"Jerry Built" ] wrote in message
news:B4GBMAGLCDLZIGDWMHCJLUFYAHAGLYP0L4JUB2GE@zipl ip.com...
Dermot O'Loughlin wrote:
Someone wrote:
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.

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 [ snip ]
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.

I hate UFH. It is horrible. Ghastly. I would not like to live in
a house which has it.

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.