Hi All,

I would like your opinion on using radiators in an open plan house
(new build) with high ceilings. My hall, living room, kitchen and
dining area are all open plan with the living area and hall having
high ceilings (about 6 meters high). I plan on using a combination of
oil and solid fuel (using a range or wood burner in the kitchen).

Will I have a problem heating the large open areas using radiators?

Will the heat just go straight to the ceiling? A friend mentioned
using ceiling fans to counteract this - would this be possible?

I would appreciate your thoughts on this.

Thanks,
Dermot.

"Dermot O'Loughlin" wrote in message
om...
Hi All,

I would like your opinion on using radiators in an open plan house
(new build) with high ceilings. My hall, living room, kitchen and
dining area are all open plan with the living area and hall having
high ceilings (about 6 meters high). I plan on using a combination of
oil and solid fuel (using a range or wood burner in the kitchen).

Will I have a problem heating the large open areas using radiators?

Will the heat just go straight to the ceiling? A friend mentioned
using ceiling fans to counteract this - would this be possible?

I would appreciate your thoughts on this.

Underfloor heating is ideal in this situation, but expensive. Whether using
rads or UFH the downward acting fan will make a difference. Have the fan on
a thermostat that can be overridden, so it only turns when there is heat up
there.

It may be worth your while to insert a duct (embedded in the wall in new
build), with a small integral fan activated by a thermostat located at high
level. This will take any heat up there down to floor level. When it is
cool up there the stat holds the fan off, just as in the ceiling fan. The
duct with a few grills will be unobtrusive, unlike the ceiling fan.

Make sure the house is "well" insulated. Is it a barn? Pack the stuff in,
as thick as possible, at every opportunity.

Will I have a problem heating the large open areas using radiators?

Will the heat just go straight to the ceiling? A friend mentioned
using ceiling fans to counteract this - would this be possible?

If you really can't install underfloor heating, consider using a fan
convector instead of a unforced convector (radiator).

The underfloor will be best, as it will reduce convection, promoting the
most heat low down, where it is more effectively promoting comfort. Failing
this, the fan convector will at least stir the air up, preventing all the
heat going to the ceiling. A ceiling fan set to blow down can also help.
Don't install any fans in rooms that will be heated by open or gas fires, as
they can affect the ventilation, causing poisonous carbon monoxide.

Christian.

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
. net...
Will I have a problem heating the large open areas using radiators?

Will the heat just go straight to the ceiling? A friend mentioned
using ceiling fans to counteract this - would this be possible?

If you really can't install underfloor heating, consider using a fan
convector instead of a unforced convector (radiator).

The underfloor will be best, as it will reduce
convection,

??

promoting the most heat low down, where
it is more effectively promoting comfort.

UFH does not promote heat low down. Hot air rises. When the heat emitter is
the floor, when the hot air moves from the emitter to the top of the room it
passes you, heating you along the way.


Failing
this, the fan convector will at least stir the air up, preventing all the
heat going to the ceiling. A ceiling fan set to blow down can also help.
Don't install any fans in rooms that will be heated by open or gas fires,
as
they can affect the ventilation, causing poisonous carbon monoxide.

Christian.

UFH does not promote heat low down. Hot air rises. When the heat emitter
is
the floor, when the hot air moves from the emitter to the top of the room
it
passes you, heating you along the way.

It is because the evenly heated air rises only slowly with underfloor
heating. Basically, the evenly heated hot air is slightly constrained from
its upward trajectory by the evenly cold air trying to fall above it. The
reduced air flow leads to lower losses.

In the event that you have point heating, (i.e. an unforced convector), the
hot air is hotter than nearby air and rises more quickly, leading to greater
vertical air currents from the convection and a more rapid heating of the
ceiling. Normally, this is desired, at it heats the bulk of the air more
quickly and even the high up heat is desirable.

Another advantage of the underfloor heating in this situation is the larger
area of the radiator, leading to more pleasant radiant heat, which can
result in similar comfort levels at a lower actual temperature.

Christian.

The reason I am not inclined to go for underfloor heating is that
after talking to some friends who have recently installed it I made
the following observations:

1) It is very unresponsive. In our climate it can be quite mild during
the day but chilly at night. If I went for UFH I wouldn't have the
option of responsive heating.

2) Timber floors - I've been advised that UFH does not work well with
timber floors. I prefer timber floors in my living area, dining area
and hall as I feel it makes a room look cosier than using tiles.

3) Expense - it is cheaper to install a heating system using rads.

I do know that UFH would be the ideal way to heat my large open areas
but the points I make above lead me to look for the best alternative.

I am going to look into the idea of using fan convection rads instead
of normal rads. Does anyone have any experience using these?

I also like the idea of the duct in the ceiling taking the heat to the
floor level - can this be used in a room with an open fire?

Thanks for your help so far,
Dermot.

I am going to look into the idea of using fan convection rads instead
of normal rads. Does anyone have any experience using these?

I use one in my kitchen and intend to use another in my conservatory. They
are very effective at rapidly heating the air in large spaces. However, they
do make a small amount of noise, so might not be suitable for a living room
where you want to watch films with quiet sections.

Christian.

IMM wrote:

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
. net...

Will I have a problem heating the large open areas using radiators?

Will the heat just go straight to the ceiling? A friend mentioned
using ceiling fans to counteract this - would this be possible?

If you really can't install underfloor heating, consider using a fan
convector instead of a unforced convector (radiator).

The underfloor will be best, as it will reduce
convection,


??


promoting the most heat low down, where
it is more effectively promoting comfort.


UFH does not promote heat low down. Hot air rises. When the heat emitter is
the floor, when the hot air moves from the emitter to the top of the room it
passes you, heating you along the way.



Well, experience shows that it may not heat low down, but it does
eliminate a cold layer near the floor.

With radiators cold air sinks to the floor and moves across it to the
radiators, gets hot and rises immediately. So you get localised hot
spots near the rads, and a thermal gradient through the room and cold feet.

With UFH its hard to tell the heating is on at all. You just feel
uniformly warm. There are no localised hot spots to start convection with.

I find the room can be statted a couple of degrees cooler and still feel
the same.

Dermot O'Loughlin wrote:

The reason I am not inclined to go for underfloor heating is that
after talking to some friends who have recently installed it I made
the following observations:

1) It is very unresponsive. In our climate it can be quite mild during
the day but chilly at night. If I went for UFH I wouldn't have the
option of responsive heating.


What you find in effect is that the floor being concrete has a huge
mass, and it actually - even without being heated - preserves heat in
the place as the outide temp falls. It doesn't NEED to be responsive.

I agree that with older style poorly insultaed houses its a bad thing -
these lose heat VERY rapidly at sunset - bu iof you have teh internal
mass and decent insulation, you already HAVE an 'unresponsive' house.


Ive got my heating set to come on two hours before sunset on a a stat.
Last night we stayed up till 2 a.m. and the room slowly got colder as
teh heating stops at midnight...




2) Timber floors - I've been advised that UFH does not work well with
timber floors. I prefer timber floors in my living area, dining area
and hall as I feel it makes a room look cosier than using tiles.


You can use timber laminate if you like, and even real tiomber boards
over a screed floor. The only issue being that you need to run teh
underfloor hooter and [put more insulation beneath it to ensure the heat
goes upward. This CAN upset the timber.

If you want a more 'responsive' system fit pipes in an airgap below a
timber floor directly over insulation.

If its a new buld you can address the issues much better than
retrofitting UFH.

I have not come across anyine here who has fitted proper UFH who regrets it.





3) Expense - it is cheaper to install a heating system using rads.


It isn't. I did the sums, and teh lengths of plastic pipe were very
similar in proce to radiators. IThe only extra expense was auxilioary
pump, manifold and heat reducing valve -= about 200 squids. But think of
the savings in decopration and hiding ugly rads, and fettling all that
pipework in.

This is new build price of course. Retrofitting is VERY expensive.




I do know that UFH would be the ideal way to heat my large open areas
but the points I make above lead me to look for the best alternative.

I am going to look into the idea of using fan convection rads instead
of normal rads. Does anyone have any experience using these?


Yes. Have these as well. They are 2nd best IMHO. Radioators are teh
worst way to heat a house. Apart from a single open fire.



I also like the idea of the duct in the ceiling taking the heat to the
floor level - can this be used in a room with an open fire?



I hav UFH with teh open fores. Its not a good idea to introduce strong
draughts in rooms with open fires.


Thanks for your help so far,
Dermot.

"Dermot O'Loughlin" wrote in message
om...
The reason I am not inclined to go for underfloor heating is that
after talking to some friends who have recently installed it I made
the following observations:

1) It is very unresponsive. In our climate it can be quite mild during
the day but chilly at night. If I went for UFH I wouldn't have the
option of responsive heating.

2) Timber floors - I've been advised that UFH does not work well with
timber floors. I prefer timber floors in my living area, dining area
and hall as I feel it makes a room look cosier than using tiles.

3) Expense - it is cheaper to install a heating system using rads.

I do know that UFH would be the ideal way to heat my large open areas
but the points I make above lead me to look for the best alternative.

I am going to look into the idea of using fan convection rads instead
of normal rads. Does anyone have any experience using these?

I also like the idea of the duct in the ceiling taking the heat to the
floor level - can this be used in a room with an open fire?

Yes, no problems, as it is just moving air from top to bottom.

Have you considered forced air, heat recovery and vent? These are very
responsive. A copper coil heater battery may be installed in the ductwork
heated by a gas or oil boiler. As you doing major work, the ductwork could
be integrated inside walls and floors.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

UFH does not promote heat low down. Hot air rises. When the heat
emitter is
the floor, when the hot air moves from the emitter to the top of the
room it
passes you, heating you along the way.

Well, experience shows that it may not heat low down, but it does
eliminate a cold layer near the floor.

With radiators cold air sinks to the floor
and moves across it to the
radiators, gets hot and rises immediately.
So you get localised hot
spots near the rads, and a thermal gradient through
the room and cold feet.

This is why rads are put on the walls with the cold front, and under
windows. Doing this reduces/eliminates the cold floor/cold feet. If a rad
is not fitted under a window, the cold air from the window front drops down
to floor level, across the floor, cooling your feet and reheated by the rad
on the others wall. Putting the rad under the windows prevents this, and
also releases wall space.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Dermot O'Loughlin wrote:

The reason I am not inclined to go for underfloor heating is that
after talking to some friends who have recently installed it I made
the following observations:

1) It is very unresponsive. In our climate it can be quite mild during
the day but chilly at night. If I went for UFH I wouldn't have the
option of responsive heating.


What you find in effect is that the floor being concrete has a huge
mass, and it actually - even without being heated - preserves heat in
the place as the outide temp falls. It doesn't NEED to be responsive.

Quite wrong. In a changable climate UFH requires a decent control system,
otherwise it can be caught out, being either too hot or too cold. One which
anticipates the fall or rise in temperature, as outside weather
compensation, is the best.

I have not come across anyine here who has fitted proper UFH who regrets
it.

I have come across people who hate the system with a vengeance.


3) Expense - it is cheaper to install a heating system using rads.

It isn't.

It is.

I did the sums,

They are wrong.

and teh lengths of plastic pipe were very
similar in proce to radiators. IThe only extra expense was auxilioary
pump, manifold and heat reducing valve -= about 200 squids. But think of
the savings in decopration and hiding ugly rads, and fettling all that
pipework in.

For UFH to operate anywhere near effectively, expensive control systems have
to be used. This ramps up the price considerably. Also skills to maintain
these controls is thin on the ground, and expensive.

I do know that UFH would be the ideal way to heat my large open areas
but the points I make above lead me to look for the best alternative.

I am going to look into the idea of using fan convection rads instead
of normal rads. Does anyone have any experience using these?

Yes. Have these as well. They are 2nd best IMHO. Radioators are teh
worst way to heat a house. Apart from a single open fire.

I also like the idea of the duct in the ceiling taking the heat to the
floor level - can this be used in a room with an open fire?

I hav UFH with teh open fores. Its not a good idea to introduce strong
draughts in rooms with open fires.


Thanks for your help so far,
Dermot.

Quite wrong. In a changable climate UFH requires a decent control system,
otherwise it can be caught out, being either too hot or too cold. One which
anticipates the fall or rise in temperature, as outside weather
compensation, is the best.

This would reflect the information given to me by a friend who has
recently built a house and installed UFH. She said that if given the
option again she would go for rads. The point she made was that it was
too hard to control. She said on an average day in spring or autumn
she would need no heating during the day but would like to turn it on
as required - in the evening time or at night. She said the lack of
responsiveness of the UFH meant that she always needs to plan ahead -
she could get caught out too easily having the house too hot or too
cold. Maybe it's because she does not have the correct controls to
effectivly manage the system.

I am just coming to the conclusion that our climate does not really
suit UFH. We have a long winters but in the main they are fairly mild
- rarely do we get extended cold snaps that may require a heating
system that does not need to be responsive.

"Dermot O'Loughlin" wrote in message
om...

Quite wrong. In a changable climate UFH requires a decent control
system,
otherwise it can be caught out, being either too hot or too cold. One
which
anticipates the fall or rise in temperature, as outside weather
compensation, is the best.

This would reflect the information given to me by a friend who has
recently built a house and installed UFH. She said that if given the
option again she would go for rads. The point she made was that it was
too hard to control. She said on an average day in spring or autumn
she would need no heating during the day but would like to turn it on
as required - in the evening time or at night. She said the lack of
responsiveness of the UFH meant that she always needs to plan ahead -
she could get caught out too easily having the house too hot or too
cold. Maybe it's because she does not have the correct controls to
effectivly manage the system.

I am just coming to the conclusion that our climate does not really
suit UFH. We have a long winters but in the main they are fairly mild
- rarely do we get extended cold snaps that may require a heating
system that does not need to be responsive.

Your assessment is pretty correct. Although UFH can run quite well with
appropriate controls. It also has to be designed and installed correctly
too. If this is wrong it is irreversible. All the control in the world will
not put it right.

I would advise your friend to have someone advise having some extra controls
on her system, preferable with outside weather compensation. It will not be
cheap, but in her case necessary.

Quite wrong. In a changable climate UFH requires a decent control system,
otherwise it can be caught out, being either too hot or too cold. One which
anticipates the fall or rise in temperature, as outside weather
compensation, is the best.

This would reflect the informaion given to me by a friend who has
recently built a new house and installed UFH. She says that if given
the choice again she would choose rads - with our climate she finds
that on many days throughout the year she would not require any
heating during the day. She would just like to turn it on as required
- in the evening time or at night. She finds the lack of
responsiveness of UFH a problem and that she needs to try to plan
ahead. She also finds it difficult to control - it can either be too
hot or too cold.

Does our climate really make UFH a viable option? I'm coming to the
opinion that it may not - ok we have a long winter but it is often a
mild one and certainly a changable one.

"Dermot O'Loughlin" wrote in message
om...

Does our climate really make UFH a viable option? I'm coming to the
opinion that it may not - ok we have a long winter but it is often a
mild one and certainly a changable one.

You mentioned having a solid fuel heater, which is the
traditional method of heating UK homes, but does not
seem obviously responsive.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote
| I agree that with older style poorly insultaed houses its a bad
| thing - these lose heat VERY rapidly at sunset - bu iof you have
| teh internal mass and decent insulation, you already HAVE an
| 'unresponsive' house. ...
| If you want a more 'responsive' system fit pipes in an airgap
| below a timber floor directly over insulation.

Alternatively have some additional fast response heating such as blown air
(which will make a noise but might only need 20 minutes running to give a
quick 'boost').

A fairly typical compromise is to have ground floor UFH for gentle heat
throughout the day, and rads in the bedrooms for faster response to take the
chill off late evenings/early mornings whilst dressing/undressing.

| 3) Expense - it is cheaper to install a heating system using rads.
| It isn't. I did the sums, and teh lengths of plastic pipe were very
| similar in proce to radiators. IThe only extra expense was auxilioary
| pump, manifold and heat reducing valve -= about 200 squids. But think of
| the savings in decopration and hiding ugly rads, and fettling all that
| pipework in.

Especially with a top-of-the-range property where standard radiators are
likely to be aesthetically undesirable, and designer radiators can be *very*
expensive.

Owain

You mentioned having a solid fuel heater, which is the
traditional method of heating UK homes, but does not
seem obviously responsive.

I'd have a combination of solid fuel and oil. The oil would get things
going fairly quickly and could be set to come on in the early mornings
when solid fuel would not be an option. I'd use solid fuel during the
day.

Dermot O'Loughlin wrote:
Someone wrote:
Quite wrong. In a changable climate UFH requires a decent
control system, otherwise it can be caught out, being either
too hot or too cold.

This would reflect the informaion given to me by a friend who has
recently built a new house and installed UFH. She says that if
given the choice again she would choose rads - with our climate
she finds that on many days throughout the year she would not
require any heating during the day. She would just like to turn
it on as required [ snip ]
Does our climate really make UFH a viable option? I'm coming to
the opinion that it may not - ok we have a long winter but it is
often a mild one and certainly a changable one.

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


J.B.

"Jerry Built" ] wrote in message
news:B4GBMAGLCDLZIGDWMHCJLUFYAHAGLYP0L4JUB2GE@zipl ip.com...
Dermot O'Loughlin wrote:
Someone wrote:
Quite wrong. In a changable climate UFH requires a decent
control system, otherwise it can be caught out, being either
too hot or too cold.

This would reflect the informaion given to me by a friend who has
recently built a new house and installed UFH. She says that if
given the choice again she would choose rads - with our climate
she finds that on many days throughout the year she would not
require any heating during the day. She would just like to turn
it on as required [ snip ]
Does our climate really make UFH a viable option? I'm coming to
the opinion that it may not - ok we have a long winter but it is
often a mild one and certainly a changable one.

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

I've got it in my kitchen (hardly the most demanding area, I know) and it
just makes the space comfortable: not too warm, not too cold (except when we
had bitterly cold weather a few months ago). From what I hear most people
who have it love it, and it seems to be the system of choice for large
spaces because it heats the occupants rather than the air. However I think
control systems have to be different for it, partly because of typical UFH
systems' long warm-up and cool-down times, and partly because systems based
on room thermostats sensing the air temperature probably won't get a good
measure of the comfort of the room. From what I remember hearing in other
discussions in this group feed-forward systems which adjust the heat input
to the system in response to outside temperatures are particularly good for
UFH.

Jerry Built wrote:


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


patently, you never have.

John Stumbles wrote:

From what I hear most people
who have it love it, and it seems to be the system of choice for large
spaces because it heats the occupants rather than the air. However I think
control systems have to be different for it, partly because of typical UFH
systems' long warm-up and cool-down times, and partly because systems based
on room thermostats sensing the air temperature probably won't get a good
measure of the comfort of the room.


50% right. You need to bring it on typically a vouple of hours before
you would a conventional system, but simple temp monitoring workes prtty
well for me. Teh feed forward is just a differentail applied so that te
heating firtes up a bit when it senses a falling temperature coming
towards the required temp. Its a bit of a nicety and not really necessary.


From what I remember hearing in other
discussions in this group feed-forward systems which adjust the heat input
to the system in response to outside temperatures are particularly good for
UFH.


Possibly, BUT with decent isulation its really not necressary. maybe it
koncks a percent or two off teh heating bill.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
John Stumbles wrote:

From what I hear most people
who have it love it, and it seems to be the system of choice for large
spaces because it heats the occupants rather than the air. However I
think
control systems have to be different for it, partly because of typical
UFH
systems' long warm-up and cool-down times, and partly because systems
based
on room thermostats sensing the air temperature probably won't get a
good
measure of the comfort of the room.


50% right. You need to bring it on typically a vouple of hours before
you would a conventional system, but simple temp monitoring workes prtty
well for me. Teh feed forward is just a differentail applied so that te
heating firtes up a bit when it senses a falling temperature coming
towards the required temp. Its a bit of a nicety and not really necessary.

You know nothing of CH control, especially UFH control.

From what I remember hearing in other
discussions in this group feed-forward systems
which adjust the heat input to the system in
response to outside temperatures are particularly good for
UFH.

Possibly,

Most certainly, in a changeable climate like the UK.

BUT with decent isulation its really
not necressary. maybe it
koncks a percent or two off teh heating bill.

With decent insulation, and a house that is reasonably well air-tight with
good insulated windows (low "e" or triple glazed), you don't need UFH at
all. A couple of fan Mysons can bring the house up to temp very quickly and
incidental gains will keep it ticking over.

"Jerry Built" ] wrote in message
news:B4GBMAGLCDLZIGDWMHCJLUFYAHAGLYP0L4JUB2GE@zipl ip.com

I'm just wondering why you use the newsreader you do to spread the
threads that you reply to all over the group.




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

IMM wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

John Stumbles wrote:


From what I hear most people
who have it love it, and it seems to be the system of choice for large
spaces because it heats the occupants rather than the air. However I

think

control systems have to be different for it, partly because of typical

UFH

systems' long warm-up and cool-down times, and partly because systems

based

on room thermostats sensing the air temperature probably won't get a

good

measure of the comfort of the room.


50% right. You need to bring it on typically a vouple of hours before
you would a conventional system, but simple temp monitoring workes prtty
well for me. Teh feed forward is just a differentail applied so that te
heating firtes up a bit when it senses a falling temperature coming
towards the required temp. Its a bit of a nicety and not really necessary.


You know nothing of CH control, especially UFH control.



Posssibly not, Eliza. But I have been running it successefully for 2
years, and the above is what I have found in practice.

But don';t let practical excpernec get in teh way of glossy brcxhures
and teh Bunper Book of How Things Work.



From what I remember hearing in other
discussions in this group feed-forward systems
which adjust the heat input to the system in
response to outside temperatures are particularly good for
UFH.

Possibly,


Most certainly, in a changeable climate like the UK.


BUT with decent isulation its really
not necressary. maybe it
koncks a percent or two off teh heating bill.


With decent insulation, and a house that is reasonably well air-tight with
good insulated windows (low "e" or triple glazed), you don't need UFH at
all. A couple of fan Mysons can bring the house up to temp very quickly and
incidental gains will keep it ticking over.




yeaj, right.

On Sun, 09 May 2004 09:43:59 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

IMM wrote:


With decent insulation, and a house that is reasonably well air-tight with
good insulated windows (low "e" or triple glazed), you don't need UFH at
all. A couple of fan Mysons can bring the house up to temp very quickly and
incidental gains will keep it ticking over.




yeaj, right.



No he's right. As long as you hermetically seal the house, and use
enough insulation to fill everything apart from a small space in the
centre where you can stand, then this should be more than
enough........

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

John Stumbles wrote:


From what I hear most people
who have it love it, and it seems to be the system of choice for large
spaces because it heats the occupants rather than the air. However I
think control systems have to be different for it, partly because of
typical

UFH

systems' long warm-up and cool-down times, and partly because systems

based

on room thermostats sensing the air temperature probably won't get a
good measure of the comfort of the room.

50% right. You need to bring it on typically a vouple of hours before
you would a conventional system, but simple temp monitoring workes prtty
well for me. Teh feed forward is just a differentail applied so that te
heating firtes up a bit when it senses a falling temperature coming
towards the required temp. Its a bit of a nicety and not really
necessary.

You know nothing of CH control, especially UFH control.

Posssibly not,

Certainly not.

But I have been running it successefully for 2
years, and the above is what I have found in practice.

More luck than design.

But don';t let practical excpernec get in teh way of glossy brcxhures
and teh Bunper Book of How Things Work.

Exactly. Keep away from them.

From what I remember hearing in other
discussions in this group feed-forward systems
which adjust the heat input to the system in
response to outside temperatures are particularly good for
UFH.

Possibly,

Most certainly, in a changeable climate like the UK.

BUT with decent isulation its really
not necressary. maybe it
koncks a percent or two off teh heating bill.

With decent insulation, and a house that is reasonably well air-tight
with
good insulated windows (low "e" or triple glazed), you don't need UFH at
all. A couple of fan Mysons can bring the house up to temp very quickly
and
incidental gains will keep it ticking over.

yeaj, right.

Good, you are learning.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 09 May 2004 09:43:59 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

IMM wrote:


With decent insulation, and a house that is reasonably well air-tight
with
good insulated windows (low "e" or triple glazed), you don't need UFH
at
all. A couple of fan Mysons can bring the house up to temp very quickly
and
incidental gains will keep it ticking over.




yeaj, right.



No he's right. As long as you hermetically seal the house, and use
enough insulation

You are getting it. Look at the Canadian R200 standard. Regularly
implemented in Canada and all over the world. They achieve air-tightness no
one in the UK can. You are used to bad design and construction and think it
the norm. Sad really.

On Sun, 9 May 2004 11:03:39 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

They achieve air-tightness no
one in the UK can.

I prefer to open the window rather than live in a hermetically sealed
box.......
..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 May 2004 11:03:39 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

They achieve air-tightness no
one in the UK can.

I prefer to open the window rather than live in a hermetically sealed
box.......

You didn't look at the spec did you? They have heat recovery and vent,
which is a better than opening windows, especially in sarf Lahdan or the
towns around it. All those burglars waiting to climb in. Heat recovery and
vent give a permanent fresh feel to a house.

IMM wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 9 May 2004 11:03:39 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


They achieve air-tightness no
one in the UK can.

I prefer to open the window rather than live in a hermetically sealed
box.......


You didn't look at the spec did you? They have heat recovery and vent,
which is a better than opening windows, especially in sarf Lahdan or the
towns around it. All those burglars waiting to climb in. Heat recovery and
vent give a permanent fresh feel to a house.





teah, and teh capital cots of all that exceeds my annual oil bill by a
factor of 100...not to mention the energy used in making it all...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 9 May 2004 11:03:39 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


They achieve air-tightness no
one in the UK can.

I prefer to open the window rather than live in a hermetically sealed
box.......


You didn't look at the spec did you? They have heat recovery and vent,
which is a better than opening windows, especially in sarf Lahdan or the
towns around it. All those burglars waiting to climb in. Heat recovery
and
vent give a permanent fresh feel to a house.

teah, and teh capital cots of all that exceeds my annual oil bill by a
factor of 100

You need to look again.

On Sun, 9 May 2004 07:49:54 +0000 (UTC), in uk.d-i-y "Michael Mcneil"
strung together this:

"Jerry Built" ] wrote in message
news:B4GBMAGLCDLZIGDWMHCJLUFYAHAGLYP0L4JUB2GE@zip lip.com

I'm just wondering why you use the newsreader you do to spread the
threads that you reply to all over the group.

He works for MI5 or something, apparently he wants to retain a certain
air of anonomoninity, or somesuch lamearsed excuse.
--

SJW
A.C.S. Ltd.

On Sun, 9 May 2004 11:27:32 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 9 May 2004 11:03:39 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

They achieve air-tightness no
one in the UK can.

I prefer to open the window rather than live in a hermetically sealed
box.......

You didn't look at the spec did you? They have heat recovery and vent,
which is a better than opening windows, especially in sarf Lahdan or the
towns around it. All those burglars waiting to climb in. Heat recovery and
vent give a permanent fresh feel to a house.


I don't need to look at the spec. I simply want to open the window
when I want fresh air. What do you find difficult about that
concept?





..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 May 2004 11:27:32 +0100, "IMM" wrote:
"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 9 May 2004 11:03:39 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

They achieve air-tightness no
one in the UK can.

I prefer to open the window rather than live in a hermetically sealed
box.......

You didn't look at the spec did you? They have heat recovery and vent,
which is a better than opening windows, especially in sarf Lahdan or the
towns around it. All those burglars waiting to climb in. Heat recovery
and
vent give a permanent fresh feel to a house.


I don't need to look at the spec. I simply want to open the window
when I want fresh air. What do you find difficult about that
concept?


I think he is trying to say (but not succeeding as usual) that you would not
need to open the window, unless you want to, there is a difference between
wanting to open a window and being forced to open a window - would you
really want to open a window if there was a force 9 gale blowing towards it
?...

In article lgate.org,
"Michael Mcneil" writes:
"Jerry Built" ] wrote in message
news:B4GBMAGLCDLZIGDWMHCJLUFYAHAGLYP0L4JUB2GE@zipl ip.com

I'm just wondering why you use the newsreader you do to spread the
threads that you reply to all over the group.

I'm just wondering why you use the newsreader you do that can't work
out it's part of the same thread ;-)

Actually, looks like he's using a mail-to-news gateway, and something
(that gateway or his mail client or whatever converts news into mail
for him in the first place) is losing or failing to create the References
(or In-reply-to whilst it's mail) headers.

--
Andrew Gabriel
Consultant Software Engineer

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 May 2004 11:27:32 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 9 May 2004 11:03:39 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

They achieve air-tightness no
one in the UK can.

I prefer to open the window rather than live in a hermetically sealed
box.......

You didn't look at the spec did you? They have heat recovery and vent,
which is a better than opening windows, especially in sarf Lahdan or the
towns around it. All those burglars waiting to climb in. Heat recovery
and
vent give a permanent fresh feel to a house.


I don't need to look at the spec. I simply want to open the window
when I want fresh air. What do you find difficult about that
concept?

You can do that with an air-tight house too. But allow all those Sarf
Lahdan scallies in the windows? You must be joking.

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
{threading issues }
Actually, looks like he's using a mail-to-news gateway, and
something (that gateway or his mail client or whatever converts
news into mail for him in the first place) is losing or failing
to create the References (or In-reply-to whilst it's mail)
headers.

It may be the MIT M2N g/way. I'll ask.


J.B.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Jerry Built wrote:
I hate UFH. It is horrible. Ghastly. I would not like t
live in a house which has it.

patently, you never have.

Is that one of your past-times, then - "statin' the bleedin'
obvious" ?


J.B.

Jerry Built wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Jerry Built wrote:

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


patently, you never have.


Is that one of your past-times, then - "statin' the bleedin'
obvious" ?



No, but one of my pastimes, which I have indulged since times past - or
in and from past times, is correcting other peoples extraordinary grammar.

:-)

I MIGHT have allowed 'pass-times' as an anachronism, but never past-times.

So: We establish that despite never having lived in a house with UFH,
long enough to critically assess it, you maintain a strong prejudice
against it, and your grammar sucks.

Any other interesting snippets you would like to share with the
assembled company? Before we pass on to more amusing topics?




J.B.