|
One common element to non rigid insulation sold for
underslab application is ambiguous information used in the
sales pitch. Ambiguous
means:
-
of doubtful or uncertain nature; difficult to
comprehend, distinguish, or classify.
-
lacking clearness or definiteness; obscure; indistinct:
an ambiguous shape; an ambiguous future.
Here are five more examples of ambiguous information from
manufacturers with these claims, “The Industry's #1 Selling
Under-Slab Insulation!", or, "The Industry's Premier
Under-Slab Insulation".
Example #1) on their website they show an illustration of a
reflective radiant image BUT don’t actually claim that the
product reflects heat back into the underside of the slab…however the phrase
“…effectively control all three modes of heat transfer --
Conduction, Convection and Radiation.” in conjunction with
the image could imply to the unsuspecting consumer that
radiant transfer occurs - without actually making the claim
- ambiguous…tsk tsk.
Example #2) They make a comparison between their tarp type
product and foam wherein the tarp reflects radiant heat
transfer and the 2” Foam board absorbs radiant heat
transfer. So here's the thing - there is no airspace between
the slab and product ergo there is no radiant transfer -
ergo the statement is false. The foam board doesn’t absorb
radiant energy it slows down conductive heat transfer just
as the tarp does. Incidentally some manufactures have
multi layers of air bubbles with a reflective barrier
in-between - in other words they create the problem so they
can solve it with their products...remember when you're
grandma used to say, "you never ask a barber if you need a
haircut"...well the same applies to sales
people selling reflective foils for
under slabs. This is the same reason why some States
have now legislated indoor air quality investigators who
identify IAQ problems can no longer be the solution provider
on the project...now why do you
think they would make such laws?.
Example #3) In a comparison test they make the claim that
their product is 61.9% warmer when in fact its only
1.72 deg F warmer than the foam board which is not 61.9%. It
gets better - the surface temperatures shown are grossly
over the safe comfort levels - in fact the heat should have
been removed before it hit 84 deg F - the recommended
maximum for comfort - had they done that the results would
have shown zero difference.
Example #4) They provide test results showing an R-value of
7.54 but what consumers need to know that value includes the
4" concrete, 2” gravel and 1” of sand - it does not
represent the ½” thickness of the actual product.
Example #5) The site effectively uses, marketing
masquerading as science, when it implies that foam will
stabilize at soil temperatures and then become a consistent
drain on the radiant system and the slab. It goes onto to
state that it’s product is more effective and efficient. The
facts: No insulation provides "a consistent drain", all underslab insulation does is slow down conductive heat
transfer and brand x is no more special than any other
product. Furthermore, unlike foam, aluminum is an excellent
conductor and is the last thing one would wants to use as a
conductive barrier.
According to the
Wisconsin Department of Commerce evaluation, this
product can be installed but no credit will be given as
under-slab insulation.
They go further by stating (brand x), "SHALL
NOT BE INSTALLED AS A STAND ALONE PRODUCT IN LIEU OF THE
CURRENT CODE REQUIREMENTS."
Given the choice between trusting the sales and marketing
pitch from The Industry's #1 Selling Under-Slab
Insulation!", or, "The Industry's Premier Under-Slab
Insulation" or the Wisconsin Department of Commerce, Safety
and Building Division - we're going with the Safety and
Building Division...just in case anyone was wondering.
___________
June 2010 Update:
We found another online reseller providing
ambiguous information.
This company is sharper than the average
flogger of foil, here's their approach:
They start out with the product description
of, " 48" x 125' Concrete Under Slab Insulation " and
follow with this statement, "Insulating where there is
contact with the ground is always tough on insulation. The
ground is an infinite heat sink and will constantly pull
heat from your living space. Traditional insulation like
fiberglass is largely ineffective in below ground
applications. The higher the moisture, the worse fiberglass
performs." Ok so the unsuspecting consumer reads that
this bubble foil product is for concrete under slab
insulation and confidence is built up with a series of true
statements - except we know of no building codes which allow
fiberglass insulation as under slab insulation. If anyone
can provide information to the contrary we'll be happy to
retract our statement.
Then they go to this ambiguous statement, " brand x is
a white / double bubble / foil reflective under slab
insulation product...The design of the product makes it
ideal for use in radiant heat floor systems, wrapping
foundation walls, and many other concrete insulation
projects. Not only is brand x, a radiant barrier, but it's
also a vapor barrier giving you two products in one."
So here's the thing, brand x used a very good editor and in
our opinion, arranged the words in such a way to avoid being
targeted by the FTC lawyers - but
come on folks, in our opinion, using 'concrete under slab
insulation' and 'radiant barrier' in the same sales pitch
obfuscates the reality that concrete on ground looses heat
by conduction not radiation.
Message to consumers: When manufacturers
create a radiant problem when none existed, so they can
solve it with their radiant barrier products you might want
to think twice about your choice.
Federal Trade
Commissions toll-free #:
1-877-(382-4357)
(...operators are standing by). |