Introducing - a public dashboard of heat pump performance

I’d like to add the flow rate to the app, as I have this data. but I don’t see it in the heat pump app config parameters, do I need a different version?
my admin page info says the below (installed today)
Components: Emoncms Core v11.3.0 | App v2.6.10 | Dashboard v2.3.3 | Device v2.2.2 | Graph v2.2.3 | Backup v2.3.2 | DemandShaper v2.2.2 | Postprocess v2.2.7 | Sync v2.1.4 | Usefulscripts v2.3.10 | EmonScripts v1.6.13

One option is to set up an account at (@TrystanLea can sort one out for you) and then sync your heat pump data to that account. This will save you having to expose your personal instance to the web.

I would be cautious about switching off the unit at the isolator, there’s a warning again this in my Samsung heat pump user manual:

Best to keep the isolator switched on to maintain power to the unit and just switch off demand for heating or DHW at the controller if not needed. This will also have the advantage of maintaining the monitoring.

Thanks Glyn. I’ve checked both the Installer and User manuals for my NIBE system and they don’t include a warning such as you have for your Samsung unit, so maybe my system is more tolerant of having the power off. I’ve turned it off for months before with no issues.

For now I’ve switched it back on at the isolator but off on the controller. I’ll keep an eye on the electricity consumption in that mode (but from a quick check it’s back to constantly drawing 45W).

1 Like

yes I did look into that and got as far as registering for an account at I was even prepared to contribute a nominal fixed amount to the run costs. But once I saw it was charged per feed rather than per instance, I baulked. there are quite a lot of feeds needed to do this properly , some of the feeds are purely the results of mathematical operations on other feeds, which is irritating to be charged for, and that number goes up every time another data type is added (RoomT, FlowRate). Given that I’d be contributing my data to the public good out of altruism, and probably all manner of commercial entities will be able to get value out of that data, it rather sticks in the craw to have to pay to be able to contribute it!

I did have a look at those instances on who are using self-hosting, they are all exposing their emoncms login front end, which is one critical vulnerability or brute-force away from trouble on their home networks. I’m not saying that the devs here don’t take care, nor am I saying that those people have set weak passwords, but that is not something I wish to take any risk with at all on my home network, which is why I looked at azure hosting. I was really hoping there’d be a way to just publish the public app, perhaps on a different port.

I regard £1/feed/yr as a good investment if it helps sustain the team at Open Energy Monitor.

And if commercial entities make use of the data to improve the performance of future systems, I would say that’s a win for consumers and the environment.



Not necessarily, if you use the sync module you can just sync the feeds at your need. 6x feeds is the minimum needed for the heatpump dashboard which is £6/yr. However, if you’ve ever purchased anything from the OpenEnergyMonitor store we provide free credit for 20% of every purchase. e.g if you purchased the heat pump monitor bundle from the store, this will give over 10 years of free usage. The £1/feed per year price is set to mostly just to cover the running cost of servers rather than make a big profit.

You could self-host Emoncms in a VM or docker to minimise any security risks, however if correctly setup Emoncms has been extensively tested from a security standpoint.

hi glyn, I’ve had it running as an Add-on on top of my local HA-OS (it worked fine), but I’m not willing to risk opening anything inbound, especially purely to make my data public. My objection on infosec grounds to self hosting emoncms and then making public, is that the emoncms login front end is exposed by this, and that no matter how well implemented and tested, its still a risk that doesn’t need to be there. hope this makes sense.

I don’t mind making a fixed donation to support yourselves, or even paying per instance . I am not trying to say you have to host for free, I’m fully aware that servers cost money. Its the per-feed model that doesn’t seem right, please treat this as constructive feedback. A bit pedantic, but power and energy are treated as two feeds. when they are from the same data. I literally calculate the energy feed from the power feed. Also, there was a note earlier that flow rate has been added to the heatpump app (although I can’t see it) - thats another feed - so to add an extra bit of data useful to the community, the cost goes up again… doesn’t make sense to me.

I’ve not bought anything from the store , as I started my monitoring journey 4 years ago using ESPHOME/ HA, and since installing the heat pump I’m using the Samsung modbus into HA, and a CT clamp for input energy. It made no sense for me to change platforms. I am however about to change my input electrical metering from the CT clamp to an inline meter though (not trusting the numbers from the CT clamp) so I may buy that meter from your store.


A couple of installers using have asked if we can add a visible reference to the installer on the table. HeatGeek has a reference under the location tab, but others such as or are not currently highlighted in the same way.

In my mind, this would be a great way for installers that are going the extra mile to advertise the quality of their installations. The data after all should speak for itself! Is there any objection to adding an Installer column?

The column could be optional. Should it require the installers permission for their name to be listed or is it fine for the customer to choose?


It must be optional to include the installer, ideally the referrer should ask the installer if they have any objection to being included. I wouldn’t expect an installer to object, as inclusion would imply a recommendation - however, they might have reasons for not wanting to be listed, which I think we’re bound to respect. A geographical location (or the area they’re prepared to work) would be useful - and might save unnecessary enquiries.

What happens if someone else uses them as a result of seeing the list and has a bad experience? We hope it never happens, but it could. What do we do then?

I think an optional link to the installer is a great idea. Don’t think it requires their permission. If it is a poorly performing install then that might get them to improve it. I’d also suggest a star rating for the same purpose!

While we’re likely to agree on 1 and 5 stars, your opinion of 2, 3 or 4 out of 5 stars is likely to be different to mine. How do you moderate that? Not that I’m against it, but how do you make it fair and meaningful?

Same as a Google Review - is is my assessment of the quality of the service given and is always subjective.

I think it’s a great way to showcase the installers, it’s a yes from me.

1 Like

Could possibly create a positive feedback. Installer wants to showcase their work, so they install kit so the install can contribute to the dashboard. OEM could possibly advertise their kit to installers rather than just end users.

My view:

  • Yes - let’s add an ‘Installer’ column, which is Optional but would accept a name or logo with a link to the installer’s website
  • I’d expect each customer to Consult or at least Inform their installer but I don’t think we should have the heatpumpmonitor site admins police that
    • The customer is responsible for all the other data and meta-data associated with their entry on the site; why would this be any different
  • We already have the Location of the installation, which gives as clue as to the region the installer covers
    • I’d expect the installer’s website to declare what area they cover, so we don’t need to repeat that

Thinking of this, there are times when a system can be worse performing due to the customer(building already renovated or extra costs) not willing or be able to bring the hydronic system to match the HP output and house needs at a low flow temp.
There is a grey area in between those installers that are not capable/willing to achieve a minimum SCOP and those that can but have to deal with the customer decision of cost vs result.

So I would like to see a note if the system is self installed, professionally installed(a further note that can have more details/review the install)

Like the Samsung 16kW
" Notes: Self-installed system, single circulation loop with 50L volumiser. Radiators in most rooms have been upgraded. Distribution pipework to rads is partly new, partly old."

@TrystanLea did anyone mention the two entries that have the same system, performance data and chart link?

That is odd. I’ll look into it, thanks.

Yes, I agree I think it would be great to have a field for the name of the installer. This should be optional, but I don’t think it should require permission from the installer. Once the system has been installed it belongs to the customer, they’re free to share the data as they wish.

1 Like