[Greenbuilding] [BULK] Re: Super Therm Paint

[Keith Winston]

Let it be mythbusters. I've got work to do.

No offense, of course. Your intention is good :-)

Also, the chance of getting a pint out of them to do a controlled test 
-- hmm, let me see -- that would be zero.

K

Lawrence Lile wrote:
> Kieth, it might be interesting to talk them out of a pint of this stuff,
> and set up an experiment.  It is possible that a buddy of mine still has
> his old insulation test box, which is a big foam insulated box with
> temperature sensors inside.  Hey, it's either us, or Mythbusters, right?
>
>  
>  
> Lawrence Lile, P.E., LEED AP
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: greenbuilding-bounces at listserv.repp.org
> [mailto:greenbuilding-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Keith
> Winston
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 10:47 AM
> To: Greenbuilder list
> Subject: [BULK] Re: [Greenbuilding] Super Therm Paint
> Importance: Low
>
> Yes, if the foil is functioning as an air barrier, that can be enormous.
>
> If the foil is functioning as a radiant barrier (with associated air 
> space) that can be big. But these are not the claims that are often 
> made. Here's a direct quote from Supertherm's site:
>
> Recently VTEC labs issue an *RE-19.3* insulation factor per coat as the 
> ASTM C236 test conducted demonstrated that *SUPERTHERM* blocked * 99.5%*
>
> of the heat proving to be *240%* more efficient than fiberglass BATT 
> insulation. *No other R-19 insulator can claim that!*. *No Fiberglass*, 
> *No Foam*, *No Cellulose*, *No other single ceramic paint!*
> But why stop there?
> \
> *SUPERTHERM* *Is The Only True RE 28.5 Insulation Paint in this Planet 
> (1exterior coat plus one interior coat)
> *
> Well, that is going to make our building projects a LOT easier. And 
> exactly when did this "RE" metric become standardized? Hmmm, maybe I'll 
> do a little web search on R-equivalent.. Ah, here's something:
>
> http://www.protek-usa.com/PDF_Files/R%20Value%20Equivalent.pdf
>
> Let's see, protek -- gee, that's the manufacturer of ANOTHER CERAMIC 
> PAINT! So it's gotta be true, else how could they be so consistent?
>
> Still, like the conscientious little doobie that I am, I went back to 
> their site, searching around for any real evidence that any reputable 
> and verifiable testing had been done. None! Just their claims. And 
> that's been the way it has been with every other ceramic paint I've 
> tried looking into.
>
> I think around the turn of the century (that is, the 19th century) 
> congress passed a law forbidding people to petition congress for 
> scientific grants (apparently that was done back then) for perpetual 
> motion/energy machines. They'd had enough. I'm trying to catch up with 
> their wisdom.
>
> OOPS: a web search uncovers that actually they accepted a petition as 
> late as 1917, finally dismissing it in 1918, then instituting the ban, 
> and finally burning all the related materials to such claims in 1930.
>
> http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/1986/1/1986_1_58.sh
> tml
>
> Burned everything! Do I see a conspiracy? Maybe there is such a thing 
> after all!
>
> Keith
>
>
> Nick Pine wrote:
>   
>> Keith Winston <keith at earthsunenergy.com>
>>
>>   
>>     
>>> ... The whole concept that you can have an R-10 in a paint-thickness
>>> layer is ridiculous, IMO: that's better than a pure vacuum.
>>>     
>>>       
>> A horizontal foil with a large air gap below can lessen downward
>> heatflow, esp at low temps. The ASHRAE HOF lists US R8.17
>> for an e = 0.05 foil with a 3.5" airspace and a 50 F mean temp and
>> a 30 F temp diff and R10.32 at 0 F with a 10 F temp diff. Some
>> ice rinks have low-e ceilings. Ceramic paint tests often seem to
>> confuse insulation and sun reflection.
>>
>>   
>>     
>>> Anything OTHER than anecdotal information would be very welcome.
>>>     
>>>       
>> I'd like to find a ceiling paint with e < 0.1 that doesn't look like
>>     
> foil,
>   
>> but the higher-e versions below look like scruffy foil...
>>
>>
>>     
> http://www.rima.net/pdf_files/Evaluation%20of%20Coatings%20for%20Use%20a
> s%20Interior%20Radiation%20Control%20Coatings.pdf
>   
>> The HOF lists R1.58 for upward heatflow and R1.89 for horizontal
>> heatflow and R3.86 for downward heatflow at 50 F with e = 0.2.
>>
>> I'm
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Greenbuilding email list
>> List info:
>>     
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_listserv.repp.or
> g
>   
>> List email: Greenbuilding at listserv.repp.org
>> Managed by BuildingGreen, Inc. http://www.buildinggreen.com
>>       publisher of Environmental Building News and GreenSpec(r)
>> Hosted and archived by REPP / CREST http://www.crest.org
>>
>>
>>
>>   
>>     
>
>   

-- 
Keith Winston
Earth Sun Energy Systems
Hyattsville, MD 20781
301-980-6325
send me mail at 
keith at the company below
www.EarthSunEnergy.com