I wish the article would have mentioned an R-value or at least something to describe the actual efficiency of its insulating ability.
this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2024
282 points (97.0% liked)
Technology
59197 readers
2518 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Any time an article references another, immediately jump ship and read the original.
The glass brick has a measured thermal conductivity of 53 mW/m*K and a compressive strength of nearly 45 MPa.”
“This is the highest insulating performance of any brick found in the technical literature, let alone on the market. Additionally, it comes with the property of light transmission.”
https://www.sci.news/othersciences/materials/aerogel-glass-brick-11848.html
For comparison: From Seves Glass Block: "Unlike standard glass blocks that have a thermal transmission coefficient "U"of 2.8 W/sq mt x K), HTI has a "U" value of 1.8 W/(sq mt x K). (https://www.sevesglassblock.com/product/191916-hti-wave-sahara-2s/). So common glass block is 2.8, fancier glass block is 1.8, and this new Aeroblock 0.053!! I think I did my numbers correctly, and DANG! I wan't to start building walls with this stuff tomorrow!!
Also: Get the light & keep the warmth - A highly insulating, translucent aerogel glass brick for building envelopes https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352710222016060
Edit: Looks like my numbers are off, above, per @A_A@lemmy.world. Clearly, I'm neither an architect, nor a mathematician.
Anything to get rid of modern vinyl houses.
Masonry is always worth it for housing, we need to go back to building houses that'll still be habitable a century later.
Except earthquake prone areas, and maybe others I'm not thinking if. Wood isn't the problem, cheap+fast wood is.
Houses generally will last a century with basic maintenance. Modern US construction techniques are a lot more thought out than is generally acknowledged.
I'm more concerned with things becoming "outdated" in aesthetic ways. A properly installed tiled bathroom (including the bath stall) can last a long, long time, but future owners might not like the look and tear it all out. Recycling it all is a laughable dream. There are designs, though, that stand up to the test of time, and we should be pushing those more.
Man.
I wish my standard of living was so high I'd think redoing a bathroom for aesthetic choices was a common run of the mill thing everybody's just doing on a whim.
Congrats.
It's fairly common. People with money hire contractors to do the work for them. People that want to save money tend to DIY it. But redoing bathrooms is quite common.
It does happen all the time. If a flipper buys a house, redoing an old bathroom is one of their first things they think of.
You are confusing the units : the value for aerogel is for a 1 m thick wall, while the value for your glass blocks is for 16 centimeter (one block thick). So an error of 16/100 ratio (or 100/16).
whoops! TY! Umm, wait, a 1 meter thick wall of aerogel?
WMK values are generally quoted as transmission for 1m thick for insulating materials. (watts lost per meter squared per delta kelvin).
For example, PIR board is about 0.022. So for 100mm thick, it would be 0.22W lost per degree difference.
The aerogel glass is quoted at 0.053
Mineral wool is 0.038
Brick is 0.600 on a good day.
Pure aerogel is about 0.018.
Glass is about 1.000 (varies).
I can see this being used in situations where light is needed, but a window is not.
I can definitely see the benefits of making utility walls out of it.
It's going to be expensive though, at least until aerogel prices come down.
And it's not going to beat using the same depth of PIR board, or mineral wool. (assuming the numbers are all correct)
Or include a picture of the actual material instead of a stock photo of a glass brick stairwell...
The source article has this "visualisation":
From that I'd assume it's not suitable for windows, but it is suitable for taking advantage of natural lighting (not to mention it just looks pretty cool... though I'm not sure about the rest of the architecture in that image).
load more comments
(6 replies)
A quick search yields an R value of 9.6-20 per inch for already available aerogel insulating materials. So a standard exterior wall would have a 3.5"(2x4) or 5.5" (2x6) cavity giving R values of 33.6 and 52.8 respectively at the lower efficiency and cheaper options. That is better performance than pretty much any other option, but the cost is like 10-30 times that of other options.
If they are containing the aerogel granules in glass, which seems to be the case, the thermal bridging would be an issue for efficiency. A solid glass block has an R value of 1.15... A triple glazed window has an R value of 7-8.
The better option than glass block would be filling the cavity of a double glazed window with aerogel granules, which would cut down on thermal bridging to the just the sash/casing and would be more economically viable for production.
but the cost is like 10-30 times that of other options
Are you just talking construction costs? How about if you consider the lifetime energy consumption of a building over, I dunno, 50 years? And using zero emission heating, since in 50 years we hopefully are not using fossil fuels for that.
Obviously that's going to vary dramatically depending on the indoor/outdoor temperature delta and future renewable energy costs, so there are too many variables to come up with a number easily, but I could see these bricks being very cheap if you factor int he total cost over the life of the building.
The better option than glass block would be filling the cavity of a double glazed window with aerogel granules
Glass works ok for small windows - but large glass panels are fragile and expensive.
Aerogel is also fragile
Isn't aeorogel really expensive to begin with? I mean we have tech like Ytong and they are still using bricks in buildings. Why? Ytong seems expensive to uneducated who have no clue about TCO and engineering.
Aerogel is insanely expensive. It has an R-value of 10 per inch and the handy property of costing about $1 per R-value per square foot. So a piece of aerogel 1" thick by 4' x 8' would cost $320; the equivalent piece of 2" thick XPS foam board (also R-10) costs about $50 these days. So with aerogel you're paying a 500% to 600% premium to have your insulation be half as thick as XPS would be - and to essentially have no compression resistance at all (vs. the 20+ PSI of foam board).
Me, I'm noticing the distinct lack of any information on cost or cost-effectiveness.
So if you could theoretically let out a big enough fart, it would be visible on Google Maps.
Wrong post my friend
And yet Lemmy is so small I immediately knew which post they were referring to.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Wow wtf my comment didn't go to the post I intended. Huh.
Wait, I want to hear what he was to say.
Yeah but then I'd have to stop throwing stones, and that's one of my favorite pastimes.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Aren't we running out of sand? How is this a sustainable option.
We're running out of concrete sand, glass sand doesn't have to be as picky because you're melting it
So "technically" right but not "completely" right. Thanks for the explanation.
This was Anakin's plan along
load more comments
(5 replies)
view more: next ›