christina86 wrote:
unlike you, indeed, at home where I disabled the probe because of inertia, I do not have a window to the south.
By cons in the workshop where I have large solar gain and less inertia (heated walls on ITI), I have the probe, but in case of great sun I prefer to put on reduced (compensation 0, it serves me remote control in fact), which prevents me the cut up to 1 ° under T required room and the big delay to go back that I found frankly uncomfortable.
This is exactly why I say that we must be careful not to think that the way in which we each proceed is "the" and "the only" solution ... A kind of "single thought".
I didn't write anything else. And nothing wanted to "demonstrate" else ...
My way of proceeding, which is contrary to what Dirk had said, suits me. And hire me alone. Besides the relative "bioclimatism" of my house, I am not afraid either at the idea of putting a blanket around my legs if I remain "wedged" on the sofa in front of the TV ... Nothing shocking about that, because I remember my youth when there was only the stove and the wood stove ... When I returned to my room, there was often ice in the window, interior side ... So yes, it is also necessary to integrate
the level of requirement of each in the setting we adopt ... On the other hand, I am quite obsessed with wasting energy [remember my remark on drawing off hot DHW just to brush your teeth ...]. Same here, if I cancel the action of the probe. Solar gains are not "valued". The boiler continues as if it did not exist. The living room is overheated in the afternoon. And in the evening it does more than good (because there are still effects of overheating). I prefer to limit the overheating, to relieve the boiler and in the evening possibly to be "a little tight" ... What I called a "compromise". I believe this corresponds to coeff 4 for my probe.