Talk:Thermal insulation

message: I removed the fact tag where it said that not having enough insulation is using a large amount of energy. The fact tag is not necessary because the fact that insulation exists makes the statement obvious. If you don't think so, try sleeping outside in the winter without a sleeping bag and clothes. Guess what? You will share your excess photons with the air around you until you don't have any left. Then you're dead. The fact that more insulation means more energy savings and that many places could stand more insulation than what they have now, is equally obvious. The statement did not quantify the matter as that would be an enormous task to back up. But I submit that one has but to look at how government in many places is offering tax incentives for becoming energy-wise, which means more efficient appliances (some with more insulation on the inside.....) but also more insulation so that you keep the energy where you want it, instead of heating or cooling things that you have no interest in heating or cooling (which is a waste of energy, needlessly putting more carbon in the air). If the article's statement had quantified the matter, then I could see the need for a fact tag, but the generic statement in there should be quite obviously true.--Achim 22:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Building insulation

message: This article does not conform to several Wikipedia guidlines, and as such is a prime candidate for Wikification.  A short to do list to get started with Wikification:
*Remove or rewrite several sections that read as "how-to"s.  Read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
*Remove first- and second-person usage
*Move material, especially the sections on individual types of insulators, to separate articles to reduce the size of the article and bring focus back to a discussion of what thermal insulation is
*Rewrite the introduction section to better reflect the article.  Read Wikipedia:Lead_section
*Move information about health effects to another article, and replace it with a single paragraph.  The primary point of this article is to examine insulation, not human interaction with insulation
*Reduce the size of the R-values sections.  There is already a separate article on R-values, so there is no reason to go into such depth here.
The fact that there is so much that needs fixing does not indicate that this is a bad article—to the contrary, it highlights the ambitious nature of the authors in trying to be a bit too thourough.
Âme Errante 23:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikify

message: I've completed and cleaned up the Insulation page to the best of my ability.  Can someone knowledgeable see if there are any errors, answer the Lingering Question that I left in the spray foam section, and find out the R-value for Dow Chemical's Great Stuff in the typical R-values per inch section?  Thanks. - N3362.
----
It's a lot of good info.  Probably needs an intro above the contents, and probably the second person "you" should be changed to third person or whatever the style guide says.  Rtdrury 23:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 20:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update, 5 Feb 2005 

message: Under the typical R-values per inch it says:
"Air with no external wind = R-1 (still) to R-5 (with convective currents)."
Wouldn't still air have a higher R-value?
Yes, you are correct.  Thanks for catching this error! N3362 20:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't this backwards? 

message: I think this section is a little off.  From what I understand UFFI is still used in Europe, and was found to harmless in some engineering/toxicology stuides precipitated from a lawsuit filed in Quebec.  Classic knee jerk reaciton.  Will try to clean this up when I can dig up appropriate sources. --Mf135gas 17:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UFFI 

message: What is thermal insulation? -- 66.238.170.38 19:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I modified the text above. I assumed that this was meant to be a question of what thermal insulation is. Unfortunately, the purpose of talk pages is to discuss the article, not the subject. My first suggestion to help you is to read the article. If that does not help, you can try the references. If that does not work, I suggest finding someone knowledgeable about physical science. -- Kjkolb 19:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thermal insulation 

message: can you please explain or put on the article how moisture compromises insulation?Firestormdb (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  moisture 

message: I've moved the applications section to the beginning of the article (it makes more sense to have the section on calculating requirements at the end).  I've also changed "Factors that compromise insulation" to "Factors influencing performance".  My justification for this is twofold - the previous section was empty but for a reference to an article on moisture and it seemed to be regularly vandalized because of the word "moisture".  I'm sure that this section could be expanded and improved in the future.School of Stone (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved Applications section 

message: There doesn't seem to be a history section in any of the insulation articles.  This being the general article for thermal insulation could be a good place to talk about the historic development of insulation (which I think would provide a greater context to the article).  I'll look into writing something and put it up as soon as I can.School of Stone (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section? 

message: Considering there is a Wikipedia article which explains heat transfer is  there any objection to the removal of the definition of heat transfer in this article?
Most of the information currently in the introduction is superflous (since it explains in detail things which are explained later on in the article) and I believe the section could be shortened significantly to improve clarity.  
Is there a need to explain which are the three best performing insulation materials in the introduction?  If this information is to be provided it should be in the main article - not the introduction.
If there are no objections I'll propose a change to this end.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.197.23 (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction section 

message: The concept of a critical radius for insulation first came up, AFAIAA, in PROCESS HEAT TRANSFER (p.20) by DQ Kern published in 1950.  It was counter-intuitive then, as it is now.  You cannot add a resistance in series with another system of resistances and reduce the overall resistance of the system.  There were two fundamental problems with Kern's proposal.  One is that he ignored the skin temperature at the outside of the insulation, yet heat convective htc is a function of air to skin temperature difference to the power 0.25.  Secondly, Kern's calculation for rc = kb/ha only has any significance where the critical radius is extremely small (and therefore standard methods for calculating free convection do not apply), or where free convective heat transfer coefficients are far below what would happen in the real world, or where the conductivity of the insulating material is extremely high relative to the convective htc (i.e., it is not suitable as an insulator).  Take a reasonable free convective heat transfer coefficient of 2.25 Btu/h/sqft/degF and a typical conductivity for rock wool of 0.033 and plot 1/k*ln(r/r1) + 1/h/r against r and you will get a logarithmic curve, indicating that, as you add more lagging, the heat loss will decrease, but with diminishing effect, which is as to be expected.  You COULD force a kink into the curve, as per Kern, but only by using completely unrealistic values of k or h.  To summarize: Kern's theory only holds true for insulating materials that have lower resistance than the convective air that they have displaced - i.e., insulators that are less efficient than free air (!!!) and therefore, for real insulating materials, the concept of a critical radius can be discounted altogether.
Hippocrocopig (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical radius is a fallacy 

message: I propose that  Mechanical insulation be merged into here as it is effectively the same subject. CV9933 (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If we are agreed, I will make a full copy paste merge, our attribution obligation will have been met and non useful unsourced stuff can be removed, leaving mechanical insulation as a redirect.CV9933 (talk) 10:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: In my view, thermal break is synonymous to thermal insulation in many if not most instances and should propably be merged into this article.
best regards,
KaiKemmann (talk) 23:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Klbrain (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

text: I've only move some of the content over, as much of it was unreferenced and covered in more detail in sub-articles of the target. One might be syncical and imagine a WP:COATRACK. Klbrain (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Thermal break]]