.: Generate More Light Than
Heat
Since I was already on the topic of cellulose, I might as well explain about
the "Great Debate" between fiberglass and cellulose that has raged on for the
last 20 years. There are those who will say that Cellulose is the same as
Fiberglass... because they don't know any better. I'm like that with
colors. My girlfriend knows at least 2,000 colors and I know maybe
fourteen (and I might have counted "gray" twice.) She understands all the
subtleties of the mid-tones and hues and I don't, so I rely on her as the expert
to make the right choice between chartreuse (which I will swear up and down is
"green") and burgundy (which is "dark purple" all day to me.) Relying on
the experts in these things is the best way to handle it unless you have the
initiative to become an expert yourself. As for me, I was a lab manager in
materials testing laboratory for a number of years in my crazy days of working
two jobs, so it just so happens that according to the Army Corps of Engineers,
AASHTO, IDOT, and my Professional Engineering QA/QC manual...I am an
expert. How convenient!
I have besides me here a light blue bag cellulose attic Insulation that is a
popular choice in the Seattle area. Let's take a look at what the bag
tells us about this product:
The label on the front of the bag proudly displays
what is known as the FTCHIR certification pronounced "Fitcher" by
attorneys and bureaucrats. It tells us the minimum thickness, the weight per
cubic foot (which is density), and the number of bags per 1000 Sq. Ft. required
to achieve a specific R-Value.
Good. That's required by law and they did exactly what the law
required of them. And all the fiberglass manufacturers do the same
thing Exactly like the fiberglass people did. See? No difference.
Oh, but wait a minute...what's this? On the back of the bag
there's a section labeled:
installation instructions
To obtain the stated R value, insulation thickness after
settling must equal the minimum inches indicated in the chart Coverage as
referenced in the chart is based on the use of a pneumatic blowing machine.
Ok they seem to be overstating the obvious to be honest, but it never hurts
to be thorough. It continues...
Insulation that has been installed to the level of the "Open
Attic Minimum Thickness" but has not yet settled will not obtain the stated "R"
Value.
Well sure, that makes sense because the material hasn't
reached the right density until after it has settled. Good old
Density=Volume\Mass. It continues...
In other words, the thickness of the insulation at
the time of installation must exceed the thickness called for in the "Initial
Installed Thickness" column of the chart
WHAT!!! Wait a minute, did you catch
that??? So why did you give an "initial installed thickness" that is
NOT an "initial installed thickness" to anything?
If the
"thickness of
the insulation at the time of installation must exceed the thickness called for
in the "Initial Installed Thickness" column of the chart"
As it says, how do I know what that number
is? it just says it has to "exceed it" are we talking a 1/4 inch or 25 feet?
Ok, but maybe that's just a technical oversight on their part. I'm sure
they didn't intentionally print that number of 11.4
inches and put it in a column clearly labeled
"Initial
Installed Thickness"
to insinuate that 11.4 inches
is the thickness that the material should be when when initially installed.
No of course not. Sure they could have put a little note or asterisk there
saying "See insulation Instructions" or some helpful hint that would indicate
that the 11.4 number printed on the bag is not really related to anything. Come
to think of it, I think 11/4 is Will Roger's birthday. Maybe that's it.
Unfortunately, now that we do not have a real number to
work from to calculate out volume to a significant digit which is needed to
arrive at our final density on which this whole label depends! Remember D = V /
M.
Next to it is a classification from R&D Services, Inc.
testifying that this is indeed cellulose insulation with some reference numbers
that mean nothing to anyone in the materials testing world except R&D Services,
but they sure look official.
This is why we have established ASTM American
STANDARD Testing Methods, so we all
know what test was performed under what conditions and someone in California
testing cellulose insulation will be doing the exact same test in every regard
as the guy in Pennsylvania. Cryptic Reference numbers might appear to be
some actual test that could be repeated which is the entire foundation upon
which of scientific method is based.
It turns out that R&D Services is a materials testing lab with a staff of a
token Professional Engineer
David W.
Yarbrough, PhD, PE who surely knows better. They claim to be
dedicated to the Insulation industry, and doing testing but if you take a look
at their
equipment and facilities it all looks pristine. The other odd thing is
that they don't seem to be certified by anyone, which means that they don't get
inspected, and therefore produce at best dubious data. Just to add one
more point Mr. Graves is not a PE, so how is Mr. Yarbrough performing peer
review on his data?
But that's just the lab testifying for this product, let's get back to the
product itself...
It says ...
This product meets the AMENDED* CPSC standard for flame
resistance and corrosiveness.
OK, the Consumer Product Safety Council (CPSC) is the equivalent to a girl
push-up as far as rigorous standards are concerned. Read for
yourself what the CPSC said in their finding on cellulose insulation ...
http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PREREL/prhtml79/79032.html
* The standard was AMENDED
because cellulose failed the
"Steiner tunnel test"
which was required by the safety standard to measure flame spread and the
corrosiveness
test.
Meets 16CFR Sections 1209,1404
Great! Watch this dog and pony show... Title 16 of the Code of Federal
Regulations states emphatically that the cellulose manufacturers will be
responsible for...
"conducting a reasonable testing program, certifying with
labels and separate certificates, and recordkeeping."
You can't get less specific than that. The question
is who gets to define what constitutes "a
reasonable testing program"? It looks like the manufacturer does!
Which is like asking Colonel Sanders to figure out who's been killing all
the chickens!
Maybe section 1404 is more rigorous, or at least specific...
It is found
here and what is says is...
This part 1404 establishes a requirement for
manufacturers, including importers, of cellulose insulation to notify (1)
prospective purchasers of such products at the time of original purchase
and (2) the first purchasers of such products for purposes other than resale
(installers and consumers) of ways to avoid the fire hazard that exists where
cellulose insulation is installed too close to the sides or over the top of a
recessed electrical light fixture or where cellulose insulation is installed too
close to the exhaust flues from heat-producing devices or apparatus such as
furnaces, water heaters, and space heaters.
If you read the section it is nothing but a legal requirement upon the
manufacturer to warn any user how not to avoid catching their house on fireusing
their product. I love the way they list a legal requirement as if it were an
endorsement. Smart!
Meets ASTM C739-03
Hurray...This is the first credible standard so
far! But it's not much of one... which is located
here
1. Scope
1.1 This specification covers the composition and physical requirements of
chemically treated, recycled cellulosic fiber loose-fill type thermal insulation
for use in attics or enclosed spaces in housing, and other framed buildings
within the ambient temperature range from -45 to 90C (-49 to 194F) by
pneumatic or pouring application. While products that comply with this
specification are used in various constructions, they are adaptable primarily,
but not exclusively, to wood joist, rafters, and stud construction.
This standard establishes the baseline for wether or not you can legally call
it "Cellulose Insulation" and nothing more. It
even goes on to warn the reader...
This standard does not purport to
address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the
responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and
health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior
to use.
Now here is where any semblance of procedures and standards flies out the
window...they make a reference to a flammability characteristic, which we
already established is so low that a 75 watt bulb in a can light is a serious
threat!
Then they go off on a tangent about:
- corrosiveness,
- fungi resistance,
- moisture vapor sorption
- odor emission
The odd thing being that none of that is referenced in the scope of the
standard itself. Not to mention that these physical properties are simply
reported as "ACCEPTABLE" which is not an ASTM reporting method.
Back to Index
1
-
ENERGY STAR a joint effort of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
the U.S. Department of Energy
2 -
Energy Information Administration A
British Thermal Unit is the quantity of heat required to raise the temperature
of 1 pound of liquid water by 1 degree Fahrenheit at the temperature at which
water has its greatest density (approximately 39 degrees Fahrenheit).
3
-
Energy
Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End
Web site contents Copyright YourName 2006, All rights reserved.
Website templates
|
