I spent four hours today conducting an experiment on the Insulating Additive for paints..you can read about the additive here.
The experiment was conducted in a room that had a constant ambient temperature of 75 degrees.
A focused (3" x 5") heat source (light) was used that remained constant at 220 degrees.
Material tested:
(P1) 3/8" thick untreated plywood 10" x 10" square
(P2) 3/8" thick untreated plywood 10" x 10" square covered on one side with one coat of paint containing the Insulating Additive
(M1) 24 gauge galvanized steel 12" x 12" square
(M2) 24 gauge galvanized steel 12" x 12" square covered on one side with one coat of paint containing the Insulating Additive
Test Results:
Plywood
At the 45 minutes mark of the heat source being placed 10 inches from P1 the temperature was taken 1/16th of an inch from the surface exposed to the heat source, and 1/16th of an inch from the back side of the plywood (the heat source was on the other side of the wood).
Temperature on heat source side of P1---108 degrees
Temperature on back side of P1-----------97 degrees
Temperature on heat source side of P2---108 degrees
Temperature on back side of P2-----------90 degrees
Galvanized Steel
The only variation in testing the steel vs. the wood was that the heat source was place 12 inches away instead of 10 inches.
Temperature on heat source side of M1---100 degrees
Temperature on back side of M1-----------90 degrees
Temperature on heat source side of M2---100 degrees
Temperature on back side of M2-----------80 degrees
I did several shorter tests of 5 and 10 minutes, prior to the 45 minute tests. In each case it was obvious that the paint additive reduced the temperature significantly.
It is unknown to me what this translates to in terms of heating and cooling savings, however, it is obviously significant when you think of how much longer an air conditioner must run in a house to keep the temperature down to 80 degrees instead of 90 degrees.
I have not done any testing using a cold source (vs. a heat source), but it is reasonable to expect similar results.
The experiment was conducted in a room that had a constant ambient temperature of 75 degrees.
A focused (3" x 5") heat source (light) was used that remained constant at 220 degrees.
Material tested:
(P1) 3/8" thick untreated plywood 10" x 10" square
(P2) 3/8" thick untreated plywood 10" x 10" square covered on one side with one coat of paint containing the Insulating Additive
(M1) 24 gauge galvanized steel 12" x 12" square
(M2) 24 gauge galvanized steel 12" x 12" square covered on one side with one coat of paint containing the Insulating Additive
Test Results:
Plywood
At the 45 minutes mark of the heat source being placed 10 inches from P1 the temperature was taken 1/16th of an inch from the surface exposed to the heat source, and 1/16th of an inch from the back side of the plywood (the heat source was on the other side of the wood).
Temperature on heat source side of P1---108 degrees
Temperature on back side of P1-----------97 degrees
Temperature on heat source side of P2---108 degrees
Temperature on back side of P2-----------90 degrees
Galvanized Steel
The only variation in testing the steel vs. the wood was that the heat source was place 12 inches away instead of 10 inches.
Temperature on heat source side of M1---100 degrees
Temperature on back side of M1-----------90 degrees
Temperature on heat source side of M2---100 degrees
Temperature on back side of M2-----------80 degrees
I did several shorter tests of 5 and 10 minutes, prior to the 45 minute tests. In each case it was obvious that the paint additive reduced the temperature significantly.
It is unknown to me what this translates to in terms of heating and cooling savings, however, it is obviously significant when you think of how much longer an air conditioner must run in a house to keep the temperature down to 80 degrees instead of 90 degrees.
I have not done any testing using a cold source (vs. a heat source), but it is reasonable to expect similar results.
Comment