I have a Potterton Suprema 50. I'm trying to save money by setting my boiler thermostat to minimum and turning down the radiators to half-maximum. My aim is to have a house temperature which is lower than the minimum thermostat temperature. I've read that this is supposed to work. Can someone please explain this apparent contradiction to me?
On the one hand it makes sense because the radiators and hence the house are cooler so there must be less heat generated which means the boiler isn't working so hard.
On the other hand if the thermostat is set to a certain temperature won't the boiler just stay on until it detects that temperature has been reached irrespective of the radiator settings? If the temperature is never reached because of the low radiator settings then won't the boiler stay on all the time? And if it stays on all the time then where does that extra heat energy go if not to the radiators? Also, if the boiler is on all the time the price will be higher than if I'd set the radiators to max.
I'm confused!
On the one hand it makes sense because the radiators and hence the house are cooler so there must be less heat generated which means the boiler isn't working so hard.
On the other hand if the thermostat is set to a certain temperature won't the boiler just stay on until it detects that temperature has been reached irrespective of the radiator settings? If the temperature is never reached because of the low radiator settings then won't the boiler stay on all the time? And if it stays on all the time then where does that extra heat energy go if not to the radiators? Also, if the boiler is on all the time the price will be higher than if I'd set the radiators to max.
I'm confused!