<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16850" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>All,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>As I said in Bruce's book, the tests that showed a
difference of R-value per inch for differently oriented bales were
<STRONG>not</STRONG> the same tests that provided the R1.45/inch. I
believe that all of the tests previous to the one overseen by David Eisenberg
and Jeff Christian at ORNL, were flawed in one way or another. That
includes (1) the tests that I oversaw in Fresno the year before, and (2)
the one done by Jeff Christian at ORNL a couple years before that.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The tests that showed a lower thermal resistance
per inch for flat bales versus bales on edge (Fresno), had significant
issues with non-uniform density (we stuffed the top 4-6" of the wall with straw
as best we could after reffing down on the bales with airline strap and levers),
and with incomplete drying before the tests were initiated. We had little
ability at that commercial lab to do those tests differently, but we still
recognized that the tests did not very accurately represent real-world
condidtions. ORNL in their test the next year, created their test buck in
such a way that the compressed bales fully filled the hole, and they were able
to set the test wall aside long enough that it completely dried before
testing. ORNL's test procedures were well informed by what was discovered
in the previous tests.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I am not going to attempt to convert from U.S.
performance numbers to metric, but I will advise that one ought to start from
R1.45/inch U.S. ...or, equivalently, a U-factor of 0.6897.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Hope this helps.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Nehemiah Stone</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>----- Original Message ----- </FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>From: <</FONT><A
href="mailto:contact@lamaisonenpaille.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>contact@lamaisonenpaille.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>To: "GSBN" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:GSBN@greenbuilder.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>GSBN@greenbuilder.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 8:48 AM</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Subject: [GSBN] Can someone validate RT's US R to
(metric) lambda conversion?</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><BR><FONT size=2></FONT></FONT></DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>> Hello,<BR>> <BR>> For the purpose of publishing Bruce Kings
book "Design of SB Buildings" <BR>> in french I would appreciate someone from
this list confirming Rob Tom's <BR>> conversion below (for page
187):<BR>>> A thermal resistivity of 1.45 ft^2*hr*degF/Btu*inch
(Murrican)<BR>>> converts to 10.05 m^2*degC/W*m
(SIU).<BR>>><BR>>> The thermal conductivity, or lambda value = 1 /
thermal
resistivity<BR>>>
= 1 / 10.05
m^2*degC/W*m<BR>>>
= 0.0994 W/mK lambda (λ)<BR>> <BR>> Thanks,<BR>> <BR>> André
de Bouter<BR>> La Maison en Paille<BR>> </FONT><A
href="http://www.lamaisonenpaille.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>www.lamaisonenpaille.com</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>> GSBN mailing
list<BR>> </FONT><A href="mailto:GSBN@greenbuilder.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>GSBN@greenbuilder.com</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>>
</FONT><A href="http://greenbuilder.com/mailman/listinfo/GSBN"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>http://greenbuilder.com/mailman/listinfo/GSBN</FONT></A><BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2>></FONT></BODY></HTML>