Hello all,
I am looking into replacing my windows and have talk to five different compaies. The four that did not have argon filled windows said that that leakage of argon was very quick (anywhere from 3 weeks to six month depending on which sales man was talking). The one person who sold argon windows claimed they argon leaked only 1% per year. This is a huge difference in opinion. What is a more realistic figure for argon leaking out of a windows?
Thanks
Derek
Confused Window Buyer
How fast does Argon leak?
-
Halfempty101
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:57 am
Re: reply
So, I should ask:
1)What type of spacer is used?
2)What type of sealant is used?
3)Was the LowE glass surface edge deleted?
What type of answers and I looking for that would tell me there is not a big gas leakage?
Thanks for the response.
Derek
1)What type of spacer is used?
2)What type of sealant is used?
3)Was the LowE glass surface edge deleted?
What type of answers and I looking for that would tell me there is not a big gas leakage?
Thanks for the response.
Derek
Re: How fast does Argon leak?
I can't imagine how you found 4 out of 5 companies who not only don't sell argon, but also lie about the leakage. Don't walk away from these companies, RUN very fast!Halfempty101 wrote:five different compaies. The four that did not have argon filled windows
I've seen numbers of 1~2% annual loss bandied about for years. Of course as stated earlier, the seal material/quality is the single largest contributor to the loss of gas. All the numbers I've seen point to the better spacers as losing gas slower. For instance I think the Super Spacer loses slowest, then the Intercept..etc...etc.....
-
Window4U (IL)
- Posts: 1548
- Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 8:46 am
- Location: Sales and Installation in Chicagoland and Central Illinois
Re: How fast does Argon leak?
TPS beats all types hands down for gas retention, though I do think Superspacer is a fine product and would be my second choice.tah wrote: For instance I think the Super Spacer loses slowest, then the Intercept..etc...etc.....
Re: How fast does Argon leak?
You may be right, but are there any test results you can point us to? I can't find any leakage tests or where TPS absolutely beats SS. That's why I underlined the word "think" in my post.Window4U (IL) wrote:TPS beats all types hands down for gas retention, though I do think Superspacer is a fine product and would be my second choice.
Sometimes on this forum it seems like if Schuco uses it, it's automatically the best.
I'm not a salesman, but I play one on TV!
Reply
... and the spacer wars continue...
As I mentioned above, it really is a combination. Nothing beats PIB for gas retention.. but the butyl has to have a surface that it can hold on to. Soft low-E coatings are very fragile and adhering even butyl to them is like painting a car with a poor primer. Edge deletion removes the fragile surface and allows the sealant to securely adhere to the glass itself.
In the case of Super Spacer, anyone who has ever held a piece of it knows that it's intial "so called" edge seal is not a seal at all. It is an acrylic adhesive (sticky tape). The active seal is the secondary applied behind the SS product. This secondary seal is chosen by each manufacturer using this spacer and is typically butyl or silicone (less effective). Edge deletion is also an elective option. Some of the largest manufacturers in the industry offer SS and do NOT edge delete as it adds cost/time to the process. An edge deleted Super spacer applied with a PIB secondary can be one of the best performers on the market.
TPS in the US is however Always edge-deleted, and Always PIB. It is then sealed a second time with a two-part polysulfide for additional strength and resistance to failure from sheer stress.
If you get a chance, take a look at the cutaways of each of the spacers between the glass packs. This will actually explain alot visually. Don't even get me started on desiccants... we will be here all week.
Halfempty... give a call to each rep and ask them these questions.. and let us know what you find out. More than likely, many of the reps you ask won't even know the answers and will have to get back to you. Good luck.
Tah... I think you might have it a little backwards. Most of us don't like TPS because it's what Schuco uses. We like Schuco because one of the things they use is TPS. I'd be thrilled if others used it as well.
As I mentioned above, it really is a combination. Nothing beats PIB for gas retention.. but the butyl has to have a surface that it can hold on to. Soft low-E coatings are very fragile and adhering even butyl to them is like painting a car with a poor primer. Edge deletion removes the fragile surface and allows the sealant to securely adhere to the glass itself.
In the case of Super Spacer, anyone who has ever held a piece of it knows that it's intial "so called" edge seal is not a seal at all. It is an acrylic adhesive (sticky tape). The active seal is the secondary applied behind the SS product. This secondary seal is chosen by each manufacturer using this spacer and is typically butyl or silicone (less effective). Edge deletion is also an elective option. Some of the largest manufacturers in the industry offer SS and do NOT edge delete as it adds cost/time to the process. An edge deleted Super spacer applied with a PIB secondary can be one of the best performers on the market.
TPS in the US is however Always edge-deleted, and Always PIB. It is then sealed a second time with a two-part polysulfide for additional strength and resistance to failure from sheer stress.
If you get a chance, take a look at the cutaways of each of the spacers between the glass packs. This will actually explain alot visually. Don't even get me started on desiccants... we will be here all week.
Halfempty... give a call to each rep and ask them these questions.. and let us know what you find out. More than likely, many of the reps you ask won't even know the answers and will have to get back to you. Good luck.
Tah... I think you might have it a little backwards. Most of us don't like TPS because it's what Schuco uses. We like Schuco because one of the things they use is TPS. I'd be thrilled if others used it as well.
-
researcher
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 11:39 am
Here is a post i copied off a different forum that gos into detail about spacers. It was written by Oberon. There is a little i left out, because it is not related to the topic of this thread.
.................................
The argument that one spacer system is inherently superior to another – or all others – is ripe with the possibility of misinformation, misunderstanding, and certainly a great deal of emotionalism.
Each system has its proponents and its detractors. For the most part, TPS seems to be high on most everyone’s list as the best possible material for use in a window spacer system, and some people look at Swiggle as an example of a “garbage” spacer system.
Curiously, the base ingredients or components used in the manufacture of each system are very similar. Both are butyl based with a primary emphasis on PIB’s for their overall performance numbers. Yet folks love TPS and hate Swiggle…
Am I saying that Swiggle as a spacer system is equal to TPS? Nope, I am not. But, I am saying that the application of the material in the system seems to be a primary factor in the overall quality of the system being used. The folks using TPS seem to do a much better job of applying the technology than do the folks who manufacture and market Swiggle, and that appears to make TPS a better spacer system.
As pointed out in an earlier post, TPS was first used in Germany. Here is a not-so-short excerpt from a report on various spacer systems compiled and written in Germany comparing various window spacer systems…(please note that this report was very favorable to using TPS as a spacer, but I am including only the part that appears to question TPS as the Holy Grail of spacer systems):
Nevertheless, using TPS does not come without its risks, since the thermoplastic material can warp as a result of pressure or heat from solar radiation. This type of TPS warping is well known among window builders. Torsten Kaneneks, employee at adhesive and insulation material company Henkel Teroson GmbH in Heidelberg, explains that this effect generally occurs when the Thermoplast's maximum temperature of around 80°C is exceeded.
To improve the mechanical qualities, mentioned Apollon's Roland Einhaus in his Paris paper, one could incorporate additional polysulfide insulation, as is done in insulation glass window production. This type of insulation also decreases the infiltration of water vapor, though according to Kaneneks it can only be used with temperatures up to 70°C, since it cannot withstand UV radiation above that point. That's why window builders keep the polysulfide behind the frame. Prior to the market introduction of NICE modules, the company should take into account the experiences of window builders in order to prevent theoretical weaknesses from leading to difficulties during system operation.
The window sealant industry in Europe, governed by higher energy standards, is dominated by double-glazing window sealants. PIB is the base polymer and the main component in these formulations. In these sealant systems, mainly Oppanol B 15 or mixtures of Oppanol B 15 and Oppanol B 10 are formulated. Oppanol is primarily used because it has excellent barrier properties and excellent flexibility, even at low temperatures. Furthermore, it is able to seal hermetically, due to its tackiness and cold flow, to even rough glass surfaces.
New systems emerging on the market called TPS® (thermoplastic spacer) systems contain PIB. Butyl tape sealants contain a mixture of high- and medium-molecular-weight PIBs to achieve the right combination of strength and tackiness. In general, butyl-based sealants are processed as pliable-tape or as a hot-melt system. They can be used in joints with movement of up to 10-15%.
This report also goes on to suggest that in the case of specific severe environmental conditions the use of a metallic spacer system is recommended for its durability (their word, not mine).
In the above report, the authors referenced a paper that suggests that additional polysulfide may improve the overall performance of the product seal. This is an interesting suggestion because polysulfides, as well as other organics (such as hot melt butyl and hot melt urethane) that have been, or are currently being, used in spacer construction have proven to have a lower field life-expectancy than inorganics in that application.
Polysulfides were used extensively as the primary (and often only) seal for many aluminum spacer systems used up to the advent of the warm-edge spacer systems. These same spacers that FenEx noted have shown extensive seal failures when analyzed. Actually, I would suggest that an 8% - 10% seal failure rate at 10 years was pretty much standard for these units. Hot melt butyl also falls into that category as well. Hot melt was very common a few years ago – and is still used today by many folks – but the life expectancy of this product may be open to some question.
SuperSpacer uses organics as the primary moisture and gas seal. It uses an acrylic as the primary structural seal. Unlike other systems, SS is “backwards” in that it places the structural seal inside of the moisture seal. Does this make SS an inferior product? Nope, not in the least…actually SS outperforms every other system on the market, including TPS, in energy performance numbers. Given that it is generally only about ½ a degree or so better than TPS.
What EdgeTech (makers of SS) does really really well is market their product. They have what appears to be a superior product, but they also have a marketing program that totally kicks butt! They have opened areas of discussion that really didn’t exist prior to their introduction of it…they have emphasized SS’s inherent advantages while ignoring any potential disadvantages (which is what marketing folks do, of course). They have “invented” new ways to categorize window spacer systems…heck, they have introduced IGU spacers to the general public.
EdgeTech advertises that their system goes 80+ weeks in a P1 test. They advertise that the “Stainless Steel” systems go 40+ weeks in the P1 chamber. What they don’t advertise is exactly how long is the “plus” in the 40+ weeks of the “metallic” systems…how about 80 weeks being achieveable for a PIB / silicone dual seal spacer system. By the way, at 80 weeks or so the glass begins to break down and the seal tends to be lost at that point because of glass rather than spacer issues.
The hot melt systems used with the SuperSpacer system also have a very specific application temperature range of about 275º – 325º. If the applied material is outside of this range, then the P1 chamber testing can be significantly reduced – to as little as two to three weeks to seal failure. What happens in the field in this case? Only time will tell.
Am I slamming SuperSpacer? Nope, not a bit. When manufactured to strict quality control standards and exactly as specified by the manufacturer, then SuperSpacer really is a very good, even superior, product.
But what about the question of edge deletion of LowE coatings? I have actually chatted about this particular topic with a couple of EdgeTech folks one time. Their comment was that they tell their customers to follow the glass manufacturer’s recommendations. Unfortunately, in my opinion that is something of a cop-out by those ET folks.
Edge deletion is somewhat controversial. Cardinal, who produces about 70% of all residential LowE used in North America, not only recommends it, they fully “demand” it or else they will void the warranty of the coating. Guardian, AFG (who produces about the same level of LowE as Cardinal, but mostly for commercial applications), PPG, and others say that edge deletion isn’t necessary. Besides the corrosion issue, that FenEx has explained many times, there is also the matter of what the spacer is actually adhered to…the coating. LowE coatings are microscopically thin, yet they are made of multiple layers that can separate given the right set of circumstances. So, you now have a spacer that is sealed not to the window substrate but to a rather fragile coating that could fail.
Bad idea.
Oh, and by the way, using organic sealants on an undeleted LowE coating can cause very serious corrosion problems in the coating.
TPS IGU systems can be manufactured using either organics or inorganics as the secondary seal. The inorganics, primarily silicone, tend to be more rigid and appear to offer some strength advantages over the organics…plus longevity issues as well. The TPS used by Schuco (and others) is manufactured by ADCO in North America, in association with Kommerling in Germany. This is a very good product, but not all TPS systems are this quality. There have been some very serious problems associated with a TPS system produced by a competitor of Kommerling in the recent past. ADCO-Kommerling also produces PIB as well – among a number of other products.
Energy performance and durability are what these things are ultimately about. How do they compare?
As I mentioned, SuperSpacer is on top…and TPS is second, by about ½ of a degree or so. The Stainless Steel systems (there are a couple of different ones) tend to be about a degree or so lower – about equal to Swiggle. Drop another degree or so to Intercept and about another 6º to 8º for aluminum. Using a LowE coating has more of an effect on the edge temperature than does the choice of one of the “warm edge” systems. Of course using a LowE coating with SuperSpacer and with Swiggle still keeps SS a couple of degrees warmer at the edge. BUT, these are also ratings of the “raw” IGU…what happens when the unit is in a frame? Well, how about this for thought:
Conclusion
The thermal resistance of the spacer bar material influences the glass temperature at the edge-of-glass region of an IG unit. Based on the limited testing performed at IRC and computer modelling at EMPA Switzerland, the spacer bar with the highest thermal resistance shows the warmest glass temperature on the warm side and the coldest temperature on the cold side of the glass at a distance 5 to 60 mm from the edge of the IG unit. But the effect of the type of spacer bar on the overall thermal resistance (and tote heat loss) through windows depends heavily on the window design and material. Therefore, the full impact of thermal characteristics of the spacer bar material on the thermal resistance and the condensation resistance of a window should only be determined by testing complete window assemblies.
Interesting concept – testing complete systems.
Durability - FenEx suggests the very interesting idea that excessive desiccant is used in some systems in order to hide seal failure. He is absolutely correct that the desiccant used in some systems could absorb moisture in an IGU so that for many years there would be no evidence of a seal failure. Of course a total seal failure, like those seen in older single-seal, organic-seal, IGU’s would overwhelm the desiccant relatively quickly and could cause the window to fog quickly as well are much less likely with today’s dual seal systems – be they metallic or otherwise. But, in the event of a seal failure, then what?
Well, the desiccant could very well prevent moisture from forming inside the IGU for many years even with a minor seal leak. Even to the extent of 10 or 15 or 20 years.
And to play devil’s advocate…so what?
If the window was argon filled, then the argon will escape to be replaced with air. But, a good many less than half of IGU’s today have argon fill…so what about a window with no argon that has a “leak” as noted…what happens to the energy performance? Basically, nothing. There is no difference in the energy performance numbers of the unit sealed or “unsealed”. If the desiccant was sufficient to maintain the interior without condensation, then any LowE coating would be safe as well.
As I said, I was playing devil’s advocate…real world numbers as well as lab testing are very specific that seal failure numbers in newer systems are extremely low. Cardinal advertises less than a quarter of a percent using XL – for 20 years. Swiggle is higher, Intercept is much higher. Depending on the source of the information, Intercept is somewhere between 6% and 17% for 10 years – failure rate. This is primarily a manufacturer rather than a product issue, but it has become a very serious problem for several major window companies…but then Intercept is not really a new system...
And speaking of argon. Filling an IGU to 100% with argon will improve performance by 16%. 50% argon fill improves performance by 8%. 25% argon fill improves performance by 4%. Notice the trend?
.................................
The argument that one spacer system is inherently superior to another – or all others – is ripe with the possibility of misinformation, misunderstanding, and certainly a great deal of emotionalism.
Each system has its proponents and its detractors. For the most part, TPS seems to be high on most everyone’s list as the best possible material for use in a window spacer system, and some people look at Swiggle as an example of a “garbage” spacer system.
Curiously, the base ingredients or components used in the manufacture of each system are very similar. Both are butyl based with a primary emphasis on PIB’s for their overall performance numbers. Yet folks love TPS and hate Swiggle…
Am I saying that Swiggle as a spacer system is equal to TPS? Nope, I am not. But, I am saying that the application of the material in the system seems to be a primary factor in the overall quality of the system being used. The folks using TPS seem to do a much better job of applying the technology than do the folks who manufacture and market Swiggle, and that appears to make TPS a better spacer system.
As pointed out in an earlier post, TPS was first used in Germany. Here is a not-so-short excerpt from a report on various spacer systems compiled and written in Germany comparing various window spacer systems…(please note that this report was very favorable to using TPS as a spacer, but I am including only the part that appears to question TPS as the Holy Grail of spacer systems):
Nevertheless, using TPS does not come without its risks, since the thermoplastic material can warp as a result of pressure or heat from solar radiation. This type of TPS warping is well known among window builders. Torsten Kaneneks, employee at adhesive and insulation material company Henkel Teroson GmbH in Heidelberg, explains that this effect generally occurs when the Thermoplast's maximum temperature of around 80°C is exceeded.
To improve the mechanical qualities, mentioned Apollon's Roland Einhaus in his Paris paper, one could incorporate additional polysulfide insulation, as is done in insulation glass window production. This type of insulation also decreases the infiltration of water vapor, though according to Kaneneks it can only be used with temperatures up to 70°C, since it cannot withstand UV radiation above that point. That's why window builders keep the polysulfide behind the frame. Prior to the market introduction of NICE modules, the company should take into account the experiences of window builders in order to prevent theoretical weaknesses from leading to difficulties during system operation.
The window sealant industry in Europe, governed by higher energy standards, is dominated by double-glazing window sealants. PIB is the base polymer and the main component in these formulations. In these sealant systems, mainly Oppanol B 15 or mixtures of Oppanol B 15 and Oppanol B 10 are formulated. Oppanol is primarily used because it has excellent barrier properties and excellent flexibility, even at low temperatures. Furthermore, it is able to seal hermetically, due to its tackiness and cold flow, to even rough glass surfaces.
New systems emerging on the market called TPS® (thermoplastic spacer) systems contain PIB. Butyl tape sealants contain a mixture of high- and medium-molecular-weight PIBs to achieve the right combination of strength and tackiness. In general, butyl-based sealants are processed as pliable-tape or as a hot-melt system. They can be used in joints with movement of up to 10-15%.
This report also goes on to suggest that in the case of specific severe environmental conditions the use of a metallic spacer system is recommended for its durability (their word, not mine).
In the above report, the authors referenced a paper that suggests that additional polysulfide may improve the overall performance of the product seal. This is an interesting suggestion because polysulfides, as well as other organics (such as hot melt butyl and hot melt urethane) that have been, or are currently being, used in spacer construction have proven to have a lower field life-expectancy than inorganics in that application.
Polysulfides were used extensively as the primary (and often only) seal for many aluminum spacer systems used up to the advent of the warm-edge spacer systems. These same spacers that FenEx noted have shown extensive seal failures when analyzed. Actually, I would suggest that an 8% - 10% seal failure rate at 10 years was pretty much standard for these units. Hot melt butyl also falls into that category as well. Hot melt was very common a few years ago – and is still used today by many folks – but the life expectancy of this product may be open to some question.
SuperSpacer uses organics as the primary moisture and gas seal. It uses an acrylic as the primary structural seal. Unlike other systems, SS is “backwards” in that it places the structural seal inside of the moisture seal. Does this make SS an inferior product? Nope, not in the least…actually SS outperforms every other system on the market, including TPS, in energy performance numbers. Given that it is generally only about ½ a degree or so better than TPS.
What EdgeTech (makers of SS) does really really well is market their product. They have what appears to be a superior product, but they also have a marketing program that totally kicks butt! They have opened areas of discussion that really didn’t exist prior to their introduction of it…they have emphasized SS’s inherent advantages while ignoring any potential disadvantages (which is what marketing folks do, of course). They have “invented” new ways to categorize window spacer systems…heck, they have introduced IGU spacers to the general public.
EdgeTech advertises that their system goes 80+ weeks in a P1 test. They advertise that the “Stainless Steel” systems go 40+ weeks in the P1 chamber. What they don’t advertise is exactly how long is the “plus” in the 40+ weeks of the “metallic” systems…how about 80 weeks being achieveable for a PIB / silicone dual seal spacer system. By the way, at 80 weeks or so the glass begins to break down and the seal tends to be lost at that point because of glass rather than spacer issues.
The hot melt systems used with the SuperSpacer system also have a very specific application temperature range of about 275º – 325º. If the applied material is outside of this range, then the P1 chamber testing can be significantly reduced – to as little as two to three weeks to seal failure. What happens in the field in this case? Only time will tell.
Am I slamming SuperSpacer? Nope, not a bit. When manufactured to strict quality control standards and exactly as specified by the manufacturer, then SuperSpacer really is a very good, even superior, product.
But what about the question of edge deletion of LowE coatings? I have actually chatted about this particular topic with a couple of EdgeTech folks one time. Their comment was that they tell their customers to follow the glass manufacturer’s recommendations. Unfortunately, in my opinion that is something of a cop-out by those ET folks.
Edge deletion is somewhat controversial. Cardinal, who produces about 70% of all residential LowE used in North America, not only recommends it, they fully “demand” it or else they will void the warranty of the coating. Guardian, AFG (who produces about the same level of LowE as Cardinal, but mostly for commercial applications), PPG, and others say that edge deletion isn’t necessary. Besides the corrosion issue, that FenEx has explained many times, there is also the matter of what the spacer is actually adhered to…the coating. LowE coatings are microscopically thin, yet they are made of multiple layers that can separate given the right set of circumstances. So, you now have a spacer that is sealed not to the window substrate but to a rather fragile coating that could fail.
Bad idea.
Oh, and by the way, using organic sealants on an undeleted LowE coating can cause very serious corrosion problems in the coating.
TPS IGU systems can be manufactured using either organics or inorganics as the secondary seal. The inorganics, primarily silicone, tend to be more rigid and appear to offer some strength advantages over the organics…plus longevity issues as well. The TPS used by Schuco (and others) is manufactured by ADCO in North America, in association with Kommerling in Germany. This is a very good product, but not all TPS systems are this quality. There have been some very serious problems associated with a TPS system produced by a competitor of Kommerling in the recent past. ADCO-Kommerling also produces PIB as well – among a number of other products.
Energy performance and durability are what these things are ultimately about. How do they compare?
As I mentioned, SuperSpacer is on top…and TPS is second, by about ½ of a degree or so. The Stainless Steel systems (there are a couple of different ones) tend to be about a degree or so lower – about equal to Swiggle. Drop another degree or so to Intercept and about another 6º to 8º for aluminum. Using a LowE coating has more of an effect on the edge temperature than does the choice of one of the “warm edge” systems. Of course using a LowE coating with SuperSpacer and with Swiggle still keeps SS a couple of degrees warmer at the edge. BUT, these are also ratings of the “raw” IGU…what happens when the unit is in a frame? Well, how about this for thought:
Conclusion
The thermal resistance of the spacer bar material influences the glass temperature at the edge-of-glass region of an IG unit. Based on the limited testing performed at IRC and computer modelling at EMPA Switzerland, the spacer bar with the highest thermal resistance shows the warmest glass temperature on the warm side and the coldest temperature on the cold side of the glass at a distance 5 to 60 mm from the edge of the IG unit. But the effect of the type of spacer bar on the overall thermal resistance (and tote heat loss) through windows depends heavily on the window design and material. Therefore, the full impact of thermal characteristics of the spacer bar material on the thermal resistance and the condensation resistance of a window should only be determined by testing complete window assemblies.
Interesting concept – testing complete systems.
Durability - FenEx suggests the very interesting idea that excessive desiccant is used in some systems in order to hide seal failure. He is absolutely correct that the desiccant used in some systems could absorb moisture in an IGU so that for many years there would be no evidence of a seal failure. Of course a total seal failure, like those seen in older single-seal, organic-seal, IGU’s would overwhelm the desiccant relatively quickly and could cause the window to fog quickly as well are much less likely with today’s dual seal systems – be they metallic or otherwise. But, in the event of a seal failure, then what?
Well, the desiccant could very well prevent moisture from forming inside the IGU for many years even with a minor seal leak. Even to the extent of 10 or 15 or 20 years.
And to play devil’s advocate…so what?
If the window was argon filled, then the argon will escape to be replaced with air. But, a good many less than half of IGU’s today have argon fill…so what about a window with no argon that has a “leak” as noted…what happens to the energy performance? Basically, nothing. There is no difference in the energy performance numbers of the unit sealed or “unsealed”. If the desiccant was sufficient to maintain the interior without condensation, then any LowE coating would be safe as well.
As I said, I was playing devil’s advocate…real world numbers as well as lab testing are very specific that seal failure numbers in newer systems are extremely low. Cardinal advertises less than a quarter of a percent using XL – for 20 years. Swiggle is higher, Intercept is much higher. Depending on the source of the information, Intercept is somewhere between 6% and 17% for 10 years – failure rate. This is primarily a manufacturer rather than a product issue, but it has become a very serious problem for several major window companies…but then Intercept is not really a new system...
And speaking of argon. Filling an IGU to 100% with argon will improve performance by 16%. 50% argon fill improves performance by 8%. 25% argon fill improves performance by 4%. Notice the trend?
Reply
Thank you researcher for the cut and paste of Oberon's views. They further support what I have stated above and many times before with consistancy, just as they did the first time I read them from Oberon. As I have read enough of your posts to know that you always have a negative intention when following one of my posts, please point out what you see as a contradictory "fact" here?
Please.. keep it to a bullet point analysis.. and I will addess each one. We are all well aware that you know how to cut and paste. Make your points... and I'll be happy to respond for the benefit of this homeowner and others reading.
Please.. keep it to a bullet point analysis.. and I will addess each one. We are all well aware that you know how to cut and paste. Make your points... and I'll be happy to respond for the benefit of this homeowner and others reading.
-
Halfempty101
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:57 am
Wow, so much to know about a window....
I did talk to the argon window guy and, as you suspected, he will have to get back to me with the answers. I will let you know when he does.
As for the other companies, then all said they could make argon filed windows if I really wanted them. I would not want to go with that though. If I go with argon filed windows, I want it from a company that does it all the time.
Derek
I did talk to the argon window guy and, as you suspected, he will have to get back to me with the answers. I will let you know when he does.
As for the other companies, then all said they could make argon filed windows if I really wanted them. I would not want to go with that though. If I go with argon filed windows, I want it from a company that does it all the time.
Derek
-
Window4U (IL)
- Posts: 1548
- Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 8:46 am
- Location: Sales and Installation in Chicagoland and Central Illinois
Why in the world would you conclude that? That's like saying the type of carpet in the trunk of your car will have a significant impact on the life of your engine.JScott wrote:So should I conclude that the expansion of vinyl, an inherent property of vinyl, will greatly contribute to seal failure in IG units and that the consumer should look for a frame made from a material with a lower expansion and contraction rate like wood and fiberglass?
The material the window is made of has nothing to do with the materials present in an IGU spacer. They work totally independant of each other. Identical IGU's will have the same life in any type window they are put into.
-
Halfempty101
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:57 am
Seal failure questions
If a seal fails over time does window fogging always occur? Does fogging only during certain weather seasons like during the cold winter? Does a window stay permanently fogged, or does it even depend on the time of day?
Window4U,
Based on the 10-15% allowable expansion of the seal It seems like vinyl when expanded will allow more movement in the IG unit. If the frame which supports the IG unit moves with the IG unit itself, as with fiberglass, seals may last longer. We get more service calls for replacing failed IG in vinyl units than any other frame type. I have observed older wood units not show visible obstruction for 30 years and I see more seal failure in units facing west and south-west. The heat from the sun is greater in this direction and would account for frame expansion therefore allowing the IG unit to be looser which may allow for greater than the 10-15% seal expansion tolerance.
Based on the 10-15% allowable expansion of the seal It seems like vinyl when expanded will allow more movement in the IG unit. If the frame which supports the IG unit moves with the IG unit itself, as with fiberglass, seals may last longer. We get more service calls for replacing failed IG in vinyl units than any other frame type. I have observed older wood units not show visible obstruction for 30 years and I see more seal failure in units facing west and south-west. The heat from the sun is greater in this direction and would account for frame expansion therefore allowing the IG unit to be looser which may allow for greater than the 10-15% seal expansion tolerance.