Icynene

Hi all. Been a while since I've actually posted something. It's been lurkers-ville for quite some time. Anyway, I just UTFSF searching for icynene wondering about it's sound-deadening qualities. Found one hit but id didn't lead me anywhere. So forgive me if this has been covered. http://www.icynene.com/ Check out the youtube stuff too! http://youtube.com/watch?v=-o6M4a-Fhqg Lots of stuff there. Anyone have any good info? Thanks!

Test results show poor acoustical performance. Andre

Thanks for the reply, Andre! You wouldn't happen to have access to any mention of the testing of it? I'm just curious if it would make more sense (in terms of diminishing returns, etc) if one were to use icynene to fill all cracks, shave the excess off, then put drywall on top of that. In theory, you'd have one solid mass, correct? And it wouldn't take all that long to make that solid mass. As opposed to filling all cracks with some sort of acoustic sealant and then beefing up the walls with drywall over the filled cracks. Obviously, this is a cheaper option but part of me feels like the icynene would create a thicker, "more stable" (??) mass. Much quicker too.

"Open-cell polyurethane, or polyicynene, is a low-density, spongy foam" http://www.thisoldhouse.com/toh/article ... -2,00.html /end Reads like high quantities of "Great stuff" foam insulation which may have a good R value but is useless for mass.

Pure L wrote:

Thanks for the reply, Andre! You wouldn't happen to have access to any mention of the testing of it? I'm just curious if it would make more sense (in terms of diminishing returns, etc) if one were to use icynene to fill all cracks, shave the excess off, then put drywall on top of that. In theory, you'd have one solid mass, correct? And it wouldn't take all that long to make that solid mass. As opposed to filling all cracks with some sort of acoustic sealant and then beefing up the walls with drywall over the filled cracks. Obviously, this is a cheaper option but part of me feels like the icynene would create a thicker, "more stable" (??) mass. Much quicker too.

No it is a very light,as in low density, poor for isolation. Andre

Didn't mean to step on ya Andre, sorry about that :)

xSpace wrote:

Didn't mean to step on ya Andre, sorry about that :)

Sorry, I didn't mean to step on you. You answered it first. As I wrote my reply I was distracted and forgot about your reply. Andre

If you already had your mass and you were looking to put 6" of FG batts against it, would the open cell Icynene foam be any better or worse? From what I could make out form the NRC-CNRC tests (they were using spray cellulose (C1)) and had about the same STC ratings. Bill

Hi, Hope it doesn't look like hijacking the thread but I'd like to have your opinions about another spray insulation system. (No results showed up for "Celobar" or "k-13" on searches.) Here's the link: http://www.spray-on.com/products/k13.html Long long time ago I've witnessed an application of the material. I was not into acoustics that much, so things I can remember are: - It helped about the ringing problems. - It took so long to dry up, since there were no air stream. We placed heaters to help it. I'm explaining in this thread that how I intend to use this K-13 system if you guys approve it. (The brand I'm referring in the post is different but both are available here in Turkey) Thank you.

Both open and closed cell foams are less desirable to open, fluffy batt or blown-in insulation. Using a foam to seal small cracks is fine, larger cracks need mass to seal as mentioned. Foam can conduct a vibration and offers much less accessible surface area for a sound wave to bump up against and lose energy. The insulation must provide resistance without the opportunity for conduction.