282
Scientists develop game-changing 'glass brick' that could revolutionize construction: 'The highest insulating performance' (www.thecooldown.com)
submitted 2 years ago by [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world
61 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Scientists develop game-changing 'glass brick' that could revolutionize construction: 'The highest insulating performance'::The team of scientists developed an aerogel glass brick, which is a translucent and thermally insulating material.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 153 points 2 years ago (4 children)

I wish the article would have mentioned an R-value or at least something to describe the actual efficiency of its insulating ability.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 119 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 48 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 35 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    whoops! TY! Umm, wait, a 1 meter thick wall of aerogel?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago*

    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)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 26 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Or include a picture of the actual material instead of a stock photo of a glass brick stairwell...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    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).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    It's also good at broadcasting to your neighborhood whether or not you're home.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 46 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    So if you could theoretically let out a big enough fart, it would be visible on Google Maps.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 49 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Wrong post my friend

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Wow wtf my comment didn't go to the post I intended. Huh.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I'm still thoroughly intrigued.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • [–] 46 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Yeah but then I'd have to stop throwing stones, and that's one of my favorite pastimes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 11 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    Aren't we running out of sand? How is this a sustainable option.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (5 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›