"Bert Coules" wrote in message
...
Lurch,

So you don't actually need a plug and socket then, just an isolator in
the vicinity with the flex 'appearing' somewhere around the boiler,
possibly from a hole in the wall.

That strikes me as rather messy. A plug and socket, necessary or not,
would
be much neater.


How about an adaptable / conduit box and cable gland, terminations between
in-wall cable and boiler flex would then be accessible ?...

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
Part of this is aided and abetted by the medical profession
itself. At most hospitals, including those in the private sector,
there is reserved car parking for the consultants by the door.
What other business puts its staff car parking by the door and
makes its customers walk in the rain?

But as was pointed out (here?) recently, for the most part a
private hospital's real customers are the consultants. You need to
sell your hospital to them. If you can do this, then they will fill
your beds for you. If not they'll be filling someone else's beds.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser
http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

Jerry,

How about an adaptable / conduit box and cable gland, terminations between
in-wall cable and boiler flex would then be accessible ?...

Would a conduit box be smaller than a standard single-socket surface plate?
Anyway, I'll investigate - thanks for the thought.

Bert
http://www.bertcoules.co.uk

"Bert Coules" wrote in message
...
Jerry,

How about an adaptable / conduit box and cable gland, terminations
between
in-wall cable and boiler flex would then be accessible ?...

Would a conduit box be smaller than a standard single-socket surface
plate?
Anyway, I'll investigate - thanks for the thought.


I gave you the size a few messages ago !

Conduit circular box is 50mm (2 inch).

Adaptable boxes can be had from about 2 inch sq IIRC.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 23:08:20 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




The completing companies make it cheaper by virtually abandoning any
service. Try phoning them.

Why would I want to do that?

They also survive by loans from their
customers. You have to be on direct debit and despite companies reading
the
meters for them and supplying the reading, they ignore them and estimate
the
bill way over, then adjust from one reading at the end of the year. They
use the customers for loans instead of banks. Appalling.

Only the gullible do that.

I have had suppliers try this on.

The simple solution is to take the actual readings and costs for the
previous year, divide by 12 and offer them that or less for the
monthly direct debit. I then take the shortfall and add it in to the
following year and repeat the process.

One squeaked about it until I told them that they could take it or
leave it. They took it.

Competition makes that possible. My negotiating position is far
better than when I had to deal with state monopolies.

State monopolies didn't use their customers as an interest free lending
bank.

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 23:36:08 +0000 (UTC), Frank Erskine
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 21:17:16 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

This situation is changing with local loop unbundling.

The "local loop" of course being the result of many decades of public
expenditure by the GPO/PO, which is expected to be effectively given
away to the private sector who don't want to get their hands dirty
with tasks such as planting poles in the ground, laying dirty cables
in holes in the road...

The GPO and PO are relics of the past along with other state owned
infrastructure.

BT haven't exactly rushed into providing LLU, but have rightly been
dragged into it kicking and screaming by Oftel. It's far from being
free.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 23:04:17 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


Even countries with socialised medicine have charges at the point of
delivery - e.g. small payment for GP visits, exempted for the poorest.
AFAIK, Britain is the only country that attempts a free at the point
of delivery system. It's an outdated nonsense.

Such tripe. Despite this free at point of delivery, people still do not
go
and remain ill.

Yes, socialised medicine is tripe.

What piffle! Anyone who says that deserves total contempt. I bet you have a
photo of that idiot dirty ******* Boris Johnson over your bed.

You have no idea, just ahead full of bitterness. You perceive everyone is
ripping you off. Look under the bed there might be a swindler under there.
Just look at history and how things are, the NHS is the only way.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 23:36:08 +0000 (UTC), Frank Erskine
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 21:17:16 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

This situation is changing with local loop unbundling.

The "local loop" of course being the result of many decades of public
expenditure by the GPO/PO, which is expected to be effectively given
away to the private sector who don't want to get their hands dirty
with tasks such as planting poles in the ground, laying dirty cables
in holes in the road...

The GPO and PO are relics of the past along with other state owned
infrastructure.

Define relic? Clarks shoes are a relic of the past too.

In article ,
Shockwave wrote:
how about taxing copper pipework?

****s like u who r too stupid to use 'speedfit' would be taxed; those
that can read instructions and use a piper cutter would be exempt.

Oi. Copper is not only cheaper, but makes a neater job. It requires some
skill, but this is part of the fun.

--
*Reality is the illusion that occurs due to the lack of alcohol *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
IMM wrote:
Now look at the water industry. What a shambles. The service levels
are appalling. Every house should have 50 litres/min of water at 4 bar.
Do we get it like other countries? Not on your Nelly. We spend a
fortune on antiquated tank and cylinder systems to cope with the
appalling water supply. To have a shower in which you don't have to run
around in to get wet we have to install pumps.

I know of new houses which still only have 1/2" plastic mains pipes
fitted. Unbelievable.

So this means your continual recommendation to fit combis everywhere is
based, as I've always thought, on an argument made of straw?

Either the water supplies in this country are up to it or they're not.
You've said they're not, but still recommend combis which can't work as
well as a storage system. What a ******.

--
*Avoid clichés like the plague. (They're old hat.) *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 00:04:14 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 23:04:17 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


Even countries with socialised medicine have charges at the point of
delivery - e.g. small payment for GP visits, exempted for the poorest.
AFAIK, Britain is the only country that attempts a free at the point
of delivery system. It's an outdated nonsense.

Such tripe. Despite this free at point of delivery, people still do not
go
and remain ill.

Yes, socialised medicine is tripe.


You have no idea, just ahead full of bitterness.

Not at all, although I do object to paying tax to support an
arrangement that belongs in the 1940s.

You perceive everyone is
ripping you off.

No, just state run operations that are not delivering value for money.

Look under the bed there might be a swindler under there.
Just look at history and how things are, the NHS is the only way.

Of course it isn't the only way. There are a whole speectrum of
private and even public sector alternatives.




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 23:59:59 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




They also survive by loans from their
customers. You have to be on direct debit and despite companies reading
the
meters for them and supplying the reading, they ignore them and estimate
the
bill way over, then adjust from one reading at the end of the year. They
use the customers for loans instead of banks. Appalling.

Only the gullible do that.

I have had suppliers try this on.

The simple solution is to take the actual readings and costs for the
previous year, divide by 12 and offer them that or less for the
monthly direct debit. I then take the shortfall and add it in to the
following year and repeat the process.

One squeaked about it until I told them that they could take it or
leave it. They took it.

Competition makes that possible. My negotiating position is far
better than when I had to deal with state monopolies.

State monopolies didn't use their customers as an interest free lending
bank.

There's no need when the state is bankrolling their wastage with
taxpayer's money.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 00:05:50 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 23:36:08 +0000 (UTC), Frank Erskine
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 21:17:16 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

This situation is changing with local loop unbundling.

The "local loop" of course being the result of many decades of public
expenditure by the GPO/PO, which is expected to be effectively given
away to the private sector who don't want to get their hands dirty
with tasks such as planting poles in the ground, laying dirty cables
in holes in the road...

The GPO and PO are relics of the past along with other state owned
infrastructure.

Define relic? Clarks shoes are a relic of the past too.

In this context, state owned industry past and present.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 00:09:11 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Shockwave wrote:
how about taxing copper pipework?

****s like u who r too stupid to use 'speedfit' would be taxed; those
that can read instructions and use a piper cutter would be exempt.

Oi. Copper is not only cheaper, but makes a neater job. It requires some
skill, but this is part of the fun.


You even have the opportunity to buy a pipecutter.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Jerry,

I gave you the size a few messages ago !

You did, you did. Apologies. My overworked brain is obviously still
befuddled by the old thread/new thread business...

Bert
http://www.bertcoules.co.uk

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 00:04:14 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 23:04:17 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


Even countries with socialised medicine have charges at the point of
delivery - e.g. small payment for GP visits, exempted for the
poorest.
AFAIK, Britain is the only country that attempts a free at the point
of delivery system. It's an outdated nonsense.

Such tripe. Despite this free at point of delivery, people still do
not
go
and remain ill.

Yes, socialised medicine is tripe.


You have no idea, just ahead full of bitterness.

Not at all, although I do object to paying tax to support an
arrangement that belongs in the 1940s.

Have people grown two heads since then?

You perceive everyone is
ripping you off.

No, just state run operations that
are not delivering value for money.

You have this crazy notion that only profiteers give service and value. You
are in cloud cuckoo land with no idea of reality.

Look under the bed there might be a swindler under there.
Just look at history and how things are, the NHS is the only way.

Of course it isn't the only way.
There are a whole speectrum of
private and even public sector alternatives.

Which are not as good.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 23:59:59 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




They also survive by loans from their
customers. You have to be on direct debit and despite companies
reading
the
meters for them and supplying the reading, they ignore them and
estimate
the
bill way over, then adjust from one reading at the end of the year.
They
use the customers for loans instead of banks. Appalling.

Only the gullible do that.

I have had suppliers try this on.

The simple solution is to take the actual readings and costs for the
previous year, divide by 12 and offer them that or less for the
monthly direct debit. I then take the shortfall and add it in to the
following year and repeat the process.

One squeaked about it until I told them that they could take it or
leave it. They took it.

Competition makes that possible. My negotiating position is far
better than when I had to deal with state monopolies.

State monopolies didn't use their customers as an interest free lending
bank.

There's no need when the state is bankrolling their wastage with
taxpayer's money.

More obsessions. He thinks if it state owned then the people who work in
these organisation are lazy and incompetent. That is insulating. Get real.

Obsessions cloud reality.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 00:05:50 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 23:36:08 +0000 (UTC), Frank Erskine
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 21:17:16 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

This situation is changing with local loop unbundling.

The "local loop" of course being the result of many decades of public
expenditure by the GPO/PO, which is expected to be effectively given
away to the private sector who don't want to get their hands dirty
with tasks such as planting poles in the ground, laying dirty cables
in holes in the road...

The GPO and PO are relics of the past along with other state owned
infrastructure.

Define relic? Clarks shoes are a relic of the past too.

In this context, state owned industry past and present.

Obessions cloud reality.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 00:09:11 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Shockwave wrote:
how about taxing copper pipework?

****s like u who r too stupid to use 'speedfit' would be taxed; those
that can read instructions and use a piper cutter would be exempt.

Oi. Copper is not only cheaper, but makes a neater job. It requires some
skill, but this is part of the fun.


You even have the opportunity to buy a pipecutter.

I think this Shockwave pillock works for Speedfit.

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 01:01:09 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


Not at all, although I do object to paying tax to support an
arrangement that belongs in the 1940s.

Have people grown two heads since then?

Most people haven't but perhaps Zaphod Beeblebrox is an aquaintance of
yours.

The notion of universal state run healthcare, free at the point of
delivery is a nonsense in the 21st century. It's a huge waste of
money and resource to run it in this way. THe organisation is so
vast that it's impossible for it to be run effectively.


You perceive everyone is
ripping you off.

No, just state run operations that
are not delivering value for money.

You have this crazy notion that only profiteers give service and value. You
are in cloud cuckoo land with no idea of reality.

The reality is that economies based on the state running things are a
thing of the past. Cuba and North Korea are almost all that's left of
that era.

Unless there is something to drive a service organisation to success,
it becomes fat and lazy. Providing shareholder value through profit
is the most effective way to focus attention on what needs to be done
to achieve it. In a service business, that is providing what the
customer wants.


Look under the bed there might be a swindler under there.
Just look at history and how things are, the NHS is the only way.

Of course it isn't the only way.
There are a whole speectrum of
private and even public sector alternatives.

Which are not as good.

The service offered by the NHS is a disgrace. Have you actually
tried any of the alternatives?


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 01:03:03 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


State monopolies didn't use their customers as an interest free lending
bank.

There's no need when the state is bankrolling their wastage with
taxpayer's money.

More obsessions. He thinks if it state owned then the people who work in
these organisation are lazy and incompetent.

The bureaucratic elements undoubtedly are. By cutting them back
considerably as a result of privatisation of utility industries prices
are lower than they would have been and the customer has a choice.

That is insulating. Get real.

I understand that there are grants for that.




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 01:03:33 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 00:05:50 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 23:36:08 +0000 (UTC), Frank Erskine
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 21:17:16 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

This situation is changing with local loop unbundling.

The "local loop" of course being the result of many decades of public
expenditure by the GPO/PO, which is expected to be effectively given
away to the private sector who don't want to get their hands dirty
with tasks such as planting poles in the ground, laying dirty cables
in holes in the road...

The GPO and PO are relics of the past along with other state owned
infrastructure.

Define relic? Clarks shoes are a relic of the past too.

In this context, state owned industry past and present.

Obessions cloud reality.

I guess that you would know plenty about that.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 01:05:12 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 00:09:11 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Shockwave wrote:
how about taxing copper pipework?

****s like u who r too stupid to use 'speedfit' would be taxed; those
that can read instructions and use a piper cutter would be exempt.

Oi. Copper is not only cheaper, but makes a neater job. It requires some
skill, but this is part of the fun.


You even have the opportunity to buy a pipecutter.

I think this Shockwave pillock works for Speedfit.


Well I don't know. When I think of 'pillock' and 'Speedfit' in the
same sentence, I am inevitably reminded of your hacksaw escapade.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

IMM wrote:

State monopolies didn't use their customers as an interest free lending
bank.

They did, it is just the various governments of the day handed over your
cash for you.... Remember when your national insurance pension fund was
"invested" in nationalizing things like British Layland? Not so much an
interest free loan, as one with free capital as well.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

:::Jerry:::: wrote:

I don't see any point in replying to such a extreme self cantered person.

Running down the middle of the road perhaps?

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 01:01:09 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


Not at all, although I do object to paying tax to support an
arrangement that belongs in the 1940s.

Have people grown two heads since then?

Most people haven't but perhaps Zaphod Beeblebrox is an aquaintance of
yours.

The notion of universal state run healthcare, free at the point of
delivery is a nonsense in the 21st century.

Have people changed sonce the 20th century, grown another leg as well? With
the technology we have today to reduce manpower and make matters more
efficient, it makes even more sense to care for the sick.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 01:03:03 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


State monopolies didn't use their customers as an interest free
lending
bank.

There's no need when the state is bankrolling their wastage with
taxpayer's money.

More obsessions. He thinks if it state owned then the people who work
in
these organisation are lazy and incompetent.

The bureaucratic elements undoubtedly are.

Bureaucracy comes with size. I have come across large private companies
that are more bureaucratic than government agencies.

snip disjointed babble

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 01:03:33 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 00:05:50 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 23:36:08 +0000 (UTC), Frank Erskine
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 21:17:16 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

This situation is changing with local loop unbundling.

The "local loop" of course being the result of many decades of
public
expenditure by the GPO/PO, which is expected to be effectively
given
away to the private sector who don't want to get their hands dirty
with tasks such as planting poles in the ground, laying dirty
cables
in holes in the road...

The GPO and PO are relics of the past along with other state owned
infrastructure.

Define relic? Clarks shoes are a relic of the past too.

In this context, state owned industry past and present.

Obessions cloud reality.

I guess that you would know plenty about that.

I do by now after reading your piffle.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 01:05:12 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 00:09:11 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Shockwave wrote:
how about taxing copper pipework?

****s like u who r too stupid to use 'speedfit' would be taxed;
those
that can read instructions and use a piper cutter would be exempt.

Oi. Copper is not only cheaper, but makes a neater job. It requires
some
skill, but this is part of the fun.


You even have the opportunity to buy a pipecutter.

I think this Shockwave pillock works for Speedfit.

Well I don't know. When I think of 'pillock' and 'Speedfit' in the
same sentence, I am inevitably reminded of your hacksaw escapade.

Reminder: faulty fitting experience. Pipe cut brilliantly square. And you
put lots of Speeddfit in. Be afraid.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
:::Jerry:::: wrote:

I don't see any point in replying to such a extreme self cantered
person.

Running down the middle of the road perhaps?

Mr Hall is? You are on the same cloud if you think that. Brainwashed
Little Middle Englanders are easy to spot. Petty snobbery permeates all
they view.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
IMM wrote:
Now look at the water industry. What a shambles. The service levels
are appalling. Every house should have 50 litres/min of water at 4 bar.
Do we get it like other countries? Not on your Nelly. We spend a
fortune on antiquated tank and cylinder systems to cope with the
appalling water supply. To have a shower in which you don't have to run
around in to get wet we have to install pumps.

I know of new houses which still only have 1/2" plastic mains pipes
fitted. Unbelievable.

So this means your continual recommendation to fit combis everywhere is
based, as I've always thought, on an argument made of straw?

Either the water supplies in this country are up to it or they're not.
You've said they're not, but still recommend combis which can't work as
well as a storage system. What a ******.

What a dork! My water supply can take about 5 combi's. Many others are
the same too. Sadly many supplies are not and feel sorry for these people
as they are being short changed.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
IMM wrote:
Copper canm be threaded through joists. It has to be soft copper.

As used by one soft in the head? If he could actually find a source of
soft copper tube. At an economic price. Not that that matters to an IMM.

Our resident dork again. Soft copper can be threaded. He can't understand
that.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
With the exception of services such as defence, emergency services,
judiciary and others of that ilk, there is no need for government
involvement beyond making sure that there is directed funding for
those unable to make their own arrangements to be able to obtain them
- e.g. healthcare and education vouchers.

Why not privatize things like defence? After all, it's a major profit
maker for the private sector. Regardless of how efficient they are. And
they often aren't.

Beyond that, I see no reason for national or local government to have
an involvement in delivery in areas like healthcare, education and
pretty much everything else.
All of these when government operated do a poor job of customer
service and are poor value for money for the user and the taxpayer who
is funding it.,

You'd have to define 'poor value'
For the rich maybe. For the poor,
invaluable. And that's what a decent
society should be about, IMHO.

Correct! A decent society is seen as one that looks after those who are
least capable of looking after themselves. We are failing many as you are
still walking the streets.

"Mike Clarke" wrote in message
...
In article , IMM wrote:


"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:46:22 UTC, "IMM" wrote:

Is there any preference between straight cut ( |_| ) or 'U'
shape
notches
Makes no difference.
of corse it makes a difference! a joist with a smoothly shaped "U"
will be far stronger than a straight cut slot.

nope. Regs say no problems with a straight cut. Duh!

He never mentioned the regs. But structurally, a U shape will be
stronger. Read the famous 'Structures' book...

But it still will not make any difference in this case.

But the original question was "Is there any preference between straight
cut ( |_| ) or 'U' shape notches ?". The U shape will be stronger so
would be preferable even if the regs don't require it.

The beam is not weaken any less by having a U shape.

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
IMM wrote:

Or best use copper pipe in the first place which stays bent when
bent.

More likely flattened if you follow your usual procedure of not using
the
correct tools...

Do you mean benders flatten the pipe?

Oh do read what has been said you little twerp.

I did pillock.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 01:06:02 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

[ re the British tax system ]


The whole setup needs to be dramatically scaled down.


Tax cuts are very popular..... until the service you need is done away
with...

Land Value Tax is the way. No other tax except that.

Not even that.

Uh??

In article , IMM wrote:


"Mike Clarke" wrote in message
...

[Snip]

But the original question was "Is there any preference between straight
cut ( |_| ) or 'U' shape notches ?". The U shape will be stronger so
would be preferable even if the regs don't require it.

The beam is not weaken any less by having a U shape.

The stress concentration factor for a sharp corner is _much_ greater
than a corner with a generous circular profile. How do you account for
the stress difference not affecting the strength?

--
Mike Clarke

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Mike Clarke" wrote in message
...
In article , IMM wrote:


"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:46:22 UTC, "IMM" wrote:

Is there any preference between straight cut ( |_| ) or 'U'
shape
notches
Makes no difference.
of corse it makes a difference! a joist with a smoothly shaped
"U"
will be far stronger than a straight cut slot.

nope. Regs say no problems with a straight cut. Duh!

He never mentioned the regs. But structurally, a U shape will be
stronger. Read the famous 'Structures' book...

But it still will not make any difference in this case.

But the original question was "Is there any preference between straight
cut ( |_| ) or 'U' shape notches ?". The U shape will be stronger so
would be preferable even if the regs don't require it.

The beam is not weaken any less by having a U shape.


ROFLO !
No, you are quite correct, but it is quite possibly that it's strengthened
(or at least keeps it's original strength) by using a 'U' shaped cut out.
And to think you call others ignorant and pillocks...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
IMM wrote:
Copper canm be threaded through joists. It has to be soft copper.

As used by one soft in the head? If he could actually find a source of
soft copper tube. At an economic price. Not that that matters to an IMM.

Our resident dork again. Soft copper can be threaded. He can't understand
that.


He can, but he didn't say that.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 01:03:03 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


State monopolies didn't use their customers as an interest free
lending
bank.

There's no need when the state is bankrolling their wastage with
taxpayer's money.

More obsessions. He thinks if it state owned then the people who work
in
these organisation are lazy and incompetent.

The bureaucratic elements undoubtedly are.

So why are you suggesting increasing the bureaucratic elements, with all
this talk about people handing out vouchers then, what you should be pushing
for is less bureaucratic elements running the NHS and let the front line
people manage rather than hoards of back room accountants that were brought
in to try and run the hospital [1] as if it was a private sector business.

[1] note the word 'Hospital', as in a hospital not the whole NHS. Even when
there are trusts there in normally two or three hospitals in the group. You
really do need to get a clue were the NHS wastes money before spouting utter
extreme right wing clap-trap.