ᐅ Who should you entrust with the room-by-room heating load calculation?

As mentioned, the efficiency loss is significantly greater.
If you downplay the pump costs that much, then according to your argument it makes even less sense to forgo modulation.

Additionally, cycling reduces the lifespan of the heat pump.

Pinky0301 schrieb:

Oh dear, here’s another topic I need to read up on... Thanks @hegi___! I will consult the energy advisor. Of course, we could go larger than 10cm (15cm), but I thought that would be too big anyway. Intermediate steps are unfortunately not possible. That’s probably the compromise you have to make with a low installation height.

Why shouldn’t you be able to achieve a low installation height with a stapling solution as well?

hegi___ schrieb:

As I said, the efficiency loss is significantly greater.
If you downplay the pump costs this much, then according to your argument it makes even less sense to give up modulation.

Also, cycling reduces the lifespan of the heat pump.

Why shouldn’t you be able to achieve a low installation height with a stapler solution as well?

I downplay them because 16 hours per day is nonsense, even for modulating, generally long-running heat pumps.

Yes, cycling reduces the lifespan. But when does a heat pump cycle in a harmful way? 3, 5, 50, 200 cycles a day?
It is said that the compressor is designed for 100,000 starts. Over 25 years of use, that equals about 11 cycles per day.
People who really report cycling heat pumps in forums sometimes have over 100 cycles per day. That is unfortunate.
But heating 3-4 times plus twice for domestic hot water per day is far from a problematic situation regarding durability.

So let’s keep things realistic.
What you say is certainly correct in theory, but the impact is not significant.

Anyone following heat pump threads here and reading my posts knows that I am not a fan of this “just keep it warm” industry, and yes, there are some rules to follow.

But this obsession with optimization down to the last fraction of a percent is no longer reasonable. The economic viability is hard to prove, and it also makes it impossible for the installing craftsmen to deliver this level of excellence. Because all those great calculations are based on many parameters and assumptions that don’t always align with reality. And then the informed homeowner stands there demanding guarantees because the circulation pump shows 0.1 l/min (0.03 gal/min) too little flow.

To each their own hobby, but a little less dramatization would really help. It only causes uncertainty.

Do you remember the report about the craftsman from Bavaria who no longer wants to work for Audi engineers?
The discussions about heat pumps here tend to head strongly in that direction.

The retrofit solution is approximately 1cm high (plus a thin layer of leveling compound). So far, I haven't seen any staple fastening system that can achieve this.

guckuck2 schrieb:

I minimize it because 16 hours per day is nonsense, even for modulating heat pumps that tend to run longer cycles.

Yes, cycling reduces the lifespan. But when does a heat pump cycle in a harmful way? 3, 5, 50, or 200 cycles per day?
You read that the compressor is designed for 100,000 starts. With 25 years of use, that corresponds to 11 cycles per day.
People who report _really_ cycling heat pumps in forums sometimes experience over 100 cycles per day. That’s problematic.
But heating 3-4 times plus two times for domestic hot water per day is far from a problematic situation regarding durability.

So, let’s keep things in perspective.
What you say is theoretically correct, but the impact is not significant.

Anyone following heat pump threads here and reading my posts knows that I am truly not a fan of the “main thing is warm” industry, and yes, there are a few rules to follow.

But this obsession with optimization down to the last fraction of a percent is no longer reasonable. The economic feasibility is hard to prove, and it also makes it impossible for the contractor to guarantee this level of excellence. Because all these great calculations are based on many parameters and assumptions that don’t always reflect reality. And then the well-informed homeowner stands next to them wanting warranty because the Taco shows 0.1 l/min (0.03 gal/min) too little flow.

Everyone has their hobby, but a little less drama would really be helpful. It only causes uncertainty.

Do you remember the report about the craftsman in Bavaria who no longer wants to serve Audi engineers?
The discussions about heat pumps here and especially in the well-known technical forum are trending heavily in that direction.

Regarding pump power and the last fraction of a percent, you can debate, but if temperatures and device capacity are too high, you do notice a significant difference in operating and acquisition costs.

Everyone can decide for themselves whether they want to have poor installations done by companies that have no idea.

In this case, I would even be grateful to know which company to avoid if I were a customer.

Pinky0301 schrieb:

The retrofit solution is about 1cm (0.4 inches) high (plus a thin layer of leveling compound). I haven’t seen any staple fastening system that can handle that.

Okay, that is really very flat.

But you do know that the costs for retrofitting a floor heating system are eligible for BAFA funding / energy efficiency incentives?

hegi___ schrieb:

In this case, I would even be grateful to know which company to avoid if I were a customer.

If only we knew that beforehand. There are certainly heating engineers who do the job very thoroughly (with room-by-room heat load calculations), but you first have to find one, and they also need to be relatively nearby.