Spray foam insulation

Mad Dog_2

Chris...yes...but very high percentage of fly by night, bad roofers...ask me how I know...Chimney cleaning companies next....

Both Fields require VERY little start up costs, practically little to no licensing in most municipalities. No exams. The biggest advantage they have over the helpess H.O. is most people aren't going to free climb that high. Mad Dog 🐕 

The Steam Whisperer

melvinmelvin said:

@steam doctor, I was lucky enough to work for one of the foremost building science consultants out there for nearly a decade and a half. I was the only one there without a professional degree. I got the coffee and set up conferences and got to read a lot and sit in on formal and informal discussions and seminars. I got to be a part of research projects and tear apart roof assemblies And put them back together and got to gather data. And lots of non-glamorous work too. A lot. It was a blast. The standard answer for that question when we got it was “we have heard that claim for 30+ years and are waiting for out first one to investigate.” It’s not a thing. They would know. They would know. It’s simply a talking point from the other side. All manufacturers do this for all building products to some extent. They sometimes invent bogeyman that their product or association or federation, and theirs alone, can defeat. 

Sprayfoam isn’t straightforward and unlike anything else, should not be attempted without supervision. It is literally manufacturing- but the factory is the field. Lots of variables that need to be controlled for. But the trapped water and rotted roof from a pool of water from an undiscovered roof leak isn’t one of them.

Open cell works in climate zone 4 and 5 with the caveats I stated earlier. Closed cell works everywhere. 

I agree and know what you're talking about creating bogeymen. However, 30 years is nothing compared to the potential life cycle of a well built structure. That's just barely the life cycle of a high quality asphalt shingle roof.... let alone concrete, clay or slate tile roofs. I have also heard over and over again from manufacturer's "no ones ever had the problem before", which with a little bit of research, I have almost always found to be untrue. I've learned to be skeptical and always verify.

melvinmelvin

30 years was in reference to the age of the firm I was with at the time. Principles in the firm have been at it for well over 40 years, just not all together. Whereas sprayfoam has been used as insulation since the 1970’s. 

I don’t mind verification, but skepticism will never get anything built. And yeah, agree with you totally about manufacturers, as I stated in my last post. Wasn’t there a politician who lived by the motto, Trust, but verify? Take all marketing materials with a grain of salt. Even the anti-marketing. That was my only point. 

Again, I don’t have a dog in this fight, sprayfoam works, cellulose works, fiberglass works, ridgid foam works, they all can work. These materials all have different properties though, and I was simply answering a question that I came across after following a link from the latest email-with the same good faith that others have shown to me right here when I’ve asked.

ChrisJ

melvinmelvin said:

30 years was in reference to the age of the firm I was with at the time. Principles in the firm have been at it for well over 40 years, just not all together. Whereas sprayfoam has been used as insulation since the 1970’s. 

I don’t mind verification, but skepticism will never get anything built. And yeah, agree with you totally about manufacturers, as I stated in my last post. Wasn’t there a politician who lived by the motto, Trust, but verify? Take all marketing materials with a grain of salt. Even the anti-marketing. That was my only point. 

Again, I don’t have a dog in this fight, sprayfoam works, cellulose works, fiberglass works, ridgid foam works, they all can work. These materials all have different properties though, and I was simply answering a question that I came across after following a link from the latest email-with the same good faith that others have shown to me right here when I’ve asked.

Wasn't that the KGB in HBOs Chernobyl?

Trust, but verify is a rhyming Russian proverb.

melvinmelvin

Oh wow, I guess I had forgotten the line. That was an incredible show.

I’m running it through my translate app and figuring out that my brain can’t even understand how to make my mouth make those sounds. 

ChrisJ

melvinmelvin said:

Oh wow, I guess I had forgotten the line. That was an incredible show.

I’m running it through my translate app and figuring out that my brain can’t even understand how to make my mouth make those sounds. 

So what you're saying about water issues due to spray foam is "why worry about something that's never going to happen".   

TAG

PC7060 said:

I personally will not foam directly to the roof sheathing. We create vent channels from soffit to ridge and foam to that. Roofs need to breathe.  

Some roofs will regardless ....

TAG

Open cell foam allows water vapor to pass ... because of this is must be applied thick enough in cold climates or vapor will condense against the bottom of the roof deck .. This is a known problem with open foam.

Closed foam is a vapor barrier -- and you only need a very thin coating to air seal a building -- but you still have to think about the dew point and the amount of moisture. Thickness must match climate application. Various videos out there showing foam disasters .... with little discussion of -- Why?

There is a guy out there who did a whole flash and batt and never thought about all the moisture of construction -- and never conditioned the building properly. One guy even used a portable torpedo in the middle of the winter ! What did they think would happen to all the moisture?

There are also an old video of a building exploding with closed foam .... the building has no windows and they light off a fire inside ... at some point it all goes up. That's not a house ... houses have windows and you would be dead way before it blew up.

I had a fire in (2012) -- historic stone home that had been renovated and added to in 1990 w/ all foam insulation -- the foam actually limited the fire spread. W/O air channels the flames could not spread .. and foam sort of melts and burns rather than lights up. The building was gutted ... and the addition where the fire started was removed .... the rest of the foam was soda blasted w/ no smell remaining. We did have to remove part of the old roof deck in the historic building (slate roof) -- we just cut it out. I actually made sure we had foam separating a master bedroom on the inside walls of my latest project -- just to protect it from a potential fire/ smoke.

I guess in a really hot climate w/ asphalt there may be some need for a vented roof -- my parents built a house on the SC coast in 89 and the 40 year Celotex presidential shingles are still on the building (Celotex is gone and the roofing products sold to Certain Teed)

As for building science experts -- how many times have they been wrong? Deep insulation retrofits that don't work. Exterior rigid insulation that leaks and buildings become full of rot .... plastic vapor barriers ! On and on. All the crazy wall systems that the average building is never going to get correct.

Foam solves all the problems. Using simple everyday construction methods. No water can get into the dwelling past the foam and there is no rot between the foam and the underside of the deck. I do worry about people who do full water shield on a roof because that can trap moisture with fiberglass ..... especially with ventilated attics adding tot he stack effect. I never do a ventilated attic or crawl space ...

TonKa

ChrisJ said:

melvinmelvin said:

30 years was in reference to the age of the firm I was with at the time. Principles in the firm have been at it for well over 40 years, just not all together. Whereas sprayfoam has been used as insulation since the 1970’s. 

I don’t mind verification, but skepticism will never get anything built. And yeah, agree with you totally about manufacturers, as I stated in my last post. Wasn’t there a politician who lived by the motto, Trust, but verify? Take all marketing materials with a grain of salt. Even the anti-marketing. That was my only point. 

Again, I don’t have a dog in this fight, sprayfoam works, cellulose works, fiberglass works, ridgid foam works, they all can work. These materials all have different properties though, and I was simply answering a question that I came across after following a link from the latest email-with the same good faith that others have shown to me right here when I’ve asked.

Wasn't that the KGB in HBOs Chernobyl?

Trust, but verify is a rhyming Russian proverb.

Ronald Reagan popularized it in English. The "proverb"  - which does rhyme in Russian - came from something Vladimir Lenin said. It's kind of used as a joke for all sorts of things in Russia.

melvinmelvin

Yes! After @ChrisJ mentioned it, I went back and found the line from the show, then found it in Russian from YouTube. And it does rhyme. Then watched Reagan trying the pronunciation with Gorbachev looking on where Reagan makes a joke that Americans think the line was from him. Absolute rabbit hole gold.

jumper

JakeCK said:

Formaldehyde is everywhere. It is naturally occurring as well. We actually have enzymes that can metabolize it, and in fact our own bodies produce it constantly. 

Say it again. After Canadian fiasco some guys studied issue and UFFI is not the problem. As Jake says: formaldehyde is everywhere. But we live in the Age of Snowflakes when EVERYTHING will make us grow two heads.

Jamie Hall

Like most things, @JakeCK and @jumper ,it's a matter of concentration and time. And sensitivity. You can't make a blanket statement that oh it's fine, not a problem -- nor can you make a blanket statement that OMG you'll die. Neither one is true.

Mad Dog_2

Hysteria is NEVER  a good option..Mad Dog 

JakeCK

Jamie Hall said:

Like most things, @JakeCK and @jumper ,it's a matter of concentration and time. And sensitivity. You can't make a blanket statement that oh it's fine, not a problem -- nor can you make a blanket statement that OMG you'll die. Neither one is true.

Yes of course it all comes down to concentration, time and sensitivity. And I wasn't making a blanket statement, just pointing out that it is everywhere. The solution to pollution is dilution. Proper ventilation and it generally won't be a problem. 

Take H2O for example, We all need water to live but drink too much and you'll die. How much is too much? About 5-8 gallons a day and the kidneys won't be able to keep up resulting in a severe and potentially deadly drop in electrolytes. H2O2 is another one. It too is present in the human body in small quantities. And we use it as a sterilizing and bleaching agent at lower concentrations(~1%). But bump it up to 30% or so and you had better not spill it on something like a wood pallet. It can also be used as rocket fuel. What a difference a single oxygen atom can make!

Fyi hydrogen peroxide is one of the chemicals used at my employer for one of our parts cleaning processes, that along with citric acid. Our brass fittings come out looking like gold.
Citric acid is another. Who loves a glass of OJ in the morning? But I would strongly advise against drinking anything in that cleaning process I talked about. Lol🤪 The lead alone would seriously mess you up.

I'm gonna shut up, I'm just rambling now. 

ethicalpaul

> The solution to pollution is dilution

That's kind of short-sighted. The oceans and the air around the earth are huge, so the answer is to dump all pollution there? I'll vote for some prevention I think.

jumper

Exterior insulation also works and preserves original exterior. If plain siding does not suffice you can install Tyvec underneath it.

pecmsg

ethicalpaul said:

> The solution to pollution is dilution That's kind of short-sighted. 

I don’t know?
worked well for GE on the Hudson. 

the sewer pipe extension in Nassau County. 

All over Detroit, Pittsburgh, several other places. 

They don’t worry about the clean up!

JakeCK

ethicalpaul said:

> The solution to pollution is dilution That's kind of short-sighted. The oceans and the air around the earth are huge, so the answer is to dump all pollution there? I'll vote for some prevention I think.

You misunderstand the intention of those words. It does not mean one pollutes with abandon. It means when there is pollution, and it can be anything, the only way to really abate it quickly is to dilute. If a gas appliance is malfunctioning and spewing co into a house, how do you make it safe to go in the house again ? Sure you fix the source, the appliance, but you gtfo out and open all the doors and windows.

Jamie Hall

Wandering slightly off into the weeds here, folks -- but @JakeCK is in a real sense quite correct: for many things the only reasonable solution to pollution is dilution. Other than the obvious -- don't create the pollutant in the first place, which may be impossible (surprising how many terrible sounding things are natural!) -- the only other two solutions are encapsulation and destruction. Sadly, many of the efforts at reducing or eliminating pollution amount to moving the problem from point A to point B rather than any more permanent solution. But it would a long comment if I kept going, so I'll stop!