Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

A-Ads

MN LiveCoach

Masternodes Live Coaching

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 512788
  • *Total Topics: 15260
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 6
  • *Guests: 10
  • *Total: 16

Author Topic: Radiant Barrier  (Read 28887 times)

Offline broli

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2217
Re: Radiant Barrier
« Reply #15 on: September 23, 2008, 05:34:07 PM »
After having a sneak peak at the upper roof I don't think it's that difficult after all. But I still haven't seen how much space there is between my angled wall and the actual roof in order to stuff it with fiberglass for example. Just saw an ad in the paper of 12 cm thick fiberglass which has aluminum foil on one side that sells for 4€ per 6m. This might be handy for the angled wall. I'm not sure whether I'll also place it on the the floor (the ceiling from my rooms perspective) or the radiant barrier would be enough. Also since I'm mostly concerned about winters and want to keep the heat inside should I then place the aluminum side facing me?

As a matter of fact the internet has showed me close to none shops that sell radiant barriers in my country (Belgium). On ebay in America I found a cool type namely a perforated one which allows it to breath which helps with moisture. So any help in finding shops in the European Union is mostly appreciated.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Radiant Barrier
« Reply #15 on: September 23, 2008, 05:34:07 PM »

Offline z.monkey

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1660
    • Scientilosopher's Domain
Re: Radiant Barrier
« Reply #16 on: September 23, 2008, 05:49:53 PM »
Howdy Brodi,

Well, I live about 6000 miles away from you so I don't know if I can help.  Let me ask my brother, he lives in Immenstaad, Germany.

Blessed Be...

Offline broli

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2217
Re: Radiant Barrier
« Reply #17 on: September 23, 2008, 05:51:10 PM »
Btw the nick is brol;D.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Radiant Barrier
« Reply #17 on: September 23, 2008, 05:51:10 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline rbisys2

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Re: Radiant Barrier
« Reply #18 on: September 27, 2008, 08:33:39 PM »
Greetings,

Thank you for the reference to my input.  Unfortunately I don't remember what I put in.  At the expense of repeating myself I'm loading the following.  Ifg it's a repeat, my apologies.but it will be useful for new readers.

1st though.  RB  WILL NOT cook singles.  This bs was put out by competing insulation manufacturers.  One big company paid dearly for this.  The attic temperature on new constuction with 3 layer RB between joist is about 11 degs above OS ambient temp.  That's up to 40 degs lower than with mineral wool.  So whats cooking what?

2nd  The purpose of moving air thru the attic, under controlled condition, is th move moistue out, not heat.  Heat rises.  The high heat energy coming thru the ceiling is the result of energy radiating down from the sheathing,  The sheathing has about a 95% emissivity rating.  The glaas (FG) tyhe same, which makes up only about 1% of the bulk.

3rd  Mixing bulk and RB together on new construction is a waste of time and money.  Since the RB is about 95% eff and the bulk about 10%, what is the bulk insul. going to do?  NOTHING.  In fact, this combination could reduce the effectiveness of the RB.

4th  Ridge vents are the only systems approaching 100% eff.  Note:  Some ridge vents are almost useless.  Go to;  core-a-vent.om     

If you have any questions, please ask at at   rbisys@juno.com  , as most answers are too involved for here.  If too complex for e-m I'll give you me phone number.


George Himmeger  TROY, IL  62294    e-m rbisys@juno.com

Information and opinions by George Himmeger : The data enclosed is taken from a mechanical engineering handbook along with
opinions from thirty years field experience

EXPLORING THE LEGITIMACY OF CLAIMS OF CHARACTERISTICS, TEST PROCEDURES AND “R” RATINGS FOR THERMAL           INSULATIONS USING MECHANICAL ENGINEERING HAND BOOK DATA AND FORMULA

 Fiber glass FG - Radiant Barriers RB

Confusion about the performance of various insulation materials is not a recent phenomenon.  Some of the confusion comes from the fact that various materials control heat energy transfer according to the specific physical properties of the materials and their assembly for use.  Another problem is that large manufacturers, with government sanction, literally control the methods used to test their product and competing products.   This has been an ongoing fight for over fifty years in this country.  Some products, commonly used here, are not allowed in other countries because of low performance and serious health issues.  The most common testing problems are:

(1)   The tests do not reflect actual “installed summer / winter conditions”, which can reveal up to fifty percent difference in performance compared to “accepted tests”.
(2)   Most tests favor conductivity resistance and limit the effects of radiant energy.  Most homes have about 12-15% conductive surfaces, about 7% is convection and air spaces accounting for up to 80% radiant energy gain or loss.
(3)   Some tests do not reveal the serious performance degradation from condensation,   actually storing and increasing heat flow, and how it affects the interior humidity levels. 
(4)      Some tests do not reveal possible mold and other problems.
(5)     Some tests, or labeling, do not reveal the health problems due to toxic chemicals.  This information is classified as proprietary information and given only to the government.
(6)   The tests or labels do not reveal the ratio of material to air volume This ratio can be as low as 1% mass to 99% air volume allowing radiant energy to travel through like an open door, plus air infiltration.  The exception to this is radiant barriers which rely on the air space to perform efficiently.  If insulation tests were performed with the best interest of the consumer at heart, there would probably be only two insulations available to the consumer. 
(7)   The other subject ignored by the bulk insulation manufacturers is the approximate 80% heat gain/loss in buildings through radiant heat, infrared energy. This can be expected because most bulk insulations are only about 10 – 20% efficient in rejecting radiant energy, compared to about 97% for radiant barriers. 
(8)   The  “R” factor for bulk insulations are based on the recipical of a “u” factor, a conductive test.  The efficiency of RBS are based on a “k” factor.   You cannot obtain a “R” value from a  “k” factor.
The independent, non competitive, method presented here is based on long established data of energy exchange between two surfaces, ceiling/floor, at a given Delta T” (temperature difference between two surfaces) and will tell you what amount of heat energy is radiated into and out of the home summer and winter.  This method depends on no tests and incorporates the characteristics of the insulation, building materials and the effects of any climate condition.  It can be performed by anyone with a thermometer.  Conventional “R” factor calculations cannot tell you this, due to the problems mentioned above and that the calculations are usually for material only.  With “R” factors you can calculate for one set of condidtions and then find out the calculations had no reference to what is actually going on in the structure.

The common denominator for all insulations is; what is the temperature of the drywall and the floor it is radiating to?  This “in situ” method incorporates all the variables because the drywall temperature determines your heating / cooling costs.  You can use either Btu calculations or temperature calculations.  You can see why the manufacturer of low efficiency insulation will not want to use this method.  The drywall emission rate, about 90%+, is used in the following chart because that is the most commonly used material.  The source of this information, and the following chart, is from an emissivity chart and formula of a mechanical engineering handbook.  You may not be familiar with this source of information.  It is a manual of materials charts, characteristics, formulas and numerous other factors used by engineers to manufacture most every thing you use.  For many professional engineers it is the engineer’s “bible”.

THE HUMAN FACTOR  The average home owner believes that the air temperature is the dominant factor in comfort.  This might be true if it wasn’t for the energy radiating into and out of the building with its effects.  It is this energy ratio between the interior surfaces and the surface of the body that ultimately determines the comfort factor.
For maximum energy savings you want the lowest rate of absorption and re-radiation of energy.  Lower is better.  The determining factors of any insulation’s performance are:
1   The rate of absorption and re-emittance ( radiating ) of energy.  From the “bible” we see that wood (cellulose), and glass (fiberglass) is about 90%+ efficient in absorbing and re radiating energy.  Base foam materials are about 20% efficient.   Aluminum foil about .03%.
2   Other than the basic material and its construction features, moisture, either from humidity or condensations can cause substantial energy flow.  Using the ratio or 5% increase per 1% of moisture by weight, data published by the National Bureau of Standards shows that fiberglass and cellulose can increase energy flow about 45 / 72% due to moisture in an uninhabited structure. Even the relative humidity can account for a dramatic increase in energy flow.  Increased humidity levels in an inhabited structure can cause even more energy lose / gain. Since radiant barriers do not cause condensation and are superior vapor barriers, the interior humidity levels can be lower than with other insulations.
3   The low quality of installation can also be a detriment to the effectiveness of insulation.
The following chart shows Btu transfer for various ceiling temperatures.  Calculations for infiltration, doors and windows are separate as they will be the same for any insulation installed.  To increase the envelope efficiency even more, Insulation Specialists has developed a simple method of installing RB to reduce to about 1% the conductivity surfaces of studs and ceiling joists from the normal 12-15 %  surface area.  In summer you can measure the drywall temperature which can reach up to 110 degs on a 95 deg day with the lower efficiency insulations and no roof shading.   If the floor temperature is 75 degs the ceiling, using temperature figures, will radiate about 99 degs/sf/hr.  The 110 deg ceiling temperature is about 25 degrees hotter than a winter radiant heat system, causing the air conditioner to run continuously to try to compensate.  Without the air conditioner the interior temperature could exceed 100 degs.  If the RB is 110 degs it will radiate about 2-3 degs /sf/hr.  In a properly designed ranch home the interior temperature, with RB, will be about 80-81 degs without air-conditioning.  The humidity levels can also be lower as the RB does not cause condensation which can be forced into the home by the high temperatures in the structure as with some of the lower efficiency materials.   
 Question; if the indoor temperature can be hotter inside than outside without the air-conditioned, how can the manufacturer claim their material is insulation?
As you use the chart keep in mind these two questions;
1   If bulk insulations are about 99% airspaces and radiant energy travels through space at about the speed of light, and the base material absorbs and re-radiates the energy at about an 80-90 percent efficiency, how can a manufacturer claim their material is an insulator?  More importantly how can an “R” value be assigned to them ?
2   If the function of a RB is to reflect energy, how can an “R” factor be assigned to it?  How can the government and the manufacturers of bulk insulations legitimately force the use of “R” factors in evaluating radiant barriers?  More importantly, why?
3   Why has the US Senate interfered with, at least twice, the governments fair trade polices, including FTC regulations, when it comes to insulations?  Regulations which would have provided for a fair playing field.   Answer:  Over $100,000,000,000.00 tax revenue per year.
Because of this and other reasons the American home owners is using up to two to three times the amount of energy to heat a cool a home than what should be used.
In summer you can determine the temperature of your ceiling drywall by taping a thermometer to the drywall surface.
This chart is based on a 75 deg floor temperature. The chart can be validated by using the emissivity data and formula from Mark’s Mechanical Engineering Handbook.  FG values are for insulation between joists and include joist heat transfer.  The RB value is for the joists surfaces covered with the RB and a furring strip to separate the RB from the drywall.   ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…“A” is the dry wall temperature.   ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…“B” represents the Btu’s radiated for the FG installation.  “C” represents the Btu’s radiated for the RB installation.     ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…“D” the Btu difference between the FG and RB.
Although the mechanics for side walls will be slightly difference this method can be used foe approximate comparisons.

         Summer                      Winter
   ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…“A”     ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…“B”   ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…“C”   ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…“D”       ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…“A”    “B”    “C”    “D”                      
       150   88   5   83      75      0      0       0   
   140   75   4   71      70     5     .3       5
   130   61   3   58      60     14      1     13
   120   49   3   48      50       22      1      21
   110   37   2   35      40      31     2      29
   100   26   1   25      30      38       2      36
      90   15   1   14      20         45        3      42
      80     5    .3     5      10        52        3      49
      75     0    0         0        0       58        3       55

The 110 deg is high lighted to represent a 95 deg day.  The 30 line is highlighted to show the similarities of the summer winter conditions.  Note the jump when the temperature gets down to zero degs.  Because of the rapid drop off in FG efficiency as the material thickness is increased it is difficult to extrapolate the RB and FG data for “R” value comparison.  Compared to the advertised “R” value for FG  the RB “R” factor could exceed  “R”100  value by a considerable amount, and it is impossible to have a  “R” value of 100 much less 100 plus.

Myth:  Dust adversely affects the RB performance.  A:  Dust has little or no effect on a horizontally installed RB with airspace both sides.  The top surface could be painted black and the bottom surface might emit 1 or 2 extra Btus.  Most ceiling installations have one or more layers, so any increase in heat flow is doubtful.  There is little to no dust on vertical installations. Even with dust present the RB is superior to other materials.
Myth:  Holes adversely affect the RB performance.  A:  Some RBs are manufactured with vapor escape holes.  I know of no laboratory tests showing an increase in heat flow, particularly in multi layer installations.  Obviously you don’t want large holes, these should be repaired.
Myth:  RBs are not as efficient on up heat (winter) as summer.  A:  The engineering handbook does not make such a distinction.  The mechanics of up heat vs down conductive heat flow are slightly different; therefore any given material may exhibit slight differences for winter.  However these comments never note that the RB is still superior to other materials.
Myth:  Aluminum corrodes.  A:  Pure aluminum, such as the 99.9% pure foil used in RB, does not corrode under normal atmospheric conditions.   
A light oxidation does occur preventing any further oxidation. You would not want to breathe the fumes that could cause corrosion.  Corrosion can and does occur in some unfinished alloy aluminum because of the dissimilar metals used for alloying the metal.
Myth:  RB loses its insulation values over time.  A:  Since RBs do not corrode over time the answer is self evident.  I know of installations over 30 years old that work just like the day they were installed.
Myth:  You can’t use RB in very cold climates. When Perry and other scientists went to the poles they use aluminum foil to insulate the structures. The Navy SEALS used multi-layer foil (mfg’d to mil spec  HH I 1252) in 1964 in the Artic buildings where the mineral wool was failing.


Hope this helps








Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline rbisys2

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Re: Radiant Barrier
« Reply #19 on: September 28, 2008, 04:26:04 AM »
Greetings,

My apologies for posting the same material again.  I thought this was a new thread.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Radiant Barrier
« Reply #19 on: September 28, 2008, 04:26:04 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline z.monkey

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1660
    • Scientilosopher's Domain
Re: Radiant Barrier
« Reply #20 on: November 13, 2008, 03:46:34 PM »
Howdy Y'all,

OK, got the October electric bill...

October 2007 $334.65
October 2008 $181.00

Savings         $153.65

The radiant barrier is the most effective energy project that I have engaged in this year.
I have saved $401 in electric costs since I finished the installation...

OK, Mo Later...

Offline Koen1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Radiant Barrier
« Reply #21 on: January 20, 2009, 04:33:02 PM »
You're just talking about good thermal isolation and thermally reflective material,
aren't you?

That proper thermal isolation material can save a lot of money on the heating bill
is a well known fact.

Calling it a "radiant barrier" seems a little misleading to me, as I imagine people
might think you're talking about "radiant energy barriers" or "radiant energy shields",
which is a term used by new-age golddiggers to sell people plates or objects made
of a "special material" that was "invented by Tesla" and transduces the "radiant energy"
into some form of chi-like "life energy". Or so they claim. That there is zero solid
information about this "purple plate"/"radiant energy shield" actually having been
invented and advertised by Tesla and linked to "life energy" at all does not stop them.

Of course the old term "radiant energy" is vague at best, was originally used in
various different meanings, from "electromagnetic radiation" to radioactivity
and cosmic (gamma) rays, and could mean anything really.

Still, it seems to me that if we're simply talking about keeping heat from leaking
out of the house, or in summer keeping heat from entering the house, by using
a layer of material that reflects the radiated heat, that we're actually talking
very clearly about thermal isolation and reflection.
Which is a lot less mysterious than "radiant energy". ;)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Radiant Barrier
« Reply #21 on: January 20, 2009, 04:33:02 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline z.monkey

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1660
    • Scientilosopher's Domain
Re: Radiant Barrier
« Reply #22 on: January 20, 2009, 04:58:16 PM »
Hey Koen1,
Long time no yaka yaka yaka....

This product is called "Radiant Barrier" because it was developed originally by NASA to shield satellites from cosmic radiation.  When this material is grounded it sinks EM radiation from low frequency radio waves, up into the microwave band, on into the near and far infrared, through visible light and on up into the cosmic wave realm of EM radiation.  This stuff is an EM shield, and the brand name that they used is "Radiant Barrier".  Well, what can I say, this is Texas, we got a way...

The product is made from a paper substrate, a polyolefin net, then laminated on both side with aluminum foil.  Its not mystical, its a solid Faraday Cage meant to block heat causing radiation.

Works good too...

 

OneLink