

Believers: Do remember on your self-build to put in bigger gutters, drains and soakaways, as now necessary (and required by the Building Regulations) to deal with increased storm-water. Non-believers, do as you please: doesn't affect me. It is interesting to note that the rainfall risk applies much more to England and Southern Scotland, than northern lands. I only recently noted that Inverness has the same rainfall as Tunbridge Wells, but spread over more days, and thence without the flash floods that have recently stricken TW.

Pulling together all the good advice above....we would expect that the walls are buckling out most at the middle of the walls as the roof is restrained at the corner by the hip, and the walls there are restrained by the corner of the blockwork. The cracks and movement being at the top suggest that it is only the roof and that the founds are ok. I agree with the suggestions. more photos first, then jack up with a couple of acrow props under the ridge. Buy second hand if it will be for more than a few weeks. Best put a timber bearer on the floor if it is the same builder. The NHBC warranty isn't often much help, the surveyor will have get-out clauses, the building inspector doesn't check everything, the builder probably doesn't have insurance worth anything to you. But try. But do tell your insurer promptly or they will also say you took too long. They may pick the claim up and chase these others. they will then allow you to get repairs done, and might even pay for an Engineer.

We can all see weather happening. Perhaps more effort is needed to observe and acknowledge the greater changes. I think it is clear to anyone who cares to pay attention. And there I also drop our of this discussion. Not beaten, but disheartened that there are deniers, which perhaps is the intention.

Restoring the context: arguing that climate change is a conspiracy and/or does not exist, is beyond my understanding. Ok other than anarchy. So I am interested to hear any reasons. I remember an ex friend about 15 years ago, arguing very loudly that he defied anyone who could see the snow falling currently outside, to still say there is such a thing as global warming. And a lot of stuff about "those expletive Scientists" making money out of it. Of course I did say it, but the difference between today's weather and climate change was beyond him. It was an eyeopener about the hopelessness of arguing with some people. Mostly because 'The Sun' was his source of information. Now he shouts about the dangers of climate change so presumably The Sun now accepts it. I don't recall any interim stage.

a pack of 500 of the proper long screws will set you back £10. Something not to worry about.

I did some reading on climate change denial, because it was beyond my understanding. It was thought that it is linked to other denials and to conspiracy theories. The reason most people are into it is that 1. They do not want to believe that we cannot control climate, war, poverty etc so it is easier to assume that some conspiracy is going on, that perhaps could be thwarted. 2. Do not want to think about it or change their behaviour. The latter is understandable to some extent. For people struggling to get through the day or week there are other priorities. But for people who want to actively campaign against climate change, well I just really don't understand, and would be interested to hear. I also have to remind myself that most (?) people don't understand "Science" and many think it is some sort of organisation.

A wind-up I hope.