Friday, January 25, 2008

Re: [papercreters] Re: Insulation Value

<shakes head at you>  I'll pass thanks.  My husband likes that kind of humor.  I never have.
 
I try to learn something from everyone.  Sometimes it's what not to do, but it's still knowledge.  For those of us interested in alternative building materials, an open mind is very important.  Not having an open mind and being willing to learn is the root of  . . . well, you get my point.
 
Every technology has it pluses and its advocates.  I am not advocating the use of urethane foam.  That wasn't the reason I provided the link.  I've been to MD, I've seen urethane foam insulation applied, I've been in homes that have it and I can absolutely see Dave's point regarding its benefits.  Spray on foam provides an airtight insulating envelope.  That's part of what makes it so effective.  More importantly, I agree with his assertion there are inadequacies in r-value testing and valid arguments against using r-value as the benchmark for comparing insulating technologies.  I'm struggling to understand why anyone would deny those assertions.
 
There are those in life who can make leaps of logic.  I've run into a handful of them in my life.  Dave is one such person.  He's a pretty intelligent guy.  There's much to admire about his brain and how it works.  I may never be a monolithic dome fan . . . but that doesn't mean I can't listen and add to my store of knowledge.
 
ElfN
 
----- Original Message -----
 
Naturally air infiltration is important, as are half a dozen other things not mentioned.   The whole point of the article is that the R-value is meaningless, and that's why it is so ridiculous.
 
I'd love to do a parody of the article if anyone is interested.
 
Neal
__._,_.___

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

at 1:35 PM