"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 11:31:58 +0100, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:

Only if a conventional boiler or other heating sources are used, not a
modulating condensing boiler.

I'd want to see further testing evidence for this, either way. I'm not
convinced which is more efficient.

Basically, does the higher temperature
burn required to reheat the heat bank
outweigh the fact that the boiler gets to
do occassional full power burns,
rather than cycling, or modulating low.

What tripe. A heat bank eliminates boiler cycling. One person ont his
thread bought one just to do that.

A condensing boiler will operate
more efficiently at lower
temperatures.

Go away.....

Repeated cycling is going to reduce efficiency which
is a second reason why they modulate down
if possible rather than turning on and off.

Once again....A heat bank eliminates boiler cycling. One person ont his
thread bought one just to do that.

Remember, that the heat bank might still be providing a reasonably low
return temperature with a very high flow/return differential, which
should
offset some of the problems with regard to condensing.

Yes, but that's only into the cylinder.

NO!!! From the cylinder...to the boiler...called the return.

in effect, running the
radiators from the heatbank is the equivalent of turning the hot tap
on low. The boiler will come on and attempt to replenish the
heatbank after the thermostat on it drops a few degrees below its set
point.

You have two stats to eliminate boiler cycling. You clearly know nothing
about this sort of thing.