The first table in the title of this thread, is misleading. Here's what it shows:
denk hout, which publishes an erroneous TABLE TOTALLY wrote:
In Part prominently - on the top left and bottom left - he would put the cork partiquement top insulating materials ... except that the mention bed hen in the left margin, it perceives some subtle nuances added:
- "Bulk insulation (for ventilation or spill)"
- 'Bulk (for for alégés panels) "
... Even if it would not be wrong to set the mode of use / application highlighted, going up a table like that is pure scam, designed to 'sell' the cork with better insulation coefficient that it actually does (or so it is a big intentional error on the part of one who made the table, which is the same as the actual results unaffected).
Indeed, this artifice is just there to mislead you by emphasizing that spread in flakes / granules, the cork would have a better insulation coefficient. First it remains to be proven, then it is clever, because it takes the ambient air into account in the calculation of the coefficient (the ambient air => lighter therefore better insulator => becoming in turn an integral part of the insulating layer, since trapped between the flakes => makes the coefficient of the material to which it is applied jump, since the air therefore also serves as an insulator) ... but we can do that with any other material insulation ... moreover, we could do that by removing the granules altogether and we would beat all the insulators on the market ... but there would be no more airtightness, so the insulation could not be guaranteed ...
If we put all the other materials in granules, the cork would lose its advantage => outside this part of the table, shows the polystyrene with a lower coef (which it is not specified if it is in granules => ie therefore panel) and it is not possible to put cellulose wadding, where rock wool in granules ... just tricky, but do not notice that these other materials have other useful characteristics ....
The right column, restores some things in the presentation form of panels, but that polystyrene has coincidentally disappeared ... As it is not known how the measurements were made, it is impossible to deduce if the comparison would be valid, but a triple omission is quite indicative of malice, imho.
Another big mistake: having once given the durability rating "2" to polystyrene in one part of the table, then the note "5" in another part, does not hold water!
Finally the name between:
- Very Good / Good / Fair / Medium / Poor ... is very vague ...
- "Isolation" in headrest of each table is false. Rather, it should read "
Type of insulation used "
In short, I pass on issues of resistance to fire entering into account in the classification of the insulation - which does not take account of ingnifugeants boron salts present in the tissue paper - because here the summit is reached ... it's great nimportenawak ...
