The box test that they are refering to is done when R ratings can't be figured. The only way to measure R value is by thickness and naturally this isn't thick.
Of course the R-value can be figured. Saying, "the only way to measure R value is by thickness," indicates you've read, closely, the information on Nansulate's Web site, because that's the position they (and all the other insulating paint peddlers) are sticking to. They want to avoid mentioning the actual R-value (because the ones who do get the attention of the FTC). While it is true that R-value is a measure by thickness, you can nevertheless determine any material's effective R-value regardless of how thin it is.
The R-value of a material, which is the inverse of thermal conductance (thermal conductivity divided by the thickness of the material), is the value that indicates how well that material resists heat flow. You measure the R-value of the plain material, then paint it with Nansulate, then measure the R-value of the same material with the coating, and the difference in the two R-values will be the R-value of the coating. Easy peasy.
Nansulate claims the nanoparticles in Nansulate have an R-value of 8.5 hr ft[SUP]2[/SUP] ºF / BTU, but that's the nanoparticles thenselves, when stacked up in 1-inch globs. But using the numbers posted on their Web site, an R-value of 15 would be for a 5 mil thick coating of paint. Tests show otherwise. You know a company is in a gray area when thehttp://www.tprl.com/Insulation_Paint_Claims.html testing lab it hired has to devote a Web page to debunking the exaggerated claims made by the manufacturer that asked it to perform tests.
The Maxx vehicles are using this technology and claiming R-11, again where they get the R's I don't know.
I do - out of their butt.
I will give an update as soon as we get results from one of my old vans that we are doing this week-end. We ordered a gallon to try it out and will let you know.
I look forward to it, as do many others, I suspect.
They use this stuff on race engines and it displaces heat on engines and fuel lines and were also doing that.
Yes, "they" do, but "they" tend to be those who are being paid to do so.
Insulating nano paints were developed by NASA's Ames Research Center (interestingly enough, initially inspired for beekeepers to paint their hives with), so they're real, and they do work in limited situations and applications. But they don't work anywhere near as well as the manufacturers claims. Beekeepers don't even use it, and that's who it was developed for.
Insulating paints will not, by a long stretch, replace traditional insulation. What insulating paints do is help (albeit marginally) somewhat with thermal reflectivity, but they do not in any way slow down heat flow and transfer any better than regular paint does. It'll reflect direct sunlight and high heat (hundreds of degrees) in the short term, but in the long term it won't keep anything cooler, as the heat energy will simply transfer right through the material, as would be expected with any low density material such as one-to three coats of paint. Meaning, white paint on roofs and black paint on engines give you the same results with and without nano paints.
If someone could come up with a product,
any product, that could give you R-19 for 10 cents a square foot, everybody would be using it.
