Insulating Paint Additive
Ryan_Hudson
Hi all,
Anyone got any experience with this product?
It's a paint additive that's supposed to improve the insulating
properties of the surface it's applied to, but I'm a wee bit dubious
about it. I'm thinking of buying a pouch of 550g.
If you know anything about this product, I'd appreciate it if you could
let me know what you think of it.
Cheers,
Ryan
--
Ryan_Hudson
Kevin
coverage 14 sq m = 39g of powder per square metre, I cant see how that
will make 25% improvement
--
Kevin R
Reply address works
BigWallop
"Ryan_Hudson" <Ryan_Huds...@homeimprovementbanter.com> wrote in
message news:Ryan_Huds...@homeimprovementbanter.com...
Word of warning. Wrap anything warm in a plastic bag and it sweats. This
paint additive thing is just a plastisiser, so coats the surface in a
plastic bag. Yes, it may give some thermal protection and slightly reduce
heat loss through the surface, but so does any plastic bag. Try putting
your hand in a plastic bag for half an hour, and you'll get the same effect.
Try before you buy, right enough. :-)
The Medway Handyman
Rod
<http://www.energyideas.org/documents/Factsheets/PTR/Insuladd.pdf>
--
Rod
Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
<www.thyromind.info> <www.thyroiduk.org> <www.altsupportthyroid.org>
BigWallop
"Rod" <poly...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:6p6d4mF...@mid.individual.net...
> Ryan_Hudson wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Anyone got any experience with this product?
> >
> > http://www.thermilate.com/
> >
> > It's a paint additive that's supposed to improve the insulating
> > properties of the surface it's applied to, but I'm a wee bit dubious
> > about it. I'm thinking of buying a pouch of 550g.
> >
> > If you know anything about this product, I'd appreciate it if you could
> > let me know what you think of it.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Ryan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> You might find this interesting:
>
> <http://www.energyideas.org/documents/Factsheets/PTR/Insuladd.pdf>
>
>
That makes good reading. Especially the reviews at the bottom of the
document. You'd be better adding this stuff
http://www.firebox.com/product/968/Insta-Snow to the paint. It would
insulated the ceiling more, me thinks. :-)
P.S. The Video Demo is good.
fred
<Ryan_Huds...@homeimprovementbanter.com> writes
>
>Hi all,
>
>Anyone got any experience with this product?
>
>http://www.thermilate.com/
>
>It's a paint additive that's supposed to improve the insulating
>properties of the surface it's applied to, but I'm a wee bit dubious
>about it. I'm thinking of buying a pouch of 550g.
>
"My initial reaction was, bollocks!, but thought I really should be a
bit more
objective.
Objective analysis:
1. They claim to reduce heat transfer by reducing radiated transmission,
that's fine when you are working at high temperatures such as the space
shuttle usage that they try to piggy-back or trying to reduce heating by
strong sunlight. In UK domestic situations very little is lost by
radiation so
any benefit would be small.
2. Many of the testimonials support the use as protection against
intense
sunlight or reducing heat loss from high temperature objects such as
ovens so not really applicable to UK domestic situations.
3. Buried deep in the site is a test certificate which quotes the
thermal
conductivity of the material (note the material in bulk and not as a
paint
additive) as k=0.061 (W/mK?) which is comparable with that of cork. A
thin
film of insulation with the same thermal conductivity as cork is
unlikely to
be of benefit in insulating a home.
Conclusion:
This product may have benefit in reducing heat loss from high
temperature
objects or reducing heat gain in intense heat or sunlight but it is
unlikely to
be of benefit when used as an additive for painting UK domestic walls.
Executive summary:
Bollocks!"
--
fred
BBC3, ITV2/3/4, channels going to the DOGs
stuart noble
Perlite would be cheaper
dennis@home
"Kevin" <donte...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:oMkXk.360$aj7...@newsfe03.ams2...
Its probably true, in specific circumstances.
I imagine that if it leaves a rough surface it could cause a thin layer of
static air that would insulate the surface just as it does in double
glazing.
However the slightest breeze or draught will remove the layer.
Bob Mannix
Seconded
--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not
Rod
<snip>
> Probably microspheres/glass bubbles. 3M makes them I think.
> Perlite would be cheaper
>
So just mix in a bit of lightweight filler. :-)
(Acutally, how would anyone know if the microspheres contained air or
not? Not exactly easy to measure for ordinary mortals.)
d...@gglz.com
http://www.thermilate.co.uk/independent_testing.shtml
Particularly the report from Salford Uni.
This gives the stuff (on top of 9.5mm plasterboard) a thermal
resistance (R value) of 0.199 (m^2.K/W)
Now take away the insulating effect of plasterboard to see how much
good the stuff is doing:
The R value for 9.5mm plasterboard alone is 0.059 (calculated from a K
value of 0.16 given in the Architects Pocket Book).
So the R value of the stuff in that sample (presumably presented in
such a way to give the best possible results) is 0.199 - 0.059 = 0.14
How good is an R value (thermal resistance) of 0.14?
Building Regs require walls to have a thermal resistance of just over
2.8
(derived from a U value of 0.35)
So "stuff" will make a 5% contribution to meeting the requirements.
Ploughing further into the figures from that test report - it looks
like the coating is 3mm thick (but we can't be certain from the way
the numbers are presented).
That would make "stuff" slightly better than expanded polystyrene as
an insulator (it's the equivalent of 5mm).
Now think about what you see used on building sites - 50-100mm thick
polystyrene or similar insulators being built into cavities is the
norm - not 5mm!
stuart noble
> stuart noble wrote:
> <snip>
>> Probably microspheres/glass bubbles. 3M makes them I think.
>> Perlite would be cheaper
> >
>
> So just mix in a bit of lightweight filler. :-)
>
> (Acutally, how would anyone know if the microspheres contained air or
> not? Not exactly easy to measure for ordinary mortals.)
>
Stirring them into paint isn't as easy as it sounds either :-)
Andy Dingley
3738...@homeimprovementbanter.com> wrote:
> Anyone got any experience with this product?
> http://www.thermilate.com/
Good (with provisos, see below) experience of similar products for
special purposes - although mixing is crucial, so buy the stuff as
paint rather than an additive powder, unless you're going to be
careful with mixing it.
It reduces _radiant_ heat transfer, which is the only sort of transfer
you're going to affect with a thin coating like this. It probably does
a tiny bit for convection but sqrt() sod-all for conduction. Then
remember the Stefan–Boltzmann law and the fact that radiant flux is
proportional to the fourth power of temperature (or else get Dennis
the Physicist to explain it to you).
So if you've got a big hot thing that's unpleasant to sit in front of,
like a kiln or an oven, then it might be useful to paint it with this
stuff and reduce the radiant heat. But it won't replace lagging your
loft.
Rod
I meant, contained air or were evacuated. :-) Don't think that would
affect bulk weight/volume significantly.
The Natural Philosopher
energy back'.
The largest heat loss is via conduction: even the best insulants need
thickness. Paint isn't thick.
Unless I have missed fundamental point this one goes under 'greenpiss
ecobollox'
ransley
Its a ceramic additive, I tried it on ducts and with an IR thermometer
saw no temp difference. Find a few real independant labs that verify
the claims, I bet you cant. Its been out forever and I do not think at
the thickness aplied it does shit. Maybe 15 coats, but not just one.
Ryan_Hudson
'BigWallop[_2_ Wrote:
> ;1457675']"Ryan_Hudson" Ryan_Huds...@homeimprovementbanter.com
> wrote in
> message news:Ryan_Huds...@homeimprovementbanter.com...-
>
> -
>
> Word of warning. Wrap anything warm in a plastic bag and it sweats.
> This
> paint additive thing is just a plastisiser, so coats the surface in a
> plastic bag. Yes, it may give some thermal protection and slightly
> reduce
> heat loss through the surface, but so does any plastic bag. Try
> putting
> your hand in a plastic bag for half an hour, and you'll get the same
> effect.
>
> Try before you buy, right enough. :-)
Thanks for your advice people. Very much appreciated.
I have decided that I will be experimenting with thermilate paint
additive. It has satisfaction gurantee, so i guess nothing to lose
here. My living room is being renovated at the moment so best time to
see if it is one of those just "too good to be true" products.
To make sure about the temperature difference claim, I will being using
my digital thermostat to record the temperature before and after.
well I'll keep you posted about the result.
--
Ryan_Hudson
BigWallop
>
It was rejected as a project for all of the NASA missions when they couldn't
show any thermal insulate properties on it at all. The makers say you need
a minimum of 3 mm to produce the thermal effects, which is 22 coats of paint
with the additive. To create the properties NASA were after, that many
coats of paint on their craft made them far to heavy.
If you go back in the NASA technology archives to 1972, you'll find lots of
these products that claimed to do weird and wonderful things. Most of them
were just new polymers being discovered and created in the Universities and
chemical labs across the US and trying hard to get government funding from
the height of the space program, and most are not worth the patent paper
they're written on.. :-)
I, for one, would be happy to learn the results of all your experiments.
And I wish you good luck with it.
Rod
notice. But it is entirely your prerogative to choose what to do. And
*do* keep us posted - I shall be interested.
Dave Liquorice
> I have decided that I will be experimenting with thermilate paint
> additive. It has satisfaction gurantee, so i guess nothing to lose
> here.
Read the small print I expect this "satisfaction gurantee[sic]" will just
refund the purchase price and nothing else. No reimbursements of costs for
removing the stuff etc
> To make sure about the temperature difference claim, I will being using
> my digital thermostat to record the temperature before and after.
How is that going to prove anything? The thermostat will control the room
temp to what it is set at... You need to know the heat input before with
given internal/external temperatures and wind speed/direction and then
heat input afterwards under the same conditions. Either that or fuel
consumption of a year or two before then compare with fuel consumption
afterwards for a year or two.
--
Cheers
Dave.
dennis@home
"Dave Liquorice" <allsortsn...@howhill.com> wrote in message
news:nyyfbegfubjuvyypb...@srv1.howhill.net...
He could try a proper experiment..
take a box well insulated on all but one face.
Put in a 40w lamp.
put a sheet of metal on the remaining face
measure the temp in the box after it has stabilised.
repeat after painting metal sheet
See if there is any change in the temperature differences in each case.
Hugo Nebula
> Check out the independent test data:
> Particularly the report from Salford Uni.
>
> This gives the stuff (on top of 9.5mm plasterboard) a thermal
> resistance (R value) of 0.199 (m^2.K/W)
>
> Now take away the insulating effect of plasterboard to see how much
> good the stuff is doing:
>
> The R value for 9.5mm plasterboard alone is 0.059 (calculated from a K
> value of 0.16 given in the Architects Pocket Book).
>
> So the R value of the stuff in that sample (presumably presented in
> such a way to give the best possible results) is 0.199 - 0.059 = 0.14
Actually, in that report is the R-value of 9.5mm plasterboard + surface
resistance as 0.136m^2K/W, so a difference of only 0.063m^2K/W. This is
the equivalent of (0.063m^K/W * 0.04W/mK) 2.3mm of polystyrene.
As others in this thread have pointed out, it's possible that some or
all of the increase in surface resistance could be due to increased albedo.
I wonder if it's made by the same people as make Tri-Iso multifoil loft
insulation?
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have you strayed"?
Dave Liquorice
> He could try a proper experiment..
> take a box well insulated on all but one face.
> Put in a 40w lamp.
> put a sheet of metal on the remaining face
> measure the temp in the box after it has stabilised.
> See if there is any change in the temperature differences in each case.
But the paint by it self will make a difference so you need another metal
sheet painted but with out the magic additive.
--
Cheers
Dave.
dennis@home
"Dave Liquorice" <allsortsn...@howhill.com> wrote in message
news:nyyfbegfubjuvyypb...@srv1.howhill.net...
Only if you are comparing one paint to another.
It allows you to calculate the heat flow and you can measure the temp
difference.
I think it safe to ignore the thermal resistance of a thin sheet of metal.
d...@gglz.com
> I wonder if it's made by the same people as make Tri-Iso multifoil loft
> insulation?
I read a good layman's view of the technical issues with misleading R-
values (including multifoils) here:
Dave Liquorice
>>> He could try a proper experiment..
>>> take a box well insulated on all but one face.
>>> Put in a 40w lamp.
>>> put a sheet of metal on the remaining face
>>> measure the temp in the box after it has stabilised.
>>> See if there is any change in the temperature differences in each
>>> case.
>>
>> But the paint by it self will make a difference so you need another
>> metal sheet painted but with out the magic additive.
>
> Only if you are comparing one paint to another.
No you are comparing unpainted with painted + magic additive. How do you
*know* that any difference is down to the paint, the magic additive or a
combination of both? We are trying to find out if the magic additive has
any effect not that painting (with or without magic additive) does.
If the first sheet was painted sans additive and the other was painted
with additive that would be OK but I got the impression the first sheet
was unpainted.
--
Cheers
Dave.
dennis@home
"Dave Liquorice" <allsortsn...@howhill.com> wrote in message
news:nyyfbegfubjuvyypb...@srv1.howhill.net...
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 08:05:10 -0000, dennis@home wrote:
>
>>>> He could try a proper experiment..
>>>> take a box well insulated on all but one face.
>>>> Put in a 40w lamp.
>>>> put a sheet of metal on the remaining face
>>>> measure the temp in the box after it has stabilised.
>>>> See if there is any change in the temperature differences in each
>>>> case.
>>>
>>> But the paint by it self will make a difference so you need another
>>> metal sheet painted but with out the magic additive.
>>
>> Only if you are comparing one paint to another.
>
> No you are comparing unpainted with painted + magic additive. How do you
> *know* that any difference is down to the paint, the magic additive or a
> combination of both? We are trying to find out if the magic additive has
> any effect not that painting (with or without magic additive) does.
That is illogical as the additive doesn't work without paint, you can't
compare the additive on its own.
>
> If the first sheet was painted sans additive and the other was painted
> with additive that would be OK but I got the impression the first sheet
> was unpainted.
It will tell you how well the paint with the additive performs.
Dave Liquorice
>> No you are comparing unpainted with painted + magic additive. How do
>> you *know* that any difference is down to the paint, the magic additive
>> or a combination of both? We are trying to find out if the magic
>> additive has any effect not that painting (with or without magic
>> additive) does.
>
> That is illogical as the additive doesn't work without paint, you can't
> compare the additive on its own.
Yes, but how do you know that any difference is down to the paint or paint
+ additive when you only compare paint + additive against unpainted.
>> If the first sheet was painted sans additive and the other was painted
>> with additive that would be OK but I got the impression the first sheet
>> was unpainted.
>
> It will tell you how well the paint with the additive performs.
But not if the paint on it's own will perfom just as well.
--
Cheers
Dave.
dennis@home
"Dave Liquorice" <allsortsn...@howhill.com> wrote in message
news:nyyfbegfubjuvyypb...@srv1.howhill.net...
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 14:37:12 -0000, dennis@home wrote:
>
>>> No you are comparing unpainted with painted + magic additive. How do
>>> you *know* that any difference is down to the paint, the magic additive
>>> or a combination of both? We are trying to find out if the magic
>>> additive has any effect not that painting (with or without magic
>>> additive) does.
>>
>> That is illogical as the additive doesn't work without paint, you can't
>> compare the additive on its own.
>
> Yes, but how do you know that any difference is down to the paint or paint
> + additive when you only compare paint + additive against unpainted.
Well as I don't expect much difference I don't think it matters.