Ok guys, let's just cut to the chase to the chase...

For all those Replacement Window decisions - just read, review or post a question. You will be helped!
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 11:20 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

#16 Post by WindDoze » Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:26 am

While I'll defer to FenEx, who will has far and away more technical info than anyone else here -- I'd say your post about Gorrell exaggerated (or embellished) on the following:
1.) Foam filled frames do little if anything to increase the overall efficiency of a window over a multichambered extruded frame.
2.) You mentioned that welded windows do not create a dead air space (unless they are heat welded). Pinnenergy -- what other type of weld is there other than a heat weld? I don't know of any chemical welds used in the window industry...
3.) Your suggestion that foam inserts add rigidity to the overall frame of the window is laughable at best. Those windows that do have reinforced frames use fiberglass or steel inserts -- both of which I think you'll agree are far superior to a little pumped in styrofoam.
4.) I'm really going to defer to FenEx on the fuel savings guarantee....
5.) Your assertion that Gorell has the highest gas retention rate in the market is also false. What basis or documentation do you have to support this other than "that's what the manufacturer says." There is only one window on the market that has an independantly documented 99% plus gas fill and retention rate and it is Schuco with the TPS seal system.

Posts: 353
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:43 pm
Location: Illinois


#17 Post by FenEx » Wed Nov 30, 2005 6:52 pm

Nothing says structural integrity quite like "Styrofoam". It's put there to give the impression of energy savings but offers nothing measureable in a window's performance.

As for your stated, "If you do not save 40% of your energy consumption, Gorell will pay you the difference." They can save us both alot of time and paperwork and send me a check now. It ain't happening.

What a great promise though... unless of course it has restrictions like the other bogus promos like: every window needs to be replaced (10-20k avg), homeowners must properly maintain heating and cooling systems (define and prove), all doors must be energy efficient and weather tight (define and prove), proper allowance for abnormal weather conditions shall be made in adjusting a claim (define and prove), reimbursement at rates prevailing at the time of window purchase (rates increasing monthly), only applies to heating and cooling portions of energy consumtion (not what you stated and impossible to accurately separate anyways), and the best part... limited to a $500 maximum payout if all the above measures are documented, proved and not disputed within 30 days of the deadline. There are typically even more with similar pledges too. As you promote it and appear to believe your products to have no performance deterioration... why not include it for the 50 years of the warranty instead of 1 and why limit the payout? I'll bet there was never a single payout with this pledge... but it sure sounds good... I'm sure that's why several other companies use it too.

If a house is almost perfect in every respect of thermal boundaries and pressure boundaries, but the windows are poor, they may be responsible for 40-50% of the energy loss or gain contributed to heating and cooling. That portion is still only about half of the actual overall energy consumption of a home. Thus... even if you reduced that loss to -0- ( not possible) you may only reduce the energy consumption by about 25%. By the way... I couldn't even find such a pledge from Gorell.

As for your comments of 94% gas retention over the last 25 years... we could be talking about a book here so I'll be very brief. PPG Intercept had one of the poorer ratings for gas retention and is not proprietary to Gorell by a long shot so how do they have the best ratings? Let's not even rely on just the P-1 accelerated testing studies that have been published. A few years back the USDOE got results from a 15 year (1980-1995) study done by SIGMA (Sealed Insulating Glass Manufacturers Association), they did real time testing of "cut-open" units to check for the amount of desiccant consumed by infiltrating moisture. The BEST metal spacer units had failure rates of 4-10%, some of which were less than 5 years old. All of the units tested were ASTM certified and passed E 774-97 at the most demanding CBA level.


Mass. window guy
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:53 am
Location: Massachussetts

#18 Post by Mass. window guy » Thu Dec 01, 2005 8:59 am


One thing I have learned in this business is to always know who you are talking to before talking about a product as proven a few years back when I was speaking to a couple about windows and got into all the different properties of vinyl, construction, etc. After doing my demo the gentleman told me he was an engineer specializing in plastics and doubted that the window was made of virgin vinyl. He proceeded to go into his basement and got a chemical bonding agent that only reacts to the cheaper plastics and was trying to prove me a liar. Well I am happy to say I was proven correct (although they didn't buy my product). To this day I am still not positive if what he used was real or if he was busting my %$#@.
To get to my point, there is no doubt you know more than I will ever know about the industry but I would like to know how the foam does not impact the efficiency. Every house built today has insulation installed between the studs of the walls- not just a few pockets. Wood is an o.k. insulator, fiberglass is better because of the millions of air pockets created by the fibers, and closed cell foam has an even higher R-Value because of the higher density and even more air pockets then fiberglass.
The foam filling is a very small upcharge from the manufacturers. You really don't feel it is worth it?

Posts: 353
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:43 pm
Location: Illinois


#19 Post by FenEx » Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:59 am

Mass. window guy

That's a very fair question. Don't get the wrong impression, I am a big fan of foam insulators and sealants. You are correct... wood has an value of about R-1 per inch, fiberglass has about an R-3 per inch and closed cell foam an R-4.5-6 per inch. My disappointment isn't with the products, it's with how they are being used and installed. Take a wall for example. Wood frame, R-13 FG, Tyvec wrap and siding. Good products but almost always installed without properly taping the Tyvec at all seams, and the R-13 FG is left with many gaps and it compressed at mechanical areas and the interior vapor barrier is not continuous or sealed around each stud cavity. It's a proven fact that 5% voids reduce the effectiveness of the entire wall's R-value by 40-70%. Heat and air follow the path of least resistance... the weakest link. When rating a wall the studs are actually detracting from the insulation's R-value. New framing techniques are being implemented to correct this.

In the case of a window, strategic placement of foam inserts are simply bypassed by the heat to an easier route. This is why you will see great R-values given at a specific point on the frame but the overall performance of the window barely changes at all. Personally, I'd like to see all the frames and sashes completely filled... but partial placement just isn't making much of a difference.

Post Reply