Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Removing Room Thermostat

364 views
Skip to first unread message

Terence McManus

unread,
Mar 7, 2003, 7:06:24 AM3/7/03
to
I want to remove a wall thermostat, now that I have installed thermostatic
valves on the radiators.

There are two sets of wires (both Red, Black & Green) going into and out of
the thermostat.

At the risk of asking a trivial quaestion, can someone confirm that it's
simply a matter of joining like coloured wires together


Nick Nelson

unread,
Mar 7, 2003, 7:44:27 AM3/7/03
to

I'm sure the heating experts will be around soon with a definative
answer,
but it seems to me that this is neither simple or trivial.

If there is no thermostat at all, then either the boiler will think the
whole house is warm enough and never fire up, or will think the house
is never warm enough and cycle continuously.

It may depend on the boiler though.

Nick

Snowman

unread,
Mar 7, 2003, 8:00:37 AM3/7/03
to

"Nick Nelson" <nick....@man.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3E68942B...@man.ac.uk...

Quite simply - the thermostat is a switch, switching the pump on and off to
circulate water round the radiators. If you connect the wires together, then
it will be always on, therefore always pumping.

Doesn't sound a good plan to me.


Velvet

unread,
Mar 7, 2003, 8:11:27 AM3/7/03
to

"Snowman" <pwc@some_ISP_or_other.com> wrote in message
news:VJ0aa.15801$EN3.1...@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...

Yup, I agree. Leave the thermostat in, it's the only way the boiler knows
when it needs to be on or off. Like has been said, if you have the boiler
running all the time, you'll find the rads all close down, leading to boiler
cycling through the bypass valve (hope you've got one of these!) and wasting
loads of energy just pumping out heat to keep that little circuit up to
temp, and a VERY warm area wherever the boiler is... or the boiler won't
fire at all, and you'll not have any heating at all, whatsoever, regardless
of the state of the radiators valves.

Personally, I'd leave the thermostat alone.

Velvet


The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Mar 7, 2003, 8:47:28 AM3/7/03
to
Nick Nelson wrote:


The latter with most thermostats. They break at the temp indicated.

I solved this problem on my old house by simply whacking the thermo up to flat out.


But joining up the wires should work.

I dont have a radiator thermo in the new house - the pump runs all the
time and the TRV's take care of the rest - there is always a path for
flow though as some rads are in fact water based fan heaters whose fans
get cycled by local thermostats.

You need to leave something that isn't gonnna shut off and stall the
pump - towel rail is best.

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Mar 7, 2003, 8:48:54 AM3/7/03
to
Velvet wrote:


Not true. The boiler will shut down once the return temp of the water is
at the boiler temp setting.

Only the pump runs continously.

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Mar 7, 2003, 8:49:35 AM3/7/03
to
Snowman wrote:


Works fine as long as there is a path for the water to take.


>
>


Velvet

unread,
Mar 7, 2003, 8:59:37 AM3/7/03
to

"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:3E68A346.3090708@b.c...

Yes, but who wants a small circuit and the boiler to be continuously up to
temperature, eh? Bit of a waste of money, IMO.

Velvet


Christian McArdle

unread,
Mar 7, 2003, 10:02:02 AM3/7/03
to
>I want to remove a wall thermostat, now that I have installed thermostatic
>valves on the radiators.

Removing the only room thermostat would be a breach of building regulations,
even with TRVs installed. It is likely to make the entire system very
inefficient, which is why it is illegal to remove it.

The thermostatic control of radiators is required to be "interlocked" with
the boiler. Basically, this means that the boiler must be turned off when
there is no heat requirement. TRVs alone do not accomplish this.

I believe an alternative is to use some sort of automatic bypass system that
senses when the radiators are all shut off and switches off the boiler. I
may be mistaken, though.

Christian.


Andrew Gabriel

unread,
Mar 7, 2003, 12:28:24 PM3/7/03
to
In article <3e68b44b$0$239$ed9e...@reading.news.pipex.net>,

"Christian McArdle" <cmcar...@nospam.yahooxxxx.co.uk> writes:
>
> Removing the only room thermostat would be a breach of building regulations,
> even with TRVs installed. It is likely to make the entire system very
> inefficient, which is why it is illegal to remove it.
>
> The thermostatic control of radiators is required to be "interlocked" with
> the boiler. Basically, this means that the boiler must be turned off when
> there is no heat requirement. TRVs alone do not accomplish this.
>
> I believe an alternative is to use some sort of automatic bypass system that
> senses when the radiators are all shut off and switches off the boiler. I
> may be mistaken, though.

Another way is not to use thermostatic valves in the room with
the thermostat (or if already fitted, set them to max) and
continue using the thermostat. Ideally, you want this room to
heat up slightly slower than the others so the thermostat is
unlikely to cut out before the thermostatic valves in the other
rooms. You could do this by slightly undersizing the radiator in
than room relative to the others, or if already fitted, slightly
reduce the flow in that radiator using the stop valve, which will
slightly drop its average temperature. However, don't bother doing
this unless you find the thermostat is cutting out before other
rooms have warmed up, as it might happen to already be the case
that room takes longest to get up to temperature.

--
Andrew Gabriel

0 new messages