As I've understood the In Screed method (using 7mm cable) is the preferred UFH system for new buildings - so we can conclude this is the most efficient/economical of the lot?
I'm dealing with a small bathroom - the screed covers only half of it (basically the bath areas was laid on top of the concrete slab. The screed on the remaining other half is only 2-3cm thick and not in a great state (a few cracks).
I'm tempted to dig out the rest of the screed (easy job) and take out a bit of the concrete slab too (this is going to be a bit harder) - then I can lay some insulation for the UFH (7mm in screed cable) and finally a new screed on top.
The only limitation is going to be the existing thickness of the concrete slab if the screed was only 2-3cm what thickness is expected for the concrete slab?
Failing to find the right thickness (to be checked in a few days) I'll settle for the 3mm cable on top of 10mm boards and under the new screed - less work to do in the end...

wrote:
As I've understood the In Screed method (using 7mm cable) is the
preferred UFH system for new buildings - so we can conclude this is
the most efficient/economical of the lot?

Not especially. But few houses are made with suspended ground floors
these days so it lends itself to modern construction.



I'm dealing with a small
bathroom - the screed covers only half of it (basically the bath
areas was laid on top of the concrete slab. The screed on the
remaining other half is only 2-3cm thick and not in a great state (a
few cracks). I'm tempted to dig out the rest of the screed (easy job)
and take out a bit of the concrete slab too (this is going to be a
bit harder) - then I can lay some insulation for the UFH (7mm in
screed cable) and finally a new screed on top. The only limitation is
going to be the existing thickness of the concrete slab if the screed
was only 2-3cm what thickness is expected for the concrete slab?
Failing to find the right thickness (to be checked in a few days)
I'll settle for the 3mm cable on top of 10mm boards and under the new
screed - less work to do in the end...

Is this an upstairs location?

If its against the ground you need 60-75mm of insulation to avoid
wasting heat downwards


Upstairs if its JUST a bathroomn I'd just lay microbore under the floor
and fit a TRV. and shove some lagging underneath it - rockwool maybe. It
works pretty well.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Friday, 19 October 2012 20:41:17 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:

As I've understood the In Screed method (using 7mm cable) is the

preferred UFH system for new buildings - so we can conclude this is

the most efficient/economical of the lot?



Not especially. But few houses are made with suspended ground floors

these days so it lends itself to modern construction.







I'm dealing with a small

bathroom - the screed covers only half of it (basically the bath

areas was laid on top of the concrete slab. The screed on the

remaining other half is only 2-3cm thick and not in a great state (a

few cracks). I'm tempted to dig out the rest of the screed (easy job)

and take out a bit of the concrete slab too (this is going to be a

bit harder) - then I can lay some insulation for the UFH (7mm in

screed cable) and finally a new screed on top. The only limitation is

going to be the existing thickness of the concrete slab if the screed

was only 2-3cm what thickness is expected for the concrete slab?

Failing to find the right thickness (to be checked in a few days)

I'll settle for the 3mm cable on top of 10mm boards and under the new

screed - less work to do in the end...



Is this an upstairs location?



If its against the ground you need 60-75mm of insulation to avoid

wasting heat downwards





Upstairs if its JUST a bathroomn I'd just lay microbore under the floor

and fit a TRV. and shove some lagging underneath it - rockwool maybe. It

works pretty well.



--

Ineptocracy



(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to

lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the

members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are

rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a

diminishing number of producers.

The bathroom is from an extension on the ground floor...
I was expecting that sort of thickness for insulation (60-75mm) - as I've mentioned, the only issue is going to be the total thickness of the concrete slab - if I need to fit 60mm of insulation I would need to dig out the same of concrete...
What about these 10mm UFH insulating boards? Are these only for upstairs or suspended floors? Failing to find enough thickness for proper insulation I might have to use them...(better than nothing - I suppose).

wrote:

The bathroom is from an extension on the ground floor... I was
expecting that sort of thickness for insulation (60-75mm) - as I've
mentioned, the only issue is going to be the total thickness of the
concrete slab - if I need to fit 60mm of insulation I would need to
dig out the same of concrete... What about these 10mm UFH insulating
boards? Are these only for upstairs or suspended floors? Failing to
find enough thickness for proper insulation I might have to use
them...(better than nothing - I suppose).

You need about 60-70mm of concrete, DPM , 60-70mm of insulation and
60-70mm of screed for a wet system. I am not sure what to do with an
electric system

But 10mm of insulation is pointless.
..
Best to jackhammer up the whole slab and start again, or build a 3/4"
plywood floor on top of the insulation and pop the cables under that.
Plywood tiles nicely. Make sure its rigid though




--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Oct 19, 8:34*pm, wrote:
As I've understood the In Screed method (using 7mm cable) is the preferred UFH system for new buildings - so we can conclude this is the most efficient/economical of the lot?
I'm dealing with a small bathroom - the screed covers only half of it (basically the bath areas was laid on top of the concrete slab. The screed on the remaining other half is only 2-3cm thick and not in a great state (a few cracks).
I'm tempted to dig out the rest of the screed (easy job) and take out a bit of the concrete slab too (this is going to be a bit harder) - then I can lay some insulation for the UFH (7mm in screed cable) and finally a new screed on top.
The only limitation is going to be the existing thickness of the concrete slab if the screed was only 2-3cm what thickness is expected for the concrete slab?
Failing to find the right thickness (to be checked in a few days) I'll settle for the 3mm cable on top of 10mm boards and under the new screed - less work to do in the end...

The reason underfloor heating is popular is that it enables the water
temperature in wet heating systems to be kept low so making condensing
gas boilers more efficient.
Also, no radiators cluttering the place up.

The snag is that it doesn't lend itself to turning the heating off/up
down on a daily basis or to meet outside air temperature. as it takes
a while t warm up and cool down. Several hours minimum.
So, in poorly insulated houses it can waste energy.
All depends on your lifestyle. ie are you at home all the time or out
at work through the day.

On 19/10/2012 21:33, wrote:



The bathroom is from an extension on the ground floor...
I was expecting that sort of thickness for insulation (60-75mm) - as I've mentioned, the only issue is going to be the total thickness of the concrete slab - if I need to fit 60mm of insulation I would need to dig out the same of concrete...

You can't realistically shave some off the top of the concrete slab. You
need to break the whole lot up and start again - in which case you can
excavate to a suitable depth to allow for the new slab, plus the
insulation, plus the screed.

What are the chances of making it a wet system, with pipes - rather than
cables - installed within the screed, and fed (via a suitable mixer
valve) from a gas-fired CH system. It would cost a hell of a lot less to
run than an on-peak electrical system.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

The reason underfloor heating is popular is that it enables the water

temperature in wet heating systems to be kept low so making condensing

gas boilers more efficient.

Also, no radiators cluttering the place up.



The snag is that it doesn't lend itself to turning the heating off/up

down on a daily basis or to meet outside air temperature. as it takes

a while t warm up and cool down. Several hours minimum.

So, in poorly insulated houses it can waste energy.

All depends on your lifestyle. ie are you at home all the time or out

at work through the day.

You are talking of wet systems...at this stage I'm only considering the electric UFH - simpler to install and is only for 1 small bathroom.
In fact I'm tempted to use UFH for the whole house and maybe leaving a Combi Condensing boiler for hot water only...

You can't realistically shave some off the top of the concrete slab. You

need to break the whole lot up and start again - in which case you can

excavate to a suitable depth to allow for the new slab, plus the

insulation, plus the screed.



What are the chances of making it a wet system, with pipes - rather than

cables - installed within the screed, and fed (via a suitable mixer

valve) from a gas-fired CH system. It would cost a hell of a lot less to

run than an on-peak electrical system.

--

Cheers,

Roger

____________

Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom

checked.

I thought of using an angle grinder - with due care it should work and keep the DPM intact.
The wet systems looks more complicated (surely more can get wrong) - and at this stage the focus is for a small bathroom only - the elctric system compares well with traditional radiators - can't be that bad.

Roger Mills wrote:
On 19/10/2012 21:33, wrote:



The bathroom is from an extension on the ground floor...
I was expecting that sort of thickness for insulation (60-75mm) - as
I've mentioned, the only issue is going to be the total thickness of the
concrete slab - if I need to fit 60mm of insulation I would need to dig
out the same of concrete...

You can't realistically shave some off the top of the concrete slab.

You can. It's not cheap to do though.

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

The bathroom is from an extension on the ground floor... I was

expecting that sort of thickness for insulation (60-75mm) - as I've

mentioned, the only issue is going to be the total thickness of the

concrete slab - if I need to fit 60mm of insulation I would need to

dig out the same of concrete... What about these 10mm UFH insulating

boards? Are these only for upstairs or suspended floors? Failing to

find enough thickness for proper insulation I might have to use

them...(better than nothing - I suppose).



You need about 60-70mm of concrete, DPM , 60-70mm of insulation and

60-70mm of screed for a wet system. I am not sure what to do with an

electric system



But 10mm of insulation is pointless.

.

Best to jackhammer up the whole slab and start again, or build a 3/4"

plywood floor on top of the insulation and pop the cables under that.

Plywood tiles nicely. Make sure its rigid though



I've never considered using plywood in the bathroom but that would be very useful in this instance:
1) no need to bother with the screed layer (I'm not that keen on working with cement).
2) there's going to be more room for the insulation as the plywood is only 18mm - the screed should be thicker than that...

Yet, I'll have to abandon the idea of using 7mm electric cables as these are designed to be embedded into the screed (surely can't be embedded in plywood)...
Most importantly, there is something I haven't grasped - the cables should be installed over the insulation and under the plywood? That seems a bit too dangerous to me...
On the other hand; if the electric cables are to be installed on top of the plywood (under the tile's adhesive), then I can only use 3mm electic cables or mats.

wrote:
.
On the other hand; if the electric cables are to be installed on top of the plywood (under the tile's adhesive), then I can only use 3mm electic cables or mats.

Actually that is probably the 3way to go. I have no exp. of leccy UFH,
only wet.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Sunday, 21 October 2012 00:06:58 UTC+1, Steve Firth wrote:
Roger Mills wrote:

On 19/10/2012 21:33, swimmydeepo:







The bathroom is from an extension on the ground floor...

I was expecting that sort of thickness for insulation (60-75mm) - as

I've mentioned, the only issue is going to be the total thickness of the

concrete slab - if I need to fit 60mm of insulation I would need to dig

out the same of concrete...



You can't realistically shave some off the top of the concrete slab.



You can. It's not cheap to do though.



--

•DarWin|

_/ _/

Considering the area of the bathroom (2.7 square meters) it should be easy....anyhow some form of leveling is necessary as the floor right now is only screed-ed on half of the bathroom (there is a step of about 30mm).

On Sunday, 21 October 2012 17:16:03 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
swimmydeepo wrote:

.

On the other hand; if the electric cables are to be installed on top of the plywood (under the tile's adhesive), then I can only use 3mm electic cables or mats.



Actually that is probably the 3way to go. I have no exp. of leccy UFH,

only wet.





--

Ineptocracy



(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to

lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the

members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are

rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a

diminishing number of producers.

I've read that electric systems offer more uniformity in the way the heat is radiated - wet systems might be affected by cooler areas...
There are benefits on both systems (wet is more economical on med-big projects) - but for small projects I've figured that an electric UFH is the way to go.

On 21/10/2012 17:30, wrote:

I've read that electric systems offer more uniformity in the way the
heat is radiated - wet systems might be affected by cooler areas...
There are benefits on both systems (wet is more economical on med-big
projects) - but for small projects I've figured that an electric UFH
is the way to go.


There's nothing efficient about heating using electricity. If you have
gas central heating piping nearby I can only recommend a wet UFH.

Fredxx wrote:

There's nothing efficient about heating using electricity. If you have
gas central heating piping nearby I can only recommend a wet UFH.

It's almost 100% efficient, that doesn't make it cheap though,
especially if the slab isn't insulated properly.

On 22/10/2012 07:48, Andy Burns wrote:
Fredxx wrote:

There's nothing efficient about heating using electricity. If you have
gas central heating piping nearby I can only recommend a wet UFH.

It's almost 100% efficient, that doesn't make it cheap though,
especially if the slab isn't insulated properly.


If the slab isn't insulated, it's not efficient either - if you use a
sensible definition of efficiency.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

Roger Mills wrote:
On 22/10/2012 07:48, Andy Burns wrote:
Fredxx wrote:

There's nothing efficient about heating using electricity. If you have
gas central heating piping nearby I can only recommend a wet UFH.

It's almost 100% efficient, that doesn't make it cheap though,
especially if the slab isn't insulated properly.


If the slab isn't insulated, it's not efficient either - if you use a
sensible definition of efficiency.

Indeed. The amount of heat into the room as a proportion of the total
is the U value upwards into the room divided by the U value downwards
into the soil.

Which is why screed and tiles make the best UFH floor as thats a
relatively good conductor.

Once above ground floor its less an issue because heat going downwards
still heats the house.

Where I have rugs and a sofa over my UFH the floor underneath is way
hotter than the rest of the room due to the insulation of the carpet and
the sofa!!


If you take a typical UFH of say 50W/sq meters at something like 40
degrees internal screed and a suspended concrete floor such as I have -
and assume an icy 0 dec C blast under it, and 60mm of styrene
insulation..a U value of 0.45.. then the losses at 40C are around 16W/sq
meter downwards. That could easily be one third of the total input into
the floor..

This is why you need MASSIVE insulation under a screed for UFH - far
more than you need for just a conventionally heated room. Because the
floor is far hotter internally than the room would normally be. And the
more stuff you put on top of the floor the hotter it gets.


I wish the architect and BCO had been more clever on the UFH effect as
I should have stuck 100mm in.






--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

I've just contacted Warmup UFH systems...they are adamant that their insulating 10mm boards is all we need for uninsulated concrete floors - yep, 10mm insulating boards from them would guarantee an heating up time of 45min to 1hour...while on uninsulated concrete it would take 5-8hours and insulated concrete (insulation under the screed) should take 3-4 hours?! So, if I decide to bury some 100mm Celotex I'd wait 3 hours to heat up my bathroom while if I opt for the 10mm boards I get a speedy 45 minutes?
This 10mm boards are magic!! Surely, I'd like to buy their marketing waffle - beside...the techs specs aren't that different than any other similar UFH boards from other manufacturers (only theirs are much more expensive).

Yet, we must distinguish between undertile UFH and under-screed UFH (there are so many UFH systems out there I'm losing my mind...).

wrote:
I've just contacted Warmup UFH systems...they are adamant that their
insulating 10mm boards is all we need for uninsulated concrete floors

Well of course they are adamant.

They are trying to sell you snake oil.

- yep, 10mm insulating boards from them would guarantee an heating up
time of 45min to 1hour...while on uninsulated concrete it would take
5-8hours and insulated concrete (insulation under the screed) should
take 3-4 hours?!


No that is true. 10mm is better than nothing. Instead of losing 95% of
the heat it will only be 75% and that's 5 TIMES BETTER SIR.

And it will reduce warmup times, true. My screed takes several DAYS to
cool down. And about 10 hours to really warm up.



So, if I decide to bury some 100mm Celotex I'd wait
3 hours to heat up my bathroom while if I opt for the 10mm boards I
get a speedy 45 minutes? This 10mm boards are magic!! Surely, I'd
like to buy their marketing waffle - beside...the techs specs aren't
that different than any other similar UFH boards from other
manufacturers (only theirs are much more expensive).

Yet, we must distinguish between undertile UFH and under-screed UFH
(there are so many UFH systems out there I'm losing my mind...).


Its all very simple once you grasp the basic principles.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

I've just contacted Warmup UFH systems...they are adamant that their

insulating 10mm boards is all we need for uninsulated concrete floors



Well of course they are adamant.



They are trying to sell you snake oil.



- yep, 10mm insulating boards from them would guarantee an heating up

time of 45min to 1hour...while on uninsulated concrete it would take

5-8hours and insulated concrete (insulation under the screed) should

take 3-4 hours?!





No that is true. 10mm is better than nothing. Instead of losing 95% of

the heat it will only be 75% and that's 5 TIMES BETTER SIR.



And it will reduce warmup times, true. My screed takes several DAYS to

cool down. And about 10 hours to really warm up.







So, if I decide to bury some 100mm Celotex I'd wait

3 hours to heat up my bathroom while if I opt for the 10mm boards I

get a speedy 45 minutes? This 10mm boards are magic!! Surely, I'd

like to buy their marketing waffle - beside...the techs specs aren't

that different than any other similar UFH boards from other

manufacturers (only theirs are much more expensive).



Yet, we must distinguish between undertile UFH and under-screed UFH

(there are so many UFH systems out there I'm losing my mind...).





Its all very simple once you grasp the basic principles.



hang on, yours is a wet system (if I'm not mistake) - which pipes need to be buried under the screed and in general wet system are slower (but on the long term more efficient than electric).
My understanding is that maybe the heating time for under-tile systems is faster - simply because there is less material between the source and the area to be heated. If a slab of screed is between the heating cable and the room then of course there is more to wait. Then it remains to assess which system is the most efficient/economical...that's a completely different matter.

as it stands, I have a concrete slab (I've just removed the old screed and pondering about which electric UFH to adopt (forget about wet UFH in this case it's not an option).

wrote:
I've just contacted Warmup UFH systems...they are adamant that
their insulating 10mm boards is all we need for uninsulated
concrete floors


Well of course they are adamant.



They are trying to sell you snake oil.



- yep, 10mm insulating boards from them would guarantee an
heating up time of 45min to 1hour...while on uninsulated concrete
it would take 5-8hours and insulated concrete (insulation under
the screed) should take 3-4 hours?!




No that is true. 10mm is better than nothing. Instead of losing 95%
of

the heat it will only be 75% and that's 5 TIMES BETTER SIR.



And it will reduce warmup times, true. My screed takes several DAYS
to

cool down. And about 10 hours to really warm up.







So, if I decide to bury some 100mm Celotex I'd wait

3 hours to heat up my bathroom while if I opt for the 10mm boards
I get a speedy 45 minutes? This 10mm boards are magic!! Surely,
I'd like to buy their marketing waffle - beside...the techs specs
aren't that different than any other similar UFH boards from
other manufacturers (only theirs are much more expensive). Yet,
we must distinguish between undertile UFH and under-screed UFH
(there are so many UFH systems out there I'm losing my mind...).




Its all very simple once you grasp the basic principles.



hang on, yours is a wet system (if I'm not mistake) - which pipes
need to be buried under the screed and in general wet system are
slower (but on the long term more efficient than electric).

well cheaper anyway.

See you have grasped te basic primnciples already. In screed has high
thermal inertia. under tile a lot less.

But that's a separate issue from efficiency which is always the ratio of
the insulation downwards to the insulation upwards..
My
understanding is that maybe the heating time for under-tile systems
is faster - simply because there is less material between the source
and the area to be heated. If a slab of screed is between the heating
cable and the room then of course there is more to wait. Then it
remains to assess which system is the most
efficient/economical...that's a completely different matter.

as it stands, I have a concrete slab (I've just removed the old
screed and pondering about which electric UFH to adopt (forget about
wet UFH in this case it's not an option).

well if its just for occasional use the 10mm and the wires will work,
but it will always be a lot less efficient than more insulation


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 23/10/2012 17:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:

My
understanding is that maybe the heating time for under-tile systems
is faster - simply because there is less material between the source
and the area to be heated. If a slab of screed is between the heating
cable and the room then of course there is more to wait. Then it
remains to assess which system is the most
efficient/economical...that's a completely different matter.

as it stands, I have a concrete slab (I've just removed the old
screed and pondering about which electric UFH to adopt (forget about
wet UFH in this case it's not an option).

well if its just for occasional use the 10mm and the wires will work,
but it will always be a lot less efficient than more insulation

Indeed. It all comes down to the intended usage. If it's just a case of
giving the bathroom a quick warm, having a bath, and then letting it
cool down again, a 10mm slab and wires is fine (although a fan heater
would probably be better). However, if you want to maintain reasonable
comfort levels throughout most of each day, it will cost an arm and a
leg to run compared with a wet system and a decent thickness of insulation.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

another variant to consider....there is an economy 7 system of tariffs offered by EDF (and maybe other energy companies) which could cut running costs of electric UFH dramatically - especially if in screed cables are being used (basically the screed become a storage heater). At a cost of about 5-6p per kW (night tariff from 1 to 7), compared to a standard tariff of about 13-14p kW that represent great savings and maybe a warm bathroom 24h a day.

This is a serious incentive to use proper insulation and a thick screed...and I've just found out there are conductivity issues with screed too (now it starts to becoming interesting:
http://screed.rtrk.co.uk/?scid=64811...id=16466111987

On 23/10/2012 22:18, wrote:
another variant to consider....there is an economy 7 system of
tariffs offered by EDF (and maybe other energy companies) which could
cut running costs of electric UFH dramatically - especially if in
screed cables are being used (basically the screed become a storage
heater). At a cost of about 5-6p per kW (night tariff from 1 to 7),
compared to a standard tariff of about 13-14p kW that represent great
savings and maybe a warm bathroom 24h a day.

This is a serious incentive to use proper insulation and a thick
screed...and I've just found out there are conductivity issues with
screed too (now it starts to becoming interesting:
http://screed.rtrk.co.uk/?scid=64811...id=16466111987


Don't know how much to trust a site that says:

"Celotex and kingspan are polyurethane boards"

I thought both were polyisocyanurate?

--
Rod

polygonum wrote:
On 23/10/2012 22:18, wrote:
another variant to consider....there is an economy 7 system of
tariffs offered by EDF (and maybe other energy companies) which could
cut running costs of electric UFH dramatically - especially if in
screed cables are being used (basically the screed become a storage
heater). At a cost of about 5-6p per kW (night tariff from 1 to 7),
compared to a standard tariff of about 13-14p kW that represent great
savings and maybe a warm bathroom 24h a day.

This is a serious incentive to use proper insulation and a thick
screed...and I've just found out there are conductivity issues with
screed too (now it starts to becoming interesting:
http://screed.rtrk.co.uk/?scid=64811...id=16466111987


Don't know how much to trust a site that says:

"Celotex and kingspan are polyurethane boards"

I thought both were polyisocyanurate?

Fine distinction really

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 19/10/2012 20:34, wrote:
On 19/10/2012 20:34, wrote: As I've understood
the In Screed method (using 7mm cable) is the preferred UFH system for
new buildings - so we can conclude this is the most efficient/economical
of the lot?



absolutely not with 100% without question NOT

The most efficient is pipe-in-screed using low temperature Hot water via
a Thermal store