| [GMCnet] Restoration. Inconsistencies in our factory foam insulation. [message #298367] |
Thu, 31 March 2016 01:37  |
BobDunahugh
Messages: 2465
Registered: October 2010
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Karma: 11
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Someone that I've known for 25 years. Got into the insulation business 7 years ago. And does all types, including foam. He stopped by tonight to see how the job was doing. He says that the biggest misconception of what's the best insulation out there. There's just no silver bullet. With our inconsistencies in our factory insulation. That starts to cause problems with any one material to be used over all. In our application. And removing the factory foam. That would take away many of the benefits that foam has to offer to start with. He felt that the bubble wrap type had the most consistent R value. Without having the existing foam adversely affect any other product added. And if the bubble wrap type is properly taped, and sealed well. The two would complement each other very effectively.. By creating some great dead air spaces between each type. Due to the factory inconsistencies that we have to start with. He approved with my selling process for this application. I've used the bubble wrap types in several applications. And have been very impressed with how well it performed. Bob Dunahugh 78 Royale. Mouse House
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Restoration. Inconsistencies in our factory foam insulation. [message #298368 is a reply to message #298367] |
Thu, 31 March 2016 02:10  |
Guy Lopes
Messages: 499
Registered: April 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Karma: 3
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Bob,
So you're placing the aluminum-faced bubble type insulation over the
existing blown in foam? How thick is your aluminum faced bubble insulation
and where did you source it?
Thanks for sending me the pics. It looks great!
Guy Lopes
76 Birchaven "Orion"
Sacramento, CA
W6TOL
www.GMC-Guy.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Gmclist [mailto:gmclist-bounces@list.gmcnet.org] On Behalf Of Bob
Dunahugh
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 23:37
To: gmclist@list.gmcnet.org
Subject: [GMCnet] Restoration. Inconsistencies in our factory foam
insulation.
Someone that I've known for 25 years. Got into the insulation business 7
years ago. And does all types, including foam. He stopped by tonight to see
how the job was doing. He says that the biggest misconception of what's
the best insulation out there. There's just no silver bullet. With our
inconsistencies in our factory insulation. That starts to cause problems
with any one material to be used over all. In our application. And removing
the factory foam. That would take away many of the benefits that foam has to
offer to start with. He felt that the bubble wrap type had the most
consistent R value. Without having the existing foam adversely affect any
other product added. And if the bubble wrap type is properly taped, and
sealed well. The two would complement each other very effectively.. By
creating some great dead air spaces between each type. Due to the factory
inconsistencies that we have to start with. He approved with my selling
process for this applicatio!
n. I've used the bubble wrap types in several applications. And have been
very impressed with how well it performed. Bob Dunahugh 78 Royale. Mouse
House
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
Guy Lopes
76 Birchaven "Orion"
Sacramento, CA
W6TOL
www.GMC-Guy.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Restoration. Inconsistencies in our factory foam insulation. [message #298401 is a reply to message #298367] |
Thu, 31 March 2016 12:41 |
cbryan
Messages: 451
Registered: May 2012
Location: Ennis, Texas
Karma: 3
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I've got bubble wrap in my MH, touted by beloved PO as magic as elixir.
Note the below found on a google search:
Stay Away from Foil-Faced Bubble Wrap
This R-1 product can be used to make Halloween costumes, but should never be used as insulation
Posted on Mar 21 2014 by Martin Holladay, GBA Advisor
Image 1 of 8
Foil-faced bubble wrap is a thin product that comes in a roll. Its R-value is dismally low.
Most brands of foil-faced bubble wrap are only 3/8 inch thick or less, and have an R-value of only 1.0 or 1.1. Since the product often costs more per square foot than 1-inch thick rigid foam rated at R-5, why would anyone use bubble wrap as insulation?
The R-value of foil-faced bubble wrap is so low that it has few, if any, advantages over rigid foam. Of course, the product's foil facing can be used as a radiant barrier -- but if you want a radiant barrier, cheaper products are available. (The bubble wrap layer is unnecessary, since it adds cost to the material without adding any useful thermal performance.)
Exaggerated R-value claims
Since the main benefit from foil-faced bubble wrap is due to its radiant-barrier facing, the product is basically worthless unless it faces an air space. A decade ago, when I was the editor of Energy Design Update, I noticed that many manufacturers of foil-faced bubble wrap were promoting their products for use under concrete slabs on grade. In this application, the shiny foil is clearly not facing an air space, so the exaggerated R-value claims made by bubble-wrap manufacturers were particularly outrageous. My article exposing the bubble-wrap scammers appeared in the September 2003 issue of EDU.
Read more: http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/musings/stay-away-foil-faced-bubble-wrap#ixzz44VGGqKOs
Follow us: @gbadvisor on Twitter | GreenBuildingAdvisor on Facebook
End quote. My bubble wrap seems to have little or no benefit. I used to be a true believer. Hate to see Bob disappointed. Our goal should be to upgrade our motorhomes. Not to work ourselves to a frazzle and have poor results.
YMMV.
Carey
Carey from Ennis, Texas
78 Royale, 500 Cadillac, Rance Baxter EFI.
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Restoration. Inconsistencies in our factory foam insulation. [message #298403 is a reply to message #298367] |
Thu, 31 March 2016 12:49 |
jknezek
Messages: 1057
Registered: December 2007
Karma: 5
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I used the foil and bubble stuff over the existing insulation in my coach. It definitely made a difference on the ceiling, not as much on the walls as far as I can tell. However I did put it behind the new back splash simply because I had some laying around and it is easy to use. The rigid foam is hard to use with the curved walls, so not great for our application. Ideally you would strip the coach bare and have it resprayed, but barring that effort, I don't know of a product that is water resistant and flexible for our application other than the foil bubble wrap. I think it works some, but it certainly isn't as effective as simply parking in the shade...
Thanks,
Jeremy Knezek
1976 Glenbrook
Birmingham, AL
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Restoration. Inconsistencies in our factory foam insulation. [message #298407 is a reply to message #298403] |
Thu, 31 March 2016 14:05 |
A Hamilto
Messages: 4508
Registered: April 2011
Karma: 39
|
Senior Member |
|
|
jknezek wrote on Thu, 31 March 2016 12:49...Ideally you would strip the coach bare and have it resprayed,... I would think it would be just about as good to leave what is there alone and spray over it to bring it to full thickness.
FWIW, the specs on the foil bubble wrap in that Lowes link says R-3 per inch. I don't know how many layers it takes to make an inch, and fiberglass is almost R-4 per inch anyway.
Some polyisocyanurate foam board stuff is R-7 per inch. Same as sprayed in, and not as expensive. Styrofoam is R-5 per inch. Anything is better than the bubble wrap, but harder to form in the curved corners. And even R-3 is better than allowing the air to circulate in what should be dead air space.
The three ways that heat moves are: Convection, conduction and radiation. The reflective property of the foil is intended to reduce or eliminate radiation, the thermal break of R-value fights conduction, and filling the space to keep the air from moving prevents convection. As always, more R-value is better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Restoration. Inconsistencies in our factory foam insulation. [message #298436 is a reply to message #298401] |
Thu, 31 March 2016 23:36 |
Ronald Pottol
Messages: 505
Registered: September 2012
Location: Redwood City, California
Karma: -2
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I'd think going with the aerogell blanket would be the way to go. $5 or
less per square foot, for a 1cm thick blanket. Very high R value,
hydrophobic, not damaged by water.
On Mar 31, 2016 10:42, "Carey Bryan" wrote:
> I've got bubble wrap in my MH, touted by beloved PO as magic as elixir.
>
> Note the below found on a google search:
>
> Stay Away from Foil-Faced Bubble Wrap
> This R-1 product can be used to make Halloween costumes, but should never
> be used as insulation
> Posted on Mar 21 2014 by Martin Holladay, GBA Advisor
>
> Image 1 of 8
>
> Foil-faced bubble wrap is a thin product that comes in a roll. Its R-value
> is dismally low.
>
> Most brands of foil-faced bubble wrap are only 3/8 inch thick or less, and
> have an R-value of only 1.0 or 1.1. Since the product often costs more per
> square foot than 1-inch thick rigid foam rated at R-5, why would anyone
> use bubble wrap as insulation?
>
> The R-value of foil-faced bubble wrap is so low that it has few, if any,
> advantages over rigid foam. Of course, the product's foil facing can be used
> as a radiant barrier -- but if you want a radiant barrier, cheaper
> products are available. (The bubble wrap layer is unnecessary, since it
> adds cost
> to the material without adding any useful thermal performance.)
>
> Exaggerated R-value claims
>
> Since the main benefit from foil-faced bubble wrap is due to its
> radiant-barrier facing, the product is basically worthless unless it faces
> an air
> space. A decade ago, when I was the editor of Energy Design Update, I
> noticed that many manufacturers of foil-faced bubble wrap were promoting
> their
> products for use under concrete slabs on grade. In this application, the
> shiny foil is clearly not facing an air space, so the exaggerated R-value
> claims made by bubble-wrap manufacturers were particularly outrageous. My
> article exposing the bubble-wrap scammers appeared in the September 2003
> issue of EDU.
>
> Read more:
> http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/musings/stay-away-foil-faced-bubble-wrap#ixzz44VGGqKOs
> Follow us: @gbadvisor on Twitter | GreenBuildingAdvisor on Facebook
>
> End quote. My bubble wrap seems to have little or no benefit. I used to
> be a true believer. Hate to see Bob disappointed. Our goal should be to
> upgrade our motorhomes. Not to work ourselves to a frazzle and have poor
> results.
>
> YMMV.
>
> Carey
>
> --
> Carey from Ennis, Texas
> 78 Royale, 500 Cadillac, Rance Baxter EFI.
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
1973 26' GM outfitted
|
|
|
|
GMCforum
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
