Haf-E
Expedition Leader
I agree that use of Reflectix insulation on windows would be very effective in the cold - even in a roof tent or poptop with fabric.
Part of this is the issue of the use of the "R" value here in North america - the rest of the world tends to use the "U" value instead - which is the inverse of the "R" value. So if the reflectix has a conduction thermal resistance "R" value of 2 (maybe possible but not likely), then the "U" value would be 1/2 or 0.50 - which means that the losses would be halved.
The "U" value is more useful since it provides a direct understanding of the value additional insulation provides - the R value is more "marketable" as its a bigger number and sounds more impressive. Consider the following values
R-value / U value / % / BTU's required to heat
R=2 / U=0.50 / 50% / 6000 BTUs (hypothetically)
R=10 / U=0.10 / 10% / 1200 BTUs
R=20 / U=0.05 / 5% / 600 BTUs
R=50 / U=0.02 / 2% / 240 BTUs
So going from an R-value of 2 (reflectix) to a R-value of 10 (2 inches of foam) results in 1/5 the losses or BTU's required. Adding another R10 - 2 inches of foam - only reduces the losses by 5% more - or requiring 600 watts of heat. Even then adding more to go to R50 - i.e. 6 inches of foam - only saves 360 watts of heat.
So the best bang for the buck is adding any insulation - which is why people probably talk about how adding reflectix insulation made such as difference... because it did cut the losses in half perhaps...
In most vans, the losses through the single pane windows would dominate the losses if the walls had any level of insulation added to them. Another major loss area would be air inflitration - i.e. leaks through doors etc. Adding lots of insulation to the walls but not insulating the windows and not plugging holes in the floor and walls would not be effective regardless of how much insulation was used.
Part of this is the issue of the use of the "R" value here in North america - the rest of the world tends to use the "U" value instead - which is the inverse of the "R" value. So if the reflectix has a conduction thermal resistance "R" value of 2 (maybe possible but not likely), then the "U" value would be 1/2 or 0.50 - which means that the losses would be halved.
The "U" value is more useful since it provides a direct understanding of the value additional insulation provides - the R value is more "marketable" as its a bigger number and sounds more impressive. Consider the following values
R-value / U value / % / BTU's required to heat
R=2 / U=0.50 / 50% / 6000 BTUs (hypothetically)
R=10 / U=0.10 / 10% / 1200 BTUs
R=20 / U=0.05 / 5% / 600 BTUs
R=50 / U=0.02 / 2% / 240 BTUs
So going from an R-value of 2 (reflectix) to a R-value of 10 (2 inches of foam) results in 1/5 the losses or BTU's required. Adding another R10 - 2 inches of foam - only reduces the losses by 5% more - or requiring 600 watts of heat. Even then adding more to go to R50 - i.e. 6 inches of foam - only saves 360 watts of heat.
So the best bang for the buck is adding any insulation - which is why people probably talk about how adding reflectix insulation made such as difference... because it did cut the losses in half perhaps...
In most vans, the losses through the single pane windows would dominate the losses if the walls had any level of insulation added to them. Another major loss area would be air inflitration - i.e. leaks through doors etc. Adding lots of insulation to the walls but not insulating the windows and not plugging holes in the floor and walls would not be effective regardless of how much insulation was used.
Last edited: