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.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    109
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    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

    • Atelopus-zeteki@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      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.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

        • usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Except earthquake prone areas, and maybe others I’m not thinking if. Wood isn’t the problem, cheap+fast wood is.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          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.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            9 months ago

            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.

            • SparrowRanjitScaur@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              It’s fairly common. People with money hire contractors to do the work for them. People that want to save money tend to DIY it. But redoing bathrooms is quite common.

            • frezik@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              It does happen all the time. If a flipper buys a house, redoing an old bathroom is one of their first things they think of.

      • A_A@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        9 months ago

        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).

          • GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months 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)