Henry Frye wrote...
>>Here in New England, it's gets cold. I am going to use a wood stove
>>to
>>heat the shop, and I am seriously considering putting some sort of
>>radiant heat in the floor.
Jack Brooks replied...
>I don't have a lot of experience with floor radiant heat but it would
>seem that, assuming a concrete floor, you would waste a lot of energy
>unless you kept the heat on all of the time. The heat up/cool down
>periods would be very slow and energy wasteful.
In brief, the idea that heating up and cooling down is less energy-efficient
than leaving a building at one constant (comfortable) temperature is just not
correct. Heat loss increases with increasing disparity between indoor and
outdoor temperatures.
If that's hard to understand, consider a bucket with a 1 gallon per hour
leak. If you keep the bucket nearly full, you lose one gallon every hour, or
24 gallons per day. If you really only need water in the bucket for 2 hours
per day, and you only fill it up when you need it, you only lose the 2
gallons which leak while you're using the bucket, plus the gallon that's in
there when you finish (which leaks out before you return the next day). 3
gallons total daily loss by filling the bucket only when you need it (2
hours), versus 24 gallons total daily loss keeping the bucket full all the
time.
>I have seen several TV shows talk about plastic piping in the
>concrete being the optimum, as it is relatively permanent, but I don't
>recall what type of plastic.
Plastic is flexible, but a poorer heat conductor than copper. Radiant
heating now is installed with plastic tubing, but it heats more slowly --
thus you need a bit more length to heat the same area as compared with
copper. Plastic is definitely less expensive to manufacture, however.
>Reputable contractors and/or hot water heating equipment suppliers should
>have your answers.
Good idea!!!
-Karl
|