House Renovation

sure, but with that much thermal mass, the room doesn't rapidly heat up.

Nope, its just different.

It no worse than rads though if done properly.

At this time of year the huge mass gets warmed by the sun by day, and reduces the need for heating in the evening.

Its only in the depths of winter where permanent heat is needed that the scales probably tip slightly the wrong way. If you want it warm in the evenings, it needs warming in the morning :-)

I am not saying its markedly better, just that its not markedly worse. And much more comfortable.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher
Loading thread data ...

How do you work out UFH adds to the thermal mass?

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

The message from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words:

I live in a house where we have partial underfloor heating. My only regret is that we don't have complete underfloor heating, at least on the ground floor.

The comfort level is very much higher in the rooms with underfloor heating and these are rooms which were previously difficult to heat at all by radiators. The heating is now EVEN -- no drafts or odd circulation currents.

Water circulation temperature is adjusted to take account of carpets.

In our case, the building is occupied 24/7 -- in a building not so occupied I can see a very good argument for having both underfloor heating and radiators, the ufh to run so as to keep the temperature at a reasonable base level and the radiators to top up as necessary when the building is occupied.

Reply to
Appin

Then you had poorly designed or situated rads.

Sounds like an undersized rad running flat out to try and cope - that's not how things should be done. And if you have no 'circulating currents' the room will never heat up.

For the short times this house is unoccupied it doesn't cool down enough to justify both systems.

BTW I'm not against UFH - just like a balanced view. A good system of whatever type will always beat a poor one.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

Well..of course. If you have onne teeny little rad that is terribly hot.. its not as good as several larger ones, ..now extend the concept..how can you get the most radiator area into a room?

well you could simply heat all the walls, or - gosh - have one bloody great radiator called a 'floor'... QED.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

The message from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words:

Non sequitur. Rads were OK and well-enough situated for the uses for which the rooms were intended when the CH was installed. One room was put to a radically different (office) use and the other had to have a radiator removed when it was altered from a family room to a bedrooom and ensuite for visitors.

Non sequitur. UFH tends to give a much more desirable stratification pattern -- not so much heat at the ceiling and rather more at the floor, kept low by being trapped under furniture etc.

Which may well be the case for most people. I've never suggested our use is typical and would not necessarily recommend UFH for most people.

Granted. And I am saying that for my purposes in this specific location UFH has far exceeded my expectations. It was an experiment which has worked well for me.

No, they can be a general truth but not necessarily a universal truth.

Reply to
Appin

The message from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

Absolutely.

Reply to
Appin

Saying that doesn't make it so.

Then how were they 'difficult to heat at all by rads'?

See above.

You've invented a new law whereby hot air doesn't rise? And anyway most would be most unhappy with hot feet but cold everything else.

If you read the start of this thread I merely refuted the statement that it was much more efficient - which would mean lower running costs.

Think it was a joke.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

The message from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words:

It's you who were making the dogmatic statement without knowing all the facts. I am merely pointing out that your reasoning was flawed and could not be the only possible conclusion to draw -- you would have had to have more facts pertinent to the particular situation before you could make such a dogmatic statement.

Because they were both being put to different purposes.

In one instance the room being put to use as an office had previously been heated for use as a dining room and the rads located in suitable locations for that purpose. An efficient layout for use as an office meant that the rads would both be somewhat obscured.

In the other instance the room was converted into an ensuite bedroom. That meant that there was really space for only one rad -- the other had to be removed to make room for a double bed there being not so much space in the room once the shower and toilet area had been taken off the room.

The pattern of heat distribution is different with underfloor heating. The stratification pattern is obviously different and eaily measured to be so. The actual pattern of distribution is much more complex. Such circulatory currents as there are are extremely complex and there is considerably greater radiation of heat, much of it secondary and tertiary.

Let's not be silly. The heat doesn't come from a point source like a "radiator" which we all know distributes most of its heat by convection rather than radiation. And if you take no steps to stop it, the heat goes straight up to the ceiling, drawing cold air along the floor to replace what has risen and the warm air eventually falls to the floor as it cools, usually on the opposite side of the room. End result, hot head, stuffy air at head level and cold feet. Most (but not all) humans prefer a cool head and warm toes.

A shelf above a "radiator" can help in directing the warm air a bit further out in the room before it rises.

Because the floor is a very large horizontal radiator rather than a point source, the establishment of convection currents is a lot more difficult and considerably more complex. The heat tends to be kept low and the furniture tends to absorb a lot of the heat. There are therefore a lot of warm objects and warmth trapped underneath them and escaping gradually. Such convection currents as there are tend to be much slower-moving and much more dispersed.

I'm not asking you to like UFH -- simply saying that it's an experiment which has worked extremely well for me. My only regret is that we didn't do it in all the rooms on the gorund floor. UFH won't suit everyone. It does suit us. It was an experiment which I was perfectly prepared to see fail: only one radiator was removed -- and the tails are still in position so that it could be reinstated if necessary -- that's how open-ended the experiment was. Result of the experiment -- no desire whatsoever to return to radiator heat in those rooms which have UFH, and regret that those rooms in which there are radiators in locations suited to the current use were not also equipped with the option to select UFH.

Another non-sequitur.

For a start, you have no access to my running costs.

However, there's a flaw in terms of logic in your argument. "More efficient" could mean delivering more comfort for the same costs. It could even be argued that more efficient could be deemed to mean delivering a comfort level which "radiators" could not deliver at all.

Then it should have a :-) smiley. It appears to me no more illogical than some of the arguments which appear to have been adduced in a apparently serious manner!

Reply to
Appin

Not so when making general statements.

So poorly designed or installed fits the bill perfectly - after your alterations. Rather like fitting a radically different floor covering to a previously satisfactory UFH room.

[snip]
Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

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.