Hej Groenbæk.
Tak for dit positive indlæg.
Jeg fandt en konklution fra et Engelsk testcenter om Airflex.
Håber du kan læse Engelsk
* These are relative values given by a common monitoring system. They should not be used to compare the performance of materials of different manufacturers given elsewhere
Comparative assessment of Airflex insulation in roofs
12
In addition, the apparent specific heat calculated for the Airflex at -5, 0 and +5°C is within 7% (580-
619 kJ/kg°C) indicating that the insulant performed consistently irrespective of the external
temperature. This value is more variable in the Glasswool tests (968-1115 kJ/kg°C) giving a
maximum variation of 15%.
6 Conclusions
The following conclusions are based on the results and analysis of the tests conducted to evaluate
the performance of Airflex in relation to Glasswool as an insulation material in simulated roof
spaces:
Less heat is required in the Airflex insulated enclosures to maintain a target temperature of
21ºC when variations in the temperature gradient and volume of airspace within the
enclosure are taken into account.
Airflex is 44.5%, 40.1% and 43.7% more efficient than the Glasswool when tested at -5°C,
°C and +5°C external temperature respectively.
The technique used to join the Airflex at bends needs further consideration as the joint had
failed in one of the preliminary tests.
In the absence of a standard thermal conductivity test for reflective insulants, the effective
thermal resistance for Airflex in this comparative test, whilst not directly measured or
calculated, is considered to be at least equal to the thermal resistance of the Glasswool
(5.0 K/W) as a result of the relative performances observed in this study.
Jeg kan også oplyse at de har undersøgt luftindholdet i Airflex og mineralulden.
Undersøgelsen viser at der er godt 27% mere luftindhold i Airflex end i mineralulden. Husk på at den relative luftfugtighed i Airflexen er tør og langt under den som er i mineralulden.