|
|
|
Ecodale questions SUPER THERM: insulation or paint?
Last Post 16 Jul 2011 01:36 PM by rbisys1. 23 Replies. |
Sort:
|
|
 Prev Next |
You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
jeepingetowah
New Member
Posts:16
 |
| 16 Aug 2010 06:38 PM |
|
Can anyone tell me if they consider SUPER THERM an insulation or a paint? I am confused. I posted a video on my blog if you want to see it. I need to understand if this is worth the type of money they are asking for this type of technology.
I plan on using this to insulate ISBU shipping containers.
http://ecodale.blogspot.com/2010/08...ation.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jelly
Veteran Member
Posts:1017
|
| 16 Aug 2010 09:03 PM |
|
That's the same stuff we were discussing in the other thread. |
|
|
|
|
J.E. Pritchett
New Member
Posts:6
|
| 17 Aug 2010 10:02 AM |
|
It is both. It is a paint (coating- because it is three times thicker than regular house paint because of the ceramic load). It blocks the initial heat load from radiation. Regular insulation materials are designed to absorb heat and then measure the amount of time it takes for this heat load to conduct through the material to the other side or cool side---this is referred to as the "R" value. SUPER THERM does not absorb heat and load it. It uses the specific ceramic compounds in the make up (four ceramic compounds) to block the UV (3% of the heat), Short Wave or Visual Light (40% of the heat) and Long Wave or Infrared (57% of the heat) from absorbing into the surface of the roof or walls. The ceramic compounds are designed to be a particular size (to catch the vibration of the heat wave), density to block the absorption of the heat on the surface and crystaline structure to repel off the heat from the surface. The point is: If you do not absorb the radiation heat, there is no heat or reduced heat that is available for transfer to the cool side. This is basic physics. Don't absorb and you don't have the problem of heat transfer. All the standard "R" value materials are designed to absorb and then slowly transfer the heat--point is - it does transfer. The "R" is a measure of how fast it does the transfer. So, the point, do not load the heat and you keep the container, trailer, tank, house, etc. cool and when the sun goes down, it is immediately cool again and the A/C cycles off to save tremendous amount of energy. The "R" materials absorbed and are holding the heat and the A/C will fight this well into the night or early morning to stablize the air temperature inside. Again-- don't load the heat - you don't have heat to transfer and conduct.
J.E. |
|
|
|
|
Dana1
Senior Member
Posts:6991
|
| 17 Aug 2010 11:34 AM |
|
It is definitely NOT an insulation- it's a paint- a clever paint mayhaps, but still a paint.
But with the right balance of solar spectrum reflectivity & IR emissivity paints can reduce peak cooling loads. But it has no practical effect on space heating loads, and "only in the lab" measurable effects on cooling load for surfaces that aren't in direct sunlight (or very high levels of reflected sunlight.)
Misstatements of fact:
"Regular insulation materials are designed to absorb heat and then measure the amount of time it takes for this heat load to conduct through the material to the other side or cool side---this is referred to as the "R" value."
"All the standard "R" value materials are designed to absorb and then slowly transfer the heat--point is - it does transfer."
"The "R" materials absorbed and are holding the heat and the A/C will fight this well into the night or early morning to stablize the air temperature inside."
...uh... not 'xactly.
Insulating materials with an ASTM C 518 measurable R rating are absolutely not "...designed to absorb heat..." (radiated, convected or conducted), only designed to impede conducted heat transfer. In most wall structures the insulation itself has scant exposure to radiated heat flux- there's no radiation to absorb. And the thermal mass of standard insulation will vary by more than an order of magnitude- most are not significant storers of absorbed heat, the notable exception being high density cellulose. But thermal mass in and of itself tends to to be a moderating factor on peak heating/cooling loads, leveling out diurnal temperature swings- more is usually better! In standard construction buildings the thermal mass holding onto the heat is the framing, concrete, gypsum, etc, and the R-value of the standard insulation does impede the heat transfer into/out-of that thermal mass in both directions- but properly designed that's a GOOD thing, moderating peak heating & cooling loads.
Siding & roofing exposed to direct sun DOES experience a very significant radiated heat flux, and yes, high solar reflectivity high-IR emissivity coatings on the exterior can reduce the amount of heat entering the structure via direct radiation, but has NO effect on conducted heat from the surrounding air. Using terms like "R20 equivalent" as delivered in the Bob Vila vidi is complete & utter BS without the lengthy footnote specifying the radiant flux, siding type, and air temperature conditions under which that might be sort of true, but it is clearly not a factual representation of how the material will behave in any structure across a wide range of conditions. Claiming an R value is over the line of where the FTC can prosecute.
In the real world the stuff will have the greatest benefit on structures with otherwise very low or no (ASTM C 518 measurable) R value against conducted heat, a limited ability to convection-cool to the outside air, and a high radiant flux. Flat or very low pitched roofs in direct sun, yes the effect is significant. But on steel cargo can completely shaded under the roof of an open frame shed the effect is not very much at all- it might be measurable with sensitive instrumentation, but it won't be measurable in the cooling bill (or comfort level on a 95F day.)
But in no way is a heat-rejecting paint a substitute for insulation with a real R value. Save the heat-rejecting paints in the full radiated heat flux environment on the top of your shade-roof where it actually does some good (despite the likely very-good convection cooling), and use a radiant-barrier paint on the underside of the roof for further measure, but DO use something with real R value to insulate the cargo can or you'll be miserable. |
|
|
|
|
J.E. Pritchett
New Member
Posts:6
|
| 17 Aug 2010 12:08 PM |
|
I appreciate the comments. One thing I would like to make very clear is that SUPER THERM does not nor ever will have an "R" value because of what I said earlier. This is a completely different way of viewing heat controls.
Insulations with R values control heat gain or loss in one way while the blocking of heat absorption onto a surface works in other ways.
I will acknowledge that in earlier videos and reports where people said something about "R equivalent" is not where we want to go. They have said such things because in our current understanding, the R value is the only reference most people have in the heads to relate an effectiveness.
I will say that we have 150 million sq.ft. of tested roofing in Japan as well as around the world to bear our remarks on the effectiveness. The way they do roofing in Japan is to probe the roofing above, below and room temperature before coating and then after coating. I would identify containers specifically in my statements because we asked the specialist with the Florida DOE office to test containers before and after coated to give us a true reading of the results and determine the effectiveness of dropping the temperature inside a container and maintaining this temperature. It was done as well as two other in-field tests to verify results. At first the Florida office was skeptical because of all the "reflective coating comments in the market" and prejudged our performance to be the same. So, starting from this skeptizism, they did the testing and proved to themselves after three separate tests in different parts of the US, that it did drop the temperature inside the containers and helped stablize the ambient temperature inside the container. Because SUPER THERM has been tested for moisture control and hydrostatic pressure resistance, it can block the loading of moisture into substrates. Blocking moisture load is very critical to keeping a substrate dry and better able to control air temperature inside a building or container. Along with the emissivity level and non-absoprtion ability of the ceramics concerning heat (radiation and convective), this all gave a very real control of heat gain and lost.
It is very effective and has proven this through ASTM testing but even more important in the in-field usage and testing performed on facilities and containers. The factual results speak for themselves without bias from the manufacturer of SUPER THERM. It is different in the approach to blocking heat lost and gain, so to compare the SUPER THERM directly to R rated materials is a waste of all our time. The fact remains it does work as does the R materials, each in a different way with a different technology. |
|
|
|
|
Dana1
Senior Member
Posts:6991
|
| 17 Aug 2010 12:27 PM |
|
I'm not saying it has no use- properly applied can be useful for controlling radiated heat flows, but describing it as an insulation is deceptive.
Putting it on a shipping container in full shade it's pretty much useless for controlling heat flow.
Putting it on a vertical surfaces such as walls that can convection-cool (even in direct sun) can be NEARLY useless.
Putting it on low slope or flat roofs, yep, that's where it has "apparent R value", against cooling loads, but does next to nothing for heating loads.
So, for insulating a shipping container, depends on what your goal is. If you plan on living in it (as on that other thread) don't expect much.
BTW: Can you share actual data on the FL container-can experiments? If you're going to talk up the "factual results", let's see them, eh? |
|
|
|
|
J.E. Pritchett
New Member
Posts:6
|
| 17 Aug 2010 01:01 PM |
|
As I said, it does provide heat control which relates to keeping interiors cool. Yes, it was sides of the containers tested to get the reduction of heat load and kept the containers cool - not just the tops. Any structure placed in a cool location would render its' insulation materials useless as to heat gain. Again, blocking heat load is the key to blocking the initial heat push from exterior to interior. If the heat load is reduced, there is less heat for conduction. This is fairly basic. Yes, people live in the containers from Alaska to Haiti where we coated containers to work in and live in.
With the facts of tests relating to providing blocking of heat load, moisture controls, sound blocking, resisting mold/mildew development and "0" flame spread, I don't see any of this being offered by the standard insulation materials.
As it is, everyone decides for themselves what they want to use, but it should be made on the facts and not only on "what's the R value".
Technology is moving forward and the best plan would be to stay informed.
All this information is on the web. |
|
|
|
|
cmkavala
Veteran Member
Posts:4324
|
| 17 Aug 2010 01:42 PM |
|
Posted By J.E. Pritchett on 17 Aug 2010 01:01 PM
As I said, it does provide heat control which relates to keeping interiors cool. Yes, it was sides of the containers tested to get the reduction of heat load and kept the containers cool - not just the tops. Any structure placed in a cool location would render its' insulation materials useless as to heat gain. Again, blocking heat load is the key to blocking the initial heat push from exterior to interior. If the heat load is reduced, there is less heat for conduction. This is fairly basic. Yes, people live in the containers from Alaska to Haiti where we coated containers to work in and live in.
With the facts of tests relating to providing blocking of heat load, moisture controls, sound blocking, resisting mold/mildew development and "0" flame spread, I don't see any of this being offered by the standard insulation materials.
As it is, everyone decides for themselves what they want to use, but it should be made on the facts and not only on "what's the R value".
Technology is moving forward and the best plan would be to stay informed.
All this information is on the web. White paint will also provide "heat control" as Dana said factual results are needed to substatiate your claims |
|
| Chris Kavala<br>[email protected]<br>1-877-321-SIPS<br /> |
|
|
J.E. Pritchett
New Member
Posts:6
|
| 17 Aug 2010 01:55 PM |
|
I sent you the tests performed by the Florida DOE specialist plus the ASTM test listed by the FTC to verify any claims.
As to white paint, if white is all there is to need, then the white hood our one's car would be cool to the touch. It is not white paint, but the ability of the coating to not load the heat. If you touch the SUPER THERM in the sun over a metal structure, it is not hot to the touch. The ceramics used in SUPER THERM repels the heat and blocks heat load --- this is the main point as I have said. |
|
|
|
|
Dana1
Senior Member
Posts:6991
|
| 17 Aug 2010 02:14 PM |
|
The R value is one set of facts, the heat rejection capabilities of paints have to be quantified in other ways. Properly applied there can be some benefit, but quantified at the bottom line of where the utility bills are paid, the real-world benefits of heat rejection paints are limited in scope.
If 3rd party test data on real-world applications are available on the web, why not point to it rather than simply allege it along with an un-quantitative interpretation of the results? The actual numbers count when measuring performance.
And I wasn't referring to a cargo can "...placed in a cool location...", the key being mere placement in the SHADE as nullifying the energy benefits of the material. Since it only controls radiated heat transfer, it only performs a useful function when there's a relevant radiant flux. In 110F shade it's doing very little to moderate cooling load for a conditioned interior space, whereas materials that have an R value can do quite a bit. Cherry-picking test conditions to exaggerate performance can work both ways.
I have little doubt that under some conditions some Super Therm products perform well from a heat rejection point of view, just as I have no doubt that low-E coating on window can perform a similar function. But radiated heat gain of wall surfaces in most real world applications is a limited fraction of the heat gain equation. Any number of standard construction materials that are heat absorbing also have high IR emissivity and will radiant-cool to large degree, and surfaces that are vertical or steep in slope experience significant convection cooling too. (Which is why under CA Tile 24 the solar reflectivity & IR emissivity requirements for roof coverings on steeper roofs are much looser than for those with pitches below 2:12- there is simply less benefit to be had.) The performance gains to be had from painting the walls of a cargo can may be measurable, but will not translate directly to higher thermal mass & R-insulated wall stackups.
More overselling:
"With the facts of tests relating to providing blocking of heat load, moisture controls, sound blocking, resisting mold/mildew development and "0" flame spread, I don't see any of this being offered by the standard insulation materials."
Polyurethane and polystyrene foam insulations are VERY useful in controlling moisture flows/mold/mildew. Even an R5 sheet of XPS has lower vapor diffusion than the 8.8perms specified for Super Therm, as does an R6 sheet of 1.5lb EPS, or a half-inch of spray polyurethane. At 8.8 perms average (not min), it's a bare-minimum class-III vapor retarder at best. Standard latex paints are ~ 2-3perms, many acrylic paints run 3-5 perms. So while it's useful in many applications to keep the exterior finish relatively permeable to allow drying toward the exterior, even as a paint it's being oversold on moisture control from a vapor point of view.
Any number of fiber insulation products have well established sound abatement performance (as do insulating foams). What's the improvement in STC rating you get out of a standard application of Super Therm on a framed studwall sheathing or some other construction such as a cargo can wall? A number without the description of the assembly doesn't count- be specific.
Assertions like "...I don't see any of this being offered by the standard insulation materials." cuts into your cred here, since moisture control characteristics & sound abatement are oft-measured and discussed characteristics of insulation materials. If you haven't seen it, you haven't looked.
Show me the data. (I DO so want to stay informed!)
There are many heat-rejecting paints out there, and clearly some are better than others, and some may even have many great characteristics as protective coatings, etc. But despite some energy efficiency benefit when properly applied calling any of them "insulation" is a stretch. Promoting ceramic or other high reflectivity high-E paint as a substitute for insulation with R-value is just plain wrong in most applications. |
|
|
|
|
J.E. Pritchett
New Member
Posts:6
|
| 17 Aug 2010 03:07 PM |
|
Most of the R value insulation materials do have a problem with moisture load. I don't think you are saying they don't. Moisture and free air flow are major components that harm the effectiveness of these insulation materials. They are also located between studs so that every 16", you do not have any insulation material for the width of the stud. Also, to compress 6 inches of R value material into a deadair space of 3" reduces the R value down to one half of the value one thought they got when they installed it. It is based purely on inches and must maintain the thickness to give the R value as they have stated which is not the case in almost all homes across America.
As I said, we are not talking R values with coatings. You continue to bring this up as if I continue to beat the drum, and I have not. This is different technology on how to block heat load which does not involve R values in any form.
Clearly there are all types of heat resistant paints in the market from white to hollow spheres, but all have limits to performance as with all insulation materials. I don't believe you are arguing that standard insulation materials do not have limitations.
You have been sent professional testing results to review as requested, and I decided to send showing three tests for heat load from the Florida DOE specialist and the test for coatings required by FTC for performance . If you have problems with ASTM results, professional labs and engineers doing testing, there will be nothing more to offer on this blog.
I was checking to find open minds with discussion. My making the statement of comparison with standard insulation materials was prompted by your continued demand for proof of comparison. When you get comments on comparison from areas you don't like, you claim it cuts into my "cred". I could claim the same, but this is not where I want to go with this discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
cmkavala
Veteran Member
Posts:4324
|
| 17 Aug 2010 03:14 PM |
|
Posted By J.E. Pritchett on 17 Aug 2010 01:55 PM
I sent you the tests performed by the Florida DOE specialist plus the ASTM test listed by the FTC to verify any claims.
As to white paint, if white is all there is to need, then the white hood our one's car would be cool to the touch. It is not white paint, but the ability of the coating to not load the heat. If you touch the SUPER THERM in the sun over a metal structure, it is not hot to the touch. The ceramics used in SUPER THERM repels the heat and blocks heat load --- this is the main point as I have said. You did not send me any such test white reflects and is why lighter roof colors are able to carry the energystar label and why energy raters give additional points for them the ceramic paint has also been debunked by the Florida Solar Energy Center as being ineffective here is the link in case you missed it on the other thread http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com...homeowners |
|
| Chris Kavala<br>[email protected]<br>1-877-321-SIPS<br /> |
|
|
J.E. Pritchett
New Member
Posts:6
|
| 17 Aug 2010 03:24 PM |
|
Your cred seems to be questioned because your "mail box" is full.
If you study Energy Star, white rubber can be Energy Star or any product that can achieve a 65% reflectivity.
There are no such thing as "additional points" given-- you pass by the percentage you achieve and the material passes the minimum percentage, or it does not.
I now find your information level and comments only combative and not productive. I will get back to productive issues and wish you well.
|
|
|
|
|
cmkavala
Veteran Member
Posts:4324
|
| 17 Aug 2010 03:30 PM |
|
JE Pritchett;
the mail box is not full, Dana1 if you received it could you please forward to me.
Thank You |
|
| Chris Kavala<br>[email protected]<br>1-877-321-SIPS<br /> |
|
|
Dana1
Senior Member
Posts:6991
|
| 17 Aug 2010 04:10 PM |
|
Posted By cmkavala on 17 Aug 2010 03:30 PM
JE Pritchett;
the mail box is not full, Dana1 if you received it could you please forward to me.
Thank You
Nothing yet... I've reviewed some of the ASTM testing of this product, and it IS pretty good as high reflectivity high-E paints go (it meets CA Title 24 cool-roof standards with some margin.) That still doesn't make it insulation, or a viable substitute for insulation in most apps. Real world performance of CA Title 24 compliant cool roof materials usually exceeds that of the other "insulation" product that's too often hyped beyond all reason: radiant barriers. |
|
|
|
|
Dana1
Senior Member
Posts:6991
|
| 17 Aug 2010 05:16 PM |
|
Posted By J.E. Pritchett on 17 Aug 2010 03:07 PM
Most of the R value insulation materials do have a problem with moisture load. I don't think you are saying they don't. Moisture and free air flow are major components that harm the effectiveness of these insulation materials. They are also located between studs so that every 16", you do not have any insulation material for the width of the stud. Also, to compress 6 inches of R value material into a deadair space of 3" reduces the R value down to one half of the value one thought they got when they installed it. It is based purely on inches and must maintain the thickness to give the R value as they have stated which is not the case in almost all homes across America.
As I said, we are not talking R values with coatings. You continue to bring this up as if I continue to beat the drum, and I have not. This is different technology on how to block heat load which does not involve R values in any form.
Clearly there are all types of heat resistant paints in the market from white to hollow spheres, but all have limits to performance as with all insulation materials. I don't believe you are arguing that standard insulation materials do not have limitations.
You have been sent professional testing results to review as requested, and I decided to send showing three tests for heat load from the Florida DOE specialist and the test for coatings required by FTC for performance . If you have problems with ASTM results, professional labs and engineers doing testing, there will be nothing more to offer on this blog.
I was checking to find open minds with discussion. My making the statement of comparison with standard insulation materials was prompted by your continued demand for proof of comparison. When you get comments on comparison from areas you don't like, you claim it cuts into my "cred". I could claim the same, but this is not where I want to go with this discussion.
(Finally, a post from J.E. with some white space between the lines!  ) R5 XPS is usually applied exterior to the sheathing, forming a thermal break & modestly vapor retardent layer over the studs. The total conducted heat transfer through 16o.c. studs is also well understood, but painting the exterior with heat rejecting pains only reduces that if the primary heat transfer from the environment through the is radiated heat absorption at the sheathing (sometimes it is, but mostly not.) I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about compressed batts. It's no hot news flash that poorly installed batts don't perform, so? Air flow through even standard densities of cellulose are quite modest, and through foam insulation non-existent. I'm dubious that 8-mils of paint is going to air-seal a timber-framed structure, either.  But I just don't get your point- are you saying Super Therm on uninsulated walls is superior to one with a bad batt-job (of any R rating)? You talk about R values and maintaining R value by preserving loft, then say that you're not talking about R values, but I'm beating an R value drum- I'm lost! And how am I beating the drum about R-values, exactly? Quoting myself in the opening of my prior post " The R value is one set of facts, the heat rejection capabilities of paints have to be quantified in other ways." We agree- high reflectivity high-E coatings don't have anything to do with R value, and their performance isn't based on conducted heat transfer. So? My point is that high reflectivity high-E coatings are not a substitute for something with conductive R value for most applications, and marketing them in such a way as to imply that R value can be skipped is deceptive. Used properly, there is a benefit to high-reflectivity high-E paints (and I've said as much.) I've never asked for a comparison, only 3rd party documentation of efficacy in real-world apps. The R-value equivalancy issue only came out of a video on that linked-to blog page in the initial post where R20 equivalence was claimed for SuperTherm applied a cargo can being converted into a dwelling. This is a real disservice to anyone actually living in a converted cargo can who then forgoes any other form of insulation. Your cred unfortunately IS undercut when you claim that insulation products with R value don't have vapor retardent characteristics or sound abatement (which they clearly do, some more than others), and I'm highly suspect that 8mils of product would produce much sound abatement on any structure other than a timpanic membrane (like say, an open metal roof, where I'm sure it does a world of good). Most insulations with an R value have well documented sound abatement properties. Most foam insulations have very favorable moisture control characteristics- superior in many respects to your product. Statements about insulating materials with R-value being designed to absorb heat also doesn't help- it's simply not factual. If you are not merely misinformed, it's misleading to make these statements, and it reads like intentional disinformation. If you don't make easily refutable gross mis-statements of fact your stock doesn't sink (and conversely). Mis-characterizing perceived competitors' products doesn't buy you much. I have no problem specifying high-reflectivity high-E products where appropriate, but a converted cargo can as a dwelling will need some resistance to conducted heat (a real R value) to maintain a reasonable energy-use profile, with or without fancy paint. Applied correctly, these paints can help, but it'll be a small fraction of the total picture in most climates.
|
|
|
|
|
Dana1
Senior Member
Posts:6991
|
| 18 Aug 2010 11:29 AM |
|
Posted By cmkavala on 17 Aug 2010 03:30 PM
JE Pritchett;
the mail box is not full, Dana1 if you received it could you please forward to me.
Thank You
Still nothing- how about you? ... ...do I hear crickets?  OK. Some distinguishing factors between heat-rejecting coatings/paints or radiant barriers and insulation are, A: They work only against radiated heat transfer, which is less than half the heat flux through most surfaces of a building B: The effectiveness changes with the absolute flux of radiated heat, independent of the temperature differences between conditioned space and the outdoors. No radiant heat flux==no benefit, whether it's 120F outside or 20F outside. And unlike low-E radiant barriers, high-E coatings such as Super Therm even increase the heating load on clear nights by reducing the exterior surface temp to below ambient air temps, and can even reach the dew point of the outdoor air. On a building surface that has a real R-value the net effect of the high-E coating on total heating load is small (even negligible, most of the time) but in a near-zero-R steel cargo-can the effect on comfort & required heating energy is more than merely academic. This is but one reason why spectrally-tuned paints are not a substitute for R-factor in a dwelling. Yes, there can be a net benefit on cooling loads (when applied to the right surfaces), but that doesn't make it insulation any more than a shade tree is. Some paints are better at rejecting or absorbing radiated heat than others, but they're still just paint. |
|
|
|
|
Brushman23
New Member
Posts:1
|
| 18 Aug 2010 11:50 PM |
|
Greetings- I can't comment on all of the technicalities, but I can tell you Supertherm does work. Friend bought a house, attic was finished, found out by looking behing the knee walls that there was no insulation. Applied a mix of supetherm and HSC (both products from Superior Products) to the interior side of the drywall on the ceilings and the knee walls and two end side walls. This winter, the girls could not open a vent with out boiling. Have done the same to some apartments that I own and have found the rooms to be much more comfortable in summer and winter. Another friend has a metal building that he coated. Very good results. |
|
|
|
|
Dana1
Senior Member
Posts:6991
|
| 19 Aug 2010 12:08 PM |
|
The only credibl -repeatable relative-performance characteristics of spectrally tuned paints (ceramic or other) is it's solar reflectance index (SRI), which is a function of it's solar reflectivity & IR emissivity. The Lawrence Berkeley Nat'l Labs even has a handy li'l downloadable calculator in which you can plug in the reflectivity & emissivity of any product. To find out the initial & aged reflectivity & emissivity numbers for "cool roof" products (and yes, Super Therm is on the list) you can look them up using the Rated Products Directory here. There is no credible evidence of achieving appreciable energy savings benefit with interior applications with high- solar reflectivity high-E paints like Super Therm, but high-infrared reflectivity low-E finishes (such as aluminum paints/foils) can produce both comfort level & measurable energy savings on the interior of uninsulated or very low-insulated walls, but it takes a high delta-T between the wall temp & body/room temp before that adds up to much in energy savings. It's still not a substitute for insulation, and marketing them as such is bordering on criminal, IMHO. My recommendation for "cool roof" materials on the exterior, and low-E underside finish on the open shed shade-roof for the cargo can dwelling on that other thread and not on the shaded cargo-can itself maximizes the effectiveness of the shade-roof, but the cargo can would still benefit greatly from insulation. It's silly to ask paint to violate basic laws of physics, and fraudulent to imply that it can. |
|
|
|
|
Dana1
Senior Member
Posts:6991
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
Active Forums 4.1
 |
Membership: |
 |
Latest:
WILSONCh |
 |
New Today:
0 |
 |
New Yesterday:
0 |
 |
Overall:
34714 |
 |
People Online: |
 |
Visitors:
130 |
 |
Members:
0 |
 |
Total:
130 |
|
|
|