[kolm]

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).

About the validity of the claims I know nothing, of course (though they have some serious-sounding backup from industrial customers), but assuming it works as advertised, I agree that it might be useful in some situations. The starting point of my involvement, however, was the general question if an unspecified home should be insulated with that, and I do not think this paint is the best value for money in the generic case. I rather think it will be expensive even for special applications.

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).

Sorry, but first you would to have to ship to Europe, second I do not have any measurement equipment sufficient for any serious evaluation, third it would be of very limited value for the company or the product to get some evaluation from The Random Guy From This One Forum, and last not least I have my hands rather full (thankfully, I am grateful for having a great job!) right now. But thanks for your offer anyway.

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.

Okay, I was raised in engineering/CS regarding such words: A solution is effective if it does what it should. A solution is efficient if it does what it should rather cheaply. That's what I think when I read 'efficient'.

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?

Move to a better insulated home, if possible. Or lose the wood beam ceiling entirely. [But then I am not exactly the first choice for an interior designer.]

In the summer, the sun turns the ceiling on the 2nd floor into a radiant oven of sorts.

Or paint the roof white. Helps a lot.

Could I apply foam? No, it would ruin the look.

If there is any space in between, you could remove one bar of wood and stuff the stuff inside, then reseal, or you could remove part of the roof and start from there (Sounds harder than it is, just be careful and secure yourself).

I won't deny that people with some extra money to spend on "looks" and such will appreciate some finer features of Nansulate, but that does not make the product more cost-efficient. And that, in the view of having hundreds of millions of houses which severely lack proper insulation, seems to be the predominant issue to me.

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?

Add 4cm of plastic foam outside, repaint. Leads to way better insulation gain than with Nansulate. [If you have moisture inside insulation, you have to tear it (the insulation) up anyways, since this means you'll have mold in no time, and you have to dry it out in any case.]

Next example 3)... what IF the corrosion prevention (metal walls or roof, etc)

If you have a metal wall or roof, insulation never was any issue, period. It will be extremely unlikely that, all of a sudden, it will become an issue. In this case, a cheap corrosion prevention solution plus traditional insulation will almost surely be more cost-efficient and more scalable.

and/or mold prevention (old home, humid climate) is actually desireable for said application?

On mold prevention I know little, but I've been told that two rules sum it up: No cold walls, and good ventilation.

If you already have mold in the walls, you have to kill it off or it will, magic paint or no, revive and prosper. If you don't, you should be good with following those two rules (I've been told). But that is an issue I do not know much about.

Lastly, you and I do agree that pipelines and tanks, etc, are probably THE most effective use of the product.

I said it is potentially sensible. There are a lot of things to consider: electrolytical properties, brittleness, expandability (warm metal stretches, cold shrinks, most paints get cracks from that) and much more. But yes, there might be some potential.

[sandshark]

Kolm,

Wow, lots to reply to this time. Good post, again.

1) My assertion was that this product works (and only that). However, you "think" it would be expensive even in special cases... yet, you aren't detailing the cost of applying dual-benefit solutions. I think we can debate this one all day, because it depends on which properties are appealing to the user. In some cases, Nansulate may not be worth the money. In other cases, it'll be cheaper. You'll see below, my reasoning, in some of the other responses.

2) No problem about declining the offer.

3) Agreed, it may be effective but not "efficient". But again, that depends on which properties are of value to the user. When dual properties are desired, or no other good solutions are available, it may be less expensive. It all depends. But I don't really disagree. Those items are debateable and particular to each application.

4) Moving to a better insulated home would be WAY more expensive than spending say $2000 on Nansulate. Realtor fees, closing costs, furnishings, etc, etc. C'mon, I hope you were just joking in that comment. Not to mention, a person may not want to leave their home if all it takes is $2 or $3000 spent on insulating paintable coating versus selling their house (haha! It's funny to even comment on that!). I like your creativity, though! All your ideas are good, but I don't think the best ideas in every case.

5) Painting the roof white would help some, via reflection, but paint doesn't insulate well so it wouldn't help nearly as much. Check the K value for a "paint" (nansulate is not a paint, but is a resin based polymer) - I assure you a paint doesn't have a K value of .017. Not to mention, if the roof shows from the street (many do, and mine does) it would be obnoxious looking to the neighbors and then would look very ugly as it got dirty. Want to scrub the roof every year also?

6) There is no space in between my roof and wood beam ceiling. And, removing part of the roof, alternatively, would take a lot of manpower and could mean it ends up being more expensive - as well as allowing oppty for mistakes in putting it back together again. But in my case, there's no space anyway so it doesn't matter.

7) Yes, I agree, it may be seen as having "extra" money to spend on "looks". When regular insulation can't be used, looks very well may be important to the owner (that's a fact - but I know, not in every case). But since it will insulate additionally, no matter what else you've already used as insulation, it is an investment which ends up paying for itself. So, it's not just money spent... but it's money invested. Still, it's not needed in every home (nobody is claiming that). It would help every home, but an already highly insulated home might not benefit quite enough to make the owner feel smart in purchasing Nansulate. We agree on that. However, I DO maintain that it may be a quicker and less expensive (let's say .50+/sqft) solution than tearing up a home to put in more insulation. It depends on the home, period. Manpower, materials, reconstruction, etc, all are factors. Important factors. Not everyone can do it themselves via free manpower.

8 ) 4cm of foam outside, then repaint? C'mon, that is also a bit overboard. Plastic foam cost, installation crew cost, then paint materials cost, and painter labor cost? Two works crews? Changing the look of the house if the plastic foam can't be applied everywhere or would cover up important materials, wires, fixtures, etc? Nansulate would likely be MUCH less expensive. We could probably detail this together if you wish, and you'll see. All Nansulate takes is one crew (a painter) to mix, apply (can even spray on), and then the job is done. With similar insulating results. I get your point, though, and don't completely disagree on this item.

9) Metal roof... I agree; not all that common or needed. But you never know, a person might end up determining that the metal roof is conducting too much heat. In fact, ironically... my mother has a metal roof on her older cottage type of home which she lives in, and I want to apply Nansulate but she keeps threatening to move (for other reasons), so I don't want to waste the $$ only to see someone else move in until I know if she's staying. About corrosion application plus regular insulation... you're again assuming free manpower. For some folks, this would mean two work crews and two products which might be more expensive. Not everyone can do it theirself - a great many people cannot, or don't want to.

10) Mold... ditto, I don't know a lot about it. Mainly, Nansulate prevents its growth but I don't know the ins and outs of existing mold. I see the mold issue as a side-item. By the way, Nansulate has also been officially tested to 100% effectiveness of lead encapsulation. Other paints don't (but it's not really a "paint", as you know).

11) I agree, it's potentially sensible. And in some cases it's not. Personally, I still think it's most effective in industry, but I'm increasingly intrigued by the home testimonials. I really like the textile testimonial in which they said they spent $40,000 on Nansulate, but now save $100,000 per year via lower energy consumption. That is a heavy-hitting solution. Forgive me if I have the figures wrong, but I think I recall correctly on that. Didn't feel like looking right now.

Thanks for the discussion. You're making good points, and you seem to have looked at the info I provided... and are receptive to possibilities. And in return, I of course know that this product is not magic. It's simply an additional option which didn't previously exist, and which works a lot more effectively than most people think it could/should, and it may be best suited to certain conditions or scenarios (not all scenarios, we agree).

[lper100km]

Presuming that the claims made for this product are valid, how about this as a counter suggestion to your paint can offer. Would you, Sandshark, build a 3/4in plywood shack, say 12 x 16ft, paint the inside with nansulate (no other insulation allowed), put wall-to-wall on the floor to protect the paint job and then use it to live in for a month in winter?
It could be constructed with the plywood on the inside to create a tight box and the weather protection need be no more than anchored tarps. It doesn’t need to conform to the building code. We're just testing the insulation here. Of course, you are allowed to install heating, but you would need to keep an accurate record of the temperatures, kW consumed and general comfort level. At least, you could convert it to a nice garden shed after all this effort.

[sandshark]

Iper100km, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, exactly, but that's just plain silly. There's no correlation there to what I have been discussing, nor the info I've presented. In fact, I don't think your question serves any purpose at all. But, if you want a wood shed experiment with comparison test results... there is one already. Want it?

You really think someone living in a plywood shed for the winter is equivalent to my suggesting someone do a little experiment using free product? Grow up, seriously.

[sandshark]

Iper100km, Since you're such a funny guy... here's the shed experiment for you. It's a 4x4x4 shed, with detailed energy savings results.
http://www.nansulate.com/pdf/HomeModel_ ... e_demo.pdf

READ IT and enjoy, fella. Or, you could ignore it and concoct some other form of insult which is a tangent to the thread (as you did in your last post).

[lper100km]

S, I think you are blinded by your own enthusiasm.

You are prepared to commit to painting your house to improve the insulation quality, you don’t really know how effective it might be, but you think it is stupid to suggest building a small shelter with nothing but nansulate as insulation.

The properties you are suggesting for Nansulate should easily make a 12x16 ft shack habitable, even in winter. Can you imagine how this could seriously reduce the cost of emergency housing, facilitate the building of construction site housing, facilitate factory built modular shelters etc. etc.

But no, you think I am insulting you.

Well, you have made your point. You don’t believe your own bs and now, neither do I.

[Tanada]

Iper100km, Since you're such a funny guy... here's the shed experiment for you. It's a 4x4x4 shed, with detailed energy savings results.
http://www.nansulate.com/pdf/HomeModel_ ... e_demo.pdf

READ IT and enjoy, fella. Or, you could ignore it and concoct some other form of insult which is a tangent to the thread (as you did in your last post).

Thanks for the pinter it answered my question quite thouroughly. Six layers of paint were applied to the test house and for the same exact energy input the temperature variation was (drumroll please.......) 4 degrees C.

How many cubic feet of Natural Gas can I save with a 4 degree C decrease in demand vs how much it would cost to paint the exterior of my house inside and out with three layers of Nansulate each? Granted I would save some money in the summer from reduce A/c demand but I can do the same thing by turning off the system and living with the effect, or just running it for a few hours each evening to help cool off after work.

Well lets see I would need 4 gallons inside and 4 gallons outside for the top floor, and 7 gallons inside and 7 gallons outside for the downstair ignoring the 4 foot strip of exposed basement. That gives me a grand total of 22 gallons without including the ceilings which face onto attic areas. I would need another 6 gallons for ceilings if I am completing the structural envelope, plus I have to do that 4 foot strip and I need a minimum of 3.5 gallons for that so count it as 4. So the whole job is 32 gallons. Oh wait, I only did the outside of the basement strip make that 35 gallons and hope I don't spill any somewhere.

$2,308.25 to do my house envelope and save some money. I don't doubt the stuff works, but I just can't afford that kind of an investment when I can just adjust the thermostat a few degrees and be moderatly uncomfortable for the same energy savings and reduced expense.

[sandshark]

Iper100km...

Yes, your suggestion was an insult and ridiculous. I should live in a shed for a month in order to prove something to you? I've ALREADY tried the product, and I already KNOW it works. I wholeheartedly believe "my" (info from the company is "my"??) comments, and I don't doubt that a shed under your conditions would be habitable. I don't doubt it for a second. I didn't answer that, because I thought you were just being a smart-alec. If I misread you, sorry. But let's get this straight... I'm not a distributor, nor insider of the company. If I WAS the company owner or a distributor, then I would DO the shed experiment. However, all things being what they are... I do not have space in my yard for a shed as you suggest, and certainly am not going to do so in any case because I already know the product works (I've told you many times - and there are plenty of video demos as well, and case studies, and residential & industrial testimony). So, YOU are the one who doesn't believe it. I do, and don't need to live in a shed to prove it (that is comical). Besides, you'd certainly say I was lying, just like you obviously think all the other data are lies. One more shed experiment would convince you? I highly doubt that. You just felt you were throwing my suggestion back at me, and putting the onus on me personally as a means to call me a BS'er. You failed at that, sorry. You choose to ignore the abundance of info I've presented, and instead focus on me personally. That is the typical approach taken when a person has to be "right"; is especially common with new products.

There is clearly no productive discussion with you on this topic, as your view is "set" no matter what. Ok! I've presented more than enough info to backup my views, and I would guess that you haven't looked at most of it (if any). If you had, then you wouldn't be calling me a BSer.

[sandshark]

Tanada...

Thanks for the very good post. That's the type of discussion we should be having; not personal pot-shots or silly extenuating challenges.

You said it all when you said:
"I don't doubt the stuff works, but I just can't afford that kind of an investment when I can just adjust the thermostat a few degrees and be moderatly uncomfortable for the same energy savings and reduced expense."

Exactly. The stuff works, but not everyone will be compelled to use it. Nobody says they would, right? Still, IT WORKS as claimed. Would everyone look at this oppty and opt to be "uncomfortable" in order to see the same energy savings? NO. C'mon, let's be realistic. Sure, you might. That's great! Not everyone would. Some people WOULD opt to spend $2308 on Nansulate, since they could maintain the same temperature as always... but pay less in utility bills. Therefore, Nansulate will end up paying for itself in a relatively short timeframe (the company says 1 year, I say within 2 years). But that depends on the severity of the climate at hand, so that is subjective.

By the way... I like your drumroll, haha. 4 degrees IS SUBSTANTIAL, when dealing in terms of energy and energy cost. No matter the # of degrees you picked out of the other info, 30-40% energy savings is very substantial. Let's not cherry-pick the data in order to suit our viewpoints. Savings are savings, and 30%+ is substantial. Not to mention, a thermal barrier and 4 degree difference in greater temperature stability can mean the difference between a furnace which comes on quite often, or much much less often. Hence, $$ savings

Also, note the time element involved... that indicates that a Nansulate thermal envelope will retain temp & stability quite noticeably. Making a 4 degree difference a pretty big deal if that temp is retained and/or more even and stable throughout the home, I'd say. I've got female family members who are quite put-off by a 4 degree temp difference, and that can make the difference between feeling comfy versus 'cold' or 'hot'. Even though it doesn't sound like a lot when just looking at a number.

But don't get me wrong. I'm not saying this is for everyone. The hardcore do-it-yourselfer (which is a small % of the population, I'm sure you agree) may find a way to insulate additionally for less cost (as the other poster was suggesting via taking the house apart) as well as free manpower via their own labor. And others, such as yourself, may find alternate mental viewpoints so as not to justify the cost (by being slightly uncomfortable, etc). Some people resent upfront cost, even if it ends up paying for itself via lower bills. That's a natural reaction. And then there are the people who will say, "Hmmmm, I can spend a couple thousand dollars now which sounds odd to me... but my energy bills will be lower and it'll pay for itself eventually, as well as greater temperature stability and comfort in my home." Those people like the prospect.

p.s. You could still spend the $2K on Nansulate, and lower your thermostat a few degrees... and then have even lower energy bills than you would have. It would still mean that lower temp would be more stable, and retain the heat/cool longer, and take less energy consumption to put your house at that lower temp. I know you aren't interested in that idea; just making the point that the product will pay for itself no matter what, as long as your climate is conducive to that. In a very moderate climate, it'd be more of a waste of initial outlay we both agree on that for sure.

[KnoxMountain]

I have read some of the posts here and find people sceptic of the Nansulate Products. We, as an Exclusive Distributor ot the product(s), have found this to be common. However, we have also found that once a person utilizies the product, the product then sells itself. As for those that have stated there has been no testing, please be advised that this entrue. In fact testing and specifications have been performed by third party individuals with regards to the Nansulate Translucent, High Heat and PT products, including Mold resistance and corrosion (as well as our other products). Actually, over 5 separate companies have participated in the testing on the specific product(s) discussed here.

The Thermal Insulation product can be used in addition to tradional insulation OR alone on new structures. It is TOTALLY GREEN, less expensive than alternative insulation and used widely among industries such as Museums and Public Buildings, Military, Biofuels, Commerical Pipelines, Pipes and Water Heating Tanks/Cooling systems and more.

One individual couldn't understand why someone had offered to provide them with a sample to use. It is because that individual, as others, have used the product and found the above statements to be true.

The cost is very low compared to the cost benefit that homeowners could benefit from their lower heating and cooling bills. One gallon, for approximately $75.00, will complete a 150 sq ft area of exterior walls & ceilings. (Only exterior walls and the ceilings are necessary to achieve cost savings). Alot of people spend that amount on a Friday or Saturday night for entertainment. So instead of spending that $75 on a night out, what if you purchased the product and applied it? What if it worked? What if you saw a cost savings on your heating bill? What if you could insulate your home more, and better, according to your own budget? Wouldn't it be worth the $75.00 to find out?
There are those that will try it at a low expense and see what we are talking about. There will be those that will opt to go out with that $75 and never know. For those"who would like to know", please contact us to further disucss this.

We would be more than happy to answer any questions you may have about Nansulate products.

Please contact us at:
In Massachusetts & New Hampshire please contact:
Knox Mountain Technologies, Inc
(978)-774-3182
www.knoxmt.com OR

For ALL OTHER STATES, please go to www.industrial-nanotech.com and click on "find a distributor" for the distributor in your area. Thank you.

[KnoxMountain]

What you did not mention, that is in the webaddress/article you noted is the following:
1) Nansualte coated house reached 50C in 21 minutes, whereas the un-insulated one reached 50Cin 34 minutes. A 13 minute difference.
2) 13 minute difference corresponds TO 38% ENERGY SAVINGS
3) Same experiment repeated with thermostatical control of the heater. The target air temperature was set to 50C.
4) The temperatures reached were 56C against 51C
5) Second experiment resulted in 5C higher final temperature in the Nansulate Coated house with 30% less electricity.
6)This means ENERGY GAINS of 30C against 25C, an ADDITIONAL 20% difference in energy.
AND FINALLY
7)OVERALL, THIS CORRESPONDS TO A TOTAL ENERGY DIFFERENCE OF 42%

Bottom line, it may be minimal degrees, but those few degrees can, and do, cost you money.

Iper100km, Since you're such a funny guy... here's the shed experiment for you. It's a 4x4x4 shed, with detailed energy savings results.
http://www.nansulate.com/pdf/HomeModel_ ... e_demo.pdf

READ IT and enjoy, fella. Or, you could ignore it and concoct some other form of insult which is a tangent to the thread (as you did in your last post).

Thanks for the pinter it answered my question quite thouroughly. Six layers of paint were applied to the test house and for the same exact energy input the temperature variation was (drumroll please.......) 4 degrees C.

How many cubic feet of Natural Gas can I save with a 4 degree C decrease in demand vs how much it would cost to paint the exterior of my house inside and out with three layers of Nansulate each? Granted I would save some money in the summer from reduce A/c demand but I can do the same thing by turning off the system and living with the effect, or just running it for a few hours each evening to help cool off after work.

Well lets see I would need 4 gallons inside and 4 gallons outside for the top floor, and 7 gallons inside and 7 gallons outside for the downstair ignoring the 4 foot strip of exposed basement. That gives me a grand total of 22 gallons without including the ceilings which face onto attic areas. I would need another 6 gallons for ceilings if I am completing the structural envelope, plus I have to do that 4 foot strip and I need a minimum of 3.5 gallons for that so count it as 4. So the whole job is 32 gallons. Oh wait, I only did the outside of the basement strip make that 35 gallons and hope I don't spill any somewhere.

$2,308.25 to do my house envelope and save some money. I don't doubt the stuff works, but I just can't afford that kind of an investment when I can just adjust the thermostat a few degrees and be moderatly uncomfortable for the same energy savings and reduced expense.

[KnoxMountain]

What you did not mention, that is in the webaddress/article you noted is the following:
1) Nansualte coated house reached 50C in 21 minutes, whereas the un-insulated one reached 50Cin 34 minutes. A 13 minute difference.
2) 13 minute difference corresponds TO 38% ENERGY SAVINGS
3) Same experiment repeated with thermostatical control of the heater. The target air temperature was set to 50C.
4) The temperatures reached were 56C against 51C
5) Second experiment resulted in 5C higher final temperature in the Nansulate Coated house with 30% less electricity.
6)This means ENERGY GAINS of 30C against 25C, an ADDITIONAL 20% difference in energy.
AND FINALLY
7)OVERALL, THIS CORRESPONDS TO A TOTAL ENERGY DIFFERENCE OF 42%
You do can insulate just the ceilings, or one room with a gallon, just to see the difference. If just your ceilings are done, you will still see a differe.
Bottom line, it may be minimal degrees, but those few degrees can, and do, cost you money.

Iper100km, Since you're such a funny guy... here's the shed experiment for you. It's a 4x4x4 shed, with detailed energy savings results.
http://www.nansulate.com/pdf/HomeModel_ ... e_demo.pdf

READ IT and enjoy, fella. Or, you could ignore it and concoct some other form of insult which is a tangent to the thread (as you did in your last post).

Thanks for the pinter it answered my question quite thouroughly. Six layers of paint were applied to the test house and for the same exact energy input the temperature variation was (drumroll please.......) 4 degrees C.

How many cubic feet of Natural Gas can I save with a 4 degree C decrease in demand vs how much it would cost to paint the exterior of my house inside and out with three layers of Nansulate each? Granted I would save some money in the summer from reduce A/c demand but I can do the same thing by turning off the system and living with the effect, or just running it for a few hours each evening to help cool off after work.

Well lets see I would need 4 gallons inside and 4 gallons outside for the top floor, and 7 gallons inside and 7 gallons outside for the downstair ignoring the 4 foot strip of exposed basement. That gives me a grand total of 22 gallons without including the ceilings which face onto attic areas. I would need another 6 gallons for ceilings if I am completing the structural envelope, plus I have to do that 4 foot strip and I need a minimum of 3.5 gallons for that so count it as 4. So the whole job is 32 gallons. Oh wait, I only did the outside of the basement strip make that 35 gallons and hope I don't spill any somewhere.

$2,308.25 to do my house envelope and save some money. I don't doubt the stuff works, but I just can't afford that kind of an investment when I can just adjust the thermostat a few degrees and be moderatly uncomfortable for the same energy savings and reduced expense.

[GoghGoner]

After some googling, I wouldn't waste any time on this stuff.

Tanada, I have an old masonry house, too. The best link for interior insulation I have turned up so far is this.

Adding Interior Insulation

[KnoxMountain]

I have read the post from GoghGoner of the UK and must ask how much research did he actually do regarding Nanotech?

ALso, I reviewed the website "adding additional insulation". This site brought about all the issues that Nanotech Nasulate Home Protect addresses and can solve. For example:

1) What were the costs associated with GoghGoner's insulating product, including time and materials. (IE plasterboard, Expanding Foam, Polythene Sheets). Nansulate Home Protect is app. $75 for a 150 sq ft area and is applied with a paint brush, roller or sprayer.

2) Cosmetics: The end result "cosmetic wise" does not give a finished look. In other words, one can tell that you are trying to keep the cold air out just by looking at the plastic, etc. Nansulate Home Protect gives a clear finish or it can be tinted to suit your decor.

3) There was evidence of some slight dampness. Home Protect WILL resist all PRESENT and FUTURE molds and/or mildew.

4) The time needed to insulate the room was said to take "hours". With Nanotech Home Protect it IS AS SIMPLE as Brushing, Spraying or Rolling the product on.

5) Nanotech Home Protect is TOTALLY GREEN.

The product GoghGoner recommends appears to be the typical old-style of insulating. Where Nansulate Nanotech is a much more cutting-edge approach to structural insulating.

So, I have to ask, how does the product GoghGoner recommends
benefit better than the Nanotech? It also appears, from reading the materials that were needed to do the project as outlined in "Adding additional Insulation", that the cost would be about the same, if not more than the Nanotech. As from the pictures, it looks as though the project consisted of one room.

[sandshark]

KnoxMountain, Good post. Agreed, that other solution would take a LOT more manpower (if not more cost?). Not everyone wants to get down and dirty re: doing a fairly labor-intensive solution, re-doing walls, etc. I would also like to note that that solution STILL requires painting aftewards. Nansulate is only painting to begin with, period. End of job.

Your view, and my view, are based on knowing that Nansulate works. It's really easy for folks to doubt it, because it does sound too good to be true. Yet, it's not. Alas, I suspect that for a certain % of people... they won't believe it until they try it. And even then, many would refuse to try it even if it was risk-free.

Your post is very logical. Yet, the base assumption is that the product works. The arguments against Nansulate use a premise that it doesn't work, apparently, because if one admits that it does work as claimed (we've shown lots of info to that point) then the cost-benefit ratio often comes out in Nansulate's favor. Old plaster solid homes are a perfect example in this thread, but even then people have been trained to NOT believe this product can exist.

Seeing is believing. That's the bottom line, as some people refuse to believe even a stack of data put in front of them.

[sandshark]

GoghGoner, Are you aware that both the UK government and the Australian government have mentioned Nansulate in a publication? Not extensively, but I doubt they'd be publishing comments about a product which was a "waste of time".

UK's DEFRA (dept for environment, food, and rural affairs),
page 71:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/nan ... report.pdf

December, 2008: Australia's Department of Innovation, Science, and Research report, page 2, second paragraph:
http://www.innovation.gov.au/Industry/N ... eature.pdf

I think enough info has been presented so far to prove-out the subject of this thread about whether this product is LEGIT. Whether it's the needed/best application for a given individual us up to that person/persons, as all situations are different. But, is it legit? Yes, it seems that it is.

[Nefarious]

This thread is the infomercial from hell.

Whether your product is any good is totally irrelevant. It is your marketing strategy that sucks and smells of dishonesty and snake oil.
Pushing your product on an internet forum has to be the worse possible way of getting your product to market. So it works and you bought shares in the company to make a little money. Instead of posting on the internet where you might find a handful of buyers willing to try your product why aren't you up marketings arse to be buying shelf space at Home Depot, Lowes, Ace Hardware going to home construction,coatings, and NACE expos to get your product to the masses? Like most other reputable companies do.
If the company lacks the funds to get the product to the masses sell the damn patent to a more established company that can and buy some of their stock.
If you refuse to sell the patent and can not get your product to the masses by any other means than internet tellemarketing the product will die and you should sell your shares and cut your losses.
If you want to proceed in your doomed internet advertising change the name of the poduct to something more catchy like NAN-WOW!!!

[sandshark]

Nefarious, Let's get something straight...

If you're talking to me, it's not my product. I've said that already. And to be clear, my posts are not about trying to increase sales of the product. Do I hope the company increases their sales? Yes.

The thread was about whether this product is legit, period. And I feel I've demonstrated that it is, to the best of an online ability. Why? Because I find it interesting and somewhat fun to enlighten folks to something which is out of the ordinary (because I was amazed myself when I tested the product).

So, if I stumble upon a blog or discussion about debating whether this product is legit... I will join in on the discussion with a somewhat well-informed standpoint. This thread isn't about "sales". It's about a PRODUCT. End of story.

p.s. The COMPANY does its share of marketing - some direct, some generic. Numerous trade publications, newspapers, industry and consumer conferences & expos, etc. A couple governments have mentioned it in a publication also (UK and Australia). So, no, this is NOT an ADVERTISING forum. It's informational, and is a discussion. You made too many assumptions in your post. Sales and marketing tactics or wisdom (or lack of) by the company would be a totally different thread.

[KnoxMountain]

With all do respect to those who feel a product should not be marketed on this forum, please be advised that wasn't what Iwas or am trying to do. I simply was stating the facts about the product to those who voiced their opinions without fully researching the product.

As for the comments regarding how a company should market their product, we have our marketing strategies. Proving our product's benefits here is not one them.

Your welcome for the factual information regarding Nanotech Products.
Knox Mountain Technologies, Inc

[GoghGoner]

GoghGoner, Are you aware that both the UK government and the Australian government have mentioned Nansulate in a publication? Not extensively, but I doubt they'd be publishing comments about a product which was a "waste of time".

UK's DEFRA (dept for environment, food, and rural affairs),
page 71:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/nan ... report.pdf

December, 2008: Australia's Department of Innovation, Science, and Research report, page 2, second paragraph:
http://www.innovation.gov.au/Industry/N ... eature.pdf

I think enough info has been presented so far to prove-out the subject of this thread about whether this product is LEGIT. Whether it's the needed/best application for a given individual us up to that person/persons, as all situations are different. But, is it legit? Yes, it seems that it is.

What the kind-of crappy links are you providing? Both links simply refer to what the company is claiming. No independent government tests were done and they are not recommending the product. Obviously, there are applications for this product but not for residential insulation -- it has an R-value of 10 if you spread it an inch thick -- so three coats has an R-value of 0 rounding down.