The first part is quiet easy to explain --- I am not saying it is right, but what they will say is it doesn't give the same bang for the buck & we are not as worried about heat loss, but keeping the AC bills down
Per DOE - it is #6 on their list at least per their training in Alabama http://blog.sls-construction.com/2010/weatherization-program-modula...
As for the condensation - most don't worry to much on the older mobile homes as those units have already been removed & for the ones that still exist were replaced or are using flex - for the older metal ones that are still serviceable, condensation will form, but it generally drips straight to the ground, so they don't worry about it as it is out of sight, out of mind
Hi Matthew. Assuming when you say the Belly you are referring to the underside of the mobile home.
When our coating was first developed around 30 years ago, the intention of the inventor was to develop a roof coating for mobile homes. Soon afterward he found out it was extremely versatile and did WAY more than just roofs.
I am attaching a statement we were given by the East Bay Regional Parks District, in the SF East Bay.
This mobile home had R-11 fiberglass insulation on the underside of the floor and around the metal heater duct that ran the full length of the 32' tralier. However, field mice had pretty much removed more than half of it over the years for nesting material.
They did the 'Before' portion of their test while the old insulation was still in place. Then they removed the insulation and applied / sprayed our coating to the entire underside and on the heater duct.
I do need to point out that when they started the 'Before' portion of the test, the thermostat inside read 40-degrees and the readings noted were with the old fiberglass insulation still in place. The heater was again shut off.
The old insulation was removed, our coating applied to the underside and was allowed 3 days to cure. Then they turned the heater back on (off for three days) and the inside temperature at the start was 50-degrees.
Their resulting readings are on page 2 of the statement.
This resulted in an 84% drop in heater run time for that mobile home. From 4 hours 45 minutes, down to 45 minutes after the coating. AGAIN, there was a difference of 10 degrres at the start of the after test.
The radiant heat in a structure radiates in all direction towards cold, including straight down.This is the type of results we get when our coating is applied to metal structures, floors, interior exterior walls, ceilings and attics.
We have many statements from mobile home owners at our website.
I also have a video some homeowners made of their own test of our coating on their mobile home.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1Vq74oMoQY This is the video of some homeowners in Mariposa Calif. They did their own real life test of Cerama-Tech on their own mobile home. It does not look real impressive but the temperature readings are a great demonstration of Cerama-Tech vs standard white paint.
Maybe we can open you up a new market or two.
Many statement of mobile homes on our website at www.ct-texs.com There is a link at the top that will take you to our mobile home page.
Material is too expensive for what the programs want to pay per square foot, as I understand it. DOE approved, not yet but we are working towards that end.
A material that is only as thick as a 'Thick coat of paint' is not supposed to provide an insulating value like we do, goes against the laws of physics as I am told.
Although, also on our website, is the test conducted by the UNLV Engineering Dept on our coating vs standard white paint. Dr. Moujaes, the associate professor that oversaw that test was on one of the highest boards at the DOE at the time.
They may not have given us an official stamp of approval yet, but they know all about us.