[yeahbut]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sandshark', 'I')'m not a promoter.

[Dezakin]

This certainly does sound like a great business model. I'm developing nanogreenmagicbulbs that not only provide light but also heat in an integrated package for an amazing energy savings. Full details just as soon as I create a new account and spam every one of these forums for must have items for your doomstead. Next for my company I'm going to be providing energysaver bullets that work in a remarkable fasion: When you shoot invading zombie hordes trying to subvert your doomstead they begin the process of turning the formerly useless corpses into useful food and biogas. Get in on the ground floor for this amazing investment opportunity.

[sandshark]

Ok guys, as expected... I provide info to doubters, and then the naysaying gets cranked up a notch. Don't look at the info, simply refuse it and focus on the messenger. Excellent.

All that matters here is that the product works, or it doesn't. Period. I am willing to put my $ where my mouth is... if for no other reason than to silence at least ONE know-it-all who happens to NOT know it all. I've tried this stuff, and I know it works. You all feel it can't be true, yet you haven't tried it. My experience is based on reality, and yours is based on opinion. Why do I care? Because I personally find it annoying to hear folks thinking they know what they are talking about.... when clearly, they don't. Not because they aren't intelligent - but simply because they are uninformed and unaware that their traditional thinking regarding insulation is wrong (due to new technologies). I've already provided the K value of this product, and both industrial and residential case studies, product spec sheets, etc, etc. You don't need anything else. K value is actually more valid and valuable info than R value (look it up, or ask an engineer). All that's left is for someone to try it and then admit that they were wrong.

I'm enthusiastic about not having my integrity doubted; that's what I'm an enthusiast of. I am speaking about this product via first-hand knowledge via having tested it in my home. I had forgotten about this forum for a while, finally popped back in and of course noticed that I'm being smeared as some sort of BS'er. Well, since I'm not a BS'er, I issued a challenge which can't be denied. Someone will either try it, and I'll have the satisfaction of having enlightened someone who was certain they knew-all, or they won't try it even though there's no cost or risk to them (because we all know that if one doesn't want to believe something, then one will ignore the info presented in order to adhere to their belief).

My offer stands. You can either be a condescending know-it-all, or you can risk being wrong and have to admit it (if you're honest).

[yeahbut]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yeahbut', 'w')hat is the nature of your involvement in this product?

[sandshark]

Told you already.... used it, was impressed, and therefore am excited by its novel but real effectiveness. I am arguing that the product WORKS, am I not? What else matters?

Next came my personal decision (to get and keep some shares). But have you noticed that I'm not about to say this is a good investment? I don't care if you have an interest in the "company" or not. I do, simply because I believe my product trial has put "two and two together".

I'm still waiting as well... you brave enough to try it and risk being proven wrong? I guarantee you will say "hmmm, I didn't expect this".

p.s. Don't even think about accusing me of being some stock promoter (I'm just an honest individual, and that's all - my finances are my own business, including owning shares of something which you may think is unwise). Your changing the focus of this thread would serve only to deflect from the real purpose of this discussion. This thread is about a PRODUCT. And nothing else. The company, from an investment perspective, is highly risky as it's non-reporting. Stick to the product.

[sandshark]

"yeahbut".... What part of this discussion aren't you understanding? My involvement with the product itself is that I have used it, and I could hardly believe that it did work. But, it did, and therefore I think it's fun to enlighten others. I originally found this blog via a Google search because I was interested in what others might be saying about the product.

But, I will admit that it does sort of bother me to see folks naysaying it based on either a) lack of understanding or b) judging it w/out trying it.

I've even boiled it down to a simple offer to try it out for yourself. It doesn't get any simpler than that. I've also presented a fair amount of info, which is being ignored, in lieu of focusing on "me" instead.

I'm as honest as they come (although you don't know that). But, even if I wasn't... what difference does that make? The info is what it is, and it's legit info, and the product does what it does. How hard is that to decipher? Don't believe it? Ok. Won't try it yourself? Ok. Does that make you correct/right? No, it does NOT. I am using real-world trial/experience, and you are using words if you persist in thinking I am attempting to lie. Trust me, if this stuff didn't seem effective and this seemed like some scheme or gimmick... I would be yelling that all over the place because I am not Ok with being lied to.

[Aimrehtopyh]

Here's some info on a similar product.

This isn't a lab quality analysis, but way more rigorous than the usual "I tried it and love it" testimonial account.

"Findings after several months of consistently monitoring exterior and interior temperatures:The structure with the ceramic coating is showing that it reflects sunshine slightly better than the white paint. The operative word here is "slightly". We're talking, at most, a few degrees..."

http://static.monolithic.com/plan-desig ... index.html

He's not talking about Nansulate, just something very similar. The charts are worth looking at.

[sandshark]

Aimrehtopyh, Right on! Info, that's what I'm talking about as well. There are some cool new products out there (including some of the ceramic stuff - I haven't tried those, though).

So that this isn't about my opinion, a reminder that there seems to be a lot of real info out there. I'm trying to keep this to topical info, rather than personal commentary.

Nansulate Thermal Insulation Data:
http://www.nansulate.com/thermal_insulation_data.htm
** There is also thermal data in the patent, which I posted yesterday. **

Industrial Case Studies (multi-month studies):
http://www.nansulate.com/nansulate_indu ... tudies.htm

Residential Case Studies (multi-month studies):
http://www.nansulate.com/nansulate_resi ... tudies.htm

[Dezakin]

It is fascinating to watch a pump and dump scam in action.

[Aimrehtopyh]

Hmm, I'd like to see some third party testing. They also need to compare their product with plain white paint, not just untreated surfaces.

Three to eight coats and extremely long cure time might be okay for high value industrial applications but would you be inclined to go through all that trouble in painting my steel roof.

[sandshark]

Aimrehtopyh, me too, I agree. There is official 3rd party official lab testing for the corrosion prevention, mold prevention, and lead encapsulation abilities of the product. Per the company itself, one of the major challenges they face is the "too good to be true" factor. This is due to how well the product works - folks often don't believe it until they try it (me included - hence my confidence now).

But, they are light on official "lab" testing for the thermal insulation. Unless the thermal insulating characteristics specified in the patent itself are of interest to you (let me know, I can give you the link to the patent).

Please see page 10 & page 23 in this document for actual letters from real industrial clients, especially the one regarding using Nansulate as insulation for medical devices by Edward Moore. They are a 3rd party, and the testing was specific and very controlled. There are more letters than just the two on page 10 & 23, but in my opinion those are two of the better ones.
http://industrial-nanotech.com/pdf/INI_CaseStudies.pdf

Corrosion Prevention Testing Data, 3rd Party:
http://www.nansulate.com/corrosion_prevention_data.htm

Mold Resistance Testing Data, 3rd Party:
http://www.nansulate.com/mold_resistance_data.htm

Lead Encapsulation Testing Data, 3rd Party:
http://www.nansulate.com/lead_encapsulation_data.htm

The thermal insulation testing data is 3rd party, but not "official" (as in, not from a lab that I'm aware of). The new epoxy (EPX) product is in process now being tested by a 3rd party lab for R value, FYI, from what I understand.

How many square feet is your metal roof? The only trouble is only in painting it, not in the cure time of course. Whether it's worth it depends on what the situation is with the rest of the structure. If it's poorly insulated, then coating the roof will help but not a lot. You'd need to also coat the walls inside which abut the exterior for the thermal barrier to be highly impactful (basically, as a complete thermal envelope). If the rest of the structure is very well insulate, but the roof is not, then just coating the metal roof may be very beneficial. Anyway, if the rest of the structure isn't insulated well, and you only aim to coat the roof itself... I wouldn't spend the $. It should help, but the heat would transfer out the rest of the structure if it couldn't go upwards anymore.

p.s. To Dezakin... no need for the childish uninformed insults. This is a product discussion, ONLY. Stick to product discussion here - this is not an investment thread. I challenge you or anyone to try this product - I have, and it works. No ifs, ands, or buts, it works. You've seen my offer of risk-free trial, but instead you sling uninformed insults (that's odd, huh?). First, you need to read some of the industrial energy savings case studies, and letters from industrial clients about the savings they achieved via Nansulate application, then call all of them liars if you wish.

[sandshark]

Aimrehtopyh, in case you're curious... they have an exclusive distributor in Minnesota. Maybe they have some good info which I don't have? Might be worth a call if you have some hard-to-insulate areas which this product could help with (such as metal roof, etc).

Here's their contact info, from the co website:

Apex Nanotechnologies
PO Box 4, Rice MN 56367
Phone: 320-492-0250
Website: www.apexnanotech.com (Website coming soon)
Email: egwinscher@apexnanotechnologies.com

[yeahbut]

When a product has not been adequately tested(as already been established is the case for nansulate), one is entitled to exercise one's own judgement, and look at those promoting the product as well as the product itself. I make no apology for questioning your motives. To me, your tone is that of a very pushy salesman, and the more you post rave reviews and links, the more I find myself thinking "why? what's in it for this guy?". I find your explanation that you tried the product and liked it entirely unconvincing- I've used plenty of products that I found satisfactory over the years, but I've never offered anyone a free sample of them.

anyway, I'm gonna stop now, cos every time I post I put this product back in the spotlight which I guess is the aim of those promoting it. good luck with those shares

[kolm]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sandshark', ' ') I am arguing that the product WORKS, am I not?

[sandshark]

kolm... when you said, "Of course it works", you were correct. And it's much more insulative than most materials. Let me remind you that plywood does NOT have a K value of .02.

But, to go with your reasoning as a premise.... sure, lots of things "could" be insulators, right? Ok, I agree (even though they aren't as good an insulator as Nansulate - look up K values for other materials and compare). In fact, I'll do that for you (see next post). Anyway, to your point... when is the last time you saw a pipeline coated with plywood to insulate it? What about a home which was poorly insulated (yes, fiberglass is good but sometimes doesn't exist)? Can you just put plywood over top of any substrate and ruin the look? No, you can't.

But you're wrong about its efficiency being poor, so most of the argument you just made is errant. Your logic is good, but your premise is wrong.

To "yeabut"... I figured you'd naysay the info (I could tell, before I even offered it). By the way, there's nothing in it for me. There really isn't. I just don't like condescension or pompous tones (especially when it's incorrect/wrong). Truth be told, I got a bit PO'd when I peeked in and saw my name being thrown around as some sheister type of person. If I was, would I offer real info in my defense? No. You don't know if I'm honest or not, but I AM and what I've said is true. I used this product, and was amazed. Again, WATCH the video demonstrations on youtube. Did you read PAGE 10 & 23 in that case study pdf doc link I posted??? READ IT. Those are letters from real customers, one of which is a design firm who put Nansulate into the specs for medical devices (along with foam - they said that the insulating ability of Nansulate + foam was 2x better than just foam. If you can't see the benefit of ONE of the insulators being thin, and preventing mold/corrosion, then you are beyond all reason). Then, you can call Edward Moore Design and call them a scam, yes? Look at Edward Moore's customer list (it's in the letter - maybe they're all scams too?).

[sandshark]

To Kolm... here's a K value comparison to show that your previous post was incorrect. This will show you that Nansulate is a much better insulator than just any old material (as you suggested). Next, as yourself... does any old material also prevent corrosion and mold? I posted those official testing results (LOOK at the info posted). Then, ask yourself... can any old material be applied anywhere? Are you going to nail plywood all over your metal roof? Oops, no, it'll trap moisture and cause corrosion. Will you wrap your water heater in plywood? No, you won't (corrosion, and it won't insulate well). Not to mention, Nansulate insulates much better (aside from your initially errant premise).

Thermal Conductivity: (LOWER number means "less ability to conduct heat" = BETTER insulation)

Material Thermal Conductivity Source
Hydro-NM-Oxide 0.017 W/mK CINT (Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies) <---- is Nansulate's K value & source
Polyurethane Foam 0.040 W/mk DeepSea Engineering
Cenospheres 0.110 W/mK Microspheres S.A. (Manufacturer)
Ceramic Microspheres 0.150 - 0.400 W/mk 3M (Manufacturer)

[TommyJefferson]

I used to work in an industrial coatings testing laboratory. Paint is cool stuff. I love paint.

Here's the problem with "Nansulate":

Cost $70 per gallon
coverage: 175 square feet per gallon
(3 coats recommended, final thickness of 7.5 mils) = $0.83 per sqft.

Multiply the length x height of a single wall on your house. Multiply that number by $0.83.

Eg. My west wall is about 30 x 16 x $0.83 = $400

Apply ye olde cost/benefit ratio.

It's like Tanada said, that's some bloody *expensive* insulation.

For the cost of a single wall you could buy your own small spray-foam rig. If you're in the mood to apply insulating coatings, spray foam is some cool stuff.

[sandshark]

TommyJefferson, Thanks, good post.

It covers 150-175 sqft at 3 coats, not 1 coat. So, I believe the cost is around .50/sqft. The coverage rate they specify is for 3 coats. $70/175 sqft = .40+/sqft

But, you're right... this stuff works, but is not the least expensive solution. You hit the nail on the head. Sometimes other insulations just make more sense from a cost perspective. That's fine. Nobody is saying this stuff is supposed to replace other insulations. It's simply a very effective additional means for the instances where it's the best option. So, in some cases this stuff IS the best solution, and in some cases it's NOT. In cases where mold or corrosion under insulation (CUI) is a concern... this is far and away the best solution because of the value-add presented by the other abilities in addition to insulating. In cases where you have space and ability to lay in traditional insulation... Nansulate isn't necessary or inexpensive in comparison if your only goal is insulation. Sure, you could use both... but in that case, you may not like the cost proposition. Still, homeowners report 30%+ in energy bill savings after applying Nansulate to an already existing home (which do have some insulation already, as all homes do).

But still, I agree with you that this isn't always the needed solution. The main point is that there ARE many cases where it's not possible to apply foam or pink fiberglass layers... but insulation is still desired (and/or CUI is an issue). Agreed? Such as an already finished house which isn't insulated real well, or a structure w/out the necessary space or ability to use traditional insulation, or many applications where the integrity of the look-and-feel of the substrate has to be retained. Or many many industrial applications (textiles, medical devices, etc - see case studies and letters of testimonial from the corporations).

Thanks for the reasonable post.

p.s. I agree, spray foam is pretty cool. Great stuff, and works great. It's not always possible to use it, but when it is... great solution.

[kolm]

Edit: Missed a dot. Sorry.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sandshark', 'k')olm... when you said, "Of course it works", you were correct. And it's much more insulative than most materials.

[sandshark]

kolm, Now we're talking. That is a good post. Thanks.

I think you're missing the jist of my point. My assertion is not that this product is THE most cost effective solution. My assertion is that the products works as claimed (because it does) and that there are a LOT of instances where it's one of the few products which can be applied (lots of instances, not just a few).

You seem very controlled and analytical. I like that. You want to take me up on my offer? I have a feeling you will be honest in your evaluation (re: results).

Now, on to your points... again, nobody is saying this is the least expensive solution, because it is not and you are able to itemize why. But the fact does remain that there are a LOT of situations where traditional insulation (foam or fiberglass) is IMPOSSIBLE to apply for various reasons.

For example 1) what would you have me do with my raw wood beam ceiling which had no insulation above it between that and the roof? In the summer, the sun turns the ceiling on the 2nd floor into a radiant oven of sorts. Could I apply foam? No, it would ruin the look. Could I apply fiberglass? No, it would ruin the look. So, I applied clear Nansulate and the summer sun did not cause the same severe radiant effect on the 2nd floor (I could feel the lesser amount of heat via being more comfortable in my house, but just an example; I don't have "data" on that). My silly toaster oven application is also proof to me that this product works (can touch it w/out burning my hand after use - I did that for fun). But, I certainly do defer to the residential & industrial case study energy savings comparisons from the company (not my silly experiments, although they did prove effectiveness). There is other energy comparison/tests as well on the company site. If you'd like any, I can show you where.

Another obvious example 2)... what about an older (or newer) home which was either poorly insulated, has solid walls, or has seen reduced effectiveness over time of the existing insulation in the walls (due to moisture, compression, etc)? What to do? Tear the walls up? How much cost will that add? In that case, it may be more cost effective to apply Nansulate. Depends on the home and severity of climate.

Next example 3)... what IF the corrosion prevention (metal walls or roof, etc) and/or mold prevention (old home, humid climate) is actually desireable for said application? Suddenly, Nansulate may not be "expensive" as it would cost much more to apply separate products for every issue. Not to mention a lot more manpower.

Lastly, you and I do agree that pipelines and tanks, etc, are probably THE most effective use of the product. I wholeheartedly agree. I never said homes were the best and/or primary application for Nansulate. Industry (pipelines, tanks, etc) is why it was originally developed, and the industrial customers have given testimonial letters as to the benefit of the product. CUI, and/or inability to apply traditional insulation, make Nansulate very appealing in those cases. I would like to stress the Edward Moore Design firm endorsement of Nansulate, as medical devices are not an application for which bogus products are incorporated. Quite the opposite.

So, we agree... in the simplistic cases, traditional insulation is cheaper and insulates well. But there are many occurrences of structures which now don't allow that ease of application of traditional materials. Therefore, IF one wants additional insulation... Nansulate is good. And ROI is achieved in a year or so (or even if longer? ok), which means it's not money wasted. It's a benefit which gives back (just like regular insulation).

I'm glad the discussion has turned to whether this product is the most cost effective, needed, or necessary solution. That means the info I've provided has made at least some headway towards showing that this stuff is legit and does work as claimed (I never did say it was inexpensive). However, .50/sqft isn't all that bad. Not cheap, but not so bad.

And yes, of course.... there are also a LOT of applications where Nansulate isn't needed and where it would be less cost effective if used (due to being able to use cheaper but still effective traditional materials). I would never suggest this not to be the case.