I currently have a Y plan heating layout.

I'd like to connect the conservatory UFH to it. The UHF has a
thermostatic valve in the return circuit and is situated some distance
(in terms of pipework at least) from the boiler.

Is there any obvious alternative to converting from Y plan to S-plus
plan (including a bypass for the boiler)? It's worth mentioning that the
UHF and heating are never expected to be on simultaneously, though the
system should be able to withstand it without damaging itself.


--
Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.

Skipweasel wrote:
I currently have a Y plan heating layout.

I'd like to connect the conservatory UFH to it. The UHF has a
thermostatic valve in the return circuit and is situated some distance
(in terms of pipework at least) from the boiler.

Is there any obvious alternative to converting from Y plan to S-plus
plan (including a bypass for the boiler)? It's worth mentioning that
the UHF and heating are never expected to be on simultaneously,
though the system should be able to withstand it without damaging
itself.

There are no obvious alternatives that I am aware of as a mid position valve
is always "open" to at least one zone.

--
Adam

In article ,
says...
Is there any obvious alternative to converting from Y plan to S-plus
plan (including a bypass for the boiler)? It's worth mentioning that
the UHF and heating are never expected to be on simultaneously,
though the system should be able to withstand it without damaging
itself.

There are no obvious alternatives that I am aware of as a mid position valve
is always "open" to at least one zone.

That's what I thought, but it's always worth picking a brain or two
before starting (or in my case starting to think about planning to
contemplate).

--
Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.

On 15/02/2011 10:15, Skipweasel wrote:
I currently have a Y plan heating layout.

I'd like to connect the conservatory UFH to it. The UHF has a
thermostatic valve in the return circuit and is situated some distance
(in terms of pipework at least) from the boiler.

Is there any obvious alternative to converting from Y plan to S-plus
plan (including a bypass for the boiler)? It's worth mentioning that the
UHF and heating are never expected to be on simultaneously, though the
system should be able to withstand it without damaging itself.


I can think of a way which *might* work - but you'd end up with a highly
*******ised system which future generations (or even the present one!)
might not be able to understand!

How about if you split the CH output from the 3-port valve into 2
circuits, with a 2-port zone valve in each - one for the radiators and
one for the UFH. Control these valves a bit like in an S-Plan system,
with the radiator one being controlled by the CH room stat and the UFH
one being controlled by a new? roomstat[1] in the conservatory.
Now the clever bit. . (I think!) Parallel the auxilliary contacts in
the 2-port valves, and connect them into the circuit where the Y-Plan's
roomstat used to be.

That should give you independent control of the radiator-based and UFH
parts of the heating system, still with boiler interlock. However, you
still might need a bypass if the boiler needs pump over-run because
there would no longer be a guaranteed flow path.

[1] I assume that the UFH's thermostatic valve is mechanical rather than
electrical, otherwise you might be able to use that instead of an
additional room stat. If it *isn't* being used - either by my 'solution'
or if you go the full S+ Plan route, it's probably best got rid of.

--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

In article ,
says...
How about [snip ideas]

Yeah - I thought of that, but in the end I think it'll be easier to redo
it as S-plus.

Thanks.

--
Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.

On 15 Feb,
Roger Mills wrote:

I can think of a way which *might* work - but you'd end up with a highly
*******ised system which future generations (or even the present one!)
might not be able to understand!

When I fitted my current boiler 18 years ago my supplier didn't have any 2
port valves in stock, so I opted for 2 3 port valves instead of 3 2 port
valves. Upstairs CH, downstairs CH and HW. It worked, but certainly was
non-standard. I could figure it out but J. Plumber probably couldn't. I put
circuit on lid of wiring centre.


How about if you split the CH output from the 3-port valve into 2
circuits, with a 2-port zone valve in each - one for the radiators and
one for the UFH. Control these valves a bit like in an S-Plan system,
with the radiator one being controlled by the CH room stat and the UFH
one being controlled by a new? roomstat[1] in the conservatory.
Now the clever bit. . (I think!) Parallel the auxilliary contacts in
the 2-port valves, and connect them into the circuit where the Y-Plan's
roomstat used to be.

The 3 port valves, particularly the one on the heating zones, proved to be
unreliable (the micro switches failed, I had a spare head and changed one
about every 6 months. After about 3 years I replaced the heating zone one
with two 2 port valves wired as above. These worked well until about 3 years
ago, when small leaks developed around the stem of the water part. The hot
water valve had been modified to be a divertor, losing the mid position, when
I replaced the first 3 port valve with 2 port valves. In this mode it was
reliable. Over the last 3 years all valves have been replaced resulting in an
almost standard s+ plan, modified to give hot water priority using back
contacts of HW thermostat and timer. This is reliable.



That should give you independent control of the radiator-based and UFH
parts of the heating system, still with boiler interlock. However, you
still might need a bypass if the boiler needs pump over-run because
there would no longer be a guaranteed flow path.

Boiler had bypass, pump run on not needed, but I added an external bypass at
a lower setting which is adequate and quieter.


[1] I assume that the UFH's thermostatic valve is mechanical rather than
electrical, otherwise you might be able to use that instead of an
additional room stat. If it *isn't* being used - either by my 'solution'
or if you go the full S+ Plan route, it's probably best got rid of.

Don't (yet) have such beast, UFH is contemplated for kitchen and dining room.
I'll probably wait until the current boiler (18YO gloworm fuelsaver complheat
system boiler) is replaced by a condensing one once I can no longer fix it.

--
B Thumbs
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

In article , says...
(18YO gloworm fuelsaver complheat
system boiler) is replaced by a condensing one once I can no longer
fix it.

YMYA. Ours is a Glow-worm Fuelsaver MkII and still running nicely.

--
Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.