# eDead v1² Failures



## Rudeboy (Oct 16, 2005)

In the last week or so, I have seen 3 reports about the new butyl eDead falling off in use, one by our own MidnightCE. Each case has involved eDead v1², the thinnest, least expensive of the three eDeads currently being sold.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have been quite public about not caring much for the flimsy plastic protective layer all three products use. I MUCH prefer an aluminum foil layer - the thicker the better. I've also been attacked by the fans and owner of ED for being a hater, notably in the 6th post of this thread. Seems silly to me, but that's their take on things. Everyone should decide for themselves - I'm just pointing this out to be a smartass 

When I heat tested the new eDeads, but most noticeably with eDead v1², the Mylar layer started to curl up and away from the adhesive at temperatures that hadn't even begun to visibly effect the adhesive itself. 

To measure the protective layer of each product, I drop a small piece of the mat into mineral spirits and leave it there for a day to dissolve the adhesive away. It was immediately obvious that eDead v1² protective layer had strong internal tensions - it would roll up into a very tight tube as soon as the adhesive was gone and despite repeated attempts to flatten the sample for storage, it would immediately roll back up after I released it. It could certainly be a reaction to the mineral spirits, but none of the other products exhibited this characteristic, not even the other eDeads.

I measure the relative adhesive strengths of the sound deadeners by taking a 1"x3" sample, peeling back one inch of the release material and sticking it to a painted steel surface. I then hang a 5 pound weight to the loose end and time it to see how long it will hold on. Here are some results in seconds:

eDead v1²: 9.04
eDead v1SE²: 32.29
Dynamat Xtreme: 37.47

I KNOW that sound deadener will never have a 5 pound weight hanging from it. This is the standard way to test peel strength - granted, my method is a little more primitive. The numbers are really only important relative to one another. I test two samples of each product, 1 immediately after application and the second after 96 hours. Butyl adhesives gain strength after they are applied. Comparing the two results gives us some useful data.

All of the asphalt or butyl adhesives soften when heated. The reports of failure coincided with the recent heat wave. In an attempt to duplicate real world conditions, I attached several products to a piece of steel, rolled them down thoroughly, put the whole thing in a plastic bag and wedged it into the corner of my car's trunk. I left it there for a little more than 1 day, during which time the outside temperature reached into the high 90s. I made no effort to measure the temperature at the sample. I pulled the test plate out and saw this, eDead v1² is in the center:









Only the eDead v1² showed any change at all. It is pretty subtle after just one day, but on the right side of the sample you can see the plastic layer pulling away from the adhesive. On the left, the plastic layer and the adhesive has pulled away from the substrate.

It looks to me, and this is very preliminary - a few people are sending me samples of eDead v1² that has fallen off, as if the strong tendency of the plastic layer to curl away from the adhesive, combined with the weakest adhesive I've seen for any product, has led to this stuff peeling itself off. Add a hot day and the adhesive bond strength is further weakened enough to really get things going.

I'm sure this is going to be taken as yet more proof of my hatred for ED, but I don't really care. I have been made aware of three product failures in a short period of time after two years of never seeing or hearing of a case of butyl mat failure. That tells me there is a problem. It should be solvable by changing the adhesive or the protective layer to something closer to eDead v1SE². I still won't think it is a great sound deadener, but at least these observations may help them improve this product.


----------



## Kenny Bania (Aug 1, 2007)

shocking!

Have you ever tested deadeners on plastic? I know a lot of us use them on our door cards. Since the Edead (and I mean DEAD) is so cheap, maybe we can get a way with using it there vs the steel (which gets hotter?) on the door?

Thanks for the feedback.


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 16, 2005)

Kenny Bania said:


> shocking!
> 
> Have you ever tested deadeners on plastic? I know a lot of us use them on our door cards. Since the Edead (and I mean DEAD) is so cheap, maybe we can get a way with using it there vs the steel (which gets hotter?) on the door?
> 
> Thanks for the feedback.


Used it on plastic. Never tested it on plastic.


----------



## Boostedrex (Apr 4, 2007)

Interesting findings. Thanks for double checking that Don. It looks like the bargain basement edead may not be worth the money you save. Does the V1SE2 have the same backing on it or is it a higher quality material?

Zach


----------



## MidnightCE (Mar 5, 2007)

I used this edead on my door card, the edges are coming up, but it's sticking. I think because the door card isn't subject to the heat that the outer door skin is.


----------



## Bluto Blutarsky (Apr 1, 2007)

MidnightCE said:


> I used this edead on my door card, the edges are coming up, but it's sticking. I think because the door card isn't subject to the heat that the outer door skin is.


you might want to rethink that.


----------



## MidnightCE (Mar 5, 2007)

Bluto Blutarsky said:


> you might want to rethink that.


What do you mean?


----------



## Bluto Blutarsky (Apr 1, 2007)

MidnightCE said:


> What do you mean?


Babies don't die when you leave them locked outside your car.


----------



## ClinesSelect (Apr 16, 2006)

Let me know if you want to hear about my experiences with eDead. As part of my most recent install, I used eDead on one door and RAAMmat on the other.


----------



## MidnightCE (Mar 5, 2007)

Bluto Blutarsky said:


> Babies don't die when you leave them locked outside your car.


Actually, you could kill a baby this way, but thats beside the point,

The door skin gets _much_ hotter than the door card. Especially on a darkly colored car. The door skin feels like it can burn my skin if I touch it too long on a hot day, yet I can immediately get in my car, and put my arm on the door card with only very minor discomfort.

Of course, if you have a white car, with a black interior and an open sun roof, or glass top, I'm sure ymmv.


----------



## audioman42 (Oct 20, 2006)

ClinesSelect said:


> Let me know if you want to hear about my experiences with eDead. As part of my most recent install, I used eDead on one door and RAAMmat on the other.


*raises hand*


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

Here's what I noticed. I installed the edead a while back, some of you may remember the thread, anyway, I was waiting for some speaker grilles so I didn't want to put the door panels back on just to have to take them off again so I left them off for about a week after I installed the edead, waiting for the grilles.

About 2 days after I installed it, I noticed the mylar crap was curling up and coming off the butyl in the corners. Not just a few spots but a lot. Anyway there wasn't much I could do about it except to try and push the corners back down, I got the grilles and reinstalled my door panels hoping that maybe at least being somewhat shielded from the direct sun might help. Right now I can't say what condition it's in because I can't see it, but I'm going to pull my door panels back off here pretty soon (it's just to hot outside right now to mess with it) and check it out. If it did nothing more than what I saw then it will probably be ok I guess, but if it has gotten worse, then I've got big issues with it.

I will take pictures of what it looks like. It should be easy to compare because I have pictures of it right aftere the install.

I'll say this, it wasn't too confidence inspiring to see the mylar backing peeling within 2 days


----------



## sundownz (Apr 13, 2007)

Indeed... my V1SE(2) is holding on... I'll have to ask Rich for sure, but I bet his is probably V1(2) being that it fell off so easily.


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 16, 2005)

Boostedrex said:


> Interesting findings. Thanks for double checking that Don. It looks like the bargain basement edead may not be worth the money you save. Does the V1SE2 have the same backing on it or is it a higher quality material?
> 
> Zach


Not sure what I can say comparing the quality. Superficially they look the same - butyl adhesive and a protective layer consisting of an ultra-thin layer of foil sandwiched between layers some sort of flexible plastic. The v1SE² has better peel test numbers so it must use a different adhesive formulation. The protective layer is also different since it is 1.5mils thick instead of v1²'s 3.5mils. Really odd that the thinner product has a protective layer more than twice as thick as the thicker one.

There is definitely more substance to the v1SE². The UE is completely over the top IMO - too thick for most applications, I much prefer something that I can control better. In any case, without a proper foil layer, the product is compromised and can't really be considered a constrained layer system.


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 16, 2005)

MidnightCE said:


> Actually, you could kill a baby this way, but thats beside the point,
> 
> The door skin gets _much_ hotter than the door card. Especially on a darkly colored car. The door skin feels like it can burn my skin if I touch it too long on a hot day, yet I can immediately get in my car, and put my arm on the door card with only very minor discomfort.
> 
> Of course, if you have a white car, with a black interior and an open sun roof, or glass top, I'm sure ymmv.


This really is the critical point that people who claim 150°F is plenty of heat tolerance fail to grasp. Even on my silver car, the inside surface of the sheet metal can reach 180°F after a few hours in direct sun on a summer day. I'd guess the plastic trim is going to track much closer to the inside air temperature - closer to 130°F in the example above.


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 16, 2005)

89grand said:


> Here's what I noticed. I installed the edead a while back, some of you may remember the thread, anyway, I was waiting for some speaker grilles so I didn't want to put the door panels back on just to have to take them off again so I left them off for about a week after I installed the edead, waiting for the grilles.
> 
> About 2 days after I installed it, I noticed the mylar crap was curling up and coming off the butyl in the corners. Not just a few spots but a lot. Anyway there wasn't much I could do about it except to try and push the corners back down, I got the grilles and reinstalled my door panels hoping that maybe at least being somewhat shielded from the direct sun might help. Right now I can't say what condition it's in because I can't see it, but I'm going to pull my door panels back off here pretty soon (it's just to hot outside right now to mess with it) and check it out. If it did nothing more than what I saw then it will probably be ok I guess, but if it has gotten worse, then I've got big issues with it.
> 
> ...


I was shocked to see changes after 1 day in the Maryland sun. I'm assuming you used v1²? I don't like to suggest specific products, but do you realize Second Skin is your neighbor in Phoenix? You could save shipping costs by picking it up yourself.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

Rudeboy said:


> I was shocked to see changes after 1 day in the Maryland sun. I'm assuming you used v1²? I don't like to suggest specific products, but do you realize Second Skin is your neighbor in Phoenix? You could save shipping costs by picking it up yourself.


Yeah, you live and learn I guess. I'm sure I'll have to remove (or scrape off whatever is left) of the edead V1^2 and replace it with Second Skin. I almost started to do that in the first place, but my thrifty side went with edead. More than likely a mistake.


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

I've had nothing but bad luck with their sound deadener products, good to see some data that might explain why. I ordered because Rick was out of Raammat and I hadn't yet discovered secondskin...


----------



## MidnightCE (Mar 5, 2007)

89grand said:


> Yeah, you live and learn I guess. I'm sure I'll have to remove (or scrape off whatever is left) of the edead V1^2 and replace it with Second Skin. I almost started to do that in the first place, but my thrifty side went with edead. More than likely a mistake.


You can peel it off easy. What I did, was cut strips out of it so bare car was available, then applied Raamat over it, making sure it overlapped the edges, and smashed it really good into the squares.


----------



## aneonrider (Apr 28, 2007)

Just apply some heat with a heat gun... should fall right off.


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 16, 2005)

npdang said:


> I've had nothing but bad luck with their sound deadener products, good to see some data that might explain why. I ordered because Rick was out of Raammat and I hadn't yet discovered secondskin...


So what you are saying is that since you sell subs and ED sells subs, you are trying to destroy the company by attacking their sound deadeners? Similar to your anti Hybrid Audio strategy. Very very clever. When your evil plan is complete you will have captured the entire market.


----------



## mrogowski (Jul 7, 2006)

aneonrider said:


> Just apply some heat with a heat gun... should fall right off.


Ouch..


----------



## Acidburn (Aug 15, 2007)

I joined this forum just to add to this thread. My experience with eDead V1SE has also been horrible. Since the first summer after installing it in my doors and trunk, pieces have been falling off. The pieces that fall off in the trunk are no big deal, I just toss 'em. In the doors, however, when the pieces fall, they get stuck in the window mechanisms and between the door frame and plastic panel and clog it all up. This has happened a few times. 
I was in the same situation as 89grand. Planning on going with SS, but eDuh had their group buy, and I figured it couldn't be that bad. It was.


----------



## JasonPaul (Jul 2, 2007)

I have never used eDead and probably never will after seeing how many people have had problems with it.. 
I have recently used Second Skins Damplifier Pro and it is performing and holding up very well..


----------



## Boostedrex (Apr 4, 2007)

ClinesSelect said:


> Let me know if you want to hear about my experiences with eDead. As part of my most recent install, I used eDead on one door and RAAMmat on the other.


I would be very interested to see what you have to say about that sir.


----------



## mrogowski (Jul 7, 2006)

Boostedrex said:


> I would be very interested to see what you have to say about that sir.


Indeed. This is interesting.


----------



## ClinesSelect (Apr 16, 2006)

Well its nothing much different than what has been posted in here already. When I did my install in late May I decided to try different products on different doors just for my own curiosity. With each door, one layer was applied to the outer door skin and then four layers to the inside door skin; two facing the inside of the door and two on the surface where my baffle was mounted. After completing the install I decided to try a bunch of different midbass drivers so every couple of weeks I would remove my door panels, build new baffles if needed and swap in a new driver. At first the eDead v1² started to come off the door in a couple of small areas, which did not greatly concern me. 

However, it progressively became worse to the point that the pieces were coming completely off the door. This last weekend I was swapping in a IR8 and decided to peal back the eDead to see what was happening inside of the door. What I found was that the pieces applied to the outer door skin were hanging loose inside of the door. At that point I pulled off all of the eDead and replaced all of it with RAAMmat. 

Monday night I was swapping out the tweeters in my A-pillar. Previously I had put some eDead on both the metal pillars and the plastic pillar covers. The eDead had come completely off the plastic and was peeling off the metal. In both the door and the A-pillar the backing was separating from the adhesive. 

In case someone suggests that my methods of application are flawed, the entire door is cleaned and wiped down with alcohol. In addition the mat is not just slapped on but rather considerable time is taken to make sure it is applied properly.

Products being tested. 










eDead v1² right after being applied. 










RAAMmat and Dynamat. 



















This should not be misconstrued as a bashing of eD as I feel, like I have commented in the past, that their customer service was second to none. However, needless to say, I will not be purchasing this product in the future.


----------



## ANT (Oct 15, 2005)

Rudy
Good read, but I am a bit confused.
I remember reading somewhere that the Edead EU product (the thicker mat) has a foil constraining layer that measures 6 mils thick. In this thread you say that it is 1.5 and 3.5. Perhaps I need to go read your post again, and maybe find the thread that mentioned the foil thickness of their newest mat, but there seems to be a big difference in these numbers.

I might be out of the loop a bit when it comes to my competition, but I thought that ED had got this one right. From what I remember, they had pictures of a micrometer on their foil and it did in fact measure up.

Is my memory faulty or is something else going on?

Forgive my ignorant curiosity.

ANT


----------



## Hobbes26 (Mar 9, 2005)

It says on the eD website that the UE has 1 mil of LiteWrap and 5 mils of Aluminum...

Don was saying that the thicker SE mat has the thinner protective layer, and the thinner lighter mat (the one in the pics) has a thicker protective layer.


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 16, 2005)

Second Skin Rep said:


> Rudy
> Good read, but I am a bit confused.
> I remember reading somewhere that the Edead EU product (the thicker mat) has a foil constraining layer that measures 6 mils thick. In this thread you say that it is 1.5 and 3.5. Perhaps I need to go read your post again, and maybe find the thread that mentioned the foil thickness of their newest mat, but there seems to be a big difference in these numbers.
> 
> ...


I don't call this a constraining layer because it is too thin and flexible to constrain anything - that's why I've switched to "protective layer" for discussions involving this eDead. Sound Destroyer and R-Blox use a similar protective layer with asphalt adhesive. 

For those unfamiliar with the terminology, *constraining* refers to the usually heavy aluminum foil layer on a vibration damping mat. Stresses between the foil and the viscoelastic adhesive make the entire system much more effective than it would be with just the adhesive or the adhesive covered with something close to the adhesive in rigidity and density. I have objected to the thin plastic top layer on all of these products.

In any case the UE _is_ very thick - I measured an average gross thickness (release film, adhesive and protective layer) of 116.5mils. Of this, 4.5mils is the protective layer, but it is mostly some sort of plastic - PE maybe? 

There is some foil inside the plastic - you can read continuity if you pierce the surface, but it appears to be very thin, maybe 1 mil, if that. I haven't been able to separate the plastic from the foil to get an exact measurement. 

I recall reading the same thing you are describing, I just don't remember where - ICIX most likely. In any case, the gross thickness of the protective layer is 4.5mils. The aluminum foil is much less than that. As thick as eDead UE is, if I hold one of the 1"x6" test samples I cut by its end, it will hang limp under its own weight - as unattractive as my choice of words might be.


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 16, 2005)

Hobbes26 said:


> It says on the eD website that the UE has 1 mil of LiteWrap and 5 mils of Aluminum...
> 
> Don was saying that the thicker SE mat has the thinner protective layer, and the thinner lighter mat (the one in the pics) has a thicker protective layer.


I guess the LiteWrap is the blue release film? I can't really tell what they are describing on their Web site - to me, the foil is the front and the release film is the back. In any case, it uses the same type of plastic release film that Dynamat Original uses. 

There just isn't any way the 5mil aluminum spec can be right when the total thickness is 4.5 mils. Let's say it was 5mils. I took a piece of the cleaned protective layer and lit it on fire. It burned enthusiastically leaving a very thin and fragile metallic core that crumbled when I tried to put the caliper on it. It was only a fraction of the original thickness. Unless there is a transparent aluminum that will ignite with a Bic lighter, the 5mil number is way off.


----------



## sundownz (Apr 13, 2007)

Don,

Have you had experience with Scosche Accumat?

I am currently removing a bunch of it from my SPL vehicle... the original owner told me he tested and lost 2 dB by applying it. But... most of it has a soft foam material applied underneath it, which would negate it's deadening properties. Not sure why the dramatic loss of output... but I can see it not being effective at all.


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 16, 2005)

sundownz said:


> Don,
> 
> Have you had experience with Scosche Accumat?
> 
> I am currently removing a bunch of it from my SPL vehicle... the original owner told me he tested and lost 2 dB by applying it. But... most of it has a soft foam material applied underneath it, which would negate it's deadening properties. Not sure why the dramatic loss of output... but I can see it not being effective at all.


Nope. That's one of the few that has escaped, so far.


----------



## stratusrt01 (Aug 19, 2007)

Registered here just to post my experiences, nice looking forum though.

I put about 80 square ft of eDead V1 in my trunk, noticed that it was extremely tough to get it to conform to curves in the surfaces straight away. Using a heat gun didn't really help much, but I went ahead and put it in, since I had 160 square ft of it.

Noticed almost immediately that where the dimples and things were in the trunk it started peeling away. This was within 2 days, and the weather wasn't hot yet. 

Fast Forward to about 2 months later, and 90 degree temperatures, and I opened my trunk to find that all the edead that was mounted upside down (trunk lid and under the rear deck) had gotten hot and fallen off and was not stuck to my Sundown amps, which really ticked me off. It also didn't have the deadening properties of some other dampeners I have used before. The coating was way too thin, got torn easily, and once it was torn, anything that sits on top of it gets a nice coating of tar on it.

Needless to say, I gave away the other 80 square ft. I didn't want it, and wouldn't suggest it to anyone.

Fast forward to today:

I have purchased 210 square ft. of Cascade, absolutely the best stuff I've used up to this point, rivaled only by Second Skin. These are the 2 products that I would recommend to anyone. I love the Cascade because it's not a tar based product, stretches very easily to cover curves, and doesn't have the reflective aluminum layer. 

I don't have any relevant data to compare it to the Second Skin, but the 2 seem very close in ease of application, deadening value, and longevity.

Pics of the Cascade on my doors:


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 16, 2005)

Has anyone who had a problem with the v1² had any follow up or resolution to this?


----------



## FoxPro5 (Feb 14, 2006)

Bump for more users....


----------



## JayBee (Oct 6, 2006)

I've had some original v1 on my doors through 3 texas summers now and it hasn't gone anywhere. i don't know what everyone else is doing.


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 16, 2005)

JayBee said:


> I've had some original v1 on my doors through 3 texas summers now and it hasn't gone anywhere. i don't know what everyone else is doing.


Well that's just swell. Should I consider the fact that I had unprotected sex with lots of women and don't have HIV a useful contribution to a discussion of safe sex? 

Your comment has no bearing on the failures others had with the original v1 and less than no bearing on the failures people have had with the entirely different v1² It certainly has nothing to do with the reason I resuscitated this old chestnut. An ED rep promised to investigate the v1² situation with the help of the people who were having problems. I was asking what the state of this investigation was and if things had been made right. 

Your suggestion that the difficulties others have had is somehow their fault is really amusing. They made the same mistake you did - they bought an inferior product. You have just been luckier. Every else did exactly what you did.


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 16, 2005)

B-Squad said:


> May I share my direct experience with the application and usefulness of eDead version 1 (the first one they put out) over time?


You must be psychic.


----------



## JayBee (Oct 6, 2006)

Well, someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed today. I didn't make any assumptions, just wondered what was happening that so many others had failures. So take a break with your condisending ********, you don't have to be an ******* just because some had a different experience than yours. 



Rudeboy said:


> Well that's just swell. Should I consider the fact that I had unprotected sex with lots of women and don't have HIV a useful contribution to a discussion of safe sex?
> 
> Your comment has no bearing on the failures others had with the original v1 and less than no bearing on the failures people have had with the entirely different v1² It certainly has nothing to do with the reason I resuscitated this old chestnut. An ED rep promised to investigate the v1² situation with the help of the people who were having problems. I was asking what the state of this investigation was and if things had been made right.
> 
> Your suggestion that the difficulties others have had is somehow their fault is really amusing. They made the same mistake you did - they bought an inferior product. You have just been luckier. Every else did exactly what you did.


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 16, 2005)

JayBee said:


> Well, someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed today. I didn't make any assumptions, just wondered what was happening that so many others had failures. So take a break with your condisending ********, you don't have to be an ******* just because some had a different experience than yours.


It's important people understand that using asphalt products in a car is a mistake that should be strenuously discouraged. Your post can be construed as suggesting that it was 1) a reasonable thing to do and 2) that product failure might be related to how it was installed. For those reasons and because your post was completely OT for this thread, it needed to be addressed.

Asphalt fails for a variety of reasons - either it is rendered inert by the complete release of the VOCs that make it flexible or the heat resistance falls with time and exposure to heat until it melts. Both situations can lead to failure but the latter guarantees it. In any case, asphalt is so ineffective as a vibration damper that it is pointless to use it even if there weren't significant risks.

This thread is about edead v1², a butyl adhesive Mylar clad product that has no similarity to what you used other than the name. It appears that serious design flaws are causing product failures - the first for a butyl product that I am aware of.

Are you saying that you felt like posting something and couldn't be bothered to actually read the thread before you did and then were pissed off when I told you that you were wrong and off topic? Yeah, sorry about that. Thanks for the pointers. Don't you find it a little ironical that B-Squad made fun of your post before you even made it?


----------



## JayBee (Oct 6, 2006)

Perhaps the post directly before mine, that you didn't seem to have problem with even though you replied to it, promted my post. 

Thanks for being so observant. Has his(B-Squad) post not bumped the thread to the top i might not have even seen the thread. 

Be sure to let him know not to get OT.




Rudeboy said:


> It's important people understand that using asphalt products in a car is a mistake that should be strenuously discouraged. Your post can be construed as suggesting that it was 1) a reasonable thing to do and 2) that product failure might be related to how it was installed. For those reasons and because your post was completely OT for this thread, it needed to be addressed.
> 
> Asphalt fails for a variety of reasons - either it is rendered inert by the complete release of the VOCs that make it flexible or the heat resistance falls with time and exposure to heat until it melts. Both situations can lead to failure but the latter guarantees it. In any case, asphalt is so ineffective as a vibration damper that it is pointless to use it even if there weren't significant risks.
> 
> ...


----------



## FoxPro5 (Feb 14, 2006)

JayBee said:


> Perhaps the post directly before mine, that you didn't seem to have problem with even though you replied to it, promted my post.
> 
> Thanks for being so observant. Has his(B-Squad) post not bumped the thread to the top i might not have even seen the thread.
> 
> Be sure to let him know not to get OT.


Edited, my bad.


----------



## JayBee (Oct 6, 2006)

It wasn't a big deal to me.


----------



## FoxPro5 (Feb 14, 2006)

JayBee said:


> It wasn't a big deal to me.


Right, well I failed to read the thread. I get lost in ED's product names...too many "V's" and versions of 1's, etc.

Not sure how the constraining layer differs in original version (which I _thought_ was v1^2) vs this new v1^2, but I sure can tell you all about it!


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 16, 2005)

B-Squad said:


> Edited, my bad.


I thought you were being sarcastic because of the inevitable OT posts that bury an thread that mentions ED.


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 16, 2005)

B-Squad said:


> Right, well I failed to read the thread. I get lost in ED's product names...too many "V's" and versions of 1's, etc.
> 
> Not sure how the constraining layer differs in original version (which I _thought_ was v1^2) vs this new v1^2, but I sure can tell you all about it!


Neither version can be said to have a true constraining layer - old because asphalt isn't viscoelastic therefore nothing to constrain, the new because Mylar isn't rigid enough to constrain anything. The old was indistinguishable from Peel & Seal, the new is flashing tape. The "constrained" in Constrained Layer Viscoelastic Damper doesn't occur at random, it requires a specific relationship between adhesive and aluminum foil - densities, adhesion, viscosity, etc.

In any event, I apologize for being so touchy. I was baking butyl samples yesterday and the fumes definitely got to me. ED promised to look into the v1² failures several weeks ago, after first dismissing them.as both inconsequential and user error. I was asking if anybody had heard anything further. I am writing up my results for this stuff and hoped there had been some new developments.


----------



## FoxPro5 (Feb 14, 2006)

Rudeboy said:


> Neither version can be said to have a true constraining layer - old because asphalt isn't viscoelastic therefore nothing to constrain, the new because Mylar isn't rigid enough to constrain anything. The old was indistinguishable from Peel & Seal, the new is flashing tape. The "constrained" in Constrained Layer Viscoelastic Damper doesn't occur at random, it requires a specific relationship between adhesive and aluminum foil - densities, adhesion, viscosity, etc.
> 
> In any event, I apologize for being so touchy. I was baking butyl samples yesterday and the fumes definitely got to me. ED promised to look into the v1² failures several weeks ago, after first dismissing them.as both inconsequential and user error. I was asking if anybody had heard anything further. I am writing up my results for this stuff and hoped there had been some new developments.


Have you used or tested any of the Protect-O-Wrap products they sell at HD, for example? I'm thinking they might be identical to what ED has out now as I recently saw that they are using a white-backed tape vs the "aluminum" that might be the mylar you speak of. ?? http://www.supersealwindows.com/pdf/protectowrap/PWProtectoFlex.pdf

Yea, kind of an uncharacteristic response, yet I'd expect nothing less from a guy named RUDEboy!  <--- now that's meant to be sarcastic 

Also, when can we expect the new SDS to hit the web?


----------



## JayBee (Oct 6, 2006)

i'd be interested to see the effects of not only heat on the product, but also cold as well. heat and then freeze a couple of times to similate summer to winter conditions and what effect that has on the various adhesives.


----------



## chadillac3 (Feb 3, 2006)

JayBee said:


> I've had some original v1 on my doors through 3 texas summers now and it hasn't gone anywhere. i don't know what everyone else is doing.


My original V1 lasted all of about 2 weeks in the Texas heat...replaced with Dynamat Xtreme and it was a nightmare to try and remove any of that in the exact same location.


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 16, 2005)

JayBee said:


> i'd be interested to see the effects of not only heat on the product, but also cold as well. heat and then freeze a couple of times to similate summer to winter conditions and what effect that has on the various adhesives.


I've actually done that. The cooling/heating cycle doesn't seem to have much impact. Heat and time destroy asphalt. Just as asphalt becomes liquid at lower temperature than butyl, it also becomes brittle at a higher temperature - butyl maintains an ideal consistency through a much wider temperature range. Butyl retains its flexibility at very low temperatures. When asphalt gets cold enough to get brittle, it is more subject to adhesion loss when the panel flexes.

No matter the temperature, asphalt is not viscoelastic so one of the important mechanisms for vibration damping will never be present.


----------



## capnxtreme (Feb 5, 2008)

doot doot doooooooooo


----------

