On Wednesday, February 16, 2000 at 12:00:00 AM UTC-8, Ashley Stevens wrote:
I am buying a new house that uses an unusual heating system. Apparently it
is quite common in
Scandanavia (eg Norway). It uses ESWA infra-red radiant panels in the
ceiling. Part of the
house (the bit that is a more recent extension) also has electic under-floor
heating.

The ESWA panels are apparently rather like the electirc heating elements in
a car windscreen,
and are mounted above the ceiling. Anyway, a few of them have failed. The
house was originally
built in 1973. The vendor told me that the panels have an expected life-time
of about 25 years.

I had never heard of this heating system before. Anyway, my questions are :-

1. Does anyone know where I can purchase replacements for these? I did a web
search,
and the only hits were in New Zealand, Canada and one in South Africa
(none in Scandanavia).

2. Likely cost of replacements?

3. Any opinions/experience on these panels to share?

Thanks very much

Ashley Stevens


Ashley,
I am very familiar with ESWA Radiant Heating panels. I designed many throughout the ski areas in Colorado and throughout. Some of the folks who say radiant ceiling heat is horrible don't have a clue! In a well insulated home with the proper number of panels per the home heat loss calculations, radiant ceiling heat is the most comfortable heat around. Feels like the sun is gently shining on you.. Wonderful! Radiant heating heats objects not the air, so the guy who said there is a layer of warm air above is crazy. With high ceiling, you can also supplement it with ESWA floor foils or cables. I know where to get replacement panels.

wrote:
On Wednesday, February 16, 2000 at 12:00:00 AM UTC-8, Ashley Stevens wrote:
I am buying a new house that uses an unusual heating system. Apparently it
is quite common in
Scandanavia (eg Norway). It uses ESWA infra-red radiant panels in the
ceiling. Part of the
house (the bit that is a more recent extension) also has electic under-floor
heating.

The ESWA panels are apparently rather like the electirc heating elements in
a car windscreen,
and are mounted above the ceiling. Anyway, a few of them have failed. The
house was originally
built in 1973. The vendor told me that the panels have an expected life-time
of about 25 years.

I had never heard of this heating system before. Anyway, my questions are :-

1. Does anyone know where I can purchase replacements for these? I did a web
search,
and the only hits were in New Zealand, Canada and one in South Africa
(none in Scandanavia).

2. Likely cost of replacements?

3. Any opinions/experience on these panels to share?

Thanks very much

Ashley Stevens


Ashley,
I am very familiar with ESWA Radiant Heating panels. I designed many
throughout the ski areas in Colorado and throughout. Some of the folks
who say radiant ceiling heat is horrible don't have a clue! In a well
insulated home with the proper number of panels per the home heat loss
calculations, radiant ceiling heat is the most comfortable heat around.
Feels like the sun is gently shining on you.. Wonderful! Radiant heating
heats objects not the air, so the guy who said there is a layer of warm
air above is crazy. With high ceiling, you can also supplement it with
ESWA floor foils or cables. I know where to get replacement panels.

Oh for, feck's sake, how many times is that you've tried to drum up
business here? I guess you've learned not to put a web link in now, just
invite contacts. It's still touring for business AKA spam. Be a good chap
and just bugger off eh?

Tim

On 27/02/15 20:06, wrote:

Ashley, I am very familiar with ESWA Radiant Heating panels. I
designed many throughout the ski areas in Colorado and throughout.
Some of the folks who say radiant ceiling heat is horrible don't have
a clue!

This one does and they're ****.

My first flat had ESWA panels. Took forever to warm up, cost a bloody
fortune to run as half the heat warmed the bloke upstairs and they were
as fragile as ****.

So please don't tell me "how good they are".

On 27/02/2015 20:06, wrote:
Ashley,
I am very familiar with ESWA Radiant Heating panels. I designed many throughout the ski areas in Colorado and throughout. Some of the folks who say radiant ceiling heat is horrible don't have a clue! In a well insulated home with the proper number of panels per the home heat loss calculations, radiant ceiling heat is the most comfortable heat around. Feels like the sun is gently shining on you.. Wonderful! Radiant heating heats objects not the air, so the guy who said there is a layer of warm air above is crazy. With high ceiling, you can also supplement it with ESWA floor foils or cables. I know where to get replacement panels.

Ceiling heating has to be one of the nastiest forms of heating I have
ever experienced in a domestic setting - a flat I temporarily lived in.

--
Rod

On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 9:30:35 PM UTC, polygonum wrote:
On 27/02/2015 20:06, wrote:
Ashley,
I am very familiar with ESWA Radiant Heating panels. I designed many throughout the ski areas in Colorado and throughout. Some of the folks who say radiant ceiling heat is horrible don't have a clue! In a well insulated home with the proper number of panels per the home heat loss calculations, radiant ceiling heat is the most comfortable heat around. Feels like the sun is gently shining on you.. Wonderful! Radiant heating heats objects not the air, so the guy who said there is a layer of warm air above is crazy. With high ceiling, you can also supplement it with ESWA floor foils or cables. I know where to get replacement panels.

Ceiling heating has to be one of the nastiest forms of heating I have
ever experienced in a domestic setting - a flat I temporarily lived in.

Electric ceiling panels violate some of the most basic principles of CH. They use electricity without storage, which is 3x the cost of gas, 2x the cost of E7. Most heat is applied near the celing, when most is needed near or at floor level. In short they're daft.


NT

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
On 27/02/15 20:06, wrote:

Ashley, I am very familiar with ESWA Radiant Heating panels. I
designed many throughout the ski areas in Colorado and throughout.
Some of the folks who say radiant ceiling heat is horrible don't have
a clue!

This one does and they're ****.

My first flat had ESWA panels. Took forever to warm up, cost a bloody
fortune to run as half the heat warmed the bloke upstairs and they were
as fragile as ****.

So please don't tell me "how good they are".

They work very well if you turn the house upside down.

--
*What are the pink bits in my tyres? Cyclists & Joggers*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

wrote in message
...
On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 9:30:35 PM UTC, polygonum wrote:
On 27/02/2015 20:06, wrote:
Ashley,
I am very familiar with ESWA Radiant Heating panels. I designed many
throughout the ski areas in Colorado and throughout. Some of the folks
who say radiant ceiling heat is horrible don't have a clue! In a well
insulated home with the proper number of panels per the home heat loss
calculations, radiant ceiling heat is the most comfortable heat around.
Feels like the sun is gently shining on you.. Wonderful! Radiant
heating heats objects not the air, so the guy who said there is a layer
of warm air above is crazy. With high ceiling, you can also supplement
it with ESWA floor foils or cables. I know where to get replacement
panels.

Ceiling heating has to be one of the nastiest forms of heating I have
ever experienced in a domestic setting - a flat I temporarily lived in.

Electric ceiling panels violate some of the most basic principles of CH.

Yes.

They use electricity without storage, which is 3x the cost of gas, 2x the
cost of E7.

Yes.

Most heat is applied near the celing, when most is needed near or at floor
level.

Nope, they radiate directly to the people you want to heat.

In short they're daft.

Nope, there are just better ways to heat.

wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, February 16, 2000 at 12:00:00 AM UTC-8, Ashley Stevens wrote:
I am buying a new house that uses an unusual heating system. Apparently it
is quite common in
Scandanavia (eg Norway). It uses ESWA infra-red radiant panels in the
ceiling. Part of the
house (the bit that is a more recent extension) also has electic
under-floor
heating.

The ESWA panels are apparently rather like the electirc heating elements
in
a car windscreen,
and are mounted above the ceiling. Anyway, a few of them have failed. The
house was originally
built in 1973. The vendor told me that the panels have an expected
life-time
of about 25 years.

I had never heard of this heating system before. Anyway, my questions are
:-

1. Does anyone know where I can purchase replacements for these? I did a
web
search,
and the only hits were in New Zealand, Canada and one in South Africa
(none in Scandanavia).

2. Likely cost of replacements?

3. Any opinions/experience on these panels to share?

Thanks very much

Ashley Stevens


What you get is cold feet.
The top of your head is lovely and warm.

Nowhere nearly as good as underfloor heating.

On 28/02/2015 00:10, wrote:
Electric ceiling panels violate some of the most basic principles of CH. They use electricity without storage, which is 3x the cost of gas, 2x the cost of E7. Most heat is applied near the celing, when most is needed near or at floor level. In short they're daft.

It is also simply very unpleasant having a head that is being heated and
cold feet.

--
Rod

On 28/02/15 10:12, polygonum wrote:
On 28/02/2015 00:10, wrote:
Electric ceiling panels violate some of the most basic principles of
CH. They use electricity without storage, which is 3x the cost of gas,
2x the cost of E7. Most heat is applied near the celing, when most is
needed near or at floor level. In short they're daft.

It is also simply very unpleasant having a head that is being heated and
cold feet.


It had my first real flu in that flat.

I had every ceiling panel flat out for 2 weeks.

**** you should have seen that quarter's electricity bill!

On Saturday, February 28, 2015 at 1:58:42 AM UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 9:30:35 PM UTC, polygonum wrote:
On 27/02/2015 20:06, wrote:

Most heat is applied near the celing, when most is needed near or at floor
level.

Nope, they radiate directly to the people you want to heat.

they do. But more of the heat fails to get radiated, and ends up near the ceiling, creating an undesirable temperature gradient.

Besides, radiated heat isnt whats wanted at home, since it creates temperature hot & cold areas on the skin.

In short they're daft.

Nope, there are just better ways to heat.

so much better and cheaper that fitting them is daft. Bit like you Rodney.


NT

On 28/02/2015 11:27, Tim Watts wrote:
On 28/02/15 10:12, polygonum wrote:
On 28/02/2015 00:10, wrote:
Electric ceiling panels violate some of the most basic principles of
CH. They use electricity without storage, which is 3x the cost of gas,
2x the cost of E7. Most heat is applied near the celing, when most is
needed near or at floor level. In short they're daft.

It is also simply very unpleasant having a head that is being heated and
cold feet.


It had my first real flu in that flat.

I had every ceiling panel flat out for 2 weeks.

**** you should have seen that quarter's electricity bill!

I think we have an important finding here! I too had my first ever real
flu in the flat with ceiling heating. It was in January, on the Fylde
coast, and (very unusually) deep snow.

--
Rod

On 28/02/15 11:54, wrote:
On Saturday, February 28, 2015 at 1:58:42 AM UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 9:30:35 PM UTC, polygonum wrote:
On 27/02/2015 20:06, wrote:

Most heat is applied near the celing, when most is needed near or at floor
level.

Nope, they radiate directly to the people you want to heat.

they do. But more of the heat fails to get radiated, and ends up near the ceiling, creating an undesirable temperature gradient.

Besides, radiated heat isnt whats wanted at home, since it creates temperature hot & cold areas on the skin.

In short they're daft.

Nope, there are just better ways to heat.

so much better and cheaper that fitting them is daft. Bit like you Rodney.


NT


I noticed a fair few new flats in Tunbridge Wells are being fitted with
"electric radiators" (there's a *lot* of brownfield new developements
and I'm nosey).

I must find out if they are day time electric or storage.

Odd because I though gas CH was pretty standard for new flats these days
- and yes, there's mains gas in the respective areas.

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
I noticed a fair few new flats in Tunbridge Wells are being fitted with
"electric radiators" (there's a *lot* of brownfield new developements
and I'm nosey).

I must find out if they are day time electric or storage.

Odd because I though gas CH was pretty standard for new flats these days
- and yes, there's mains gas in the respective areas.

But is that gas brought into the flats?

It's going to save quite a bit of money on a new build using only
electricity. And given the current housing market, anything sells.

--
*Just remember...if the world didn't suck, we'd all fall off*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 28/02/2015 08:31, harryagain wrote:


What you get is cold feet.
The top of your head is lovely and warm.

Nowhere nearly as good as underfloor heating.


That gives you a very warm bum if you are sitting on the floor though.
(Memories from St Catherine's college nearly 50 years ago).

On 28/02/15 13:13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
I noticed a fair few new flats in Tunbridge Wells are being fitted with
"electric radiators" (there's a *lot* of brownfield new developements
and I'm nosey).

I must find out if they are day time electric or storage.

Odd because I though gas CH was pretty standard for new flats these days
- and yes, there's mains gas in the respective areas.

But is that gas brought into the flats?

There are flats with CH in the 10-20 year old build range.

It's going to save quite a bit of money on a new build using only
electricity. And given the current housing market, anything sells.


Cheap tarts I guess - flog the flat and condemn the occupants to 3x
expensive heating. And it's impossible for a leaseholder to retro fit
gas - their only option is Economy 7.

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
Odd because I though gas CH was pretty standard for new flats these
days - and yes, there's mains gas in the respective areas.

But is that gas brought into the flats?

There are flats with CH in the 10-20 year old build range.

Well, yes. But they may have had to try harder to sell flats then.

--
*How's my driving? Call 999*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
polygonum wrote
wrote

Most heat is applied near the celing, when
most is needed near or at floor level.

Nope, they radiate directly to the people you want to heat.

they do. But more of the heat fails to get radiated,

That's not right. They work the same way that timber panelling
on stone walls do, increases the surface temperature and that
has a very significant effect on the comfort, particularly when
you aren't just heating all the surfaces and air to a higher temp.

and ends up near the ceiling, creating an undesirable temperature
gradient.

That heat gradient isn't even noticeable to the occupants of the room.

Besides, radiated heat isnt whats wanted at home,

One of the reasons a room feels too cold
is because of the surface temperatures.

since it creates temperature hot & cold areas on the skin.

Must be why we don't use fires which do that in spades.

In short they're daft.

Nope, there are just better ways to heat.

so much better and cheaper that fitting them is daft.

That's certainly true when much cheaper gas is available.

"newshound" wrote in message
...
On 28/02/2015 08:31, harryagain wrote:


What you get is cold feet.
The top of your head is lovely and warm.

Nowhere nearly as good as underfloor heating.


That gives you a very warm bum if you are sitting on the floor though.
(Memories from St Catherine's college nearly 50 years ago).

I got the reverse effect with a hotel, I had lie on the floor to
get warm at all. By far the worst I have ever had hotel wise.

On 28/02/15 17:21, john james wrote:


"newshound" wrote in message
...
On 28/02/2015 08:31, harryagain wrote:


What you get is cold feet.
The top of your head is lovely and warm.

Nowhere nearly as good as underfloor heating.


That gives you a very warm bum if you are sitting on the floor though.
(Memories from St Catherine's college nearly 50 years ago).

I got the reverse effect with a hotel, I had lie on the floor to
get warm at all. By far the worst I have ever had hotel wise.

UFH is super in winter - had it in the Forest of Dean[1] forestry cabins.

OTOH in non winter times it's not something you can turn on for 30 mins
on a chilly evening - by the time you feel it it's too late, you will be
boiled for the next 12 hours.

It's good in bathrooms for getting the floor dry though

[1] Anyone who's not been, highly recommended, if for nothing else the
derelict mines, caves and proximity to *so much* cool stuff.

On 28/02/2015 08:31, harryagain wrote:
Nowhere nearly as good as underfloor heating.

Underfloor heating is an absolute no-no for anyone with erythromelalgia.
Underfloor cooling can, however, be much appreciated - even an ordinary
concrete floor.

Horses, courses.

--
Rod

On Saturday, February 28, 2015 at 5:08:28 PM UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
polygonum wrote
wrote

Most heat is applied near the celing, when
most is needed near or at floor level.

Nope, they radiate directly to the people you want to heat.

they do. But more of the heat fails to get radiated,

That's not right. They work the same way that timber panelling
on stone walls do, increases the surface temperature and that
has a very significant effect on the comfort, particularly when
you aren't just heating all the surfaces and air to a higher temp.

and ends up near the ceiling, creating an undesirable temperature
gradient.

That heat gradient isn't even noticeable to the occupants of the room.

Besides, radiated heat isnt whats wanted at home,

One of the reasons a room feels too cold
is because of the surface temperatures.

since it creates temperature hot & cold areas on the skin.

Must be why we don't use fires which do that in spades.

In short they're daft.

Nope, there are just better ways to heat.

so much better and cheaper that fitting them is daft.

That's certainly true when much cheaper gas is available.

short on clues as usual

wrote in message
...

On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 9:30:35 PM UTC, polygonum wrote:
On 27/02/2015 20:06, wrote:
Ashley,
I am very familiar with ESWA Radiant Heating panels. I designed many
throughout the ski areas in Colorado and throughout. Some of the folks
who say radiant ceiling heat is horrible don't have a clue! In a well
insulated home with the proper number of panels per the home heat loss
calculations, radiant ceiling heat is the most comfortable heat around.
Feels like the sun is gently shining on you.. Wonderful! Radiant heating
heats objects not the air, so the guy who said there is a layer of warm
air above is crazy. With high ceiling, you can also supplement it with
ESWA floor foils or cables. I know where to get replacement panels.

Ceiling heating has to be one of the nastiest forms of heating I have
ever experienced in a domestic setting - a flat I temporarily lived in.

Electric ceiling panels violate some of the most basic principles of CH.
They use electricity without storage, which is 3x the cost of gas, 2x the
cost of E7. Most heat is applied near the celing, when most is needed
near or at floor level. In short they're daft.


True, the whole estate my parents live on was built in the 70's and every
house had ceiling heating, these ones are a black woven mat, copper strips
each side for power conductors sewn to the matting and encased in laminated
sleeves,

**** knows how much power the whole lot would use, the ones in my parents
place were disconnected in the 80's, along with almost all the other houses
in the estate when the owners realised just how **** the system was,

main problem was no thermal inertia, so the damn things had to be on all the
time you wanted heat, turn em off and it gets cold fast, and it was rather
expensive to run even back then (i mentioned before that aparantly they were
the best thing to have with the advent of nuclear electricity too cheap to
meter... shame that never materialised)

and despite what the merkin bull****ter bloke who sells the ****ty things
claims, people who have to live with the system complain of temperature
gradients, a roasting head and frozen feet, and eye watering electricity
bills.

On 01/03/15 13:52, Gazz wrote:


wrote in message
...

On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 9:30:35 PM UTC, polygonum wrote:
On 27/02/2015 20:06, wrote:
Ashley,
I am very familiar with ESWA Radiant Heating panels. I designed many
throughout the ski areas in Colorado and throughout. Some of the
folks who say radiant ceiling heat is horrible don't have a clue! In
a well insulated home with the proper number of panels per the home
heat loss calculations, radiant ceiling heat is the most comfortable
heat around. Feels like the sun is gently shining on you..
Wonderful! Radiant heating heats objects not the air, so the guy who
said there is a layer of warm air above is crazy. With high ceiling,
you can also supplement it with ESWA floor foils or cables. I know
where to get replacement panels.

Ceiling heating has to be one of the nastiest forms of heating I have
ever experienced in a domestic setting - a flat I temporarily lived in.

Electric ceiling panels violate some of the most basic principles of
CH. They use electricity without storage, which is 3x the cost of gas,
2x the cost of E7. Most heat is applied near the celing, when most
is needed near or at floor level. In short they're daft.


True, the whole estate my parents live on was built in the 70's and
every house had ceiling heating, these ones are a black woven mat,
copper strips each side for power conductors sewn to the matting and
encased in laminated sleeves,

**** knows how much power the whole lot would use, the ones in my
parents place were disconnected in the 80's, along with almost all the
other houses in the estate when the owners realised just how **** the
system was,

The ESWA ****panels in my flat were like an Allegro rear window heater
(thick foil strips) laminated bewteen 2 sheets of plastic.

I found that when the dopey bloke upstairs flooded his kitchen and took
out my ceiling.

Given the minimal insulation between 240V and the surface and the fact
they were lobbed in ceilings covered in plasterboard nailed up by pikey
builders, I rate them as sodding dangerous.


main problem was no thermal inertia, so the damn things had to be on all
the time you wanted heat, turn em off and it gets cold fast, and it was
rather expensive to run even back then (i mentioned before that
aparantly they were the best thing to have with the advent of nuclear
electricity too cheap to meter... shame that never materialised)

and despite what the merkin bull****ter bloke who sells the ****ty
things claims, people who have to live with the system complain of
temperature gradients, a roasting head and frozen feet, and eye watering
electricity bills.

All of the above...

On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 2:25:38 PM UTC, Tim Watts wrote:
On 01/03/15 13:52, Gazz wrote:


wrote in message
...

On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 9:30:35 PM UTC, polygonum wrote:
On 27/02/2015 20:06, wrote:
Ashley,
I am very familiar with ESWA Radiant Heating panels. I designed many
throughout the ski areas in Colorado and throughout. Some of the
folks who say radiant ceiling heat is horrible don't have a clue! In
a well insulated home with the proper number of panels per the home
heat loss calculations, radiant ceiling heat is the most comfortable
heat around. Feels like the sun is gently shining on you..
Wonderful! Radiant heating heats objects not the air, so the guy who
said there is a layer of warm air above is crazy. With high ceiling,
you can also supplement it with ESWA floor foils or cables. I know
where to get replacement panels.

Ceiling heating has to be one of the nastiest forms of heating I have
ever experienced in a domestic setting - a flat I temporarily lived in.

Electric ceiling panels violate some of the most basic principles of
CH. They use electricity without storage, which is 3x the cost of gas,
2x the cost of E7. Most heat is applied near the celing, when most
is needed near or at floor level. In short they're daft.


True, the whole estate my parents live on was built in the 70's and
every house had ceiling heating, these ones are a black woven mat,
copper strips each side for power conductors sewn to the matting and
encased in laminated sleeves,

**** knows how much power the whole lot would use, the ones in my
parents place were disconnected in the 80's, along with almost all the
other houses in the estate when the owners realised just how **** the
system was,

The ESWA ****panels in my flat were like an Allegro rear window heater
(thick foil strips) laminated bewteen 2 sheets of plastic.

I found that when the dopey bloke upstairs flooded his kitchen and took
out my ceiling.

Given the minimal insulation between 240V and the surface and the fact
they were lobbed in ceilings covered in plasterboard nailed up by pikey
builders, I rate them as sodding dangerous.


main problem was no thermal inertia, so the damn things had to be on all
the time you wanted heat, turn em off and it gets cold fast, and it was
rather expensive to run even back then (i mentioned before that
aparantly they were the best thing to have with the advent of nuclear
electricity too cheap to meter... shame that never materialised)

and despite what the merkin bull****ter bloke who sells the ****ty
things claims, people who have to live with the system complain of
temperature gradients, a roasting head and frozen feet, and eye watering
electricity bills.

All of the above...

Its nice indulging spammers with their request for our time & attention, and an honest review of their products


NT

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2015-02-28, Tim Watts wrote:
On 28/02/15 17:21, john james wrote:


"newshound" wrote in message
...
On 28/02/2015 08:31, harryagain wrote:


What you get is cold feet.
The top of your head is lovely and warm.

Nowhere nearly as good as underfloor heating.


That gives you a very warm bum if you are sitting on the floor though.
(Memories from St Catherine's college nearly 50 years ago).

I got the reverse effect with a hotel, I had lie on the floor to
get warm at all. By far the worst I have ever had hotel wise.

UFH is super in winter - had it in the Forest of Dean[1] forestry cabins.

OTOH in non winter times it's not something you can turn on for 30 mins
on a chilly evening - by the time you feel it it's too late, you will be
boiled for the next 12 hours.

UFH is effectively a giant storage radiator,

And one which you have no control over the movement of
heat from the storage to the room in any practical sense.

with all the disadvantages
that brings.


--
Today is Setting Orange, the 60th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3181
I don't have an attitude problem. If you have a problem with my attitude,
that's your problem.

On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 7:59:42 PM UTC, john james wrote:
"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2015-02-28, Tim Watts wrote:
On 28/02/15 17:21, john james wrote:


"newshound" wrote in message
...
On 28/02/2015 08:31, harryagain wrote:


What you get is cold feet.
The top of your head is lovely and warm.

Nowhere nearly as good as underfloor heating.


That gives you a very warm bum if you are sitting on the floor though.
(Memories from St Catherine's college nearly 50 years ago).

I got the reverse effect with a hotel, I had lie on the floor to
get warm at all. By far the worst I have ever had hotel wise.

UFH is super in winter - had it in the Forest of Dean[1] forestry cabins.

OTOH in non winter times it's not something you can turn on for 30 mins
on a chilly evening - by the time you feel it it's too late, you will be
boiled for the next 12 hours.

UFH is effectively a giant storage radiator,

And one which you have no control over the movement of
heat from the storage to the room in any practical sense.

with all the disadvantages
that brings.

All this is down to their installation without a proper set of controls though, its not a problem inherent in UFH.

Heat output is proportional to slab temp. UFH loop temp can be made dependant on outdoor temp differential, upto a set limit, to ensure excess heat isn't delivered.


NT

wrote in message
...
On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 7:59:42 PM UTC, john james wrote:
"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2015-02-28, Tim Watts wrote:
On 28/02/15 17:21, john james wrote:


"newshound" wrote in message
...
On 28/02/2015 08:31, harryagain wrote:


What you get is cold feet.
The top of your head is lovely and warm.

Nowhere nearly as good as underfloor heating.


That gives you a very warm bum if you are sitting on the floor
though.
(Memories from St Catherine's college nearly 50 years ago).

I got the reverse effect with a hotel, I had lie on the floor to
get warm at all. By far the worst I have ever had hotel wise.

UFH is super in winter - had it in the Forest of Dean[1] forestry
cabins.

OTOH in non winter times it's not something you can turn on for 30
mins
on a chilly evening - by the time you feel it it's too late, you will
be
boiled for the next 12 hours.

UFH is effectively a giant storage radiator,

And one which you have no control over the movement of
heat from the storage to the room in any practical sense.

with all the disadvantages
that brings.

All this is down to their installation without a proper set of controls
though,

No it's not. The problem is that once the heat is in the floor, there is no
practical way to control the rate at which heat comes out of the floor.

its not a problem inherent in UFH.

Of course it is.

Heat output is proportional to slab temp.

And there is no way to controls the slab temp in the short
term because of it's massive thermal inertia, particularly
when using the cheapest electrical power which you have
to do to make it competitive with gas.

UFH loop temp can be made dependant on outdoor temp
differential, upto a set limit, to ensure excess heat isn't delivered.

The problem is that that that happens later than
the time when you have to heat the slab because
that is when you get the electricity cheapest.

And once the heat is in the slab, you have no control
over the rate at which it comes out of the slab, if for
example the house doesn't have anyone in it and
you don't need to heat the house at the moment.

On Monday, March 2, 2015 at 9:54:42 AM UTC, john james wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 7:59:42 PM UTC, john james wrote:
"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2015-02-28, Tim Watts wrote:
On 28/02/15 17:21, john james wrote:


"newshound" wrote in message
...
On 28/02/2015 08:31, harryagain wrote:


What you get is cold feet.
The top of your head is lovely and warm.

Nowhere nearly as good as underfloor heating.


That gives you a very warm bum if you are sitting on the floor
though.
(Memories from St Catherine's college nearly 50 years ago).

I got the reverse effect with a hotel, I had lie on the floor to
get warm at all. By far the worst I have ever had hotel wise.

UFH is super in winter - had it in the Forest of Dean[1] forestry
cabins.

OTOH in non winter times it's not something you can turn on for 30
mins
on a chilly evening - by the time you feel it it's too late, you will
be
boiled for the next 12 hours.

UFH is effectively a giant storage radiator,

And one which you have no control over the movement of
heat from the storage to the room in any practical sense.

with all the disadvantages
that brings.

All this is down to their installation without a proper set of controls
though,

No it's not. The problem is that once the heat is in the floor, there is no
practical way to control the rate at which heat comes out of the floor.

its not a problem inherent in UFH.

Of course it is.

Heat output is proportional to slab temp.

And there is no way to controls the slab temp in the short
term because of it's massive thermal inertia, particularly
when using the cheapest electrical power which you have
to do to make it competitive with gas.

UFH loop temp can be made dependant on outdoor temp
differential, upto a set limit, to ensure excess heat isn't delivered.

The problem is that that that happens later than
the time when you have to heat the slab because
that is when you get the electricity cheapest.

And once the heat is in the slab, you have no control
over the rate at which it comes out of the slab, if for
example the house doesn't have anyone in it and
you don't need to heat the house at the moment.

Firstly gas CH powered UFH makes more sense than electric.
2ndly if the temp to which the loop is heated is dependant on outdoor temp, the slab heat output can be kept within the amount of output thats wanted. So during mild times its not heated too much, and in the middle of winter it gets its full heat. Its not difficult.

As for instant off-on, of course it wont do that, one has to use the proper control ahead of the time of demand. That doesn't suit all uses of course, but where it does its just basic control. I'm sure in a decade or 2 people will regard all the current ill-controlled UFH setups as unsatisfactory, as they are really.


NT

wrote in message
...
On Monday, March 2, 2015 at 9:54:42 AM UTC, john james wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 7:59:42 PM UTC, john james wrote:
"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2015-02-28, Tim Watts wrote:
On 28/02/15 17:21, john james wrote:


"newshound" wrote in message
...
On 28/02/2015 08:31, harryagain wrote:


What you get is cold feet.
The top of your head is lovely and warm.

Nowhere nearly as good as underfloor heating.


That gives you a very warm bum if you are sitting on the floor
though.
(Memories from St Catherine's college nearly 50 years ago).

I got the reverse effect with a hotel, I had lie on the floor to
get warm at all. By far the worst I have ever had hotel wise.

UFH is super in winter - had it in the Forest of Dean[1] forestry
cabins.

OTOH in non winter times it's not something you can turn on for 30
mins
on a chilly evening - by the time you feel it it's too late, you
will
be
boiled for the next 12 hours.

UFH is effectively a giant storage radiator,

And one which you have no control over the movement of
heat from the storage to the room in any practical sense.

with all the disadvantages
that brings.

All this is down to their installation without a proper set of controls
though,

No it's not. The problem is that once the heat is in the floor, there is
no
practical way to control the rate at which heat comes out of the floor.

its not a problem inherent in UFH.

Of course it is.

Heat output is proportional to slab temp.

And there is no way to controls the slab temp in the short
term because of it's massive thermal inertia, particularly
when using the cheapest electrical power which you have
to do to make it competitive with gas.

UFH loop temp can be made dependant on outdoor temp
differential, upto a set limit, to ensure excess heat isn't delivered.

The problem is that that that happens later than
the time when you have to heat the slab because
that is when you get the electricity cheapest.

And once the heat is in the slab, you have no control
over the rate at which it comes out of the slab, if for
example the house doesn't have anyone in it and
you don't need to heat the house at the moment.

Firstly gas CH powered UFH makes more sense than electric.

True. But has real downsides maintenance wise.

2ndly if the temp to which the loop is heated is dependant on outdoor
temp,

That is a very poor criterion to use. What suits
the occupants if any is a much better criterion.

the slab heat output can be kept within the amount of output
thats wanted. So during mild times its not heated too much,
and in the middle of winter it gets its full heat. Its not difficult.

But the problem is that UFH is very slow to react to changing
requirements by the occupants like when they have just arrived
unexpectedly and want the place comfortably warm after its
been left unheated when it was empty.

A hot air system works a lot better in that regard.

As for instant off-on, of course it wont do that, one has
to use the proper control ahead of the time of demand.

Not always feasible with some types of house use.

That doesn't suit all uses of course,

But a hot air system suits a lot more of them.

but where it does its just basic control. I'm sure in a decade
or 2 people will regard all the current ill-controlled UFH
setups as unsatisfactory, as they are really.

And I bet we see a lot more hot air systems being used
essentially because they don't have the maintenance
headaches and costs that come with hot water systems.

On Monday, March 2, 2015 at 11:18:06 PM UTC, john james wrote:
wrote in message
...

Firstly gas CH powered UFH makes more sense than electric.

True. But has real downsides maintenance wise.

2ndly if the temp to which the loop is heated is dependant on outdoor
temp,
the slab heat output can be kept within the amount of output
thats wanted. So during mild times its not heated too much,
and in the middle of winter it gets its full heat. Its not difficult.

But the problem is that UFH is very slow to react to changing
requirements by the occupants like when they have just arrived
unexpectedly and want the place comfortably warm after its
been left unheated when it was empty.

that's not a problem of UFH, its a problem of a hypothetical designer expecting an apple to do an orange's job. A sensible design includes provision for quick heat, and of course that heat won't come from the UFH part of the system.


NT

wrote in message
...
On Monday, March 2, 2015 at 11:18:06 PM UTC, john james wrote:
wrote in message
...

Firstly gas CH powered UFH makes more sense than electric.

True. But has real downsides maintenance wise.

2ndly if the temp to which the loop is heated is dependant on outdoor
temp,
the slab heat output can be kept within the amount of output
thats wanted. So during mild times its not heated too much,
and in the middle of winter it gets its full heat. Its not difficult.

But the problem is that UFH is very slow to react to changing
requirements by the occupants like when they have just arrived
unexpectedly and want the place comfortably warm after its
been left unheated when it was empty.

that's not a problem of UFH,

Yes it is. The intrinsic problem is the massive thermal inertia
of any UFH system and the fact that there is no practical way
to control the rate at which heat gets out of the floor.

its a problem of a hypothetical designer
expecting an apple to do an orange's job.

Its impossible for any designer to know how
a particular house will be used over time.

A sensible design includes provision for quick heat, and of
course that heat won't come from the UFH part of the system.

And when they both use the same energy source, once you
have the system that provides quick heat, there isn't any
point in having UFH heating as well, essentially more than
doubling the cost of the total heating system.

On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 2:42:46 AM UTC, john james wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Monday, March 2, 2015 at 11:18:06 PM UTC, john james wrote:
wrote in message
...

Firstly gas CH powered UFH makes more sense than electric.

True. But has real downsides maintenance wise.

2ndly if the temp to which the loop is heated is dependant on outdoor
temp,
the slab heat output can be kept within the amount of output
thats wanted. So during mild times its not heated too much,
and in the middle of winter it gets its full heat. Its not difficult.

But the problem is that UFH is very slow to react to changing
requirements by the occupants like when they have just arrived
unexpectedly and want the place comfortably warm after its
been left unheated when it was empty.

that's not a problem of UFH,

Yes it is. The intrinsic problem is the massive thermal inertia
of any UFH system and the fact that there is no practical way
to control the rate at which heat gets out of the floor.

with respect I did just describe how that can be done

its a problem of a hypothetical designer
expecting an apple to do an orange's job.

Its impossible for any designer to know how
a particular house will be used over time.

irrelevant

A sensible design includes provision for quick heat, and of
course that heat won't come from the UFH part of the system.

And when they both use the same energy source, once you
have the system that provides quick heat, there isn't any
point in having UFH heating as well, essentially more than
doubling the cost of the total heating system.

that would only be true if one relied on UFH for all the heat output. Which would be a foolish strategy, since it would force the end users into the sort of lousy strategy you criticise.


NT

wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 2:42:46 AM UTC, john james wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Monday, March 2, 2015 at 11:18:06 PM UTC, john james wrote:
wrote in message
...

Firstly gas CH powered UFH makes more sense than electric.

True. But has real downsides maintenance wise.

2ndly if the temp to which the loop is heated is dependant on
outdoor
temp,
the slab heat output can be kept within the amount of output
thats wanted. So during mild times its not heated too much,
and in the middle of winter it gets its full heat. Its not
difficult.

But the problem is that UFH is very slow to react to changing
requirements by the occupants like when they have just arrived
unexpectedly and want the place comfortably warm after its
been left unheated when it was empty.

that's not a problem of UFH,

Yes it is. The intrinsic problem is the massive thermal inertia
of any UFH system and the fact that there is no practical way
to control the rate at which heat gets out of the floor.

with respect I did just describe how that can be done

No you did not.

its a problem of a hypothetical designer
expecting an apple to do an orange's job.

Its impossible for any designer to know how
a particular house will be used over time.

irrelevant

No.

A sensible design includes provision for quick heat, and of
course that heat won't come from the UFH part of the system.

And when they both use the same energy source, once you
have the system that provides quick heat, there isn't any
point in having UFH heating as well, essentially more than
doubling the cost of the total heating system.

that would only be true if one relied on UFH for all the heat output.

No.

Which would be a foolish strategy, since it would force
the end users into the sort of lousy strategy you criticise.

When there is another source of heat using the same
energy source, you need to justify the very considerable
cost of adding UFH to that.

Hot water UFH can work well when there is also a thermostatically
controlled radiator nearby to handle the short term variations
in heat gain or loss - from sunlight or opening doors.

I have a conservatory with hot water UFH. It uses a Danfoss "thermostat"
which is actually a PID controller. The adjacent room (door always open)
has a conventional radiator with TRV. The air temperature is very stable
and seldom fluctuates by more than 1 deg C.

John

On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 9:29:39 AM UTC, john james wrote:
wrote in message
...

8

that would only be true if one relied on UFH for all the heat output.
Which would be a foolish strategy, since it would force
the end users into the sort of lousy strategy you criticise.

When there is another source of heat using the same
energy source, you need to justify the very considerable
cost of adding UFH to that.

I dont, the end user or spec builder does. And many do.


NT