I recently read the article in this month’s issue of FHB about this product. I have never had the “pleasure” of encountering it in my daily travels, but I had always been of the opinion that this stuff was a bad idea.
After having read the article, I am completely appalled this product is actually available for sale. This is a perfect example of why we need to heavily tax fossil fuels. You are basically gluing a house together. What happens when you tear the house down, what happens if you need to run wire, or plumbing down the road.
There is a island of plastic the size of Texas, somewhere in the Pacific Ocean. This stuff does not breakdown, it will last forever in a landfill. I am shocked that no mention of the horrific environmental toll of this product was not mentioned.
Replies
This is a perfect example of why we need to heavily tax fossil fuels.>>>>>>>>>>>>.
That will mean more people use it, because of higher R value.
I wonder if anyone has read the MSDS sheets on foam insulation. This is the reason I won't touch it!
That and the fact that I don't believe that insulation manufactored on the job site, can lead to improper mixes.
Don't bother you with facts; you'll believe what you want.
Several things.. it's a trade off.. spray foam is many times more efficent than fiberglas or any other insulation..
It's also prone to less problems such as mold and water damage.. Durability you mentioned is it's strength.
Plus it makes the house that much stronger and quieter.
So we use a little oil to make the stuff and save tons of oil down the road.
". spray foam is many times more efficent than fiberglas or any other insulation."Here is a link comparing spray foam to fiberglass batts: http://www.spray-foam.com/compare.htmlBlown in Cellulose falls somewhere in between fiberglass and spray foam insulation when measuring for r-value.Once this stuff is applied, then you have to wait for it to cure, and then come back and shave it down? Then you have to cart off these shavings to your local landfill. Awesome. I would imagine a spray foam insulated house would float in water. It sounds like this product is a premium application, so only a small percentage of the market will use it anyway.
"wait for it to cure"about ninety seconds. You must be impatient. my guy's helper follows right behind him shaving. Typical house generates two big black bags of shavings. I throw that much foam away every month in packing materials that UPS brings by.So I guess you want UPS and FedEx to use heavier stuff too, and waste more fuel on their fleets and add more pollution to the air from the excess exhaust. Hope you are ready to pay more for shipping rates
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
http://www.biobased.net/ enough said
Read th MSDS on these supposed green foam. It scared me!
Got a link to what you read on the MSDS?'Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt man doing it' ~ Chinese proverb
View Image
I will find one for you.
http://www.biobased.net/products/SpecSheets/MSDS%20-%20Bisobased%20501w%20%20Foam%20Insulation%20November%2020,%202008.pdf
Here is one although it doesn't give us the ingrediants so it appears less toxic
The one I was familiar with listed the ingrediants and it was eye opening.
I looked into the possibility of starting new business with this in mind. After exploring, I determined in my mind there was a lot of nothing to this soy based foam. I also didn't proceed any further because I believe that open celled insulation will faqll by the way side in the next few years.
Thanks. I keep thinking of using closed cell on my house, for a number of reasons... I've got a hot roof, it'll tighten up the framing, make a better seal on any gaps I've got in the shiplap sheathing, etc.I was curious about the link above because I see they've got a closed cell soy based foam, too. (http://www.biobased.net/faq.php#3) Open cell doesn't hold a lot of attraction for my needs, as far as I have read.Not sure how much waste to cut away post-application anyway. Isn't this designed to be applied in lifts? I assumed that a reasonable amount of caution in applying it wouldn't leave you with inches of excess foam billowing out of every rafter bay, but I could be entirely off-base with that assumption.'Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt man doing it' ~ Chinese proverb
View Image
Isn't this designed to be applied in lifts
Yes
I think I would use a base of closed cell followed up with the balence of the space filled with cellulose.
Not much waste with a skilled applicator installing it.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
I stuff the the shavings and the packing peanuts inside the underneath of the fiberglass tub (while its still inside the black plastic bags) to get rid of and to insulate the tub so the water stays warmer longer for those long soaks!
If you just get a little creative it is actually usefull somewhere.
Is the issue oil?
If so a little bit of oil converted into foam is better than a lot of oil burned later..
As for waste plastic, I should think that there is a whole lot of potential for it.. I mean already we recycle plastic bottles for a variety of uses,, the potential exists for someday doing reverse engineering to economically decompose it and we can then find uses for it..
As you point out plastic lives forever and while it's a mess right now so were a lot of things we've learned how to use again and again.
Finally as for the currant waste in use as a supliment to stick framing.. I agree with you.. Stick framing is a waste! The only reason we're still using it is because of the years of built up experiance and familiarity. So spray foam and stick framing is an interim solution.
Far more efficent would be the use of SIPs, ever better will be the use of ICF's.
"horrific environmental toll "
now balance your personal prejudice against the ocean of oil and other energy sources that is saved from waste and the corresponding result of elevated CO emissions spewed by that wasted burned carbon fuel, and your concerns become miniscule. This foam is not floating around in the Pacific. It is in the walls of folks homes keeping them confortable.
Welcome to the
Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime.
where ...
Excellence is its own reward!
Man, this was dragged though the dirt already! Last winter I think, in the Riversong era. The problem with the "fossil fuels saved" theory is the time line. Most residential structures aren't maintained long enough to justify
the permanent mess. Also, it's a permanent mess. So, do your math figure out how long for benefit point to be reached
and then try and look forward the insane amount of time still left in the products longevity.
With no real world experience as to the long term effects. If you truly want to be conscientious, it's impossible to except
leaving this unhealthy mess without an answer to the long term
disposal. That said, I think it has it's place and serves a purpose. Just,
not as a widespread residential insulation.
three to ten year payback. That is far from an insane time.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Ya got it turned around there Piff. That's the economic payback, not the environmental payback
(if there is one). Trying to pin down the fossil fuel savings versus environmental
costs, is very complicated. I certainly don't know and doubt
anyone truly does.
>The problem with the "fossil fuels saved" theory is the time line.
>Most residential structures aren't maintained long enough to justify
the permanent mess.
Just seat-of-the-pants calculation. Let's say that 100% of the cost of foam is fossil fuel. That equivalent amount in fuel costs saved would indicate that I offset my use of the fossil fuels in foam. In the middle of winter, 80% of my gas bill was for fuel, 20% delivery. So if I can pay back my investment in a few years through fuel savings as they say, then that means the amount of fuel used to make foam is more or less offset in a few years. After that, I'm saving fossil fuels from being used.
My house over 80 years old. I expect it to last at least as long.
The discussion makes it sound like every house insulated with foam will both burn down and be dumped in a landfill within a few years, before the fuel savings is noted. If your house burns down, and not many do out here, maybe it's different in wildfire country, you got bigger problems than your foam. If you're ditching your house every few years to make it bigger, than that's another set of problems, too. By the way, if you rebuild in wildfire country after being burnt out, your resource use and risk for the rest of the structure is much greater than your foam use. Remember, most of foam is air.
By the way, I don't recall if anyone mentioned it, but nothing degrades in a landfill. The ways anthropologists date layers of landfill is by reading the dates off the newspapers, even many decades old ones.
Think how much fuel will be saved vs. used, and how much lower emissions will be from heating/cooling fuel use, even if you factor in a burnt house or two. (Fossil fuels are often used to power electric generators for the A/C use)
This thread does indeed make us all sound a bit
over the top. Your point has been made before and it is a
good one.
My meaning was different then that. Your taking
a substance that is essentially out of the biosphere
and puffing itup with propellents and tossing it out there. If it truly didn't ever break down, we would have any
concerns. But it does eventually, and there isn't a clear
understanding how it rejoins into the food chain. Now I'm actually not a foam "Hater", I'm spraying my home
with it this year in fact. My feeling is when the situation dictates it-use it.
However, when a more organic and environmentally sound
alternative is available use that instead. We, don't know the long term effects or even life cycle
of these petrochemicals. We do know that many other oil
based products in our lives are turning out to be
harmful to one extent or another. So, Don't make a mess you can't clean up.
And Use readily available alternatives when possible.
Henley wrote:
>However, when a more organic and environmentally sound alternative is available use that instead.
I agree, and I agonized over foaming the entire attic (rafter and stud bays) and all of the new dormer (40 s.f. addition). With 2x4 walls and 2x6 rafters (with cathedral ceiling), the only way I could approach code was with high density polyurethane. Stopping infiltration and maximizing R-value left one choice, in my opinion.
I feel I've helped get the foam movement more established. When the market for high performance foam insulation is proven, I'm hoping the greening of the technology will follow. One step at a time. High density PU is the only established technology that makes sense for a retrofit. Cost-effective in the long run, superior infiltration and vapor barrier, with double the R-value of just about every other insulation, it makes the others worse for the environment by establishing an inferior, less efficient product.
I specified dense pack cellulose in the areas I didn't gut. The installers were having trouble with clogging, even at 3.0 psf. I wouldn't be surprised if they went down below that when I wasn't looking. They started with 2.0 without the insertion tube before I had them change, even after I ordered dense pack. It didn't seem that what they did would make a great air barrier as dense pack is supposed to do, and I used the same insulation company as the Massachusetts Super Insulation Pilot Project (retrofit) so it's not that I chose some novice company.
http://superinsulating.blogspot.com/
I am now scrambling around trying to figure out how to spec the air barrier, rain screen, and drainage plane so I don't get stuck with slowing down the exfiltration rate just enough to invite mold/rot into the stud bays. It's doubled the quoted cost of my siding job.
When you're on the bleeding edge of technology, you have to make some compromises.
---mike...
In practice, the difference between practice and theory is larger than it is in theory.
I think I understand his concern.. there have been some real eye opening magazine articles about the Pacific mid ocean waste where the plastic that is tossed into the ocean eventually winds up. It has done some horrible things to the ocean environment.... and more important to the marine life that depends on a clean ocean to survive..
However your point is sure valid.. most foam used in construction is doing a good job as an insulation media what little goes to waste is mostly sent to landfills to remain in storage untill it's economically worth it to mine for recycling..
That link referred to flotsam from ships garbage, and asian packaging/food containers, not household foam insulation. The problem is people who dispose of junk improperly, not the fact it exists.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
'What happens when you tear the house down'
99% of the time it all gets put in a land fill regardless of what the house is made of.
'what happens if you need to run wire, or plumbing down the road.'
Yes it would make it difficult to run wiring but plumbing usually requires major work anyway.
There are alternatives BTW
http://www.bauerspecialty.com/insulation/insulation-airkrete/air-krete-cementitious-foam-insulation
http://www.soybasedfoam.com/index.php
One of the recycling MRFs in my area has a process to melt down & reuse styrofoam. I don't know if spray foam is the same composition.
I watched them melt down the rigid styro (like in packing boxes for TVs) into a aluminum box. Let it cool and dump it out. It was very dense (heavy). Which would solve the transportation issue of high volume, low weight= high cost to transport.
They said it was going to a joint that made it into picture frames, etc.
styrafoam is a trade name for polystyrenethe common closed cell insulating foam is polyurethene, more stable and fixed Sometimes polyurethene or open celled foams are also used in blo-pak shipping.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Buy what you like, for what you consider to be good reasons ... just don't try to foist your faith on me!
Foam is simply unbeatable as an insulator. It also seals gaps, stops water, and (as mentioned) adds stiffness and deadens sound. Unlike fiberglass or cellulose, an accumulation of dust and moisture won't compromise it as an insulation.
Sure, it has it's trade-offs. It burns like rocket fuel (well, there's your solution to the landfill question!). Making plumbing and electrical changes can be tedious. Around here, we need to take extra measures to ensure that there is enough water in the air for the stuff to cure properly. Some earlier foams have shrunk over time, or have given off unpleasant fumes.
An island the size of Texas? Yea, right. All the world's plastic somehow just happens to know how to find its' way to join its' cousins on the island? Sure. Too bad it's not true; if only we could 'mine' it the way we mine coal and uranium!
Let's take inventory here:
It's environmentally wrong to use foam, because it's made with oil.
It's environmentally wrong to use cellulose because trees are cut down.
It's environmentally wrong to use fiberglass because we have to mine the silica.
Just how are we supposed to attain thiose high insulation values to get the environmentally green "LEED" rating? By default, you'd have us returning to caves.
There really is a huge floating island of plastic out there-
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89099470Perhaps your faith is slanting some of your statements? <<It's environmentally wrong to use foam, because it's made with oil.>>No one said that. It is of concern in that it may not be healthy to
live inside of and it's disposal is unknown.<<It's environmentally wrong to use cellulose because trees are cut down.> I think it's fair to say cellulose is favored by most environmentalists.<<It's environmentally wrong to use fiberglass because we have to mine the silica.>> Fiberglass has a lot wrong with it and most people mainly
just want more bang for their buck.
(densepack not withstanding).
There really is such an island? Let's see ... first of all, where is it? Internet sites place it on opposite sides of Hawaii. Marine charts failt to mention it at all.
How big is it? Again, we get everything from a man-made raft of soda bottles to something alleged to be twice the size of the USA.
How solid is it? Some say 'just add sand,' while others say it's really a 'soup.'
How old is it? One source claims it's bee 'growing off California since 1965.'
Absent is any mention of similar 'islands' in the Atlantic, Carribbean, Indian, South Pacific, or, for that matter, Lake Michigan. Why might that be?
Finally, I've had a multitude of plastic things degrade in simple sunlight in a year or two. That this seaborne stuff is somehow impervious to sun and typhoon is simply amazing.
Fishing operations continue apace - even in the Pacific ocean. It would be somewhat difficult to fish waters that were a 'soup' of plastic debris.
Environmentalists like cellulose? That's news to all the folks whose logging businesses have been crippled by ane environmental movement. Major parts of California and Oregon have become modern ghost towns, thanks to the 'environmental' movement. Not content, such groups continue to target logging firms, even when the trees involved are on private land, grown from seed by the company.
Here, even the removal of dead trees (dead trees are real contributors to both fire and disease spread) has been vigorously opposed.
"May not be healthy?" Anything MIGHT happen. That's not science; that's speculation. Foan may just as well prove to be the best thing since sliced bread. Let's let time, and the market, decide. With over 30 years of use, I'd say we have a pretty good idea as to the long term performance of foam.
"Disposal is unknown." There's precious little that IS known. What is known is that foam does it's job for far longer, far better, and with fewer bad consequences than anything else. In the end, foam can be readily burned - suggesting that as long as we have power plants, we need not worry about disposal.
I was recently at a gathering of 'environmentalists.' There was not a single horse tied up outside (or even any "Smart" cars), not a soul in homespun, not a table without a laptop. There was certainly no shortage of cant about our 'wasteful' lifestyle though! Comparing my income to theirs, I can assure you the 'waste' was not on my part!
Wake up to reality: Everything you own was either mined or grown!
Well, I don't know what the Internet is saying(or care much). I
have read several articles and watched some TV news broad cast on it. From what I gather it isn't a land mass by any means.
The ocean currents from both sides of the ocean carry the #### long distances
and end up depositing it sort of in the middle.
The video's I've seen show it more like a floating jetsam of sorts. Yes, indeed the sun breaks it down into smaller and smaller particles.
Where they enter the food chain in the bottom
( memory fails me on the specific plankton like critters they talked about). More and more studies (not that I trust them much either) are finding
potential health issues with many of the synthetic materials in our lives.
Case in point the propellent changes that already have gone on with foam.
Cellulose has they "Recycled" aspect that wards off granola crunchers nicely. We do know what's healthy. Home construction that has supported
societies since the dawn of civilization. What we are still trying
to figure out is how to keep every amenity we have become used to
in an affordable and healthy way. Probably won't ever happen and some will continue to live like
kings while the rest wither in the mess. To be honest isn't that normal?
"We do know what's healthy. Home construction that has supported
societies since the dawn of civilization."yes, with much of it being unhealthy methods and materials much worse than any imagined problem from foam insulation
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Lost me there. Wood, stone, cement, clay, earth. Houses suited to their locals.
sized to meet ones needs and no more.
Heated enough to keep you from freezing, but no more. A harder way of living, but one (many) that has sustained
life for a very long time.
Well, you got your dirt floors packed with bull's blood.Wattle and plaster walls that provided a nice home for the vermin that spread the plague.The grass roofs that regularly caught fire and killed the occupants or left them homeless The drafts that made places uncomfortable at best and contributed to pneumonia at other times.The coal smoke in cities that made yes and throats so raw that people sought relief in greater amts of whiskey, all of which contributed to higher rates of both emphysema and cirrhosis.The drainage systems that had raw sewage running in the streets where flies added to the death rate from typhoid.Will that short list do for a start?
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Well if you want real eco friendly then here. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/06/mushrooms_insulation.phpI saw them take a can of mapp gas to that stuff and it would not burn. It only charred.
Here Yea, Here Yea...Piffin is afraid of a little Poo.
Yet somehow we thrived! Lime based plaster is an anti-septic so the whole bacterial thing
is a wash.Yup, grass roofs don't work up here either.The old wives tale about Drafts has been disproven years ago,
your not like an "old Guy" are you?Coal- yup your right, that didn't work. good thing that only came to the fore this last century , so I'm still in the right.Sewage systems are a white elephant in that an outhouse worked quite
well in rural society. It's only in densely packed society that "Burying it" didn't work.
Seeing neither you nor I lean that way it can be looked past I'd think.
I think this is the styro recycle deal I saw.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oW2HofKwJ8&feature=relatedgood stuff at about 2:15they purchase back your styro
"Yet somehow we thrived!"That is my point - these problems were all demonstrably worse than foam insulation so you guys are making much ado about nothing when you object to it
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
A few points to consider..
(by the way I agree with your assessment of plastic in the ocean.. However that has next to nothing to do with home insulation)
celluliose has short comings as well.. first in the event it should be exposed to leakage several bad things happen..
first the insulation value of wet celluliose is zero that means we'll lose a great deal of energy.
Second retention of moisture can and does cause the wood to rot which attracts carpenter ants, termits and other critters that destroy homes..
third prolonged leeching of water through celluliose will leech all the chemicals out (itself a not good thing) plus cause the celluiliose to attract mold and possibly create a condition where the fire potential is greater.
FINALLY THE CREATION OF CELLULIOSE is done by cutting down trees and is also the second highest poluting industry in the country. Not hardly something us tree huggers approve of..
It's true that not every home leaks water into the walls.. however it's possible and has historically happened a GREAT DEAL.
"It burns like rocket fuel "
I have tried a number of times but have been unable to ignite samples of the closed cell poly foam that we used to insulate our house (NCPI) - it won't catch.
Jeff
We've beaten this dead horse several times in past discussions of foam insulation. Suffive it to note that even the most 'fireproof' versions have instructions that simply insist that foam, especially mounted overhead, be enclosed in frywall. You will not find this qualification with any other form of insulation.
I don't know if true of not, but I tend to think that is more because when it does burn, it gives off more toxic gasses than wood or other insulation, so it is important to contain that temporarily to provide more time for escape from burning structure.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Piffin. a couple of points..
By the way you are absolutely correct about it not sustaining fire by itself. The foam used in my place when ignited with the melter used to make custom panels would go out by itself if left alone..
second toxic smoke the foam if kept ignited by an external source will provide a toxic smoke but not more than furniture or carpeting and drapes Burn a coach someday and see what nasty smoke comes out of it, toss some old curtains on the same fire, or an old carpet..
third, the SIP's I used are superior at preventing the transmission of heat into flamable studs etc..
Check AFM's site and someplace they have a bonfire burning in a room made of SIP's the temp at the wall is 1500 degrees and the temp on the outside at that same spot is only 50 degrees higher than ambiant.
Very poor heat transfer!
plus SIP's prevent oxygen from getting into the panel thus they keep fire out.. unlike stick built walls which aloow plenty of oxygen in so the studs will ignite and burn extending the damage to the outside..
I was curious about those claims too, since the only time I have seen it burn was when thrown on a bonfire
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Somewhere in one of the previous discussions there
is a link about that. When the foam reaches it's flash point (1200 degrees I think) it
burns like crazy. Disclaimer- not my link.
Henley
I think that depends on what kind of foam is used..
When I put up my panels I used basically a charcol lighter modified to melt the foam for chanels etc. for making custom panels.. If I managed to set the foam on fire inside a minute or so it went out all by itself.. Or a simple puff of my breath was enough to put it out instantly.
Second unlike fiberglas or celluliose foam will keep air out of the wall made with SIP's thus fire can't be supported.
So with a SIP made from Foam and two sheets of OSB is a fire barrier.
If you go onto AFM's web site and hunt around you will find a room that they built using SIP's with a big bonfire burning in it.. the interior walls are at 1500+ degrees and yet the exterior wall is only 50 degrees warmer than ambiant. they let the bonfire burn untill it burned itself out and no damage other than to the sheetrock was experianced.. please try doing that in a Stick built house insulated with either fiberglas or celluliose.
Having actually performed many, many industry-standard fire tests - on both foam as well as other building methods - I want to -again - caution fine theories from replacing actual test results. Much of what has been said is simply wrong - though it sounds good.
When subjected to tests designed to measure the surface burning characteristics, even the best foams burned quite vigorously. When the face was shielded by sheetmetal, the foam still decomposed, charred, and gave off massive fumes / smoke. How toxic is this smoke? There is no way to tell, as there does not exist any way to measure toxicity. Simple, unscientific reactions of testing personnel would have you thinking that only electrical cables produce a nastier smoke; household furnishings aren't nearly as bad. If anything, foam treated to resist ignition makes a nastier smoke than untreated foam.
How nasty is the smoke? Not even battery acid will remove the chrome from your tools the way foam (or plastic) smoke and ash will. My tools quickly became the same color: rust.
When tested as part of a wall assembly, the presence of foam does not increase the fire resistance of the wall one bit. As soon as the foam gets over about 250 degrees, it begins to break down. gasses escaping from the wall - and they WILL find a way out - ignite immediately, making little blowtorches. I'd have to say that wood-faced panels fared slightly worse with foam than without; those burning fumes seemed to slightly speed up the breakdown of the wood face.
Whether the studs inside the wall were wood or metal had NO effect on the fire resistance of the wall. Contrary to popular belief, wood studs don't burn, so much as slowly char away. Significant burning doesn't occur until the face is penetrated by the fire.
Foam manufacturers are simply brilliant at finding ways to 'prove' their products are more fire resistant today - but the results are not observed in the industry-standard tests. Many was the time that the manufacturers' rep would walk away from the test disappointed. This never seems to inhibit them from sharing their demonstrations with the advertising department, though.
Minor penetrations - such as those caused by electrical boxes - have essentially no effect on test results - even when there are several present. For that matter, the value of 'fire blocking' has been greatly over-rated. (Penetrations through both faces of the wall, like those caused by ductwork and pipes, are another discussion).
"Non flammable" materials like fiberglass, mineral wool, and perlite continue to be the most fire resistant insulations. Treated cellulose looks good in the lab, but the wide variations between batches, settling during shippment, variables in application, and environmental varianles (such as moisture) make for some irregular performance in the 'real' world. Foam alone, though, continues to need some specific protection from fire. For that protection, it's very hard to beat drywall.
renosteinke,
we've had this discussion many times before..
I will repeat for your education, not that I believe you are willing to learn anything simply as a way to refute your false claims..
first in the absence of oxygen nothing will burn..
that is a pure fact that you should be aware of..
SIP's prevent air from entering the panel unlike either fiberglas or celluliose..
Second.. while you may have found a foam capable of as you claim burn like rocket fuel the foam used in insulation applications is incapable of sustaining flame.. it will put itself out..
The physics is the same fire triangle. To have fire you must have three things.. fuel heat and oxygen remove one and the fire goes out.
In the case of foam used in insulation applications heat transferance is greatly slowed even when the edge or face of the foam is on fire. That lack of heat transferance prevents fire from being sustained.
Finally a couch and often carpet will be made of plastic or plastic like fabics such as polyester. That's where toxic smoke comes from. That and the FOAM cushions used.
Perhaps that is the type of foam you said burns like rocket fuel.
Finally If you show up and build a stick framed room, I'll build a SIP's room to specs.. when your room is done we'll build a bonfire in each and see which remains after the fire burns itself out..
I think you missed what he was saying.When heated to a certain point, the foam off-gasses, and those jets of heated gas behave like rocket jets in the way they burn.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Frenchy, it's not a matter of my opinion - or beliefs.
Theory aside. all textbook learning aside, all claims aside ... there do exists stangardised industry accepted tests that simulate real-world fire experience. These tests are performed, by the hundreds, in dozens of places, on a daily basis.
I've performed the tests on everything from 1/4 steel walls to the trendiest factory-produced insulated panels. The results are out there for all to see. In many instances, the same test was performed three times on samples from the same batch to verify results.
I'll stick with the UL and FM directories.
Thanks for taking the time to share some
real world experience with us. As far as the drywall fire barrier, is there any noticeable
difference with 1/2" vs 5/8 ? or is that splitting hairs? I've also wondered about the time period after it has off gassed and stabilized at
(what is it again?) R6 an inch.
Perhaps the blow torches are less volatile ?
1/2" vs. 5/8" is not a huge difference (although it IS a 25% increase in thickness), but most 5/8" drywall is also Type X which does significantly change the equation.
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
"but most 5/8" drywall is also Type X "No
It is type X when you order type X fro fire rating purposes. Most of all 5/8 I see is not type X
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
From what I have seen in the past 3 years or so, all 5/8" drywall in our area (central NJ) is type X.
Jeff
My experience meshes with Jeff's. I'm not ordering GWB every day, but it seems that you get Type X when you order 5/8", whether you ask for it or not.
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
As I understand the dynamics of ignition of polyurethane foams, if the foam is in a confined area or the structure is such that the heat of the fire will be reflected back on the foam so that the temperature of the foam remains above the ignition temperature of the foam, then the foam will burn and can turn into a major conflagration. If the foam is in an area which is below the ignition temperature, then the temperature of the foam may fall below the level at which combustion can sustained. I have seen several slightly different figures for the ignition temperature of polyurethane foam, from about 500 degrees F up through 800 degree F. Perhaps they are for different formulations. A few years ago there was a lengthy report of a refrigeration building insulated with polyurethane which caught fire with the confined space being sufficient to maintain an estimated temperature of about 2000 degrees F. The building reportedly burned vigorously, to say the least.MSDS for flexible polyurethane foam - memory foam:
"If ignited, foam can produce rapid flame spread, intense heat, dense black smoke and toxic gases. Material can melt into a burning liquid that can drip and flow. Accumulated polyurethane dust can be readily ignited and presents a fire risk. High concentrations of dust in the air can explode if exposed to a flame, spark, or other ignition source."
http://www.foamorder.com/material_safety.php?page=memory
While I don't doubt that what you say is true in south Florida I've never seen any 5/8's that wasn't type X. Even if I tell them I don't need type x it's still what I get.
The fire resistance of drywall is strictly correlated to the thickness of the drywall. Thus, 1/2" rock would have exactly 4/5 of the resistance of 5/8" material. However, the shortest period for which there is a rating is 20 minutes - which is more than 1/2" can stand.
Which, of course, leads to the next question: what is the difference between 'regular" 5/8, and the 'firecode' 5/8? In many cases, there's no difference at all. As I explained in the 'Chinese drywall" thread, the 'listed' product is subject to scruitiny by a third party (such as UL), while the non- "code" stuff is not. So, conceivably, the non-listed product might not have as pure a grade of gypsum in it.
AFAIK, foams have not been evaluated for fire resistance after anything but a nominal curing period. I cannot speak as to any change in performance over time.
I can't speak as to why some tests work, while others provide misleading or unrealistiv results. All we can do is design a test, then compare the test results with real-world experience. It is the inability to make a relevant test that prevents us from having a decent rating system for carpeting.
Thank you. This is an important issue as I've had clients express concern
about foams flammability in the past.
Have you seen tests on this stuff?http://www.bauerspecialty.com/insulation/insulation-airkrete/air-krete-cementitious-foam-insulation
OK, you got me! While I have not performed fire tests on that particular product, I have experience with similar products. It certainly is impressive to pick up what appears to be a triple-sized cinder block with one hand!
Such a product could be the 'holy grail' of insulation. I have no information of it's insulating value, but it truly is fire-resistant. Whether it is a true 'foam' is for others to debate .... it's close enough for me.
I have not actually seen these cement products in use in the USA. Perhaps that will change. Until them, you'll have to forgive me if I continute to equate 'foam' with the various plastic products.
Hi Jeff_Clarke,
I have tried a number of times but have been unable to ignite samples of the closed cell poly foam that we used to insulate our house (NCPI) - it won't catch
I think the warnings are primarily directed to the installers......no smoking and no flame heaters nearby during application......I have tested the stuff fresh and gooey and "yes" makes a great napalm for about the first 20 seconds. It still goes out as it continues to spred because the surrounding material continues to quickly cure.
Pedro the Mule - Flash Fire Fun
Yo yojimbo2,
why we need to heavily tax fossil fuels
....and this maximizes effective and efficient insulation design how?
island of plastic the size of Texas, somewhere in the Pacific Ocean.
Check out Google Satellite...an island that big should be a piece of cake to find.....let me know when you do....i'd like to see it
Until then, the product has so many uses including the fact that the "typical" home the product is used in will outlast most of it's bretheren thus disposal concerns are less often. Two points of disposal......one is that much of this product can be utilized again as long as it is in good condition.....just ask our entire north wall of our home......secondly the general market will find a way to maximize the reuse of the aged material. Unfortunately it often takes more time than we wished for a creative use, but alas the market will find a way.
what happens if you need to run wire, or plumbing down the road
Personally I've never seen this product used with interior walls and most homes have a great deal more interior walls that exterior so with the right design when making changes, you can make new runs in interior walls, with an island, you can run up from a crawl space or basement, runs can go in closets adjacent to exterior walls and then easily trimmed up. Another idea is to run chase pvc prior to insulation so you have a place to run future needs. And, for the moment my last idea of how to handle this...drill bit with a flex attachment or with a straight bore, use add-on shafts, drill as you go......run your plumbing or wiring and make an extension for your can of Great Stuff with refrigerator tubing to seal the hole once your done.
Basically why are you letting such a "small issue" of "possible" future needs limit the use of an otherwise excellent product?
Pedro the Mule - Solutions in Action
Plastic does breakdown, but relative to you butt its forever. But spray-on foam insulation being swept into the middle of the ocean seems fsr fetched, no?
Its may not be for you, but why deny the next person the opportunity to have access to it?
I'am not sure where you read that this foam does not break down and will last forever. I don't know the exect time but exposure to UV light (sun light) will cause this stuff to turn to dust in no time at all.
Material that does not break down is exactly what we want to have in a landfill - it is a good thing it if takes a million years to break down! Things that do not break down will not contaminate the environment beyond the space that they use.
Plastics that break down can release toxins that can eventually get into our water supply - which is a very bad thing.
Recycling is better for the environment to the extent that more pollution is not created and energy used than the recycling process saves - which is not always true.
Everyone seems to think that degradability is good, and it is as long as toxic materials are not released to the groundwater in the process.
Paul
Another thing that is not well understood is the value of the contents of landfills..
in the not too distant future they will become the new mines. where materials are looked for..
Yes even plastic because plastic can be recycled and reused
Well, the prudent thing is to not make substances that can't be
released back into the environment. Not breaking down is relative by the way. Everything breaks down just a question of when.