I just recieved a very informative mail by a German firm that sells different kinds of foam for both acoustic and packing purposes. Unfortunately, the firm has the impression that the flow resistence isn't needed for acoustic builds but the density.
Then again, since most PAC's go by kPa*s/m² (flow resistence) and not kg/m3 (density/unit weight) which is only logical, I had to ask further.
Turns out that they had to get in touch with BASF themselves to get to know what the flow resistence of BASOTECT is.
Here is the answer I got:
Quote:
|
According to BASF: The flow resistence of Basotect G as listed in DIN EN 29052 averages 12,4 kPa*s/m²
|
Now
this is certainly a high value compared to the usual memory foam of 6 kPa*s/m² or Rockwool/Mineral wool (also with 6 kPa*s/m²) or even hemp (here I only found 5 kPa*s/m² material - not counting Knauf which claim to have rigid 100kPa*s/m² panels).
But what about other foam?
Like... Eco-Line, MicroPor, Memory Foam (found here >=5 kPa*s/m² as well) and what else is out there.
Basotect a very expensive kind of foam compared to mineral wool and hemp. But it looks like as if the flow resistence is more suitable for builds rather than mineral wool.
Here's a diagram of 4 materials in direct comparision (theoretical):
http://www.stanleyhallstudios.co.uk/...1=60&v41=10000
And this is the German firm I'm talking about (and can definitely recomment). Though the panels are in 100x50 and 100x100 cuts.
schaumstofflager.de
Is there an collective and updated(!) list in terms of flow resistence for several materials ranging from Mineral Wool to Foam?
I tried contacting Rockwool myself regarding my Sonorock panels, but I got no answer and still go by 6 kPa*s/m².
New Reply 
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
