newbiejohn
Registered Users
Basic Member
Posts:141
 |
| 10/21/2009 5:20 PM |
|
| I plan on blowing in for a high R value in the truss area of my home. What do you recommend? Would love to stay away from Fiberglass, and no im not spraying foam up there. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
aardvarcus
Registered Users
Basic Member
Posts:201
|
| 10/21/2009 5:35 PM |
|
Well considering the options are typically fiberglass, foam and cellulose, and since you just eliminated two of them you have answered your own question. Just be warned, if you blow cellulose to high R values over drywall, there can be sagging issues unless backed with plywood.
If you don't want "spray foam" but wouldn't mind foam there are foam recyclers that cut foam into beads and blow it in like any other loose fill. If you want anything fancier like denim, cotton, ect. you would probably have to get it in batts.
|
|
|
|
|
newbiejohn
Registered Users
Basic Member
Posts:141
|
| 10/21/2009 7:24 PM |
|
| i saw some staple up type mesh the other day, wonder if that woudl hold up to heavy amounts of cellulose ? |
|
|
|
|
Dana1
Registered Users
Advanced Member
Posts:931
|
| 10/22/2009 8:49 AM |
|
You need to know the dead-load weight rating of the trusses to know just how much insulation you can get up there. Cellulose is usually a good value per unit R and low internal convection under high delta-T but it weighs 1.5-2ls/ft^3. Fiberglass is fairly light per unit R, but has performance issues (particularly in horizontal applications, if blown at low density.)
Fire retardent treated EPS beads would be fairly light, but would have internal convection issues under high delta-T. But an overcap of 3-6" of cellulose would likely "fix" those issues (the same way it does with low-density fiberglass.)
aardvarcus: do you know of a distributor of those beads for New England?
|
|
|
|
|
aardvarcus
Registered Users
Basic Member
Posts:201
|
| 10/22/2009 2:06 PM |
|
No idea, I have just heard of it. You might contact a big sip manufacturer nearby and ask, a lot of them sell/give their waste pieces to companies like this and they might be able to give you a local distributer.
|
|
|
|
|
rykertest
Registered Users
Basic Member
Posts:165
|
| 11/01/2009 8:51 AM |
|
There is always the denim (recycled blue jeans) insulation. It is very "green" but can cost a little more than cellulose. Seems like cell is your best bet here. One thing you could do is get one of those homeowner spray foam diy kits to coat the area with an inch or so of foam, then put cellulose above it. There are numerous options.
I think tigerfoam is one of the major players in the diy spray foam game. |
|
|
|
|
Dana1
Registered Users
Advanced Member
Posts:931
|
| 11/03/2009 8:42 AM |
|
Posted By rykertest on 11/01/2009 8:51 AM
There is always the denim (recycled blue jeans) insulation. It is very "green" but can cost a little more than cellulose. Seems like cell is your best bet here. One thing you could do is get one of those homeowner spray foam diy kits to coat the area with an inch or so of foam, then put cellulose above it. There are numerous options.
I think tigerfoam is one of the major players in the diy spray foam game.
At 1" you only get 600' of coverage out of those kits, and it's more expensive than having a pro do it, using the temperature controlled sprayers and better spray guns, etc. It's easier to get it consistently right with the pro equipment. The kits only make sense for very small jobs, or as a last resort.
IIRC most of the kit vendors are resellers supplied by the same chemical manufacturer.
Recycled cotton is only "green" in the sense that it's recycled- the environmental impact of cotton production is very significant. There's no good argument that it's greener than cellulose (recycled paper), if anything it's the contrary. If it's recycled industrial scrap (as opposed to clothing) it has some merit, but there is still a higher shipping burden to it, since most of the mills are in Asia, and the installation sites elsewhere. There's some argument that clothing is better re-used (even with shipping to the 3rd world included) than recycled as insulation.
I've yet to find a vendor of blown cotton insulation, only batts, but I suspect the installed density of blown cotton would be high too, an issue for high-R attic installations. The batts from one vendor (Bondedlogic) has a specified nominal density of 1.2lbs/ft^3, which is only slightly lighter open-blown cellulose (of comparable or higher R-value), and far denser than fiberglass. Weight per unit R-value is unlikely to be any better than cellulose.
|
|
|
|
|
DallasBill
Registered Users
Basic Member
Posts:145
|
| 11/04/2009 1:01 PM |
|
Two houses in the 'hood in the past year have gone up and have blown-in cotton (denim) in the wall cavities. No idea of their name, though.
|
|
|
|
|
Dana1
Registered Users
Advanced Member
Posts:931
|
| 11/04/2009 4:01 PM |
|
Posted By DallasBill on 11/04/2009 1:01 PM
Two houses in the 'hood in the past year have gone up and have blown-in cotton (denim) in the wall cavities. No idea of their name, though.
Did they do the attic with it as well?
|
|
|
|
|
DallasBill
Registered Users
Basic Member
Posts:145
|
| 11/05/2009 10:47 AM |
|
Don't know -- didn't go up there, as the attic stairs were not in yet.
|
|
|
|
|
rykertest
Registered Users
Basic Member
Posts:165
|
| 11/07/2009 11:19 AM |
|
Posted By Dana1 on 11/03/2009 8:42 AM Posted By rykertest on 11/01/2009 8:51 AM
There is always the denim (recycled blue jeans) insulation. It is very "green" but can cost a little more than cellulose. Seems like cell is your best bet here. One thing you could do is get one of those homeowner spray foam diy kits to coat the area with an inch or so of foam, then put cellulose above it. There are numerous options.
I think tigerfoam is one of the major players in the diy spray foam game.[/quote]
At 1" you only get 600' of coverage out of those kits, and it's more expensive than having a pro do it, using the temperature controlled sprayers and better spray guns, etc. It's easier to get it consistently right with the pro equipment. The kits only make sense for very small jobs, or as a last resort.
IIRC most of the kit vendors are resellers supplied by the same chemical manufacturer.
Recycled cotton is only "green" in the sense that it's recycled- the environmental impact of cotton production is very significant. There's no good argument that it's greener than cellulose (recycled paper), if anything it's the contrary. If it's recycled industrial scrap (as opposed to clothing) it has some merit, but there is still a higher shipping burden to it, since most of the mills are in Asia, and the installation sites elsewhere. There's some argument that clothing is better re-used (even with shipping to the 3rd world included) than recycled as insulation.
I've yet to find a vendor of blown cotton insulation, only batts, but I suspect the installed density of blown cotton would be high too, an issue for high-R attic installations. The batts from one vendor (Bondedlogic) has a specified nominal density of 1.2lbs/ft^3, which is only slightly lighter open-blown cellulose (of comparable or higher R-value), and far denser than fiberglass. Weight per unit R-value is unlikely to be any better than cellulose.
The lits aren't always the best deal but niether are the pro's. As with anything I've gotten bids all over the map and the location of the job dictates a lot. I would still add it to the list of possibilities and price compare. In some area it will work, in others it will not. I like spray foam alot but some of these pros are a flat out rip off. |
|
|
|
|
IndianaFred
Registered Users
New Member
Posts:8
|
| 11/18/2009 7:48 PM |
|
| I recently completed an ICF home using cellulose to a R60 rating with standard 5/8" drywall on ceilings. I moved in in May of this year and haven't had any problems, although I did install 21 recessed lights. During a blower door test we notice some air leakage through the lights, but still way below normal. I think if I was to do it again I would spray 1" of foam before using the cellulose and seal the recessed can better. Still got a 5+ star rating. |
|
|
|
|
smartwall
Registered Users
Basic Member
Posts:155
|
| 11/19/2009 6:18 PM |
|
| Use JM Spyder insulation. |
|
|
|
|
smartwall
Registered Users
Basic Member
Posts:155
|
| 11/19/2009 6:35 PM |
|
| I gave it a new name, it's spider not spyder. |
|
|
|
|
smartwall
Registered Users
Basic Member
Posts:155
|
| 11/20/2009 6:19 AM |
|
| Another good product is Certainteed Insulsafe |
|
|
|
|
Dana1
Registered Users
Advanced Member
Posts:931
|
| 11/20/2009 9:30 AM |
|
Spider & Insulsafe are both blown fiberglass. Spider is a wet-spray containing adhesives, more appropriated for walls than attics (the adhesives keep it from settling over time.)
Both are fine products, but newbiejohn specified: "Would love to stay away from Fiberglass, and no im not spraying foam up there."
And, in heating dominated climates you have substantial degradation of R value with fiberglass at very low outdoor temps in warm-side-down (such as attic floor) installations that you don't get at all with cellulose (and to a much lesser degree with foams.) |
|
|
|
|
smartwall
Registered Users
Basic Member
Posts:155
|
| 11/20/2009 3:41 PM |
|
| Spider is a dry insulation that can be sprayed. It has a higher r-value than cellulose and no chemicals. Talk about degradation; I have seen 20 yr old cellulose that has turned to dust. I still use the product but I have also used Insulsafe in the past and it or JM spider would be my choice in my own house. |
|
|
|
|
aardvarcus
Registered Users
Basic Member
Posts:201
|
| 11/22/2009 3:19 PM |
|
| I have seen the exact same thing happen with cellulose around my area, but it seems everyone else on this website has never seen this happen before. My father in law's house has had 16" of cellulose blown in his attic, 8" in 1986, and another 8" blown right over top in the 90's. I went up and measured his cellulose in his attic last week, and his attic depth ranged from 5"-7", and was basically dust. Even if the blowers cheated him both times and only blew 6" (which I doubt because he said he went up and measured it both times), it still shouldn't have settled that much. This is a vented attic with soffit, ridge, and gable end vents, and the roof has never leaked (except for a small amount right around the chimney). There is nothing out of the ordinary about his house at all that should cause settling to this degree. |
|
|
|
|
smartwall
Registered Users
Basic Member
Posts:155
|
| 11/22/2009 8:23 PM |
|
| It's not settling. It's important if you use cellulose, use only all borate. I have used both cellulose and fiberglass. Fiberglass was manufactured by basically sweeping the floor of the trimmings from the bat production lines. In 1980 Certainteed came out with Insusafe which was a virgin product , made to be blowin from the start. The difference is the size of the fiber in length. Instead of having fibers that can be 3-4inches in length they are about 3/4 inch in length. As I posted before if I super insulate my attic I will use one of the new generation of blowing wools. Which actually give a higher per inch than cellulose with considerably less weight and no chemicals. |
|
|
|
|
Dana1
Registered Users
Advanced Member
Posts:931
|
| 11/23/2009 11:10 AM |
|
Posted By smartwall on 11/20/2009 3:41 PM
Spider is a dry insulation that can be sprayed. It has a higher r-value than cellulose and no chemicals. Talk about degradation; I have seen 20 yr old cellulose that has turned to dust. I still use the product but I have also used Insulsafe in the past and it or JM spider would be my choice in my own house. Define "dry".
Spider is designed to be sprayed with tiny amount of pre-mixed adhesive (less moisture content than wet-spray cellulose, but but not dry, loose-blown like most blown fiberglass.
See:
http://www.specjm.com/files/pdf/bid0060_SpiderDataSMech.pdf
"Installation
Equipment for JM Spider installation is engineered for professional use. The JM Spider Insulation Delivery System is compatible with most fiber glass blowing machines and includes the following pieces
of equipment:
• Vacuum fan and generator • Portable adhesive tank
• Blowing and vacuum hoses • High-pressure adhesive pump and hose
• Blowing nozzle attachments • Wall scrubber"
|
|
|
|
|