Question:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> 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
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
Response:
+> +> >> "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 +> 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. — dlmiller.at.inetdirect.dot.net
Response:
>"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?
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.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> "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 > 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
Response:
[...] +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. — dlmiller.at.inetdirect.dot.net
Response:
+> +> >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. — dlmiller.at.inetdirect.dot.net
Response:
>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. 
Chris Matthaei http://www.mcs.net/~fuzzy/
Response:
>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.
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.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "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 http://www.mcs.net/~fuzzy/
Response:
> … > 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.
Ahh. If you can show us the simple calculations and give us some numbers, please do it. Thanks. –Phil — Phil Munro Dept of Electrical Engineering Youngstown, Ohio 44555
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "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
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >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 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.
Response:
>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.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->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.
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 > http://www.mcs.net/~fuzzy/
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > "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).
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
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->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. 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
Response:
This has been an interesting thread, except for one thing. When I 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 2×6 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 Youngstown, Ohio 44555
Response:
[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
Response:
> [majority of thoughtful post snipped] >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 > The answer to your question is that the radiant barrier was placed on the
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.
Response:
> [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.
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
Response:
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. 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 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> This has been an interesting thread, except for one thing. When I > 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 2×6 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 > Youngstown, Ohio 44555
Response:
> 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?
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >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 http://www.mcs.net/~fuzzy/
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > 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
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.