|
Post by Hexspa on Mar 17, 2016 0:57:59 GMT
Hey Ethan (or anyone with evidence), since putting space behind an absorber is helpful but so is thickness, would it be better to cut up panels into wedges and stick em in corners rather than placing panels "across" corners? Wedges are more expensive but which is more effective?
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Winer on Mar 17, 2016 17:11:11 GMT
I never tested this so I'm only guessing, but I imagine this is pretty close anyway. I'll estimate that filling the corner behind a 4-inch thick panel increases absorption by 15-25 percent. Obviously, if you use a thin panel, filling the corner increases absorption more because there was so little to start with. But filling the corner requires about twice as much material. So when cost is a factor, it's better to have twice as many corners treated with 4-inch panels than half as many filled solid. I proved that in my Density Report article that shows twelve 3-inch traps doing a better job than six 6-inch traps. --Ethan
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Mar 17, 2016 20:57:17 GMT
I never tested this so I'm only guessing, but I imagine this is pretty close anyway. I'll estimate that filling the corner behind a 4-inch thick panel increases absorption by 15-25 percent. Obviously, if you use a thin panel, filling the corner increases absorption more because there was so little to start with. But filling the corner requires about twice as much material. So when cost is a factor, it's better to have twice as many corners treated with 4-inch panels than half as many filled solid. I proved that in my Density Report article that shows twelve 3-inch traps doing a better job than six 6-inch traps. --Ethan I just read that yesterday (linked from GS I think) - thanks. I was surprised how well 701 performed relative to the others. Makes sense what you're saying.
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Winer on Mar 18, 2016 17:36:14 GMT
I haven't tested this exhaustively myself, but apparently as the material gets thicker you can use less dense materials and still get good absorption. The higher density 705 is best when it's only 3-4 inches thick or thinner.
--Ethan
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Mar 19, 2016 0:39:31 GMT
I haven't tested this exhaustively myself, but apparently as the material gets thicker you can use less dense materials and still get good absorption. The higher density 705 is best when it's only 3-4 inches thick or thinner. --Ethan Right like according to www.bobgolds.com/AbsorptionCoefficients.htm you can use 12" pink fluffy batts to good absorptive, if not cost (and space), effectiveness.
|
|