ᐅ Underfloor Heating Beneath Wood Plank Flooring

Caspar2020 schrieb:
Concealed screws in the tongue at a 45-degree angle. There are special ones available that include a drill tip. For example, Assy-Plus floorboard screws

Makes sense. Fine.

I'll throw something out there...

You don’t want radiators, prefer real wood floorboards, and enjoy comfortable radiant heat? Just google skirting board heating; it’s affordable and effective.

Do whatever you want, my brother, a master painter by trade, says clearly that plank flooring and engineered wood flooring are energy waste to the third power. The eco-freak lives on wood but just lets the gas rush through the burner and CO2 into the air, yet we have wood, not PVC, in the house. Hypocrisy.

It is feasible, as many have already described here, but it is not practical, because the operating costs will (to put it exaggeratively) be comparable to those of an old building.

Nordlys schrieb:
Do whatever you want, my brother, a master craftsman painter, clearly says that floorboards and underfloor heating are energy waste cubed.

Sure, the same efficiency as glued tiles will not be achieved with a 20mm (0.8 inch) solid wood floor over underfloor heating. Glued engineered wood flooring doesn’t either, due to the material itself.
But “cubed” sounds like several orders of magnitude difference. I can’t see that with the latest designs. If done well, the biggest loss is material-related (wood is simply not a very good heat conductor). Whether glued or not doesn’t change much at first.

I don’t see where that energy waste is supposed to come from. The challenge is purely technical: the insulation surrounding the heating pipes must be properly installed, and the contact from below to the floorboards (or heat transfer plates) has to fit snugly all the way through.
If that’s done, it works—why wouldn’t it?

I can’t think of any physical reason otherwise. If master craftsmen fail to do it expertly and the loss is caused by that, poor thermodynamics can’t be blamed...

Mycraft schrieb:
It is feasible, as many have already described here, but it is not practical, because the operating costs will (exaggeratedly speaking) be at the level of an older building.

That is exactly what I expressed much earlier in my message. It is surprising that this has not been understood until now... Meanwhile, it was said that it would be possible / doable. Of course it is. But it is not practical.