SWMBO has charged me with moving the thermostat to a more appropriate place within our house.

Am I right in understanding that a wireless thermostat would comprise a receiver box which would be placed on the wall at the location of the existing wired thermostat, and then the wireless part would be the bit that actually measures the temperature and commands the boiler to do its stuff? Or does the wireless bit just allow you to tweak the parameters of the thermostat, leaving the temperature measurement at the place that it always was sited?

(I know that the temps should be measured in a room which doesn't have TRVs, so in theory moving a stat around breaks this rule, which is why I am mildly confused about where the temps are actually measured).

Thanks!

Matt

On 11 Jan, 12:25, larkim wrote:
SWMBO has charged me with moving the thermostat to a more appropriate place within our house.

Am I right in understanding that a wireless thermostat would comprise a receiver box which would be placed on the wall at the location of the existing wired thermostat, and then the wireless part would be the bit that actually measures the temperature and commands the boiler to do its stuff?

yes, so you can move it around with you as necess. & it reacts to
where it is not the receiver (which could be in a cold garage say)

Jim K

On 11/01/2013 12:25, larkim wrote:
SWMBO has charged me with moving the thermostat to a more appropriate place within our house.

Am I right in understanding that a wireless thermostat would comprise a receiver box which would be placed on the wall at the location of the existing wired thermostat, and then the wireless part would be the bit that actually measures the temperature and commands the boiler to do its stuff? Or does the wireless bit just allow you to tweak the parameters of the thermostat, leaving the temperature measurement at the place that it always was sited?

(I know that the temps should be measured in a room which doesn't have TRVs, so in theory moving a stat around breaks this rule, which is why I am mildly confused about where the temps are actually measured).

The wireless thermostats I've used are in two parts: the sender, that
measures the temperature and allows you to set a target temperature (and
times if it's programmable), and the receiver.

The receiver is a plain box, perhaps with a couple of leds, and deals
with the switching that the boiler expects. They're often situated near
the boiler or "wiring centre" if that's how it's been installed.

You could perhaps mount the receiver in place of the old room
thermostat, but be aware that the wireless stat receiver will probably
need a mains supply, including a neutral, whereas the old thermostat may
just be fed with low control voltage.

If you put the sender in a room with a trv, take the head off the trv so
that the thermostat can't keep calling for heat when the trv says "no,
I'm warm enough".


--
Kevin


--
Kevin Poole

On 11 Jan, 13:29, Kevin wrote:
On 11/01/2013 12:25, larkim wrote:

SWMBO has charged me with moving the thermostat to a more appropriate place within our house.

Am I right in understanding that a wireless thermostat would comprise a receiver box which would be placed on the wall at the location of the existing wired thermostat, and then the wireless part would be the bit that actually measures the temperature and commands the boiler to do its stuff? *Or does the wireless bit just allow you to tweak the parameters of the thermostat, leaving the temperature measurement at the place that it always was sited?

(I know that the temps should be measured in a room which doesn't have TRVs, so in theory moving a stat around breaks this rule, which is why I am mildly confused about where the temps are actually measured).

The wireless thermostats I've used are in two parts: the sender, that
measures the temperature and allows you to set a target temperature (and
times if it's programmable), and the receiver.

The receiver is a plain box, perhaps with a couple of leds, and deals
with the switching that the boiler expects. *They're often situated near
the boiler or "wiring centre" if that's how it's been installed.

You could perhaps mount the receiver in place of the old room
thermostat, but be aware that the wireless stat receiver will probably
need a mains supply, including a neutral, whereas the old thermostat may
just be fed with low control voltage.

If you put the sender in a room with a trv, take the head off the trv so
that the thermostat can't keep calling for heat when the trv says "no,
I'm warm enough".

mmm I leave mine on FULL.
unless you discover some parts of the house are not warm enough when
the wireless stat (in another place) says "enough" & turns the boiler/
pump off. In this case you can turn down the radiator's thermostatic
valve (where the wireless stat is) to compensate - little by little -
trial & error til you get the balance right.

Jim K

On Friday, 11 January 2013 13:29:23 UTC, Kevin wrote:
On 11/01/2013 12:25, larkim wrote:

SWMBO has charged me with moving the thermostat to a more appropriate place within our house.



Am I right in understanding that a wireless thermostat would comprise a receiver box which would be placed on the wall at the location of the existing wired thermostat, and then the wireless part would be the bit that actually measures the temperature and commands the boiler to do its stuff? Or does the wireless bit just allow you to tweak the parameters of the thermostat, leaving the temperature measurement at the place that it always was sited?



(I know that the temps should be measured in a room which doesn't have TRVs, so in theory moving a stat around breaks this rule, which is why I am mildly confused about where the temps are actually measured).



The wireless thermostats I've used are in two parts: the sender, that

measures the temperature and allows you to set a target temperature (and

times if it's programmable), and the receiver.



The receiver is a plain box, perhaps with a couple of leds, and deals

with the switching that the boiler expects. They're often situated near

the boiler or "wiring centre" if that's how it's been installed.



You could perhaps mount the receiver in place of the old room

thermostat, but be aware that the wireless stat receiver will probably

need a mains supply, including a neutral, whereas the old thermostat may

just be fed with low control voltage.



If you put the sender in a room with a trv, take the head off the trv so

that the thermostat can't keep calling for heat when the trv says "no,

I'm warm enough".





--

Kevin





--

Kevin Poole

Kevin

Thanks for this, especially the hint about the wiring. The boiler is a WB Greenstar 30CDi (I think!). After it was installed I swapped the bog-standard "dial" thermostat for a "digital" programmable one by Drayton. I can't recall what the wiring was like behind there, so I suppose I should check that out! I can see that it would need some form of power to run the receiver, and then an ability to signal the boiler. Are these usually 12V or is it 230V?

Thanks!

Matt

On 11 Jan, 14:24, larkim wrote:
On Friday, 11 January 2013 13:29:23 UTC, Kevin *wrote:
On 11/01/2013 12:25, larkim wrote:

SWMBO has charged me with moving the thermostat to a more appropriate place within our house.

Am I right in understanding that a wireless thermostat would comprise a receiver box which would be placed on the wall at the location of the existing wired thermostat, and then the wireless part would be the bit that actually measures the temperature and commands the boiler to do its stuff? *Or does the wireless bit just allow you to tweak the parameters of the thermostat, leaving the temperature measurement at the place that it always was sited?

(I know that the temps should be measured in a room which doesn't have TRVs, so in theory moving a stat around breaks this rule, which is why I am mildly confused about where the temps are actually measured).

The wireless thermostats I've used are in two parts: the sender, that

measures the temperature and allows you to set a target temperature (and

times if it's programmable), and the receiver.

The receiver is a plain box, perhaps with a couple of leds, and deals

with the switching that the boiler expects. *They're often situated near

the boiler or "wiring centre" if that's how it's been installed.

You could perhaps mount the receiver in place of the old room

thermostat, but be aware that the wireless stat receiver will probably

need a mains supply, including a neutral, whereas the old thermostat may

just be fed with low control voltage.

If you put the sender in a room with a trv, take the head off the trv so

that the thermostat can't keep calling for heat when the trv says "no,

I'm warm enough".

--

Kevin

--

Kevin Poole

Kevin

Thanks for this, especially the hint about the wiring. *The boiler is a WB Greenstar 30CDi (I think!). *After it was installed I swapped the bog-standard "dial" thermostat for a "digital" programmable one by Drayton. *I can't recall what the wiring was like behind there, so I suppose I should check that out! *I can see that it would need some form of power to run the receiver, and then an ability to signal the boiler. *Are these usually 12V or is it 230V?

you should know as you;ve already swapped the stat once already?!

JFG your current one and read the install instructions /tech spec?

Jim K

On 11/01/13 12:25, larkim wrote:
SWMBO has charged me with moving the thermostat to a more appropriate
place within our house.

Am I right in understanding that a wireless thermostat would comprise
a receiver box

So far, so good.

which would be placed on the wall at the location of
the existing wired thermostat,

Not necessarily, no. It can go anywhere convenient, and the usual place
is near the rest of the central heating controller stuff.

In short at the FAR end of the existing thermosta wires.

and then the wireless part would be
the bit that actually measures the temperature and commands the
boiler to do its stuff?

Correct.

Or does the wireless bit just allow you to
tweak the parameters of the thermostat, leaving the temperature
measurement at the place that it always was sited?

No.

(I know that the temps should be measured in a room which doesn't
have TRVs, so in theory moving a stat around breaks this rule, which
is why I am mildly confused about where the temps are actually
measured).

At the transmitter. Which is battery powered and of limited range,
especially when you have foil backed plasterboard walls :-)


Thanks!

Matt



--
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 Jan 11, 12:25*pm, larkim wrote:
Am I right in understanding that a wireless thermostat
would comprise a receiver box which would be placed
on the wall at the location of the existing wired thermostat,
and then the wireless part would be the bit that actually
measures the temperature and commands the boiler to do its stuff?

Exactly. We have a Honeywell DT92E which I can highly recommend. It
works fine as a direct replacement for an ordinary three-wire (live,
neutral, switched) mains-voltage thermostat.

Richard.
http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/

larkim :
SWMBO has charged me with moving the thermostat to a more appropriate
place within our house.

Am I right in understanding that a wireless thermostat would comprise a
receiver box which would be placed on the wall at the location of the
existing wired thermostat, and then the wireless part would be the bit
that actually measures the temperature and commands the boiler to do
its stuff?

Possibly but not necessarily. I have a Honeywell setup where the
receiver is inside the timer/controller. There's nothing where the wired
thermostat used to be and there's nothing extra by the timer.

Or does the wireless bit just allow you to tweak the parameters of the
thermostat, leaving the temperature measurement at the place that it
always was sited?

Not with this system, the wireless part contains the temperature sensor.

--
Mike Barnes

On 11/01/2013 12:25, larkim wrote:

(I know that the temps should be measured in a room which doesn't
have TRVs, so in theory moving a stat around breaks this rule, which
is why I am mildly confused about where the temps are actually
measured).

Further to what others have said; re your comment above, yes you're
quite right, but the idea of having a wireless thermostat is not the
ability to move it round at will (even SWMBO's); but rather to fit it
permanently in the most appropriate location and not have to worry about
running cables to it. (And in that location there should be no TRVs on
the radiators).
--
David

On 11 Jan, 15:42, Lobster wrote:
On 11/01/2013 12:25, larkim wrote:

(I know that the temps should be measured in a room which doesn't
have TRVs, so in theory moving a stat around breaks this rule, which
is why I am mildly confused about where the temps are actually
measured).

Further to what others have said; re your comment above, yes you're
quite right, but the idea of having a wireless thermostat is not the
ability to move it round at will (even SWMBO's); but rather to fit it
permanently in the most appropriate location and not have to worry about
running cables to it. *(And in that location there should be no TRVs on
the radiators).
--
David

how would you define (or divine) the "most appropriate location"

Jim K

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 14:50:11 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

which would be placed on the wall at the location of the existing
wired thermostat,

Not necessarily, no. It can go anywhere convenient, and the usual
place is near the rest of the central heating controller stuff.

That is also the best place as the Rx may well need permenant mains
rather than the time switched mains that will be at the normal thermostat
position. Also the Rx will require neutral which may (or may not) be at
the thermostat position.

In short at the FAR end of the existing thermosta wires.

Hum now to me the "far end" would be the end furthest away from the
origin or source. So the "far end" of the existing thermostat wires would
be the thermostat position, the "near end" being next to the other system
controls/wiring centre. BWTH the Rx is best near the wiring centre...


--
Cheers
Dave.

On Jan 11, 1:29*pm, Kevin
wrote:
On 11/01/2013 12:25, larkim wrote:

You could perhaps mount the receiver in place of the old room
thermostat, but be aware that the wireless stat receiver will probably
need a mains supply, including a neutral, whereas the old thermostat may
just be fed with low control voltage.


Ours are battery operated.

Jonathan

On 11/01/13 15:58, Jim K wrote:
On 11 Jan, 15:42, Lobster wrote:
On 11/01/2013 12:25, larkim wrote:

(I know that the temps should be measured in a room which doesn't
have TRVs, so in theory moving a stat around breaks this rule, which
is why I am mildly confused about where the temps are actually
measured).

Further to what others have said; re your comment above, yes you're
quite right, but the idea of having a wireless thermostat is not the
ability to move it round at will (even SWMBO's); but rather to fit it
permanently in the most appropriate location and not have to worry about
running cables to it. (And in that location there should be no TRVs on
the radiators).
--
David

how would you define (or divine) the "most appropriate location"

Jim K

generally the coldest part of the house that you want to say warm.

Having an overall thermostat AND TRVS is a bit illogical to be honest.

The only consistent way to make it work is to arrange essentially for
all the TRVS to have shut down before the final room - with the stat in
- gets up to temperature.

Mots people use a hall or landing master 'stat - where there are no
radiators at all - relying on leakage from the rest of the house to warm it.

In an ideal world every room would have a zone valve, a thermostat and
the outputs of those would control the boiler.

But that is too expensive - though energy prices being what they are,
its not altogether stupid for a new build, and I would definitely go
that route on one.



--
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 Jan 11, 4:09*pm, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
That is also the best place as the Rx may well need permenant mains

Strictly speaking our Honeywell DT92E RX *should* have permanent
mains, but in more than three years operation fed from time-switched
mains there has been no sign of any problems, other than a
'communication failure' alarm on the TX during the night-time hours
(the Honeywell is rare in having bi-directional RF communication, so
I'm using the terms RX and TX loosely).

Richard.
http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/

On 11/01/2013 16:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

snip

In an ideal world every room would have a zone valve, a thermostat and
the outputs of those would control the boiler.

But that is too expensive - though energy prices being what they are,
its not altogether stupid for a new build, and I would definitely go
that route on one.


I did that when I installed a system for the in-laws. TRVs are just too
fiddly for many old folk, particularly when conventionally installed
just above the floor. Changing the temperature setting by a degree or
two is just so much easier on a digital display at eye level.

I even fitted programmable thermostats, but they managed to defeat me by
1) insisting on the same high temperatures 24/7, even in bedrooms and 2)
insisting on leaving all the room doors open.

I'm converting my own installation by fitting actuators, originally
Sauter but now ones more like
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/150971485105
in place of the TRV heads, again with programmable thermostats. I'm
pleased with the result.

--
Kevin

On 11/01/2013 16:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

In an ideal world every room would have a zone valve, a thermostat and
the outputs of those would control the boiler.

But that is too expensive - though energy prices being what they are,
its not altogether stupid for a new build, and I would definitely go
that route on one.

IME zone valves are one of the most common parts of the CH system to
fail, and I'm not sure I'd want to introduce a whole raft of them into
my house, even if in theory it's more efficient...

--
David

On 12/01/13 10:39, Lobster wrote:
On 11/01/2013 16:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

In an ideal world every room would have a zone valve, a thermostat and
the outputs of those would control the boiler.

But that is too expensive - though energy prices being what they are,
its not altogether stupid for a new build, and I would definitely go
that route on one.

IME zone valves are one of the most common parts of the CH system to
fail, and I'm not sure I'd want to introduce a whole raft of them into
my house, even if in theory it's more efficient...

well yes, but in practice TRVs fail as often


--
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, 11 January 2013 14:30:22 UTC, Jim K wrote:
On 11 Jan, 14:24, larkim wrote:

On Friday, 11 January 2013 13:29:23 UTC, Kevin *wrote:

On 11/01/2013 12:25, larkim wrote:



SWMBO has charged me with moving the thermostat to a more appropriate place within our house.



Am I right in understanding that a wireless thermostat would comprise a receiver box which would be placed on the wall at the location of the existing wired thermostat, and then the wireless part would be the bit that actually measures the temperature and commands the boiler to do its stuff? *Or does the wireless bit just allow you to tweak the parameters of the thermostat, leaving the temperature measurement at the place that it always was sited?



(I know that the temps should be measured in a room which doesn't have TRVs, so in theory moving a stat around breaks this rule, which is why I am mildly confused about where the temps are actually measured).



The wireless thermostats I've used are in two parts: the sender, that



measures the temperature and allows you to set a target temperature (and



times if it's programmable), and the receiver.



The receiver is a plain box, perhaps with a couple of leds, and deals



with the switching that the boiler expects. *They're often situated near



the boiler or "wiring centre" if that's how it's been installed.



You could perhaps mount the receiver in place of the old room



thermostat, but be aware that the wireless stat receiver will probably



need a mains supply, including a neutral, whereas the old thermostat may



just be fed with low control voltage.



If you put the sender in a room with a trv, take the head off the trv so



that the thermostat can't keep calling for heat when the trv says "no,



I'm warm enough".



--



Kevin



--



Kevin Poole



Kevin



Thanks for this, especially the hint about the wiring. *The boiler is a WB Greenstar 30CDi (I think!). *After it was installed I swapped the bog-standard "dial" thermostat for a "digital" programmable one by Drayton. *I can't recall what the wiring was like behind there, so I suppose I should check that out! *I can see that it would need some form of power to run the receiver, and then an ability to signal the boiler. *Are these usually 12V or is it 230V?



you should know as you;ve already swapped the stat once already?!



JFG your current one and read the install instructions /tech spec?



Jim K

I swapped the stat a few years ago, I don't have a photographic memory for that sort of stuff. And I didn't have the model number with me when I posted, expecting that all stats worked the same!

Anyway, have JFG'd now.

Matt