Q&A Forums
Water Blown Closed Cell Post New Topic | Post Reply
| Author | Comments |
|---|---|
|
John Bartlo
Posted: Apr 06, 2009 03:25 PM
|
Water Blown Closed Cell
Mason - I've noticed some water blown closed cell manufacturers touting an R-6. If manufacturers using 245fa can only get aged values in the low R-6 range, then why wouldn't they just use H2O? Tech service guys from 245fa companies claim you can't get out of the low R-5 range with water. What's your take? Thanks.
|
|
mason
Posted: Apr 06, 2009 03:32 PM
|
The FTC is very stict about how the tests you use to report R value. You must use one of 3 methods ASTM 177, ASTM 518 or a guarded hot box (ASTM E 1363) Foams made with blowing agents that have a higher insulative value than Carbon dioxide (the gas created when using water blown foams)such as XPS, polyiso and SPF typically average from a little better than 5 to around 6.5. This is after 6 months aging. I too find it unlikely that a water blown foam could have a higher R value than a CFC, HCFC, HFC or hydrocarbon blown foam. But, the proof is in the tests results. Please ask the supplier to provide a copy of the R value test results from an ICC acredited lab. |
|
Posted: Apr 07, 2009 05:48 AM
|
"But, the proof is in the tests results. Please ask the supplier to provide a copy of the R value test results from an ICC acredited lab." what mason said,,,, some of the claims being made are wild man,,, |
|
John Bartlo
Posted: Apr 07, 2009 06:57 AM
|
Guys - Based on personal testing experience with ICC labs (or any lab for that matter) I would even question an ICC result if it was that high of an R-value. I don't want to talk about it here lest we proliferate the problem, but if you contact me I'll give you the scoop. It has nothing to do with the labs or their abilities - they're all very good at what they do. |
