This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Underfloor heating is invisible from above and does not use valuable wall space with unsightly heating equipment." The bias in this sentence is a bit extreme, but reflective upon the whole article. It needs to be cleaned up, but I'm not the one to do it (I know nothing of underfloor heating, hence my reading the article) - Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.147.156 ( talk) 04:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This Article is about information but many people delete things that they believe to be spam when it is not. Link should lead to infomation not commercialism. Experts on Radiant Heat should only edit sections not random people who know nothing about it.
Thanks
This article still needs work to reduce commercialism ...
129.237.114.171
20:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of neutral tone...
The whole section titled "Environmental issues of electric heating systems" says more to me about someone's prejudice against electric power than anything about underfloor heating. That "most electric underfloor heating is not considered environmentally friendly" is someone's opinion stated in passive voice. Not to mention that "environmentally friendly" is itself a vague quality to be judged. The overall efficiency of electric versus hot water systems will depend on too many factors of the given circumstance for an encyclopedia article to have a judgment. Even for a particular installation, reasonable arguments could be given favoring either one. I suggest the section be scrapped. SandyFace ( talk) 05:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and took it out. It was POV vs. POV with little else, and that's not what this article is about. SandyFace ( talk) 06:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be more info re: ondol in the UFH article than in the ondol article, so maybe it should just be a section of the article and not an article of its own. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.124.29.130 ( talk) 10:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
I don't buy the bit about reduced stack effect due to cooler walls. The stack effect is due to the cumulative weight of the air, and the pressure that weight produces at the bottom of the stack. Outside, with cold air, that pressure is more than inside, with warmer air. It's the total weight of air in the building that matters, not particularly the air against the wall. Ccrrccrr 02:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
The architectural drawing of the HVAC system is very difficult to read, is there any chance that this could be replaced by something that is easire to undestand? The JPEG format makes it quite difficult to discern the text. (edit: Also there appears to be a mouse cursor in the image!) User A1 11:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
[illustrations addded RBean ( talk) 14:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I just deleted this paragraph from the environmental considerations of electric section.
"However, there are a number of systems available in the United States and worldwide that are considered energy efficient, due to the ability to significantly lower thermostat settings, ability to control heating operation through zone heating (only heating occupied rooms), thermostatic control, and low electricity usage. Average energy saved can be up to 40% on these systems, dependent upon proper use."
"that are considered energy efficient" is not meaningful or helpful. Lowering thermostat settings is valid and has been addressed elsewhere in the article. The zone heating advantage is not specific to underfloor--other electric heat options have the same advantage. Same for thermostatic control. "low energy usage" is just a meaningless assertion.
Finally, the 40% savings needs a citation, and a reference point (40% savings compared to what? Compared to heating the room by opening the electric oven door?) Ccrrccrr 01:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I just removed this confused section of the paragraph on infiltration.
Ccrrccrr ( talk) 14:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The Underfloor_heating#Korean_ondol_technology section is under history; I would expect this more detailed info to be in the ondol article directly. Please consider moving detailed information to that article instead. Jodi.a.schneider ( talk) 12:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
HIstory section deleted and replaced with timeline format with citations RBean ( talk) 14:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Editors here, especially those with a commercial interest in radiant floor heating, must be vigilant in maintaining a balanced perspective or refrain from contributing here (see WP:NPOV and WP:COI). The use of studies commissioned by UFH industry to support claims, the unsupported claims, and the general tone (as discussed above) all reflect a bias in favor of this technology. Joja lozzo 18:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Greetings all,
This topic has been significantly modified and edited to address outstanding issues primariliy commercialism, NPOV issues and citations.
Result: WP has removed the article tags - thank you to all for your help.
I have also deleted any concerns of mine however; etiquette prevents deletion of other people’s comments here in the discussion page.
Please take the time to clear out any old stuff (some from 2006 and 07) below that no longer apply.
Thanks Jojalozzo for your tweaks…it’s looking much better.
RBean ( talk) 14:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Acknowledged. Thanks again. RBean ( talk) 20:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I've never seen a more poorly-written article in my life. I'd help, but I have other places to be, so I have taken the liberty of putting the rewrite template on the article. Lockesdonkey ( talk) 22:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
There is the option of rolling back to the old article...Jojalozzo? RBean ( talk) 14:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Help would be nice. RBean ( talk) 20:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll do what I can as well...and will have a look at the link. RBean ( talk) 23:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Well done Jojalozzo...those last edits you did made a big difference. RBean ( talk) 02:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Lockesdonkey, we've performed substantial edits and will continue to polish to WP stds. If you have further editing contributions - we would welcome your help. RBean ( talk) 00:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
RBean: I am fine with more content but you can help by doing additional filtering. Some of the technical details and names of the sources of the information probably should not be part of the main text, e.g. we don't have to say where the info came from when the reference note does that for us. Critical technical details are ok in the main text but as much as possible should be left in the refs themselves and only a summary needs to be in the main text. We should try to balance the need to present sufficient info in the main text with the need to make the article as accessible as possible. Joja lozzo 15:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The image in Description for "Modern factory assembled hydronic control appliance..." is not very clear or informative. It would be better if we could get one with better contrast and with the covers off so we can see a bit of the insides. Joja lozzo 16:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Stand by...I'll see what I can find. RBean ( talk) 21:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Have uploaded two images, one with cover on, another with cover off. If these don't work let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RBean ( talk • contribs) 01:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Nice! (By the way, if you want to indent your responses here use ":" rather than spaces since it looks like the spaces cause your entries to end up in a box. If you like the box, that's fine with me but it's unusual.) :-) Joja lozzo 02:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
"Warm water UFH is 30% more efficient than low temperature radiators with a ground source heat pump, 20% more efficient with an air source heat pump, and 5-15% more efficient than low temp radiators with a condensing boiler, according to a study citation needed 2010}} produced by EU-RAY, the European Radiant Heating & Cooling Association. The study, carried out by Prof. Bjarne Olesen and Dr Michele di Carli of the International Centre for Environment and Energy, used a methodology developed to determine energy use in buildings for the European Directive EPBD. citation needed 2010}} I can't find a reference to this study. Without a citation we should not include these figures. -->"
Just some thoughts for discussion. RBean ( talk) 18:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Are the terms "floor heating" and "underfloor heating" synonymous? Are they preferred in different parts of the world (UK, US, Australia etc.)? This article uses both - which is fine by me. 79.213.78.144 ( talk) 12:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Underfloor heating an underfloor cooling do not belong in the same article. Though a "hydronic radiant heating" article would be even better. The nature of heat is to rise. The nature of cold is to fall. Putting underfloor cooling with underfloor heating (not talking forced air ducting here) is pandering to a certain segment of radiant heat people, those who wish to convince people that in the summertime they can use their hot water pipe heating in the floor to cool their house. It just is not an effective way to cool a hot house. The concept of underfloor heat is a very sound principle, as heat rises. As long as heavy shag carpet is not installed on top of underfloor heat, it is a very sound principle. Underfloor cooling is nonsense, except perhaps in relatively low ceiling concrete multi-story structures, where some cooling can be afforded my the cool concrete comprising the ceiling. But this is an article on underfloor heating and cooling, and if all you have is underfloor cooling and not under-ceiling cooling, it Is nonsense. No appreciable cooling of a building's interior can be accomplished by underfloor cooling unless you are extremely short in your height, or like to lay on the tile floor a lot. It is a selling point used by some unscrupulous folk. Bugatti35racer ( talk) 00:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, the nature of hot air is to rise, since it's less dense than cooler air - radiant heat moves in all directions from the radiator. "Radiant" cooling isn't really radiant; it removes heat by conduction from warmer air touching it. does not need to be in the ceiling, though they are most effective there because they cool the hotter air up there, which falls when cooler. However, even underfloor cooling can remove heat from the room effectively, if not insulated by rugs and furniture, though as I said it's more effective up where the hotter air is. Indeed, a chilled beam does double duty as a radiant heater in the ceiling that's perhaps more effective than a radiant floor (except lacking the warm feet). DocRuby ( talk) 00:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
--
Re: ”pandering to a certain segment of radiant heat people, those who wish to convince people that in the summertime they can use their hot water pipe heating in the floor to cool their house.”
Make note of the list of large scale projects under the heading, “Global examples of large modern buildings using radiant heating and cooling” Radiant cooling is indifferent to project type be it residential, commercial, institutional or industrial. It’s an application of one type of HVAC system and is useful in controlling the mean radiant temperature (MRT’s) in spaces particularly those with high MRT’s due to short wave solar radiation which does not discriminate against building types. This is standard knowledge held by indoor climate engineers and is described in detail in various engineering design manuals including those published by ASHRAE, REHVA and CIBSE.
Re: “It just is not an effective way to cool a hot house.”
Buildings get hot for various reasons but the number one contributor is solar gain. Solar loads are short wave radiation which is effectively handled by cooled surfaces for the purposes of absorbing the solar energy so that it does not get released back into the space as long wave energy. Incident and reflected short wave plus absorbed and reradiated long wave contribute to “hot house”. It is very effective to fight radiant loads with radiant principles rather than convective principles. See research reports by DOE, Davis Energy Group, ASHRAE, REHAV, CIBSE, Fraunhofer, CBE etc. on this topic.
Re: “As long as heavy shag carpet is not installed on top of underfloor heat, it is a very sound principle.”
With the exception of highly polished floors, all other typical floor coverings have high emissivities and absorptivities ergo they make good radiators and absorbers. The conductivity of the floor covering and assembly is a concern for the fluid temperature and tube spacing but not its effectiveness as a radiant surface. See flooring research work by Oklahoma State University on this topic. See ASHRAE Handbooks for radiant design processes.
Re:” No appreciable cooling of a building's interior can be accomplished by underfloor cooling unless you are extremely short in your height, or like to lay on the tile floor a lot.”
Empirical research shows the heat transfer coefficient for a radiant floor cooling system is a nominal 1.1 Btu/hr ft2 F (7 W/m2 K). Research also shows floors typically can be designed to absorb up to 15 Btu/hr ft2 of long wave radiation and an additional 15 to 20 Btu/hr ft2 of short wave radiation. The clothed body transfer between 50% to 60% of its energy via long wave radiation depending on several factor including met rates and air velocity. See ASHRAE, REHVA and CIBSE design guides and handbooks for details.
Re: "Radiant" cooling isn't really radiant; it removes heat by conduction from warmer air touching it.”
The cooled surface absorbs the short and long wave radiation including that radiant energy from the human body regardless of the air contact and temperature. See wiki article on radiant transfer.
Re: “…underfloor cooling can remove heat from the room effectively, if not insulated by rugs…”
See my previous comments on absorptivities, tube spacing and fluid temperatures.
Re: “…more effective up where the hotter air is.”
This is true due to the combined effects of absorptivity and convection for a ceiling heat transfer coefficient of 1.94 Btu/hr ft2 F (11 W/m2 K). Notice the difference between the ceiling and floor coefficients…this difference is due to the convective component but the radiant root of the coefficient will always be a nominal 0.97 Btu/h • ft² •°F (5.5 W/m² K) regardless of a cooled floor or cooled ceiling.
As noted above there is exhaustive quality research on this topic. Many of the noted references in the bibliography address these comments.
RBean ( talk) 06:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I see radiant floor heating has a long history and all things being equal the US installs s/b heavily radiant but I suspect not. Why? What happened after Levittown and the California surge that changed radiant heat to blower forced ductwork heated air? I suspect that our propensity to claim technological achievement when it is actually inserting another layer of profit, and I apologize for the creator having to remove this. Not only do we utilize metal shapers and installers, in conjunction with the furnace manufacturers, but the hidden reason is that we are not educating the people who understand the principals and install. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.50.151.151 ( talk) 19:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Underfloor heating. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Underfloor heating. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Nowhere do I see any mention of the temperature ranges used for different heating systems, or even a general temperature range in which most systems fall. To maintain a room temperature of say 20°C, the heater must be higher, perhaps 25°C? or 30°C? or 35°C?... The article ought to mention this. FreeFlow99 ( talk) 08:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Underfloor heating. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)