Thermal imaging only shows the radiant heat flux- you can paint the house with RB paint and make that image look GREAT, without measurably reducing the heating season heat loss from the wall (which is primarily from convection cooling, in an air-tight house.) RB paint can reduce the cooling load though.

Low-E coatings can cut the heat GAIN under intense solar radiation though, but you've been making the argument about it's conductive, not radiant properties. (It's emissivity isn't listed anywhere that I've seen.) Old-skool radiant barriers will likely beat it in the Mexican shack experiment. Low-E paints can also have a (far lesser) reduction in cooling load when applied to the interior of conditioned space.

Sure it'll "...help additionally...", but not by anything like 10%, which is why it sucks. Even 10% of a large number can be large, but 10% of a much smaller number is quite small, but it's doubtful that it'll perform even to that 10% number in an insulated structure.

And enough with the testimonials already- there are people in France & Fairbanks that'll swear they just ate lunch with Elvis too, but it's a far cry from anything rational folks should be making decisions on. I'm sure the Fairbanks folks will get something out of it on their uninsulated steam pipes, but probably not nearly as much as R6 fiberglass with foil overwrap.

If you're saying that it reduces the heat flux by 10%, 34%, 42% of a code-insulated house in Texas we'll need a much better model than an uninsulated tin shack, or uninsulated thin-wall concrete or plaster.

Comparative results of ASTM 518 on R10 XPS, with/without nansulate, anyone?

Dana1, Guess what? Fiiberglass & foil wrap doesn't do a darn thing to help prevent CUI, and the problem is even further exacerbated by not being able to inspect the pipes. But by the way, Fairbanks is coating buildings. Not just pipes. Folks are regularly claiming 20%, 30%, even 40%+ in heating & cooling costs after applying Nansulate correctly and after curing.

I appreciate your argument. But, the stuff does what it claims. The proof is building. And by proof, I mean real buildings with real lowered energy bills. That's what matters. Yes, it saves 10% (and more), and just think... this fairly inexpensive, NON-intrusive, easy to apply thin CLEAR coating... can reduce carbon footprint by 10% all by itself? Yes, that's excellent. And that's just for a roof. By the way, it also blocks UV rays and protects/extends the life of any roofing material. Plus insulating at the same time, and it's clear? Yeah, I'd naysay it also if I didn't know any better.

Like I said, watch and see. If it didn't work, then word of mouth wouldn't be so kind to this product. But it does, and it is. Those who try it are always convincing others to try it, in both industrial and building apps. In time, more folks will come to appreciate that less heat transfer throughout a WHOLE building (not just the cavities which can be filled with fiberglass or other fillers) equates to less energy spent. No tear-up needed, no special crews in most cases, no ruining of buildings, and it also prevents mold (instead of enabling it) and allows visual appeal instead of covering up a material with an ugly or impossible material.

I'm watchin', but a whole lot o' bloggery, astroturfing, & testimonials doesn't add up to one simple (yet most-relevant) test...


And the fact that the tests presented by the manufacturer are so IRrelevant to modeling real structures puts the whole presentation in an overselling snake-oil type of light.

And why is it that when I'm discussing it's relative insulation merits you shift into mold-reduction, UV protection, corrosion resistance & inspectability mode? (Not at all confidence inspiring about it's insulative nerits, to say the least...)

So far the only thing I see building so far is suspense...
















With bated breath I await relevant test data for proof of insulation efficacy when applied to insulated building structures...

Seriously, we're supposed to accept the assessment of some random allegedly French guy on a product-sponsored blog as some sort of proof?

When I suggest that a layer corrugated cardboard may outperform nansulate, the best you can counter is that corrugated rots/molds/attracts bugs/ruins the look of your shack??? (Seriously?)

The insulation industry has a long record of great ideas & hopeful thinking the fall far short of initial expectations, which is why labeling standards based on standardized test procedures have been spelled out. If nansulate can't take the heat of ASTM 518 scrutiny, (or any of the relevant radiation/emissivity type tests), your statement (and theirs) fall under "unverified statements from an economically interested party". The ISO 8990:1999 testing (where 34.8% reduction was claimed) may have some relevance to radiant heat gain, but presenting it as a percentage change, without the other relevant details of the sample tested, the percentage number is of little value.

Subjecting it to only straw-man tests of little relevance to real structures, and reams of less than scientific testimonials undermines, rather than reinforces the credibility of the claims. Claims stated in percentages require a lot more detail about the test. Where details HAVE been shared, (as in thin-wall concrete shack test) the construction was preposterous, further eroding confidence.

Like I said, feel as you wish. But, that doesn't change the reality. Many buildings (homes, and other) are NOT insulated... and it would be costly if not impossible to insulate them with traditional types of insulation. Those are perfect applications for Nansulate, and heating/cooling bills would go down quite noticeably. Already well-insulated structures? It would help, yes, but would it help enough to convice YOU? Maybe not. And it also depends on climate, as to whether it's worth the cost. Maybe you prefer to continue using more natural resources. Or just are happier with what you are already comfortable with. No problem. Really, this stuff works and will continue working no matter what you say. Also, since this stuff doesn't degrade like regular insulation does, and doesn't have any of the other downfalls (which I listed), then this stuff will pay for itself over time either way. Without a downside. Now, will it pay for itself quickly? In harsh climates, yes. In mild ones, no.

Why do I switch to other benefits? Because that's relevant to the value-add that this stuff provides. It's simply that unique. Insulation, which it does decently at, is not the only benefit or value to using it.

And yes, I'm stating that it performs well in slowing convective heat transfer.  Period.  It does.  As well as a thick batt of fiberglass, at 3 thin coats?  No, in my opinion.  But well enough to very noticeably lower energy bills?  Yes.  See, you're missing the point that although fiberglass is great... it also degrades over time, as well as it NOT being possible to apply it to every surface of a structure to create an envelope of sorts.  The lack of envelope IS what costs structures a LOT of energy/heat loss.  So, that is a shortcoming of the regular stuff.  Is Nansulate the best app in all cases, though?  Of course not.  Is it an excellent effective product with very unique and flexible applicability which nearly no other insulation can truly match as an overall combination of such traits?  Yes.

If it does effect other forms of heat transfer there are tests for that...


So going back to the original poster's issues looking to cut the cooling bill by half, you're recommending nano-paint over more effective air sealing and blown insulation 'cuz the latter will deteriorate in a few decades and uses more natural resources, got it...

Assuming his is even a half-assed version of 1983 code for insulation, it's already an insulated building, so the performance numbers aren't likely to be anywhere near the Mexican shack's or the cement-board test wall. Getting to "half" from there is pretty unlikely...  (even 10% would be no mean feat.)

To hit half:

Shades, storms, & low-E window films (anything to kill direct solar gain through windows) would be priority 1.

Air sealing would be priority 2.

Boosting the easy-to-blow DIY insulation values would be priority 3.

Duct sealing & insulating, would be priority 4.

Some sort of low-E or radiant barriers/paints in appropriate areas might be as high as priority 5 (and nansulate may/may-not fill the bill there- depends on the particulars of that ISO 8990:1999 test sample cited on the web page.)

And you'd be lucky to really achieve half with all of the above, in the real world, but you might come close.

BTW:  Fiberglass isn't the best DIY option here- you'll note I recommended cellulose for lower air infiltration and IR translucency.

So, we can assume that the city of Fairbanks' Engineers don't know their stuff? They simply approved a large purchase without testing the product??? C'monnnn. Sorry, Dana1, as I said I do appreciate your reasoning but you're not correct. You make sense, but your final conclusions are not correct. Homeowners in climates which require substantial energy use for heating & cooling are saving 20% on energy bills... easy. Often more. And no, not all of those homes are void of insulation. Underinsulated, yes I assume so. That's the case for a lot of buildings. By the way, the list you formed above would be very expensive and require special efforts to implement. Nansulate is less expensive, easier, and saves more energy than you realize. You simply won't believe it unless you talk to someone yourself who has used it. Plenty of others have, as have plenty of industrial customers.

Cutting the bill by half would cost a LOT of money, no matter what a person does. Cutting it 20%+... apply Nansulate, is what I'm saying. You aren't convinced. I am. The majority of the insulating ability is not due to radiant (reflective) abilities, fyi. And, 10% just from coating an exterior roof... is impressive. And inexpensive, yet the 10% savings will carry on for years and years. It can also be used on skylights & frosted glass, as it does not block the visible wavelengths (see website for lab test). It will be blurry, though, so you can't use it on viewing windows.

Those who coat walls & ceilings save even more, of course. You'll see. I've used it, and it's very impressive. You haven't, and you haven't seen enough data to convince you. Sobeit. I'll go ahead and trust those who save substantially on their heating/cooling bills - you won't. No big deal.

By the way, aerogel particles are possbily the best insulator known. Nansulate is patented, and is loaded with the stuff. Hence, thermal transfer inhibition abilities. I know it riles you up to hear that, since you are a traditional expert of sorts... but, sorry. If you ever try some, you'll see. Or maybe a friend will try it, and you can observe the results. Yes, also, a thin 5 mil clear coating that insulates as well as 1/4" of cardboard (if that's your claim), but is nearly invisible and is also water-based and non-toxic while also preventing mold, corrosion, and encapsulating lead, IS impressive. It just is.

Aerogels are ~R10/inch without the thermally-bridging glue/paint that binds the particles in nansulate, and you've got no inches to speak of. If it works even 1/10th as well as you say it does in 0.007" thicknesses, it's not an artifact of it's conductive thermal properties- there has to be significant emissivity characteristics in play.

If the Fairbanks engineers did a quantitative test, publish the data. Cities do all sorts of things in the name of "green", whether they make financial & technical sense at all.

Claims of 20%+ savings applied to an already insulated TX house when the otherwise uninsulated Mexican shack only pulled 10% seems, well... BIZARRE, overreaching, with no credible basis.

If the stuff works in a building, it'll work in a lab. Tests with a more realistic wall/roof models than bologna sandwiches or a cm of concrete would have more cred. The 42% thermal flux reduction in the concrete wall model test implies strongly that it's straight-ahead conducted thermal insulative value is almost as large the 1cm of concrete, (which is impressive enough) but will not do much for the utility bills of an R8 econo-batt insulated structure.

And I'm sayin' the 0.25" of corrugated would soundly BEAT the 10% cooling load reduction demonstrated with 0.007" of nansulate in the Mexican shack experiment, not merely be as-good-as. (Still, 0.0001" of specular aluminum properly applied might beat them both.)

But we're both repeating ourselves- my end of the discussion is done until you can actually show me data instead of 2nd-hand testimonials.

Dana1, You'll end up both surprised and confused by the case study that will come out in time about how the Fairbanks municipal buildings lowered their heating costs by a very noticeable percentage via the Nansulate application.

I don't have the lab data that YOU say is necessary, obviously. But, all that means is that YOU shouldn't use the product. Others will. ALL that matters is that the energy bills go down substantially. It's not important that folks like you actually understand why or how. You should make a note to follow the goings-on as the data, real world case studies, etc, increase over time.

http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/book/export/html/14616
The Same As Ordinary Paint
Every researcher who has examined these products has concluded that there is no such thing as insulating paint. For example, tests at the Florida Solar Energy Center confirm that these paints are nothing special: “The Florida Solar Energy Center has tested ceramic paints and found them to have no significant advantage over ordinary paint in terms of their ability to retard heat gains through exterior building surfaces.”

The latest research lab to shine light on the insulating paint scammers is the Cold Climate Housing Research Center (CCHRC) in Fairbanks, Alaska. As explained in the September 2009 issue of EDU, CCHRC researchers decided to focus on two products that often generate customer complaints: Nansulate and Super Therm.
Can Paint Have An R-Value? In order to leave no stone unturned, the Alaska researchers measured the R-value of dried paint samples. Employing a Fox 314 heat flow meter, the researchers followed the standard ASTM C518 procedure for measuring R-value. (For more information on the ASTM C518 test, see “Understanding R-Value.”) Since a thin coat of dried paint is fragile, the paint was applied to 1/2-in. drywall before testing. The results will undoubtedly disappoint the marketers of “insulating” paint. “Application of Super Therm increased the thermal conductivity of the gypsum board and therefore decreased the overall R-value,” the researchers reported. “Application of Nansulate resulted in no significant difference, as the change in thermal conductivity for the Nansulate-coated gypsum board is within the 1% measurement error of the Fox 314.”

Hmmmm...


------------


"Some paint manufacturers classify their products as “radiation control coatings,” a category requiring an emissivity rating of 0.25 or less — a less stringent emissivity rating than radiant barriers. However, neither Nansulate nor Super Therm comes anywhere close to even this less stringent standard."


-----------

and


-----------
"Employing a Fox 314 heat flow meter, the researchers followed the standard ASTM C518 procedure for measuring R-value. (For more information on the ASTM C518 test, see “Understanding R-Value.”) Since a thin coat of dried paint is fragile, the paint was applied to 1/2-in. drywall before testing.

The results will undoubtedly disappoint the marketers of “insulating” paint. “Application of Super Therm increased the thermal conductivity of the gypsum board and therefore decreased the overall R-value,” the researchers reported. “Application of Nansulate resulted in no significant difference, as the change in thermal conductivity for the Nansulate-coated gypsum board is within the 1% measurement error of the Fox 314.”

-------------


I guess I really WOULD be surprised & confused if the Fairbanks muni projects show gains directly attributable to Nansulate (and no other mods), won't I ? :-) No R-value to speak of, lousy from emissivity POV, not much "there" there...

The smoke might block block some heat, the mirrors might reflect some, but if history is any guide, smoke & mirrors will leave you cold in the end. ;-)

Thanks for weighing in, vhehn- this was gettin' ridiculous.

If it works in the real world, it works in a lab...

































...and if it don't...

LOL!

First of all, K value is a much better measurement of thermal abilities. Secondly, you'll be spouting off about how the stuff doesnt' work, as the list of those with PROOF that their heating/cooling bills have gone down substantially as a result of appliyng Nansulate correctly grows and grows.  I know this stuff threatens a LOT of folks, but so what. 

What you continue to fail to recognize is... even a moderate lessening of thermal transfer will help a LOT if it's applied everywhere. You see, there is NO other insulation which can be applied everywhere. You're underestimating the ability of creating a thermal seal (even a weak one) when otherwise there could be none. The net impact is pretty noticeable.

Also, regarding the lab test which proves 34% thermal flow reduction: that will be the case no matter what type of wall it's applied to. Whatever the level of heat trying to transfer, 34% less of it will transfer regardless of the substrate makeup. You simply don't understand the physics involved in the coating system. It's not a "paint". It's much much more. Study the patent a while.

Yeah, it stops 34% of heat transfer...

... 'ceptin' when it's 42%, as in the thin concrete wall test...


... or 10% in the Mexican shack test...


...or roughly 0% whenever tested by academics from AK to FL using ASTM C518 testing or standardized radiant heat transfer tests to discover it's true macro-scale efficacy.

So now you've moved onto the "...you simply don't understand the physics..." snowjob, have you?

I surely don't understand physics, a consequence of having a degree in physics. I aced thermodynamics, as well as most of the other course work, which cripples my comprehension for sure. I know too much about Gibbs & Knudsen to know more about nano-scale thermodynamics than sales droids hawkin' variations on the theme. I've done too much of the math- that must be the reason why I've been reduced to a lowly engineer- I haven't published a paper in a physics journal in about 30 years. :-)

But go ahead, give us the rigorous theoretical basis on how this stuff always slows heat transfer through any material by a fixed percentage of the heat flux regardless of form, and while you're at it, derive what that fixed percentage is based on the nano-scale properties, eh? (This oughtta be good! :-) Who's buyin' the popcorn? )

WOW... This thing has been going on since August. If Homeowner 1 is trying to get some free air time, that has been accomplished[ Good or Bad] Dana 1 is spending a Lot of time discussing the merits and apply a scientific reasoning to it? Maybe it's time to get the attorney's involved? Then we'll never get a straight answer!!

I have this device, called a Give-O- Sh t meter and it is pegged at - 10 right now.

"I have this device, called a Give-O- Sh t meter and it is pegged at - 10 right now."

all that is required for the scammers to win is for knowledgeable people to remain silent.

> I don't care what it's K value is, to be a useful conductive insulator it needs thickness.

Dana is correct. 

I guess there's a first time for everything, eh?

We're still waiting for the first time explanation for how these test results are wrong though:

http://www.cchrc.org/App_Content/files/Insulating_Paint_Final.pdf

If it tests out as having effectively zero thermal benefit in a Fairbanks lab it's about what the Fairbanks municipal buildings should achieve with it, eh?

I'd be embarrassed to be sellin' thiscrap as home insulation when there are so many USEFUL and EFFECTIVE ways one could be spending ones time, not to mention so many useful & effective products that ACTUALLY reduce energy consumption.

Why can't manufacturers respect our intelligence and publish the R value, Air Sealing, and Radiant values all separately? I am sick of seeing “equivalent” R values based off of air sealing and paint that’s R-anything. If this stuff really had an R- value, they would make a 1” thick board out of it that would be R-500 and they would completely shut down all fiberglass, foam, and cellulose manufacturers combined. If it is a radiant barrier, just tell us.

Alas, in that case Nansulate would have nothing to report- it appears the emperor is buck-nekkid as far as building insulation goes. 

Independent labs measure it's conductive thermal properties as near zero (below the margin of error of the instrumentation), and emmissivity far too high (ridiculously high at 0.92, as measured by the CCHRC) to qualify as any sort of radiant barrier, which requires emmissivity to be below 0.10, or even a "radiation control coating" which needs to be below 0.25.  Whatever it might/might-not do on the micro or nano scale does not extend to macro scale at the recommended applied thicknesses.

If it doesn't measure up in standardized lab procedures, and shows no repeatable measurable difference in elaborate mini-house models such as the CCHRC cube-house test (http://www.cchrc.org/App_Content/files/Insulating_Paint_Final.pdf), it would appear that those other tests cited by the manufacturer are merely cherry picking of (likely erroneous) data points for marketing purposes.

They can't publish an R-value or an equivalent R-value without opening themselves up to fraudulent claim charges by the FTC.  (They may already be belly deep in it- stay tuned... )

At 0.007" thickness it may or may not air seal as well as a coat of cheap latex. (It's likely to be more brittle than latex, making it prone to air leakage- but there are tests for that too.)

If it does ANYTHING, it doesn't do it reliably or repeatably, which makes it's value to any particular customer impossible to ascertain.  Based on the CCHRC data I'd hazard probably does nothing measurable for any building, testimonials, bloggery, and one-off tests cited by the manufacturer notwithstanding.

-------------

For the house in this thread, roughly 1/5-1/4 of the cooling load is likely from direct solar gain through windows, which can be mitigated by well over 50% with a combination of low-E window films and exterior shading.  Figure a combined effect of these measures add up to 10-15% of the total cooling load for the house (sometimes more.)

Another 1/5-1/4 is gain through the attic/ceiling, which can be cut ~20-40% with radiant barriers (or radiant control paint), and cut even more with additional blown insulation over the rafter tops to block thermal bridging there.  Done will, this combination can cut 10-15% from the total cooling load of the house.

If the ducts are in the attic, that's another 10-15%, to be cut in half with duct sealing & insulation, for another ~6-7% of the total cooling load.

Another 10-15% (often more) would be gains from outdoor air infiltration, which is also usually easy to cut in half- call it another 6-7% of the total.

Maybe 10% is direct gain through insulation gaps in the (mostly south side) walls, but that may be more difficult to chase down & fix. Figure if you find a  number of hot spots and fix 'em with spot-blown insulation, it might buy you another 3-5% of the total.

That adds up to a 35-50% reduction in cooling load if you do it all, and do it well, and it WILL show up on the electric bill.

No magic spray-on goo is going to defeat the fundamentals and deliver 34% savings (unless you're willing to coat the house in 1-2" of 2lb foam, windows & all! :-) )

I find this topic very interesting. Your ideas are great. I'll bear these things in mind when I decide to build my own home someday.

Here is a very cool article about the effectiveness of ceramic paint in residential construction.

http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com...ng-advisor

There is justice!

Bruce