I would like your opinion on using radiators in an open plan house (new build) with high ceilings. My hall, living room, kitchen and dining area are all open plan with the living area and hall having high ceilings (about 6 meters high). I plan on using a combination of oil and solid fuel (using a range or wood burner in the kitchen).
Will I have a problem heating the large open areas using radiators?
Will the heat just go straight to the ceiling? A friend mentioned using ceiling fans to counteract this - would this be possible?
Underfloor heating is ideal in this situation, but expensive. Whether using rads or UFH the downward acting fan will make a difference. Have the fan on a thermostat that can be overridden, so it only turns when there is heat up there.
It may be worth your while to insert a duct (embedded in the wall in new build), with a small integral fan activated by a thermostat located at high level. This will take any heat up there down to floor level. When it is cool up there the stat holds the fan off, just as in the ceiling fan. The duct with a few grills will be unobtrusive, unlike the ceiling fan.
Make sure the house is "well" insulated. Is it a barn? Pack the stuff in, as thick as possible, at every opportunity.
If you really can't install underfloor heating, consider using a fan convector instead of a unforced convector (radiator).
The underfloor will be best, as it will reduce convection, promoting the most heat low down, where it is more effectively promoting comfort. Failing this, the fan convector will at least stir the air up, preventing all the heat going to the ceiling. A ceiling fan set to blow down can also help. Don't install any fans in rooms that will be heated by open or gas fires, as they can affect the ventilation, causing poisonous carbon monoxide.
UFH does not promote heat low down. Hot air rises. When the heat emitter is the floor, when the hot air moves from the emitter to the top of the room it passes you, heating you along the way.
It is because the evenly heated air rises only slowly with underfloor heating. Basically, the evenly heated hot air is slightly constrained from its upward trajectory by the evenly cold air trying to fall above it. The reduced air flow leads to lower losses.
In the event that you have point heating, (i.e. an unforced convector), the hot air is hotter than nearby air and rises more quickly, leading to greater vertical air currents from the convection and a more rapid heating of the ceiling. Normally, this is desired, at it heats the bulk of the air more quickly and even the high up heat is desirable.
Another advantage of the underfloor heating in this situation is the larger area of the radiator, leading to more pleasant radiant heat, which can result in similar comfort levels at a lower actual temperature.
The reason I am not inclined to go for underfloor heating is that after talking to some friends who have recently installed it I made the following observations:
1) It is very unresponsive. In our climate it can be quite mild during the day but chilly at night. If I went for UFH I wouldn't have the option of responsive heating.
2) Timber floors - I've been advised that UFH does not work well with timber floors. I prefer timber floors in my living area, dining area and hall as I feel it makes a room look cosier than using tiles.
3) Expense - it is cheaper to install a heating system using rads.
I do know that UFH would be the ideal way to heat my large open areas but the points I make above lead me to look for the best alternative.
I am going to look into the idea of using fan convection rads instead of normal rads. Does anyone have any experience using these?
I also like the idea of the duct in the ceiling taking the heat to the floor level - can this be used in a room with an open fire?
I use one in my kitchen and intend to use another in my conservatory. They are very effective at rapidly heating the air in large spaces. However, they do make a small amount of noise, so might not be suitable for a living room where you want to watch films with quiet sections.
Well, experience shows that it may not heat low down, but it does eliminate a cold layer near the floor.
With radiators cold air sinks to the floor and moves across it to the radiators, gets hot and rises immediately. So you get localised hot spots near the rads, and a thermal gradient through the room and cold feet.
With UFH its hard to tell the heating is on at all. You just feel uniformly warm. There are no localised hot spots to start convection with.
I find the room can be statted a couple of degrees cooler and still feel the same.
What you find in effect is that the floor being concrete has a huge mass, and it actually - even without being heated - preserves heat in the place as the outide temp falls. It doesn't NEED to be responsive.
I agree that with older style poorly insultaed houses its a bad thing - these lose heat VERY rapidly at sunset - bu iof you have teh internal mass and decent insulation, you already HAVE an 'unresponsive' house.
Ive got my heating set to come on two hours before sunset on a a stat. Last night we stayed up till 2 a.m. and the room slowly got colder as teh heating stops at midnight...
You can use timber laminate if you like, and even real tiomber boards over a screed floor. The only issue being that you need to run teh underfloor hooter and [put more insulation beneath it to ensure the heat goes upward. This CAN upset the timber.
If you want a more 'responsive' system fit pipes in an airgap below a timber floor directly over insulation.
If its a new buld you can address the issues much better than retrofitting UFH.
I have not come across anyine here who has fitted proper UFH who regrets it.
It isn't. I did the sums, and teh lengths of plastic pipe were very similar in proce to radiators. IThe only extra expense was auxilioary pump, manifold and heat reducing valve -= about 200 squids. But think of the savings in decopration and hiding ugly rads, and fettling all that pipework in.
This is new build price of course. Retrofitting is VERY expensive.
Yes. Have these as well. They are 2nd best IMHO. Radioators are teh worst way to heat a house. Apart from a single open fire.
I hav UFH with teh open fores. Its not a good idea to introduce strong draughts in rooms with open fires.
Yes, no problems, as it is just moving air from top to bottom.
Have you considered forced air, heat recovery and vent? These are very responsive. A copper coil heater battery may be installed in the ductwork heated by a gas or oil boiler. As you doing major work, the ductwork could be integrated inside walls and floors.
This is why rads are put on the walls with the cold front, and under windows. Doing this reduces/eliminates the cold floor/cold feet. If a rad is not fitted under a window, the cold air from the window front drops down to floor level, across the floor, cooling your feet and reheated by the rad on the others wall. Putting the rad under the windows prevents this, and also releases wall space.
Quite wrong. In a changable climate UFH requires a decent control system, otherwise it can be caught out, being either too hot or too cold. One which anticipates the fall or rise in temperature, as outside weather compensation, is the best.
I have come across people who hate the system with a vengeance.
It is.
They are wrong.
For UFH to operate anywhere near effectively, expensive control systems have to be used. This ramps up the price considerably. Also skills to maintain these controls is thin on the ground, and expensive.
This would reflect the information given to me by a friend who has recently built a house and installed UFH. She said that if given the option again she would go for rads. The point she made was that it was too hard to control. She said on an average day in spring or autumn she would need no heating during the day but would like to turn it on as required - in the evening time or at night. She said the lack of responsiveness of the UFH meant that she always needs to plan ahead - she could get caught out too easily having the house too hot or too cold. Maybe it's because she does not have the correct controls to effectivly manage the system.
I am just coming to the conclusion that our climate does not really suit UFH. We have a long winters but in the main they are fairly mild
- rarely do we get extended cold snaps that may require a heating system that does not need to be responsive.
Your assessment is pretty correct. Although UFH can run quite well with appropriate controls. It also has to be designed and installed correctly too. If this is wrong it is irreversible. All the control in the world will not put it right.
I would advise your friend to have someone advise having some extra controls on her system, preferable with outside weather compensation. It will not be cheap, but in her case necessary.
This would reflect the informaion given to me by a friend who has recently built a new house and installed UFH. She says that if given the choice again she would choose rads - with our climate she finds that on many days throughout the year she would not require any heating during the day. She would just like to turn it on as required
- in the evening time or at night. She finds the lack of responsiveness of UFH a problem and that she needs to try to plan ahead. She also finds it difficult to control - it can either be too hot or too cold.
Does our climate really make UFH a viable option? I'm coming to the opinion that it may not - ok we have a long winter but it is often a mild one and certainly a changable one.
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote | I agree that with older style poorly insultaed houses its a bad | thing - these lose heat VERY rapidly at sunset - bu iof you have | teh internal mass and decent insulation, you already HAVE an | 'unresponsive' house. ... | If you want a more 'responsive' system fit pipes in an airgap | below a timber floor directly over insulation.
Alternatively have some additional fast response heating such as blown air (which will make a noise but might only need 20 minutes running to give a quick 'boost').
A fairly typical compromise is to have ground floor UFH for gentle heat throughout the day, and rads in the bedrooms for faster response to take the chill off late evenings/early mornings whilst dressing/undressing.
| > 3) Expense - it is cheaper to install a heating system using rads. | It isn't. I did the sums, and teh lengths of plastic pipe were very | similar in proce to radiators. IThe only extra expense was auxilioary | pump, manifold and heat reducing valve -= about 200 squids. But think of | the savings in decopration and hiding ugly rads, and fettling all that | pipework in.
Especially with a top-of-the-range property where standard radiators are likely to be aesthetically undesirable, and designer radiators can be *very* expensive.
I'd have a combination of solid fuel and oil. The oil would get things going fairly quickly and could be set to come on in the early mornings when solid fuel would not be an option. I'd use solid fuel during the day.
I've got it in my kitchen (hardly the most demanding area, I know) and it just makes the space comfortable: not too warm, not too cold (except when we had bitterly cold weather a few months ago). From what I hear most people who have it love it, and it seems to be the system of choice for large spaces because it heats the occupants rather than the air. However I think control systems have to be different for it, partly because of typical UFH systems' long warm-up and cool-down times, and partly because systems based on room thermostats sensing the air temperature probably won't get a good measure of the comfort of the room. From what I remember hearing in other discussions in this group feed-forward systems which adjust the heat input to the system in response to outside temperatures are particularly good for UFH.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.