Stupidity or fraud? RBS chips
Phil Munro
took a logic course many years ago, it was called "character
assassination. That is when the argument shifts from dealing with the
ideas involved to an attack on the person making the argument.
Interestingly enough, both pro-RBS and anti-RBS writers are guilty of
character assassination. It realy turns me off to have to wade through
the garbage to find any ideas to think about!!
There is *no question* that radiant barriers slow down energy
transfer. Thank about our space craft; they use thin coatings to block
radiant energy. It is an effective barrier to IR since that is the only
kind of energy reaching the craft.
But there are questions in my mind about improvements in home
insulation due to RBS. Sun light contains more energy in the visual
than it does in the IR, however when sun light strikes an object, it
reflects some visual components and absorbs some, converting what is
absorbed to heat. When that heat radiates, it does so as IR radiation.
This is how a green house works, radiation comes through the glass,
strikes surfaces and is converted to heat, but the heat energy cannot
get back through the glass easily. This is why our cars get really hot
inside, the glass windows hold the heat, but allow the sun's energy to
come through.
Have I got anything wrong so far? When sun light hits a roof or wall,
it raises the temperature of that surface due to absorbed energy. If
you have ever been next to such a warm surface, you may have felt the
IR radiation given off. A camp fire on a cold night will also teach you
something about IR radiation.
But if there is a surface of just about anything between you and the
warm/hot surface, the IR will be blocked. The IR *will* be absorbed by
that surface, and the surface can re-radiate the IR in both directions,
but it can also move its heat energy via conduction and convection.
My experience with my own home, shows me this. We have a third floor
which is finished and has 2x6 24" spaced roof joists, which are filled
with 6" of fiberglas. Before that insulation was added, we could feel
the warmth of the ceiling due to the hot roof on a sunny day, and the
room would get quite warm during a typical summer day when it was closed
up. The room would also cool off quickly on a winter night.
After adding the insulation, the coolness collected in that third-
floor room from outside air at night would last through a hot day if we
closed the windows. *Also* the ceiling is no longer noticeably warm due
to sunlight.
Radiation of IR? Yes, but it is, I think, a minor component of heat
transfer in either directiion through conductive insulation. The wall/
ceiling materials block the majority of the energy from the sun, turning
it into heat which mostly moves through insulated walls/ceilings by
conduction.
Some last questions: I have lost track of the exact RBS idea. Are the
chips added on top of insuation, or is it the claim that they can be
used successfully *without* conductive-barrier insulation?
And does anyone (else) know what ever happened to the fiberglas batts
which had the radiant barrier? Twenty five years ago I bought some of
that stuff, but as I remember the consensus was that the radiant barrier
did not make any difference.
Please. This topic, or any other, does not need character
assassination. The ideas, and experiences, too, are just too
interesting. --Phil
--
Phil Munro Dept of Electrical Engineering
mailto:pcm...@cc.ysu.edu Youngstown State University
Youngstown, Ohio 44555
Mark Atanowicz
Phil Munro <pcm...@cc.ysu.edu> writes:
[majority of thoughtful post snipped]
> Some last questions: I have lost track of the exact RBS idea. Are the
> chips added on top of insuation, or is it the claim that they can be
> used successfully *without* conductive-barrier insulation?
This is exactly what was claimed and the reason, IMO, why it ruffled so
many feathers.
> And does anyone (else) know what ever happened to the fiberglas batts
> which had the radiant barrier? Twenty five years ago I bought some of
> that stuff, but as I remember the consensus was that the radiant barrier
> did not make any difference.
Unless energy is radiated back into the environment (i.e. rejected) ,
radiant barriers are inneffective.
Mark Atanowicz
fruit...@my-dejanews.com
MAtan...@aol.com (Mark Atanowicz) wrote:
> In article <3607F1...@cc.ysu.edu>
> Phil Munro <pcm...@cc.ysu.edu> writes:
>
> [majority of thoughtful post snipped]
>
> > which had the radiant barrier? Twenty five years ago I bought some of
> > that stuff, but as I remember the consensus was that the radiant barrier
> > did not make any difference.
>
> Unless energy is radiated back into the environment (i.e. rejected) ,
> radiant barriers are inneffective.
>
> Mark Atanowicz
inside if the wall next to the drywall, anyone that has studied the use of
radiant barrier knows that it must have 1/4" to 3/8" of air space to work else
it will be a conductor of heat, therefor not efective.
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
blin...@inficad.com
MAtan...@aol.com (Mark Atanowicz) wrote:
> In article <3607F1...@cc.ysu.edu>
> Phil Munro <pcm...@cc.ysu.edu> writes:
>
> [majority of thoughtful post snipped]
>
> > chips added on top of insuation, or is it the claim that they can be
> > used successfully *without* conductive-barrier insulation?
>
> This is exactly what was claimed and the reason, IMO, why it ruffled so
> many feathers.
My name is Brad Lindsay and I invented and currently manufacture the RBS Chip
product. Here is your answer: In buildings that are heated and/or cooled, the
RBS Chip is installed directly on top of the existing insulation. In 12 years
of testing this has proven to be the best method.
In applications such as garages attics and commercial drop ceilings the RBS
Chip is blown in without any insulation at all
>
> > And does anyone (else) know what ever happened to the fiberglas batts
> > which had the radiant barrier? Twenty five years ago I bought some of
> > that stuff, but as I remember the consensus was that the radiant barrier
> > did not make any difference.
If the batt/RBS combo was installed foil side down, then much of the benefit
of the RBS is lost due to conduction wherever it touches the ceiling. If it
was installed foil side up, then the performance would degrade over time
unless it wsa installed in a wall cavity (perfect application), or inside a
sealed, flat roofing system.
> Unless energy is radiated back into the environment (i.e. rejected) ,
> radiant barriers are inneffective.
>
> Mark Atanowicz
Let me rephrase the above statment: Any substrate that does not change the
direction of infrared heat (by reflection), so that it goes back towards the
source is an ineffective radiant barrier.
Brad Lindsay, President EcoGuard Mfg.
http://www.savenrg.com
blin...@inficad.com
will answer your questions regarding placement (the correct placement), of RBS
in an attic.
Since we pay dearly for the comfort of our building envelope it here we need
to focus on heat loss/gain. Not the roof, not the rafters, not the air temp
in the attic. In the 12 years of testing RBS in full size homes one FACT
remains clear: reduce the movement of infrared heat into or out of the
building envelope and the symptoms (uncomfortalble homes, high electric
bills) are reduced as well. We have proven it. Same for cars, same for
sheds, same for garage doors, tin buildings, dog houses, paint shops,
restaurants, hot climates cold climates. This is why a thermos bottle works
equally well for hot coffee or ice tea. Consider that thermos bottles
(invented as "Dewers Flask" in the 1800's), has NO insulation. No
fiberglass, no cellulose, no foam. Only two layers of RBS facing each other
and a vacuum to eliminate convective currents.
Sorry for the sidetrack, back to placement: Attics: The best place for a RBS
is right above the existing insulation. However, if you choose to lay it down
in sheet form you may encounter condensation problems if using a non
permeable product. Second, over time air borne particulates will accumulate
on the surface absorbing the infrared heat you are trying to reflect. And
last but not least is ease of installation. Our RBS Chip overcomes all these
anomolies just in the design of its form. Permeation problems do not exist,
the multiple layers are designed to collect dust on the top layers while the
ones below stay shiney and they are simple to install. You can find out how
to install these yourself on our webpage.
And finally, what happened to the foil backed batt fiberglass insulation?
Well, I have some theories on that. Remember the foil back sheetrock that was
available around the same time? Can't find that product anywhere either.
Both involve RBS which has been proven to significantly cut utility bills.
Given the grief I have recieved over the last 12 years, I have to say (with
conviction), RBS is a well kept secret. Ask around, call your utility
company and ask their opinion about installing RBS in your home. You may be
surprised. They tell my cusomters here: "RBS may pay for itself in 20
years", "add more insulation instead", "expect a 2% to 3% reduction in your
monthly bill". Check out our testimonial page at: http://www.savenrg.com and
form your own conclusions. As far as the RBS bashers on here? Well, they
either work for an insulation mfg or a utility company. What other possible
reason to bash a proven, cost effective energy product like RBS?
Brad Lindsay, President EcoGuard Mfg.
"Unless we change direction we are likely to end up where we are going"
CHINESE PROVERB
In article <3607F1...@cc.ysu.edu>,
> Some last questions: I have lost track of the exact RBS idea. Are the
> chips added on top of insuation, or is it the claim that they can be
> used successfully *without* conductive-barrier insulation?
> And does anyone (else) know what ever happened to the fiberglas batts
> which had the radiant barrier? Twenty five years ago I bought some of
> that stuff, but as I remember the consensus was that the radiant barrier
> did not make any difference.
> Please. This topic, or any other, does not need character
> assassination. The ideas, and experiences, too, are just too
> interesting. --Phil
> --
> Phil Munro Dept of Electrical Engineering
> mailto:pcm...@cc.ysu.edu Youngstown State University
> Youngstown, Ohio 44555
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Ron Natalie
>
> Let me rephrase the above statment: Any substrate that does not change the
> direction of infrared heat (by reflection), so that it goes back towards the
> source is an ineffective radiant barrier.
Than can you explain what a random scattering of chips
is doing to direct the radiation in the desired direction?
Chris Matthaei
>Thanks for the enlightenment Phil, I too was aware of the loss direction and I
>will answer your questions regarding placement (the correct placement), of RBS
>in an attic.
>
>Since we pay dearly for the comfort of our building envelope it here we need
>to focus on heat loss/gain. Not the roof, not the rafters, not the air temp
>in the attic. In the 12 years of testing RBS in full size homes one FACT
>remains clear: reduce the movement of infrared heat into or out of the
>building envelope and the symptoms (uncomfortalble homes, high electric
>bills) are reduced as well. We have proven it. Same for cars, same for
>sheds, same for garage doors, tin buildings, dog houses, paint shops,
>restaurants, hot climates cold climates. This is why a thermos bottle works
>equally well for hot coffee or ice tea. Consider that thermos bottles
>(invented as "Dewers Flask" in the 1800's), has NO insulation. No
>fiberglass, no cellulose, no foam. Only two layers of RBS facing each other
>and a vacuum to eliminate convective currents.
Just a note: the vacuum is the insulation. It eliminates all convective heat
transfer and 99.9% of the conductive heat transfer. Foam or fiberglass or
cellulose conduct heat much better (infinitely better) than a vacuum does. A
vacuum is a perfect insulator. The only way to get heat energy through the
vacuum is by radiation, and the aluminum coating helps to minimize that.
Chris Matthaei
'91 5.0 LX --> 13.53@106.7
http://www.mcs.net/~fuzzy/
Mark Atanowicz
blin...@inficad.com writes:
> Thanks for the enlightenment Phil, I too was aware of the loss direction and I
> will answer your questions regarding placement (the correct placement), of RBS
> in an attic.
>
> Since we pay dearly for the comfort of our building envelope it here we need
> to focus on heat loss/gain. Not the roof, not the rafters, not the air temp
> in the attic. In the 12 years of testing RBS in full size homes one FACT
> remains clear: reduce the movement of infrared heat into or out of the
> building envelope and the symptoms (uncomfortalble homes, high electric
> bills) are reduced as well. We have proven it. Same for cars, same for
> sheds, same for garage doors, tin buildings, dog houses, paint shops,
> restaurants, hot climates cold climates. This is why a thermos bottle works
> equally well for hot coffee or ice tea. Consider that thermos bottles
> (invented as "Dewers Flask" in the 1800's), has NO insulation. No
> fiberglass, no cellulose, no foam. Only two layers of RBS facing each other
> and a vacuum to eliminate convective currents.
"Thermos" bottles rely primarily on vacuum to minimize heat flow.
Compromise the vacuum and your precious RBS chips do little.
Mark Atanowicz
Eric Gunnerson
>This is why a thermos bottle works
>equally well for hot coffee or ice tea. Consider that thermos bottles
>(invented as "Dewers Flask" in the 1800's), has NO insulation. No
>fiberglass, no cellulose, no foam. Only two layers of RBS facing each
other
>and a vacuum to eliminate convective currents.
Now you're just being silly. Vacuum is a wonderful insulator - you don't get
convection or conduction through a vacuum. Thermos bottles (most of them,
anyway) are silvered to prevent heat transfer due to radiation, but if the
gap was filled with styrofoam or fiberglass it probably wouldn't be worth
the effort. Notice that coolers aren't silvered on the inside.
You seem to have a rather spotty knowledge of thermodynamics.
blin...@inficad.com
fu...@mcs.com (Chris Matthaei) wrote:
> In article <6ua543$m9k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, blin...@inficad.com wrote:
I
> >will answer your questions regarding placement (the correct placement), of
RBS
> >in an attic.
> >
> >Since we pay dearly for the comfort of our building envelope it here we need
> >to focus on heat loss/gain. Not the roof, not the rafters, not the air temp
> >in the attic. In the 12 years of testing RBS in full size homes one FACT
> >remains clear: reduce the movement of infrared heat into or out of the
> >building envelope and the symptoms (uncomfortalble homes, high electric
> >bills) are reduced as well. We have proven it. Same for cars, same for
> >sheds, same for garage doors, tin buildings, dog houses, paint shops,
> >restaurants, hot climates cold climates. This is why a thermos bottle works
> >equally well for hot coffee or ice tea. Consider that thermos bottles
> >(invented as "Dewers Flask" in the 1800's), has NO insulation. No
> >fiberglass, no cellulose, no foam. Only two layers of RBS facing each other
> >and a vacuum to eliminate convective currents.
>
> transfer and 99.9% of the conductive heat transfer. Foam or fiberglass or
> cellulose conduct heat much better (infinitely better) than a vacuum does. A
> vacuum is a perfect insulator. The only way to get heat energy through the
> vacuum is by radiation, and the aluminum coating helps to minimize that.
What about space suits? I have a sample in my briefcase that is comprised of
17 layers of metalized film each separated by thin mesh. No vacuum in there.
Space is a vacuum and the spacesuit mentioned above with only 17 layers of
RBS, keeps the astronauts inside from freezing in the shade (-359f), or
burning up in the sun (over 200f). That's one hell of a lot of "minimizing".
Brad Lindsay
http://www.savenrg.com
> Chris Matthaei
> '91 5.0 LX --> 13.53@106.7
> http://www.mcs.net/~fuzzy/
>
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
blin...@inficad.com
MAtan...@aol.com (Mark Atanowicz) wrote:
> In article <6ua543$m9k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
> blin...@inficad.com writes:
>
I
> > will answer your questions regarding placement (the correct placement), of
RBS
> > in an attic.
> >
> > Since we pay dearly for the comfort of our building envelope it here we need
> > to focus on heat loss/gain. Not the roof, not the rafters, not the air temp
> > in the attic. In the 12 years of testing RBS in full size homes one FACT
> > remains clear: reduce the movement of infrared heat into or out of the
> > building envelope and the symptoms (uncomfortalble homes, high electric
> > bills) are reduced as well. We have proven it. Same for cars, same for
> > sheds, same for garage doors, tin buildings, dog houses, paint shops,
> > restaurants, hot climates cold climates. This is why a thermos bottle works
> > equally well for hot coffee or ice tea. Consider that thermos bottles
> > (invented as "Dewers Flask" in the 1800's), has NO insulation. No
> > fiberglass, no cellulose, no foam. Only two layers of RBS facing each other
> > and a vacuum to eliminate convective currents.
>
> Compromise the vacuum and your precious RBS chips do little.
>
> Mark Atanowicz
>
>
Oh No!!!! Somebody better call NASA and let them know! Our astronauts only
have 17 layers of "precious" radiant barrier films separated by a thin mesh
of fabric to keep them alive! But wait a minute, I see a hose connected to
the spacesuit. Hmmmm, that must be connected to a vacuum pump to make sure
the radiant barrier works huh? But then how do they breathe? Speaking of
"compromising a vacuum", those emergency blankets (radiant barrier), that are
standard equipment in all ski patrol medipacks, how do they work without a
vacuum? Someone better email them. Perhaps they could carry batts of
fiberglass instead? So many ????'s, so little time.
Ok, who's next?
Brad Lindsay
Here's the answer: http://www.savenrg.com/1rbschip.htm
blin...@inficad.com
MAtan...@aol.com (Mark Atanowicz) wrote:
> In article <6ua543$m9k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
> blin...@inficad.com writes:
>
I
> > will answer your questions regarding placement (the correct placement), of
RBS
> > in an attic.
> >
> > Since we pay dearly for the comfort of our building envelope it here we need
> > to focus on heat loss/gain. Not the roof, not the rafters, not the air temp
> > in the attic. In the 12 years of testing RBS in full size homes one FACT
> > remains clear: reduce the movement of infrared heat into or out of the
> > building envelope and the symptoms (uncomfortalble homes, high electric
> > bills) are reduced as well. We have proven it. Same for cars, same for
> > sheds, same for garage doors, tin buildings, dog houses, paint shops,
> > restaurants, hot climates cold climates. This is why a thermos bottle works
> > equally well for hot coffee or ice tea. Consider that thermos bottles
> > (invented as "Dewers Flask" in the 1800's), has NO insulation. No
> > fiberglass, no cellulose, no foam. Only two layers of RBS facing each other
> > and a vacuum to eliminate convective currents.
>
> Compromise the vacuum and your precious RBS chips do little.
>
> Mark Atanowicz
>
Oh No!!!! Somebody better call NASA and let them know! Our astronauts only
have 17 layers of "precious" radiant barrier films separated by a thin mesh
of fabric to keep them alive! But wait a minute, I see a hose connected to
the spacesuit. Hmmmm, that must be connected to a vacuum pump to make sure
the radiant barrier works huh? But then how do they breathe? Speaking of
"compromising a vacuum", those emergency blankets (radiant barrier), that are
standard equipment in all ski patrol medipacks, how do they work without a
vacuum? Someone better email them. Perhaps they could carry batts of
fiberglass instead? So many ????'s, so little time.
Ok, who's next?
Brad Lindsay
Here's the answer: http://www.savenrg.com/1rbschip.htm
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
blin...@inficad.com
"Eric Gunnerson" <eri...@micronospamsoft.com> wrote:
> blin...@inficad.com wrote in message <6ua543$m9k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
> >equally well for hot coffee or ice tea. Consider that thermos bottles
> >(invented as "Dewers Flask" in the 1800's), has NO insulation. No
> >fiberglass, no cellulose, no foam. Only two layers of RBS facing each
> other
> >and a vacuum to eliminate convective currents.
>
> convection or conduction through a vacuum. Thermos bottles (most of them,
> anyway) are silvered to prevent heat transfer due to radiation, but if the
> gap was filled with styrofoam or fiberglass it probably wouldn't be worth
> the effort. Notice that coolers aren't silvered on the inside.
>
> You seem to have a rather spotty knowledge of thermodynamics.
You are welcome to your opinion about my knowledge but please explain why a
spacesuit works in an evironment where it is absolute zero in the shade
(-359f) and over 200f in the sun. A delta T over 500f with only 1/4" thick
"insulation"? This with no vacuum to limit conduction and convection.
I have a piece of spacesuit in my briefcase manufactured by the same company
that provides us with our raw materials for use on earth. It's 17 layers
thick and separated by mesh scrim .005" thick. Our RBS chips installed in an
attic are 10 to 15 layers deep separated by embossing. Try as I might I
cannot pull a vacuum in an attic so I have settled for what NASA has used
successfully for 20 years: radiant barrier.
I just don't understand the resistance embedded in this thread...so many
duped for so many years? Everbody thought Tesla was "out there" too. Here
we are all using the alternating current he developed to argue with each on
other about the obvious.
Brad Lindsay, President EcoGuard Mfg.
Here's the answer: http://www.savenrg.com/1rbschip.htm
Unless we change direction we are likely to end up where we are going
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Doug Miller
+In article <6ubnnq$i...@news.dns.microsoft.com>,
+ "Eric Gunnerson" <eri...@micronospamsoft.com> wrote:
+> blin...@inficad.com wrote in message <6ua543$m9k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
+>
+> >This is why a thermos bottle works
+> >equally well for hot coffee or ice tea. Consider that thermos bottles
+> >(invented as "Dewers Flask" in the 1800's), has NO insulation. No
+> >fiberglass, no cellulose, no foam. Only two layers of RBS facing each
+> other
+> >and a vacuum to eliminate convective currents.
+>
+> Now you're just being silly. Vacuum is a wonderful insulator - you don't
get
+> convection or conduction through a vacuum. Thermos bottles (most of them,
+> anyway) are silvered to prevent heat transfer due to radiation, but if the
+> gap was filled with styrofoam or fiberglass it probably wouldn't be worth
+> the effort. Notice that coolers aren't silvered on the inside.
+>
+> You seem to have a rather spotty knowledge of thermodynamics.
+
+You are welcome to your opinion about my knowledge but please explain why a
+spacesuit works in an evironment where it is absolute zero in the shade
+(-359f) and over 200f in the sun. A delta T over 500f with only 1/4" thick
+"insulation"? This with no vacuum to limit conduction and convection.
+
What do you mean, "no vacuum"? Better crack open a physics book, Brad. Space
is a vacuum.
Chris Matthaei
>What about space suits? I have a sample in my briefcase that is comprised of
>17 layers of metalized film each separated by thin mesh. No vacuum in there.
>Space is a vacuum and the spacesuit mentioned above with only 17 layers of
>RBS, keeps the astronauts inside from freezing in the shade (-359f), or
>burning up in the sun (over 200f). That's one hell of a lot of "minimizing".
The only way for the contents of the spacesuit (the astronaut and air) to lose
or gain heat energy is through radiation. Obviously a radiant barrier is all
that is necessary to insulate a spacesuit. Keep the incoming radiation
(from the sun) from getting to the astronaut, and keep the outgoing
radiation (from the "glowing" astronaut) from getting out into space. When you
say "freezing in the shade, or burning up in the sun", it almost sounds like
you're saying that the space around the astronaut is at that temperature. Only
matter can have temperature, and space is not matter. Also, my attic is not in
outer space, and therefore requires insulation. :)
19D972000-Halle
Many years ago, when I was doing research involving hot stuff in a vacuum
(the details are not important), I had to build heat shields around the
heat source. These were usually foil, sometimes ceramic. In doing so, I
had to calculate the heat flow reduction as a result of the shields.
Assuming the albedo of each side of the shield is the same, the net flow of
heat due to radiation was reduced by a factor of 1/(n+1), where n is the
number of shields. I.e., one shield cut the radiative loss in half, two
shields cut it to 1/3 (not 1/4). So the 17 layer suit would drop it to
1/18 of what an unshielded object would radiate.
Convection within the suit would be non-existent, and conduction between
the suit and the environment would also be zero. The reasons for this
should be self evident. Therefore, the only method of heat exchange is
radiation, which is greatly reduced.
How does this apply to RBCs? Not much. A simple calculation will
demonstrate that conduction and convection are major components of the
overall heat flow. Therefore, reducing the radiative loss by half will
have some effect, but not necessarily a large one.
Chris Matthaei
Come on. Now this is getting silly! Outer space is a very good vacuum! The
space suit is the equivilant of the inner shell of a thermos bottle. There is
no outer layer because all the space around is the vacuum. A space suit would
not be very effective in Antartica or the Sahara.
Phil Munro
> ...
> How does this apply to RBCs? Not much. A simple calculation will
> demonstrate that conduction and convection are major components of the
> overall heat flow. Therefore, reducing the radiative loss by half will
> have some effect, but not necessarily a large one.
numbers, please do it. Thanks. --Phil
Mark Atanowicz
blin...@inficad.com writes:
> In article <6uba10$1p42$2...@newsgate.sps.mot.com>,
> MAtan...@aol.com (Mark Atanowicz) wrote:
> > "Thermos" bottles rely primarily on vacuum to minimize heat flow.
> > Compromise the vacuum and your precious RBS chips do little.
> >
> > Mark Atanowicz
> >
>
> Oh No!!!! Somebody better call NASA and let them know! Our astronauts only
> have 17 layers of "precious" radiant barrier films separated by a thin mesh
> of fabric to keep them alive! But wait a minute, I see a hose connected to
> the spacesuit. Hmmmm, that must be connected to a vacuum pump to make sure
> the radiant barrier works huh? But then how do they breathe? Speaking of
> "compromising a vacuum", those emergency blankets (radiant barrier), that are
> standard equipment in all ski patrol medipacks, how do they work without a
> vacuum? Someone better email them. Perhaps they could carry batts of
> fiberglass instead? So many ????'s, so little time.
>
> Ok, who's next?
>
> Brad Lindsay
I'm *really* trying to keep my "cool" here. OK Brad, here's a free
thermodynamic lesson:
Radiation heat transfer is a function of temperature to the 4th power.
In all the cases you cite, heat is being transferred, or prevented from
being transferred, to space, which is at absolute zero (-273C or 0
Kelvin). The effectiveness of radiant barriers in these applicable are
an order of magnitude higher than your BS chips. Good luck finding
suckers for your crap.
Mark Atanowicz
Eric Gunnerson
blin...@inficad.com wrote in message <6ucvjg$jhu$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <6ubnnq$i...@news.dns.microsoft.com>,
> "Eric Gunnerson" <eri...@micronospamsoft.com> wrote:
>> >equally well for hot coffee or ice tea. Consider that thermos bottles
>> >(invented as "Dewers Flask" in the 1800's), has NO insulation. No
>> >fiberglass, no cellulose, no foam. Only two layers of RBS facing each
>> other
>> >and a vacuum to eliminate convective currents.
>>
get
the
>>
>
>spacesuit works in an evironment where it is absolute zero in the shade
>(-359f) and over 200f in the sun. A delta T over 500f with only 1/4" thick
>"insulation"? This with no vacuum to limit conduction and convection.
What do you mean there is no vacuum? There is vacuum all around the
spacesuit. Talking about the temperature of space is really a fairly
nonsensical thing to do, since the concept of temperature really only means
anything when your speaking about matter, and there is precious little in
space. When people talk about how hot or cold it is in space, they're
talking about how much heating or cooling you get due to radiation when
exposed to the sun or in shadow. In the sun, how hot the surface gets
depends upon how much radiation the surface absorbs; black surfaces will
absorb lots of heat, white sources less heat (which is why the outer suits
and the shuttle are white. In the shade, how cold the surface gets depends
upon how much energy it radiates, though even if it was a totally efficient
radiator, it wouldn't get down to absolute zero because of the cosmic
background radiation.
Since radiation is the only heating/cooling mechanism in space, that's what
you're concerned about, and spacesuits are designed to limit radiative heat
transfer.
>I have a piece of spacesuit in my briefcase manufactured by the same
company
>that provides us with our raw materials for use on earth. It's 17 layers
>thick and separated by mesh scrim .005" thick. Our RBS chips installed in
an
>attic are 10 to 15 layers deep separated by embossing. Try as I might I
>cannot pull a vacuum in an attic so I have settled for what NASA has used
>successfully for 20 years: radiant barrier.
Whatever. You'll find that that same material is relatively poor at
insulating you from 200 degree water or liquid nitrogen.
>I just don't understand the resistance embedded in this thread...so many
>duped for so many years? Everbody thought Tesla was "out there" too. Here
>we are all using the alternating current he developed to argue with each on
>other about the obvious.
The reason that you're encountering so much resistance is that you are
attempting to present your product based on scientific concepts, and you
have those concepts wrong. You're also pointing to testimonials - which is
another yellow flag - and making an invalid analogy to spacesuit insulation.
You have this in common with lots of snake-oil salesman (magnetic water
treatment, etc.)
If you have a useful product - and those who know more than I about the
specifics think that radiant barrers may be useful - there's an accepted way
to prove it - independant laboratory testing. If you post independent lab
results that verify what you're saying, you'll have no problem.
Until that time, you should expect to get a skeptical response.
blin...@inficad.com
Let me make is simple so everyone can understand: Heat moves from hot to cold
in whatever path is easiest: conduction (in solids), convection (in liquids
including gases), and in an electromagnetic form called RADIATION. Attic hot,
house cool, reduce heat gain, save money. House warm, outside cold, reduce
heat loss, save money. Insulation and RBS reduce heat loss/gain.
You must be the kinda guy that can't admit when he's wrong as you never
answered the question about how "precious radiant barrier" works without a
vacuum. That is what you said above right? Here, let me remind you:
"Thermos" bottles rely primarily on vacuum to minimize heat flow.
> > > Compromise the vacuum and your precious RBS chips do little.
Tell me again why RBS doesn't work? Thermos bottles only have two surfaces,
the RBS Chip when installed is ten layers deep.
I don't know about your house, but mine is around 80f, not absolute zero.
The only case I cited relating to absolute zero was the use of RBS in a
spacesuit, which is another question you evidently don't have an answer for.
How does the RBS work in the spacesuit without the benefit of a vacuum?
The effectiveness of radiant barriers in these applicable are
> an order of magnitude higher than your BS chips. Good luck finding
> suckers for your crap.
I guess when you run out of answers you give up? These posts have increased
my web traffic considerably as well as emails from people with legitimate
questions and problems....keep the "suckers" coming. The only "suckers" I
see on this posting service are those unwilling to accept the obvious. Like
I have mentioned many times before: Measure your attic insulation and find
out for yourself.
Brad Lindsay
http://www.savenrg.com
Mark Atanowicz
Doug Miller
[...]
+You must be the kinda guy that can't admit when he's wrong as you never
+answered the question about how "precious radiant barrier" works without a
+vacuum. That is what you said above right? Here, let me remind you:
+
+"Thermos" bottles rely primarily on vacuum to minimize heat flow.
+> > > Compromise the vacuum and your precious RBS chips do little.
+
+Tell me again why RBS doesn't work? Thermos bottles only have two surfaces,
+the RBS Chip when installed is ten layers deep.
Irrelevant -- unless your Magic Hokum Chips are being used in vacuum.
Last time I checked, my attic wasn't a vacuum. Don't know about yours.
+
+I don't know about your house, but mine is around 80f, not absolute zero.
+The only case I cited relating to absolute zero was the use of RBS in a
+spacesuit, which is another question you evidently don't have an answer for.
+How does the RBS work in the spacesuit without the benefit of a vacuum?
Were you born this stupid, or did you train? Radiant barriers work in a
spacesuit precisely because spacesuits are used in *space* -- which is
hard vacuum. In vacuum, heat transfer by convection and conduction is not
possible; hence, all heat transfer can be blocked by a radiant barrier.
I can't imagine where you acquired the idea that spacesuits are not used
in vacuum.
+
+ The effectiveness of radiant barriers in these applicable are
+> an order of magnitude higher than your BS chips. Good luck finding
+> suckers for your crap.
+
+I guess when you run out of answers you give up? These posts have increased
+my web traffic considerably as well as emails from people with legitimate
+questions and problems....keep the "suckers" coming. The only "suckers" I
+see on this posting service are those unwilling to accept the obvious. Like
+I have mentioned many times before: Measure your attic insulation and find
+out for yourself.
+
The only one here unwilling to accept the obvious is you, Brad. If nothing
else, it should be obvious, even to you, that you've stumbled into a hornet's
nest of people who know far more about physics than you do, and suffer gladly
neither scam artists nor fools -- and you seem to qualify in both categories.
Eric Gunnerson
>"Thermos" bottles rely primarily on vacuum to minimize heat flow.
>
>
for.
I has a vacuum all around it.
The point that everybody is making is *not* that radiant barriers don't
prevent radiative heat transfer. They do prevent such a transfer.
What people are complaining about is that conduction and convection transfer
more heat at the temperatures a house sees. They are also complaining
because you speak of RBS chips having a big effect when you installed the
chips *and* added ventilation, and ventilation by itself will obviously have
a bit effect.
See my other post about what you should do to be respected.
blin...@inficad.com
fu...@mcs.com (Chris Matthaei) wrote:
> In article <6ucue7$hrb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, blin...@inficad.com wrote:
> >> Compromise the vacuum and your precious RBS chips do little.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Oh No!!!! Somebody better call NASA and let them know! Our astronauts only
> >have 17 layers of "precious" radiant barrier films separated by a thin mesh
> >of fabric to keep them alive! But wait a minute, I see a hose connected to
> >the spacesuit. Hmmmm, that must be connected to a vacuum pump to make sure
> >the radiant barrier works huh? But then how do they breathe? Speaking of
> >"compromising a vacuum", those emergency blankets (radiant barrier), that are
> >standard equipment in all ski patrol medipacks, how do they work without a
> >vacuum? Someone better email them. Perhaps they could carry batts of
> >fiberglass instead? So many ????'s, so little time.
>
> space suit is the equivilant of the inner shell of a thermos bottle. There is
> no outer layer because all the space around is the vacuum. A space suit would
> not be very effective in Antartica or the Sahara.
Chris Matthaei
> '91 5.0 LX --> 13.53@106.7
> http://www.mcs.net/~fuzzy/
Ok, I finally figured it out. I thought these posts were from like, normal
people? Here's how to find out otherwise: Click on "More Options" above,
then go to "Author Profile". The guys who argue the most on facts they can't
prove have SEVERAL THOUSAND posts just to this service alone. And if you
check out the posts from them on several other topics guess what? More
arguements. May I suggest http://www.getphyscologicalhelp.com?
This was driving me crazy, now it all makes sense. For those of you following
this thread and have legitimate questions on how our proven, patented products
can help you, contact me, Brad Lindsay at: http://www.savenrg.com
I will return your questions with honest answers as soon as I can.
This is my last entry as I am wasting valuable time talking to keyboard
addicts with an attitude.
Brad Lindsay
Yoda of Energy Conservation
Doug Miller
+In article <6udpiq$d3$1...@Nntp1.mcs.net>,
+ fu...@mcs.com (Chris Matthaei) wrote:
+> In article <6ucue7$hrb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, blin...@inficad.com wrote:
+> >In article <6uba10$1p42$2...@newsgate.sps.mot.com>,
+> > MAtan...@aol.com (Mark Atanowicz) wrote:
+>
+> >> "Thermos" bottles rely primarily on vacuum to minimize heat flow.
+> >> Compromise the vacuum and your precious RBS chips do little.
+> >>
+> >> Mark Atanowicz
+> >>
+> >>
+> >
+> >Oh No!!!! Somebody better call NASA and let them know! Our astronauts only
+> >have 17 layers of "precious" radiant barrier films separated by a thin
mesh
+> >of fabric to keep them alive! But wait a minute, I see a hose connected to
+> >the spacesuit. Hmmmm, that must be connected to a vacuum pump to make
sure
+> >the radiant barrier works huh? But then how do they breathe? Speaking of
+> >"compromising a vacuum", those emergency blankets (radiant barrier), that
are
+> >standard equipment in all ski patrol medipacks, how do they work without a
+> >vacuum? Someone better email them. Perhaps they could carry batts of
+> >fiberglass instead? So many ????'s, so little time.
+>
+> Come on. Now this is getting silly! Outer space is a very good vacuum! The
+> space suit is the equivilant of the inner shell of a thermos bottle. There
is
+> no outer layer because all the space around is the vacuum. A space suit
would
+> not be very effective in Antartica or the Sahara.
+
+ Chris Matthaei
+> '91 5.0 LX --> 13.53@106.7
+> http://www.mcs.net/~fuzzy/
+
+Ok, I finally figured it out. I thought these posts were from like, normal
+people? Here's how to find out otherwise: Click on "More Options" above,
+then go to "Author Profile". The guys who argue the most on facts they can't
+prove have SEVERAL THOUSAND posts just to this service alone.
So when somebody refutes your lies with facts, you resort to personal abuse.
It's a fact, Brad, that spacesuits are operated in a vacuum. It's also a fact
that you claimed in one of your posts that they are not. Hell, even my kids
know that space is a vacuum. So if you make such an elementary error, you
lose your credibility. And you don't help yourself by resorting to ad hominem
attacks.
Chris Matthaei
>> Come on. Now this is getting silly! Outer space is a very good vacuum! The
>> space suit is the equivilant of the inner shell of a thermos bottle. There is
>> no outer layer because all the space around is the vacuum. A space suit would
>> not be very effective in Antartica or the Sahara.
>
> Chris Matthaei
>> '91 5.0 LX --> 13.53@106.7
>
>Ok, I finally figured it out. I thought these posts were from like, normal
>people? Here's how to find out otherwise: Click on "More Options" above,
>then go to "Author Profile".
Click on what? I don't have any "More Options" button. What are you trying to
show us anyway?
>The guys who argue the most on facts they can't
>prove have SEVERAL THOUSAND posts just to this service alone. And if you
>check out the posts from them on several other topics guess what? More
>arguements. May I suggest http://www.getphyscologicalhelp.com?
What are you talking about? How is anything I said about a space suit wrong? I
can understand your frustration with some of the more vicious attacks on you,
but what did I say that you're getting all upset about?
>This was driving me crazy, now it all makes sense. For those of you following
>this thread and have legitimate questions on how our proven, patented products
>can help you, contact me, Brad Lindsay at: http://www.savenrg.com
>
>I will return your questions with honest answers as soon as I can.
>
>
>This is my last entry as I am wasting valuable time talking to keyboard
>addicts with an attitude.
>
>Brad Lindsay
>Yoda of Energy Conservation
>
>>
>>
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Chris Matthaei
'91 5.0 LX --> 13.53@106.7
Mary Conner
>Ok, I finally figured it out. I thought these posts were from like, normal
>people? Here's how to find out otherwise: Click on "More Options" above,
>prove have SEVERAL THOUSAND posts just to this service alone. And if you
>check out the posts from them on several other topics guess what? More
>arguements. May I suggest http://www.getphyscologicalhelp.com?
You know, most of us don't post from DejaNews, and those of us who have
several thousand posts listed in DejaNews have probably been around for
*years*, actually predating DejaNews. I'm not sure what you mean by
"this service", but if you mean this newsgroup, there are lots of people
here who have been here for years, helping people with advice, and
providing debunking service for all the "washing disk", "magnetic
water softeners" and the like. You are not unique, you post crap,
you'll get called on it.
Sylvan Butler
>This is my last entry as I am wasting valuable time talking to keyboard
>addicts with an attitude.
translation: I give up, because somebody else has enough time to post,
and is smarter than I am.
sdb
--
Do NOT send me unsolicited commercial e-mail (UCE)!
Watch out for munged e-mail address.
User should be sylvan and host is cyberhighway.net.
blind...@my-dejanews.com
dxmi...@netdirect.net (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <6ucvjg$jhu$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, blin...@inficad.com wrote:
> +In article <6ubnnq$i...@news.dns.microsoft.com>,
> + "Eric Gunnerson" <eri...@micronospamsoft.com> wrote:
> +>
> +> >This is why a thermos bottle works
> +> >equally well for hot coffee or ice tea. Consider that thermos bottles
> +> >(invented as "Dewers Flask" in the 1800's), has NO insulation. No
> +> >fiberglass, no cellulose, no foam. Only two layers of RBS facing each
> +> other
> +> >and a vacuum to eliminate convective currents.
> +>
> +> Now you're just being silly. Vacuum is a wonderful insulator - you don't
> get
> +> convection or conduction through a vacuum. Thermos bottles (most of them,
> +> anyway) are silvered to prevent heat transfer due to radiation, but if the
> +> gap was filled with styrofoam or fiberglass it probably wouldn't be worth
> +> the effort. Notice that coolers aren't silvered on the inside.
Notice also that the ice inside is soaking your sandwiches by noon as well.
Why are we seeing coolers now with the shiney, metalized exterior and only
1/4" thick walls boasting higher performance?
> +> You seem to have a rather spotty knowledge of thermodynamics.
I prefer to withold comments regarding your common sense.
> +You are welcome to your opinion about my knowledge but please explain why a
> +spacesuit works in an evironment where it is absolute zero in the shade
> +(-359f) and over 200f in the sun. A delta T over 500f with only 1/4" thick
> +"insulation"? This with no vacuum to limit conduction and convection.
> +
> What do you mean, "no vacuum"? Better crack open a physics book, Brad. Space
> is a vacuum.
I mean no vacuum. The inside of the spacesuit, which is where the heat
gain/loss is being controlled has no vacuum, only radiant barrier. The
pressure inside is at atmospheric or pretty damn close to it.
I'm still waiting for your answer on how a spacesuit with NO INSULATION, only
radiant barrier keeps astronauts alive in the extreme temps of space? Now
imagine what it can do in an attic.
Brad Lindsay
http://www.savenrg.com
Chris Matthaei
>
>I mean no vacuum. The inside of the spacesuit, which is where the heat
>gain/loss is being controlled has no vacuum, only radiant barrier. The
>pressure inside is at atmospheric or pretty damn close to it.
>
>I'm still waiting for your answer on how a spacesuit with NO INSULATION, only
>radiant barrier keeps astronauts alive in the extreme temps of space? Now
>imagine what it can do in an attic.
Is it necessary to evacuate the air above the coffee inside a thermos in order
for it to stay hot? No. This is simply stupid. If you have this much trouble
understanding the space suit example, why should we trust your "expertise" on
radiant barriers for homes? I already explained it to you. The vacuum of space
has the same function as the vacuum inside the thermos bottle. The only way
for the astronaut and the air inside the spacesuit to transfer heat is through
radiation. There is no conduction or convection in a vacuum! My attic is not
in outer space, so this doesn't really apply there.
Mark Atanowicz
blind...@my-dejanews.com writes:
> I'm still waiting for your answer on how a spacesuit with NO INSULATION, only
> radiant barrier keeps astronauts alive in the extreme temps of space?
Because there is no convective or conductive heat transfer. It's not
the radiant barrier, BTW, that keeps astronauts alive, but rather the
heating/cooling system contained within the suit.
> Now imagine what it can do in an attic.
Sorry, my imagination is not that vivid. My offer to attend a
demonstration still stands. One would think you'd be eager to provide
one.
Mark Atanowicz
Eric Gunnerson
<6vhvq7$vqf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> +You are welcome to your opinion about my knowledge but please explain
why a
>> +spacesuit works in an evironment where it is absolute zero in the shade
>> +(-359f) and over 200f in the sun. A delta T over 500f with only 1/4"
thick
>> +"insulation"? This with no vacuum to limit conduction and convection.
>> +
>> What do you mean, "no vacuum"? Better crack open a physics book, Brad.
Space
>> is a vacuum.
>
>gain/loss is being controlled has no vacuum, only radiant barrier. The
>pressure inside is at atmospheric or pretty damn close to it.
The heat gain is not being controlled on the inside of the spacesuit, at
least not in any passive manner. Just what do you think there *is* inside a
spacesuit? Outside of the inner garment (which are primarily for heat
control, and circulate cooling water) there is airspace, and then there is
the suit. There's no radiant barrier there; the barriers are on the outside
of the suit.
>I'm still waiting for your answer on how a spacesuit with NO INSULATION,
only
>radiant barrier keeps astronauts alive in the extreme temps of space? Now
>imagine what it can do in an attic.
If you wish to continue to demonstrate your ignorance in public, that's fine
by me.
Conduction and convection don't operate in space because of the vacuum.
Vacuum is a perfect insulator with respect to conduction and convection.
Therefore, the only way to lose or gain heat is through radiation. Even with
their suits, astronauts still need active cooling - and a lot of it - to
stay cool, mostly because they are generating a considerable amount of heat
themselves (ever walked around in a full rainsuit?). On the dark side or in
shadow, they normally stay fairly warm just on their body heat, except for
their hands.
While the radiation barriers on the spacesuit do reduce heat loss and gain,
they're primarily there to reduce the radiation exposure of astronauts.
Radiation just doesn't move that much heat. The shuttle has to return to
earth if it can't open its cargo bay doors, because they have radiators to
get rid of waste heat.
fruit...@my-dejanews.com
particles in space, with out them there is nothing for the radiant energy to
heat, not because there is a partial vacuum. You cannot have convective or
conductive heat with out dust!!
Andy Miller
ami...@mail.llion.org
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Doug Miller
+> +
+> What do you mean, "no vacuum"? Better crack open a physics book, Brad.
Space
+> is a vacuum.
+
+I mean no vacuum. The inside of the spacesuit, which is where the heat
+gain/loss is being controlled has no vacuum, only radiant barrier. The
+pressure inside is at atmospheric or pretty damn close to it.
You're missing the point very badly here, Brad. Obviously the inside of
the suit isn't a vacuum. What you fail to understand is that the vacuum
*outside* the suit is critical to the heat transfer process.
+
+I'm still waiting for your answer on how a spacesuit with NO INSULATION, only
+radiant barrier keeps astronauts alive in the extreme temps of space? Now
+imagine what it can do in an attic.
+
It's really very simple, Brad.
Lesson 1.
Space is a vacuum. Got that part? Okay. The next step might be a little
harder.
Lesson 2.
"Temperature" is the name by which we refer to the thermal energy of
*matter*. Since space is a vacuum (read: absence of matter), SPACE HAS
NO TEMPERATURE. That does not mean that space has a temperature of zero;
rather, it means that the concept of temperature is meaningless in space.
Lesson 3.
Heat is transferred in only three ways: conduction, convection, radiation.
Lesson 4.
Heat transfer by conduction requires contact with matter. (There has to
be something there to transfer the heat to.) There is no matter in a vacuum,
so heat transfer from the space suit to space by conduction is impossible.
Lesson 5.
Heat transfer by convection requires a moving fluid to carry the heat away.
Space, being devoid of matter (see lesson 3), contains no fluids, moving
or otherwise, to transfer heat by convection.
Lesson 6.
With heat transfer by conduction and convection impossible in a vacuum,
heat loss from the space suit (or heat gain, for that matter) is quite
effectively prevented by a radiant barrier.
Lesson 7.
The attic of the average North American home is not a vacuum.
Doug Miller
fruit...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
+What most of you don'd take into consideration is that there are no dust
+particles in space, with out them there is nothing for the radiant energy to
+heat, not because there is a partial vacuum. You cannot have convective or
+conductive heat with out dust!!
Oh, my. This is just too funny. "Cannot have convective or conductive heat
without dust," eh, Fruit Cake? Tell you what: polish up your tea kettle so
there's not a speck of dust on it. Fill it with water, and set it on the
stove to boil. When it begins to whistle, lay one hand on the side of it
(conduction) and put the other hand in the steam (convection). If you're
right, you won't get burned.
By the way, you're completely wrong about radiant heat transfer too.
Radiation is the only means by which heat can be transferred in a vacuum,
and does not in any way depend on the presence or absence of any matter
to absorb the radiated energy.
Eric Gunnerson
<6vjpig$idr$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <6vj7fm$1...@news.dns.microsoft.com>,
> "Eric Gunnerson" <eri...@micronospamsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>> While the radiation barriers on the spacesuit do reduce heat loss and
gain,
>> they're primarily there to reduce the radiation exposure of astronauts.
>>
>> Radiation just doesn't move that much heat. The shuttle has to return to
>> earth if it can't open its cargo bay doors, because they have radiators
to
>> get rid of waste heat.
>>
>
to
What do you mean there is nothing out there for the radiant energy to heat?
Radiant heat transfer doesn't have to be *to* someplace; once an object has
radiated the heat away, it keeps going until it hits something, and is
absorbed.
Just like all electromagnetic radiation.
I agree that there is no dust out in space, but it's matter that is required
for conduction or convection.
fruit...@my-dejanews.com
don't work here on the earth ( if the average North American Home is not a
vacuum then it is easy to understand why radiant heaters don't work
here.)!!!!!!!!!!!! Any one else want to learn from this Professor He can
count to 7 but I don't think he thinks (1+1=2).
Doug Miller
fruit...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
+In article <6vjoor$tm8...@p3-term1-and.netdirect.net>,
+ dxmi...@netdirect.net (Doug Miller) wrote:
+> In article <6vhvq7$vqf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
+> blind...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
+>
+> +> +
+> +> What do you mean, "no vacuum"? Better crack open a physics book, Brad.
+> +> is a vacuum.
+> +
+> +I mean no vacuum. The inside of the spacesuit, which is where the heat
+> +pressure inside is at atmospheric or pretty damn close to it.
+>
+> You're missing the point very badly here, Brad. Obviously the inside of
+> the suit isn't a vacuum. What you fail to understand is that the vacuum
+> *outside* the suit is critical to the heat transfer process.
+>
+> +
+> +I'm still waiting for your answer on how a spacesuit with NO INSULATION,
only
+> +imagine what it can do in an attic.
+> +
+> It's really very simple, Brad.
+> Lesson 1.
+> Space is a vacuum. Got that part? Okay. The next step might be a little
+> harder.
+>
+> Lesson 2.
+> "Temperature" is the name by which we refer to the thermal energy of
+> *matter*. Since space is a vacuum (read: absence of matter), SPACE HAS
+> NO TEMPERATURE. That does not mean that space has a temperature of zero;
+> rather, it means that the concept of temperature is meaningless in space.
+>
+> Lesson 3.
+> Heat is transferred in only three ways: conduction, convection, radiation.
+>
+> Lesson 4.
+> Heat transfer by conduction requires contact with matter. (There has to
+> be something there to transfer the heat to.) There is no matter in a
vacuum,
+> so heat transfer from the space suit to space by conduction is impossible.
+>
+> Lesson 5.
+> Heat transfer by convection requires a moving fluid to carry the heat away.
+> Space, being devoid of matter (see lesson 3), contains no fluids, moving
+> or otherwise, to transfer heat by convection.
+>
+> Lesson 6.
+> With heat transfer by conduction and convection impossible in a vacuum,
+> heat loss from the space suit (or heat gain, for that matter) is quite
+> effectively prevented by a radiant barrier.
+>
+> Lesson 7.
+> The attic of the average North American home is not a vacuum.
+>
+> --
+> dlmiller.at.inetdirect.dot.net
+> Thank you very much for the lesson. I now understand why radiant heaters
+
+don't work here on the earth ( if the average North American Home is not a
+vacuum then it is easy to understand why radiant heaters don't work
+here.)!!!!!!!!!!!! Any one else want to learn from this Professor He can
+count to 7 but I don't think he thinks (1+1=2).
+
FruitCake, perhaps you should consider actually reading a post before you
attempt to respond to it. My post discussed the reasons that a radiant
barrier is effective in space (and the reasons that heat transfer does not
occur by convection or conduction in space). I said nothing about the
effectiveness of radiant transfer of energy when *not* in a vacuum.
fruit...@my-dejanews.com
are not a vacuum leading the reader to believe there is no radiant heat to
stop using radiant barrier as you have contended all the time.
nrg...@my-dejanews.com
fu...@mcs.com (Chris Matthaei) wrote:
> In article <6vhvq7$vqf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, blind...@my-dejanews.com
wrote:
> >
> >
>
> for it to stay hot? No. This is simply stupid. If you have this much trouble
> understanding the space suit example, why should we trust your "expertise" on
> radiant barriers for homes? I already explained it to you. The vacuum of space
> has the same function as the vacuum inside the thermos bottle. The only way
> for the astronaut and the air inside the spacesuit to transfer heat is through
> radiation. There is no conduction or convection in a vacuum! My attic is not
> in outer space, so this doesn't really apply there.
Wow! Another guy with no radiation in his attic! Tell me how you do it!
nrg...@my-dejanews.com
fruit...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <6vovmv$t40...@p9-term2-and.netdirect.net>,
> dxmi...@netdirect.net (Doug Miller) wrote:
> > In article <6vmjcn$kh3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > fruit...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > +In article <6vjoor$tm8...@p3-term1-and.netdirect.net>,
> > + dxmi...@netdirect.net (Doug Miller) wrote:
> > +> In article <6vhvq7$vqf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > +> blind...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > +>
> > +> +> +
> > +> +> What do you mean, "no vacuum"? Better crack open a physics book, Brad.
> > +> Space
> > +> +> is a vacuum.
> > +> +
> > +> +I mean no vacuum. The inside of the spacesuit, which is where the heat
> > +> +gain/loss is being controlled has no vacuum, only radiant barrier. The
> > +> +pressure inside is at atmospheric or pretty damn close to it.
> > +>
> > +> You're missing the point very badly here, Brad. Obviously the inside of
> > +> the suit isn't a vacuum. What you fail to understand is that the vacuum
> > +> *outside* the suit is critical to the heat transfer process.
> > +>
> > +> +
> > only
> > +> +radiant barrier keeps astronauts alive in the extreme temps of space?
Now
vacuum have to do with conduction? Here's an experiment:
Stand on the moon, hold a magnifying glass so it focuses on a piece of 1/2"
aluminum rod which passes through the spacesuit glove (through a seal), and
hold it in your hand. No Heat? Only possible in our atmosphere? Have you
been talking Ms. Conner who states radiant barriers conduct heat? Hmmm, if
that's the case I wonder why they are used exclusively in spacecraft. You
two ought ot get together and phone NASA, do a three way conference call to
Owens Corning and get something going. You could be famous....save us
taxpayers thousands of dollars on useless metalized films.
This isn't "Clintonism", it's ....nope, I won't go there.
nrg...@my-dejanews.com
Lesson 4.
> +> Heat transfer by conduction requires contact with matter. (There has to
> +> be something there to transfer the heat to.) There is no matter in a
> vacuum,
> +> so heat transfer from the space suit to space by conduction is impossible.
> +
What do you call a spacesuit? A mirage? Let me get this straight, you are
inside a spacesuit, standing out of the sun (in absolute zero), and your skin
would not conduct heat through the spacesuit because of the vacuum of space?
I guess it doesn't "matter"? Ever hear of Stephan Bolsmans (sp?), law of
emissivity? Or deep space irradiation? The ability for space to "suck" heat
from the surface of a space suit depends entirely on the heat conducted
through the suit and the emissivity of the surface of the material.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
nrg...@my-dejanews.com
nrg...@my-dejanews.com
MAtan...@aol.com (Mark Atanowicz) wrote:
> In article <6vhvq7$vqf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
> blind...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>
only
>
> the radiant barrier, BTW, that keeps astronauts alive, but rather the
> heating/cooling system contained within the suit.
>
> > Now imagine what it can do in an attic.
>
> Sorry, my imagination is not that vivid. My offer to attend a
> demonstration still stands. One would think you'd be eager to provide
> one.
>
> Mark Atanowicz
As I mentioned in an ealier post, we will be at the Phoenix Fall Home and
Garden Show booth number 171, northeast hall. We have a mockup attic with
radiant panels, insulation, thermocouples, infrared measuring devices, "Magic
Hokum Chips". If you are still not convinced, you can personally chat with
several vendors who can testify to the performance in their homes after
having installed the "Magic Hokum Chips".
The ball is in your court...again.
Brad Lindsay,
Yoda of RBS http://www.savenrg.com
nrg...@my-dejanews.com
MAtan...@aol.com (Mark Atanowicz) wrote:
> In article <6vhvq7$vqf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
> blind...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>
> > I'm still waiting for your answer on how a spacesuit with NO INSULATION,
only
> > radiant barrier keeps astronauts alive in the extreme temps of space?
>
> Because there is no convective or conductive heat transfer. It's not
> the radiant barrier, BTW, that keeps astronauts alive, but rather the
> heating/cooling system contained within the suit.
No conductive or convective heat transfer? Must be magic? Plenty of
conductive, not much convective, mostly radiant (in the sun) and radiant (in
the shade), hence the need for radiant barrier.
I wish you guys would do your homework, it would sure save me some time. The
Gemini suit did not have a cooling system, only radiant barrier. Later
missions employed a design using cooled water. For a blueprint on the Gemini
spacesuit, click here: http://www.savenrg.com/spcsut1.jpg
> > Now imagine what it can do in an attic.
>
> Sorry, my imagination is not that vivid. My offer to attend a
> demonstration still stands. One would think you'd be eager to provide
> one.
> Mark Atanowicz
Eager? I can't sleep at night! I will be at the Phoenix Fall Home Show with
my my products stop by, you just might learn something.
Brad Lindsay
nrg...@my-dejanews.com
> >
> > Radiation just doesn't move that much heat.
"Radiation just doesn't move that much heat"? Radiation is THE source of all
heat! At least in this universe... without radiant heat there would be no
convection or conduction to worry about. When the electomagnetic force of
radiant heat strikes the earth....sheesh, I'm just wasting my time.
Good night.
> > If you wish to continue to demonstrate your ignorance in public, that's fine
> > by me.
> >
Brad Lindsay
nrg...@my-dejanews.com
> > +> +> What do you mean, "no vacuum"? Better crack open a physics book, Brad.
> > +> Space
> > +> +> is a vacuum.
> > +> +
> > +> +I mean no vacuum. The inside of the spacesuit, which is where the heat
> > +> +gain/loss is being controlled has no vacuum, only radiant barrier. The
> > +> +pressure inside is at atmospheric or pretty damn close to it.
> > +>
> > +> You're missing the point very badly here, Brad. Obviously the inside of
> > +> the suit isn't a vacuum. What you fail to understand is that the vacuum
> > +> *outside* the suit is critical to the heat transfer process.
No, you are missing the point. What is it in this scenario we are controlling
the temperature? The 98f inside.
Is there a vacuum inside? No.
Is there conduction inside? Yes.
Is there convection inside? Very little.
Is there radiant barrier inside? Yes, 17 layers.
Is there insulation inside. Not much.
Would it work without radiant barrier? No.
The vacuum *outside* has little to do with the performance of the spacesuit
as the controlling of emissivity (out of the sun), and long wave radiation (in
the sun), are primary concerns. There is no heat transfer in a vacuum, only
the movement of radiant heat.
> > +> +I'm still waiting for your answer on how a spacesuit with NO INSULATION,
> > only
> > +> +radiant barrier keeps astronauts alive in the extreme temps of space?
Now
> > +> +imagine what it can do in an attic.
> > +> +
> > +> It's really very simple, Brad.
> > +>
> > +> Lesson 1.
> > +> Space is a vacuum. Got that part? Okay. The next step might be a little
> > +> harder.
> > +>
> > +> Lesson 2.
> > +> "Temperature" is the name by which we refer to the thermal energy of
> > +> *matter*. Since space is a vacuum (read: absence of matter), SPACE HAS
> > +> NO TEMPERATURE. That does not mean that space has a temperature of zero;
> > +> rather, it means that the concept of temperature is meaningless in space.
> > +>
> > +> Lesson 3.
> > +> Heat is transferred in only three ways: conduction, convection,
radiation.
> > +>
> > +> Lesson 4.
> > +> Heat transfer by conduction requires contact with matter. (There has to
> > +> be something there to transfer the heat to.) There is no matter in a
> > vacuum,
> > +> so heat transfer from the space suit to space by conduction is
impossible.
> > +>
> > +> Lesson 5.
> > +> Heat transfer by convection requires a moving fluid to carry the heat
away.
> > +> Space, being devoid of matter (see lesson 3), contains no fluids, moving
> > +> or otherwise, to transfer heat by convection.
> > +>
> > +> Lesson 6.
> > +> With heat transfer by conduction and convection impossible in a vacuum,
> > +> heat loss from the space suit (or heat gain, for that matter) is quite
> > +> effectively prevented by a radiant barrier.
> > +>
> > +> Lesson 7.
> > +> The attic of the average North American home is not a vacuum.
> > +>
Lesson 8
The sun radiates heat
Lesson 9 This infrared radiant heat (IR), travels at 186,000 miles per second
towards the earth
Lesson 10
Our atmosphere slows this somewhat
Lesson 11
IR stikes our roof
Lesson 12
The roof heats up and radiates with an emissivity of .95 (up and down, as in
into the insulation)
Lesson 13
IR shares the same properties as visible light: can only be stopped by being
absorbed or reflected
Lesson 14
Insulation is not reflective thereby absorbing IR
Lesson 15 Radiant barrier is very reflective which changes the direction of
IR making the insulation cooler and saving energy.
Lesson 16
The more reflective layers you have the better it stops IR
Lesson 17
Heat always moves from hot to cold.
Lesson 18
During the winter the RBS Chips hold the heat in.
Class dismissed
Fact #1
RBS Chips are the most efficient insulation product available anywhere.
Fact #2
You can easliy install them yourself. Click here:
http://www.savenrg.com/1rbschip.htm
Brad Lindsay
http://www.savenrg.com
Doug Miller
+In article <6vr5vs$k36$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
+ fruit...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
+> In article <6vovmv$t40...@p9-term2-and.netdirect.net>,+> > In article <6vmjcn$kh3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
+> > fruit...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
+> > +In article <6vjoor$tm8...@p3-term1-and.netdirect.net>,
+> > + dxmi...@netdirect.net (Doug Miller) wrote:
+> > +> In article <6vhvq7$vqf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,+> > +> +> What do you mean, "no vacuum"? Better crack open a physics book,
Brad.
+> > +> Space
+> > +> +> is a vacuum.
+> > +> +
+> > +> +I mean no vacuum. The inside of the spacesuit, which is where the
heat
The
+> > +> +pressure inside is at atmospheric or pretty damn close to it.
+> > +>
+> > +> You're missing the point very badly here, Brad. Obviously the inside
of
vacuum
+> > +> *outside* the suit is critical to the heat transfer process.
+> > +>
+> > +> +
INSULATION,
+> > only
+> > +> +radiant barrier keeps astronauts alive in the extreme temps of space?
+Now
+> > +> +imagine what it can do in an attic.
+> > +> +
+> > +> It's really very simple, Brad.
+> > +>
+> > +> Lesson 1.
little
+> > +> harder.
+> > +>
+> > +> Lesson 2.
+> > +> "Temperature" is the name by which we refer to the thermal energy of
+> > +> *matter*. Since space is a vacuum (read: absence of matter), SPACE HAS
+> > +> NO TEMPERATURE. That does not mean that space has a temperature of
zero;
+> > +> rather, it means that the concept of temperature is meaningless in
+> > +>
+> > +> Lesson 3.
+radiation.
+> > +>
+> > +> Lesson 4.
+> > +> Heat transfer by conduction requires contact with matter. (There has
to
+> > +> be something there to transfer the heat to.) There is no matter in a
+> > vacuum,
+> > +> so heat transfer from the space suit to space by conduction is
+impossible.
+> > +>
+> > +> Lesson 5.
+> > +> Heat transfer by convection requires a moving fluid to carry the heat
+away.
+> > +> Space, being devoid of matter (see lesson 3), contains no fluids,
moving
+> > +> or otherwise, to transfer heat by convection.
+> > +>
+> > +> Lesson 6.
vacuum,
+> > +> heat loss from the space suit (or heat gain, for that matter) is quite
+> > +> effectively prevented by a radiant barrier.
+> > +>
+> > +> Lesson 7.
+> > +>
+> > +> --
+> > +> dlmiller.at.inetdirect.dot.net
+> > +> Thank you very much for the lesson. I now understand why radiant
+> > +
+> > +don't work here on the earth ( if the average North American Home is not
a
+> > +here.)!!!!!!!!!!!! Any one else want to learn from this Professor He
can
+> > +count to 7 but I don't think he thinks (1+1=2).
+> > +
+> > FruitCake, perhaps you should consider actually reading a post before you
+> > barrier is effective in space (and the reasons that heat transfer does
not
+> > occur by convection or conduction in space). I said nothing about the
+> > effectiveness of radiant transfer of energy when *not* in a vacuum.+> > dmiller is right DUMB MILLER you forgot lesson #7 telling us that our
homes
+>
+> are not a vacuum leading the reader to believe there is no radiant heat to
+> stop using radiant barrier as you have contended all the time.
+>
+I'm STILL trying to figure out what universe dmiller is from??? What does a
+vacuum have to do with conduction?
+
Absolutely nothing, Brad, which is exactly the point that you seem to have
such a hard time grasping. The reason radiant barriers are so effective in
space is that the vacuum of space prevents the transfer of heat in any way
other than radiation. Since an attic is not a vacuum, the effectiveness of
a radiant barrier in space is not a useful predictor of its effectiveness
in an attic.
Doug Miller
+
+
+
+Lesson 4.
+> +> Heat transfer by conduction requires contact with matter. (There has to
+> +> be something there to transfer the heat to.) There is no matter in a
+> vacuum,
+> +> so heat transfer from the space suit to space by conduction is
+> +
+
+What do you call a spacesuit? A mirage? Let me get this straight, you are
+inside a spacesuit, standing out of the sun (in absolute zero), and your skin
+would not conduct heat through the spacesuit because of the vacuum of space?
+
YES. That is absolutely correct, regardless of your ability to understand it.
+I guess it doesn't "matter"? Ever hear of Stephan Bolsmans (sp?), law of
+emissivity? Or deep space irradiation? The ability for space to "suck" heat
+from the surface of a space suit depends entirely on the heat conducted
+through the suit and the emissivity of the surface of the material.
Back up and re-read what you just wrote, Brad. "Heat conducted *through* the
suit" [my emphasis] is correct. But you seem intent on reading that as "heat
conducted *from* the suit" which is not correct. Heat can be conducted from
the inside of the suit to the outside -- but there conduction stops. Any heat
transfer from the suit to space is by radiation only, hence the importance of
the emissivity of the suit.
Space doesn't "suck" heat from a space suit, either. Why do you suppose the
space suits have *cooling* units built in? Hint: it's not to *prevent* the
transfer of heat from the suit.
+
+Please correct me if I'm wrong.
+
I just did. Maybe you can understand it this time.
Doug Miller
+In article <6vit0a$u26$1...@newsgate.sps.mot.com>,+> blind...@my-dejanews.com writes:
+>
+> > I'm still waiting for your answer on how a spacesuit with NO INSULATION,
+only
+> > radiant barrier keeps astronauts alive in the extreme temps of space?
+>
+> Because there is no convective or conductive heat transfer. It's not
+> the radiant barrier, BTW, that keeps astronauts alive, but rather the
+> heating/cooling system contained within the suit.
+
+No conductive or convective heat transfer? Must be magic? Plenty of
+conductive, not much convective, mostly radiant (in the sun) and radiant (in
+the shade), hence the need for radiant barrier.
Sorry, Brad, but you're waaay out in left field on this one. There is
absolutely NO transfer of heat from the sun to the earth (or to anywhere
else) by any means other than radiation. Heat is transferred from the
sun's core to its surface by both conduction and convection, but there
it can leave only by radiation.
+
+I wish you guys would do your homework, it would sure save me some time. The
+Gemini suit did not have a cooling system, only radiant barrier. Later
+missions employed a design using cooled water. For a blueprint on the Gemini
+spacesuit, click here: http://www.savenrg.com/spcsut1.jpg
You'd save even more time if you'd think a little bit. And speaking of doing
your homework -- did you happen to discover why the cooling systems were
added later? It's because the astronauts complained of being too hot.
Doug Miller
+
+"Radiation just doesn't move that much heat"? Radiation is THE source of all
+heat! At least in this universe... without radiant heat there would be no
+convection or conduction to worry about. When the electomagnetic force of
+radiant heat strikes the earth....sheesh, I'm just wasting my time.
+Good night.
Radiation is a far less efficient means of transferring heat than either
convection or conduction. You seem to have a very hard time grasping the
concept that IN SPACE, radiation is the ONLY means of transferring heat
because space is a vacuum.
Doug Miller
[snip]
+There is no heat transfer in a vacuum, only
+the movement of radiant heat.
Pray go on demonstrating your lack of critical thinking skills with statements
such as this. It's getting to be quite entertaining.
Ayse Sercan
>
>> +> Heat transfer by conduction requires contact with matter. (There has to
>> +> be something there to transfer the heat to.) There is no matter in a
>> +> so heat transfer from the space suit to space by conduction is impossible.
>> +
>
Heat is conducted as far as matter extends: to the limits of the suit.
Heat cannot be conducted in a vacuum, because there is nothign for it to
be conducted through. Therefore, the ability of the suit to prevent
conductive losses is unimportant. Rather unlike the conditions in an
attic, where there are air moecules to conduct heat.
By the way, space is not "absolute zero" as you claim. There is no
temperature in space. That is very very different from being at absolute
zero.
--
ay...@netcom.com
"Life is too important to take seriously." -- Corky Siegel
Ayse Sercan
>
>Is there a vacuum inside? No.
>
>Is there conduction inside? Yes.
>
>Is there convection inside? Very little.
>
>Is there radiant barrier inside? Yes, 17 layers.
>
>Is there insulation inside. Not much.
>
>Would it work without radiant barrier? No.
Nobody has disputed this.
>The vacuum *outside* has little to do with the performance of the spacesuit
>as the controlling of emissivity (out of the sun), and long wave radiation (in
>the sun), are primary concerns.
The vacuum outside of the suit is relevant insofar as it explains why
there does not need to be any insulation in the space suit. Because
insulation protects against conductive and convective heat loss, which do
not happen in space.
>There is no heat transfer in a vacuum, only
>the movement of radiant heat.
What exactly do you think the movement of radiant heat is, then, if not
heat transfer?
>Lesson 13
>IR shares the same properties as visible light: can only be stopped by being
>absorbed or reflected
>
>Lesson 14
>Insulation is not reflective thereby absorbing IR
Actually, most of us have a roof over our house. This roof absorbs the
IR and then conducts it indoors. Insulation protects against this
conductive heat gain.
>Lesson 16
>The more reflective layers you have the better it stops IR
If you have one reflective layer, how is IR getting through that layer?
>Lesson 18
>During the winter the RBS Chips hold the heat in.
During the winter and practically all the time, RBS chips act as
insulation rather than a radiant barrier.
>Fact #1
>RBS Chips are the most efficient insulation product available anywhere.
I thought you said they were not insulation.
blin...@inficad.com
> Actually, most of us have a roof over our house. This roof absorbs the
> IR and then conducts it indoors. Insulation protects against this
> conductive heat gain.
Air is not a good conductor of heat. Convector, yes. Conductive, no. How do
you explain the insulation being hotter than the attic air if heat rises? The
primary function of insulation is to keep air from moving. By using a
substrate of low mass you can also limit conduction. Unfortunately, you
can't have your cake and eat it too. Low mass substrates (like fiberglass),
allow the transmission of IR. This is bad news to the inhabitants, good
news to utility companies who, for your information, have known this for
decades.
>
> >Lesson 16
> >The more reflective layers you have the better it stops IR
>
> If you have one reflective layer, how is IR getting through that layer?
Because we are using a metalized film which does not share the same emissivity
qualities of foil. You can imagine what foil chips would look like after
running through high static blower and 150' of hose.
> >Lesson 18
> >During the winter the RBS Chips hold the heat in.
>
> During the winter and practically all the time, RBS chips act as
> insulation rather than a radiant barrier.
I give up.
Brad Lindsay, EcoGuard Mfg.
http://www.savenrg.com
>
> >Fact #1
> >RBS Chips are the most efficient insulation product available anywhere.
>
> I thought you said they were not insulation.
This is why...
>
> --
> ay...@netcom.com
> "Life is too important to take seriously." -- Corky Siegel
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
blin...@inficad.com
> +I'm STILL trying to figure out what universe dmiller is from??? What does a
> +vacuum have to do with conduction?
> +
> Absolutely nothing, Brad, which is exactly the point that you seem to have
> such a hard time grasping.
I've had to relearn what I was taught in school regarding heat movement in
buildings. Nobody EVER mentioned long wave radiation, the effects of
deepspace, emissivity of building materials or the best one: the falicy of
the R factor. I can grasp the radiation/vacuum issue.
The reason radiant barriers are so effective in
> space is that the vacuum of space prevents the transfer of heat in any way
> other than radiation. Since an attic is not a vacuum, the effectiveness of
> a radiant barrier in space is not a useful predictor of its effectiveness
> in an attic.
I never said it was a predictor, I was making a comparison. What is it with
you people? One guy sez there is no radiation in the attic, only conduction
and convection. How does one explain 684,000+ matches for radiant barrier?
All these companies are "salesmongers", or "stupidity or fraud" or
"hawkers"... I don't get it.
The basics *again*:
Sun generates radiant heat
Sun heats roof
Roof radiants heat
Insulation gets hot from radiation (yeah, yeah and convection)...
Heat moves into house
Neck gets sweaty
Crank the A/C lower
Pay higher bills.
Somewhere in the above menu there is a simple, cost effective method for
saving a bunch of money. Insert the following line in the above menu where
it would do the most good:
Reflect radiant energy
Reduce the problem, the symptoms go away.
>
> --
> dlmiller.at.inetdirect.dot.net
>
Brad Lindsay, EcoGuard Mfg.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
David Harper
>Air is not a good conductor of heat. Convector, yes. Conductive, no.
>How do you explain the insulation being hotter than the attic air if
>heat rises?
My measurements of my attic insulation's temperature don't match your
predictions. What have I done wrong/differently in my measurements?
To refresh everyone's memory...
A couple of weeks ago I performed temperature measurements in
my attic and reported the results on some of these measurements to
this Newsgroup. Here is a summary of what I found when I measured
temperatures in my attic in the middle of the afternoon, and late in
the afternoon, and around sundown, in Houston, TX in late September
when afternoon temperatures where in the high 90's:
The attic is large and is well ventilated with ridge and soffit vents.
The attic floor between the joists is filled with about 2" of rock wool
insulation. This is covered with about 4"-5" of fiberglass instlation.
Yes, I know I need more insulation!
All temperatue mesurements were done first with a cheap, household
bulb thermometer, but then repeated with a $10 digital thermometer.
In ALL cases the temperature in the attic -- multiple locations --
was about 12 degrees WARMER than the outside air temperature.
In ALL cases the temperature on top of the attic insulation --
multiple locations -- was the SAME as the attic air temperature.
In ALL cases the temperature in the center of the attic insulation --
multiple locations -- was COOLER than the attic air temperature.
In ALL cases the temperature at the bottom of the attic insulation
(i.e., on top of the sheet rock, which is the ceiling of the room
below) -- multiple locations -- was COOLER than in the center of
the attic insulation.
- David
Rusty Wallace
I'm having a hard time understanding how a RB on top of my attic
insulation is going to help me at all. I don't know about everyone
else but my attic is dirty. Anything I put up there is going to have
a pretty good layer of dust after a few months to a year. Once a RB
gets dusty it isn't going to reflect worth a damn. The IR radiation
is just going to be absorbed by the dust and passed on through my RB
via conduction. Yes? Am I missing something?
Even if my attic is clean I don't really see the benefit of RB's. It
isn't like the IR is being reflected away from my house. What IR hits
the barrier is just going to bounce around the attic and be absorbed
by the air, roof, timber, etc further heating the attic. The RB is
still going to conduct heat quite nicely to my insulation. It seems
to me that RB's are only going to be seriously effective if they are
located *outside* my attic (maybe some RB shingles - wouldn't the
neighbors love that!) RB's would seem to be a nice niche product
without much application for the average homeowner. What am I missing
here?
Rusty
fruit...@my-dejanews.com
dxmi...@netdirect.net (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <6vusug$lnu$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, nrg...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> +In article <6vr5vs$k36$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> + fruit...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> +> In article <6vovmv$t40...@p9-term2-and.netdirect.net>,
> +> dxmi...@netdirect.net (Doug Miller) wrote:
> +> > In article <6vmjcn$kh3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> +> > fruit...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> +> > +In article <6vjoor$tm8...@p3-term1-and.netdirect.net>,
> +> > + dxmi...@netdirect.net (Doug Miller) wrote:
> +> > +> In article <6vhvq7$vqf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> +> > +> +> What do you mean, "no vacuum"? Better crack open a physics book,
> Brad.
> +> > +> Space
> +> > +> +> is a vacuum.
> +> > +> +
> +> > +> +I mean no vacuum. The inside of the spacesuit, which is where the
> heat
> +> > +> +gain/loss is being controlled has no vacuum, only radiant barrier.
> The
> +> > +> +pressure inside is at atmospheric or pretty damn close to it.
> +> > +>
> +> > +> You're missing the point very badly here, Brad. Obviously the inside
> of
> +> > +> the suit isn't a vacuum. What you fail to understand is that the
> vacuum
> +> > +> *outside* the suit is critical to the heat transfer process.
> +> > +>
> +> > +> +
> INSULATION,
> to
> +vacuum have to do with conduction?
> +
> Absolutely nothing, Brad, which is exactly the point that you seem to have
> space is that the vacuum of space prevents the transfer of heat in any way
> other than radiation. Since an attic is not a vacuum, the effectiveness of
> a radiant barrier in space is not a useful predictor of its effectiveness
> in an attic.
>
> dlmiller.at.inetdirect.dot.net
> Well for one more test just today. 2:30 PM 75 deg. day (bright sun shine)
black 135 deg. roof in new section where RB was placed above the Truss system
the wood truss system was 79 deg. the insulation top surface 76 deg. Where
there was no RB the truss system was 115 deg. top of insulation 89 deg under
6" of insulation at drywall cealing 81 deg. A/C set to 72 deg inside the
house. What is the heat gain with only 1/2" drywall between 81 deg and 72
deg. May I suggest you stop making comments about things you know NOTHING
ABOUT!!!
Andy Miller Phone 417-532-3443 I invite anyone to call if you agree or
disagree. ami...@mail.llion.org
Eric Gunnerson
>Air is not a good conductor of heat. Convector, yes. Conductive, no. How
do
>you explain the insulation being hotter than the attic air if heat rises?
>primary function of insulation is to keep air from moving. By using a
>substrate of low mass you can also limit conduction. Unfortunately, you
>can't have your cake and eat it too. Low mass substrates (like
fiberglass),
>allow the transmission of IR. This is bad news to the inhabitants, good
>news to utility companies who, for your information, have known this for
>decades.
I love this part.
The utility companies, who will *subsidize* me putting in better insulating
windows, or conventional insulation in my home, or flourescent lighting,
aren't interested in your solution because why???
The reason they subsidize is because most utilities need more power, and
it's cheaper for them to get that power through conservation rather than
through new capacity (sometimes half the cost).
It's not like they can sell as much power as people who will buy; they are
limited by the amount that they generate. If they can reduce consumption
through conservation, they can sell that power elsewhere. If it's on the
open market, they may be able to sell it for more than the consumer would
have paid for it.
So what's their motive in not adapting energy-saving technologies? Why do
they adopt others, and not yours?
nrg...@my-dejanews.com
dha...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Harper) wrote:
> In article <701jc5$6k9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <blin...@inficad.com> wrote:
>
> >How do you explain the insulation being hotter than the attic air if
> >heat rises?
>
David,
What type of roofing do you have? Shake? Shingle? Tile? Color?
Brad Lindsay
http://www.savenrg.com
Bruce Bowler
Brad, why so many different usernames (at least 3 that I know of)?
Trying to hide something???
Back on, Oct 14 1998 at 07:35:51 GMT in message ID
<701k8n$8jj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, someone claiming to be you said...
> The basics *again*:
> Sun generates radiant heat
> Sun heats roof
> Roof radiants heat
> Insulation gets hot from radiation (yeah, yeah and convection)...
> Heat moves into house
> Neck gets sweaty
> Crank the A/C lower
> Pay higher bills.
On 13 Oct 1998 @ 06:45:36 GMT in article
<6vusuh$lnv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> someone else claiming to be you
said...
> I showed one skeptic who just couldn't fathom the fact (even as he saw it with
> his own eyes), that the insulation temperature 1/2" below the surface was 151f
> while the hottest attic air was 137f. I thought it was you until he realized
> how it was possible and I asked him his name and it wasn't you.
David has demonstrated that in his house (a real house, not an attic
mock up, by the way) that the surface of the insulation was the same
temp as the attic air temperature and that the temperature halfway into
the insulation was cooler than the attic air, not hotter as your mock up
would have us believe.
David is much less biased than you are (he doesn't stand to make any
financial benefit from his measurements, you do)
> David,
>
> What type of roofing do you have? Shake? Shingle? Tile? Color?
What does roof type have to do with the relative performance of
insulation????
> Brad Lindsay
> http://www.savenrg.com
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
I've said it before and I'll say it again, you and Santosh Prem ought to
get together, maybe you could insulate his magnetic water softeners...
David Harper
>In article <702a77$4t9$1...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>,
> dha...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Harper) wrote:
>> In article <701jc5$6k9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <blin...@inficad.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Air is not a good conductor of heat. Convector, yes. Conductive, no.
>> >How do you explain the insulation being hotter than the attic air if
>> >heat rises?
>>
>> My measurements of my attic insulation's temperature don't match your
>> predictions. What have I done wrong/differently in my measurements?
>>
>> To refresh everyone's memory...
>>
The rest of my post deleted.
>David,
>
>What type of roofing do you have? Shake? Shingle? Tile? Color?
>
>Brad Lindsay
Asphalt shingles. Dark color. About 1700 sq/ft of roof angled
at 45 degrees faces the afternoon sun. The attic is very large.
- David
Doug Miller
+> Actually, most of us have a roof over our house. This roof absorbs the
+> IR and then conducts it indoors. Insulation protects against this
+> conductive heat gain.
+
+
+
+Air is not a good conductor of heat. Convector, yes. Conductive, no. How do
+you explain the insulation being hotter than the attic air if heat rises?
The way *I* explain that is simple: you're lying. I, and at least one other
person, have *done* the tests you have urged and posted the results here,
showing in both cases that what you claim happens, doesn't happen. Somehow,
you seem to have missed those posts.
Doug Miller
+Snip
+
+> +I'm STILL trying to figure out what universe dmiller is from??? What does
a
+> +
+> Absolutely nothing, Brad, which is exactly the point that you seem to have
+
+I've had to relearn what I was taught in school regarding heat movement in
+buildings. Nobody EVER mentioned long wave radiation, the effects of
+deepspace,
How can there be any "effect of deepspace" when there is TWENTY MILES of
air between your roof and space? That's a pretty effective thermal insulator.
+emissivity of building materials or the best one: the falicy of
+the R factor. I can grasp the radiation/vacuum issue.
It doesn't appear that you do. You still don't understand why a space suit
does not need to be insulated.
+
+The reason radiant barriers are so effective in
+> space is that the vacuum of space prevents the transfer of heat in any way
+> other than radiation. Since an attic is not a vacuum, the effectiveness of
+> a radiant barrier in space is not a useful predictor of its effectiveness
+> in an attic.
+
+I never said it was a predictor, I was making a comparison. What is it with
+you people? One guy sez there is no radiation in the attic, only conduction
+and convection. How does one explain 684,000+ matches for radiant barrier?
+All these companies are "salesmongers", or "stupidity or fraud" or
+"hawkers"... I don't get it.
+
+The basics *again*:
+Sun generates radiant heat
+Sun heats roof
+Roof radiants heat
+Insulation gets hot from radiation (yeah, yeah and convection)...
False. You keep saying this. But you're lying. I have *done* the
measurements you suggest, and the actual physical fact contradicts you.
+Heat moves into house
+Neck gets sweaty
+Crank the A/C lower
+Pay higher bills.
+
+Somewhere in the above menu there is a simple, cost effective method for
+saving a bunch of money. Insert the following line in the above menu where
+it would do the most good:
+
+Reflect radiant energy
+
+Reduce the problem, the symptoms go away.
False again. Where do you think that radiant energy is reflected *to*?
The roof deck, of course, only to be re-radiated into the attic, as well
as conducted into the air and the walls.
Doug Miller
fruit...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
+> Well for one more test just today. 2:30 PM 75 deg. day (bright sun shine)
+
+black 135 deg. roof in new section where RB was placed above the Truss system
+the wood truss system was 79 deg. the insulation top surface 76 deg. Where
+there was no RB the truss system was 115 deg. top of insulation 89 deg under
+6" of insulation at drywall cealing 81 deg. A/C set to 72 deg inside the
+house. What is the heat gain with only 1/2" drywall between 81 deg and 72
+deg. May I suggest you stop making comments about things you know NOTHING
+ABOUT!!!
+
Has is occurred to you that your measurements contradict the claims that
you and Mr. Lindsay have been making?
So perhaps you're the one who should stop making comments about things
you know nothing about...
Mary Conner
>been talking Ms. Conner who states radiant barriers conduct heat? Hmmm, if
>that's the case I wonder why they are used exclusively in spacecraft. You
>two ought ot get together and phone NASA, do a three way conference call to
>Owens Corning and get something going. You could be famous....save us
>taxpayers thousands of dollars on useless metalized films.
I'm aware of no material that is a perfect insulator (i.e. will not
conduct heat), therefore even radiant barriers conduct heat. Since
radiant barriers generaly are made of metalized films or foils, they
generally conduct heat quite nicely. You're referring to my comments
that foil faced insulation is pretty useless in something like a wall
where there is minimal separation between the heat source and the
foil, and where there is almost always no ventilation to carry away
any heat that is reflected by the foil. Radiant barriers are good
in spacecraft because 1) the heat gain that needs avoiding is all
radiant in nature, 2) radiant barriers are generally a lot more
lightweight than convective/conductive insulation, and 3) you've got
all of space to reflect the heat back to.
Mary Conner
>Somewhere in the above menu there is a simple, cost effective method for
>Reflect radiant energy
>Reduce the problem, the symptoms go away.
Except you left out one part. By your own admission, one also needs
adequate ventilation to carry away the reflected heat, and most homes
lack the required ventilation. Therefore it makes sense to first install
the ventilation, see what effect it has, and *then* if there is still a
problem, look at radiant barriers.