peel and seal as sound deadning

[santo]

Time to blow some minds and explain why mass loaders and roofing products (i.e. P&S) are inefficient for controlling vibrations.

When it comes to sound deadening there are typically three types of products used, mass loaders, FLDs, and CLDs.

Mass loaders are exactly what they sound like, they add mass to lower the resonance frequency of the panel. Asphalt based products typically fall into this category because they lack the viscoelastic properties that the butyl products do.

Mass loading was a popular technique in years past, but mass loading is EXTREMELY ineffective. Why? You need to apply approximately four times the weight of the panel to drop the panels resonance just one octave. I don't know about you, but I don't want 100 pound doors just to listen to my music clearly.

The other two types of products are CLDs (constrained layer dampers) and FLDs (free-layer dampers).

CLDs include Dynamat, Damplifier, Audio Wrap, SDS Tiles, etc.

Simply put, CLDs convert the vibrational energy into low level negligible heat. The reason P&S ISN'T an effective or efficient CLD is the fact it doesn't have a thick enough constraining layer (foil) to do any good.

FLDs include products like Spectrum, LizardSkin, Cascade VB-1X, etc. There are FLDs that are not liquid, but these are the most common ones in our field.

The way FLDs work is that vibrational energy is dissipated as a result of extension and compression of the damping material, vs. a cld where the energy is lost through shear deformation of the material.

Typically speaking CLDs have the upper hand over FLDs because of their ability to maintain a higher loss factor across a wider range of frequencies, temperatures, and thicknesses of the substrate. Basically they are more efficient at controlling vibrations. This is especially true when applications require a light weight solution. For instance on a substrate of say 1/8", a cld mat of only 1/16" may be required to control the vibrations. The FLD on the other hand may require three or four times the thickness, so 3/16 to 1/4", to achieve the same loss factor.

P&S simply lacks the properties that would make in an effective vibration control product.

It's not heavy enough to make a difference (unless you slap on 50+ pounds of the stuff).

It doesn't have a thick enough constraining layer to withstand the shear strain of panel flex.

It has a poor adhesive (typically consisting of asphalt, bitumen, petroleum distillates, and/or low grade rubber).

I've said it once and I'll say it again, DO NOT USE PEEL AND SEAL!

Mind exploded?

Crap!... I wish I read this before I installed it. O well.....

[saulr310]

and now, after this comment.... I will try Second Skin as soon as I can afford it. Is time for me to try the good stuff..

If you want, shoot me your name and addy via PM and I can send you a small sample of Damp Pro. It's the older Damp Pro with the silver foil, but still awesome.

That's what's up. Send some my way too :-D

x2 :lol

[LilTeddyP]

Dragging away from the original p&s, i would like an informed decision of the xxx rattle trap from fatmat, as much as i want second skin, i simply cant find it in the budget right now and my roof is getting very annoying to hear rattle.

[n8ball2013]

Time to blow some minds and explain why mass loaders and roofing products (i.e. P&S) are inefficient for controlling vibrations.

When it comes to sound deadening there are typically three types of products used, mass loaders, FLDs, and CLDs.

Mass loaders are exactly what they sound like, they add mass to lower the resonance frequency of the panel. Asphalt based products typically fall into this category because they lack the viscoelastic properties that the butyl products do.

Mass loading was a popular technique in years past, but mass loading is EXTREMELY ineffective. Why? You need to apply approximately four times the weight of the panel to drop the panels resonance just one octave. I don't know about you, but I don't want 100 pound doors just to listen to my music clearly.

The other two types of products are CLDs (constrained layer dampers) and FLDs (free-layer dampers).

CLDs include Dynamat, Damplifier, Audio Wrap, SDS Tiles, etc.

Simply put, CLDs convert the vibrational energy into low level negligible heat. The reason P&S ISN'T an effective or efficient CLD is the fact it doesn't have a thick enough constraining layer (foil) to do any good.

FLDs include products like Spectrum, LizardSkin, Cascade VB-1X, etc. There are FLDs that are not liquid, but these are the most common ones in our field.

The way FLDs work is that vibrational energy is dissipated as a result of extension and compression of the damping material, vs. a cld where the energy is lost through shear deformation of the material.

Typically speaking CLDs have the upper hand over FLDs because of their ability to maintain a higher loss factor across a wider range of frequencies, temperatures, and thicknesses of the substrate. Basically they are more efficient at controlling vibrations. This is especially true when applications require a light weight solution. For instance on a substrate of say 1/8", a cld mat of only 1/16" may be required to control the vibrations. The FLD on the other hand may require three or four times the thickness, so 3/16 to 1/4", to achieve the same loss factor.

P&S simply lacks the properties that would make in an effective vibration control product.

It's not heavy enough to make a difference (unless you slap on 50+ pounds of the stuff).

It doesn't have a thick enough constraining layer to withstand the shear strain of panel flex.

It has a poor adhesive (typically consisting of asphalt, bitumen, petroleum distillates, and/or low grade rubber).

I've said it once and I'll say it again, DO NOT USE PEEL AND SEAL!

Mind exploded?

Crap!... I wish I read this before I installed it. O well.....

whats funny is that information was available to you prior to this post. you just didnt look very hard for it since you wanted/needed the cheap stuff to work.

[Second Skin Rep Jon]

Dragging away from the original p&s, i would like an informed decision of the xxx rattle trap from fatmat, as much as i want second skin, i simply cant find it in the budget right now and my roof is getting very annoying to hear rattle.

XXX Rattle Trap is about eighty mils thick but still has a super thin 3 mil constraining layer not making it ideal. That and it uses a rubberized compound as its adhesive...

Want any more insight on it?

[santo]

Time to blow some minds and explain why mass loaders and roofing products (i.e. P&S) are inefficient for controlling vibrations.

When it comes to sound deadening there are typically three types of products used, mass loaders, FLDs, and CLDs.

Mass loaders are exactly what they sound like, they add mass to lower the resonance frequency of the panel. Asphalt based products typically fall into this category because they lack the viscoelastic properties that the butyl products do.

Mass loading was a popular technique in years past, but mass loading is EXTREMELY ineffective. Why? You need to apply approximately four times the weight of the panel to drop the panels resonance just one octave. I don't know about you, but I don't want 100 pound doors just to listen to my music clearly.

The other two types of products are CLDs (constrained layer dampers) and FLDs (free-layer dampers).

CLDs include Dynamat, Damplifier, Audio Wrap, SDS Tiles, etc.

Simply put, CLDs convert the vibrational energy into low level negligible heat. The reason P&S ISN'T an effective or efficient CLD is the fact it doesn't have a thick enough constraining layer (foil) to do any good.

FLDs include products like Spectrum, LizardSkin, Cascade VB-1X, etc. There are FLDs that are not liquid, but these are the most common ones in our field.

The way FLDs work is that vibrational energy is dissipated as a result of extension and compression of the damping material, vs. a cld where the energy is lost through shear deformation of the material.

Typically speaking CLDs have the upper hand over FLDs because of their ability to maintain a higher loss factor across a wider range of frequencies, temperatures, and thicknesses of the substrate. Basically they are more efficient at controlling vibrations. This is especially true when applications require a light weight solution. For instance on a substrate of say 1/8", a cld mat of only 1/16" may be required to control the vibrations. The FLD on the other hand may require three or four times the thickness, so 3/16 to 1/4", to achieve the same loss factor.

P&S simply lacks the properties that would make in an effective vibration control product.

It's not heavy enough to make a difference (unless you slap on 50+ pounds of the stuff).

It doesn't have a thick enough constraining layer to withstand the shear strain of panel flex.

It has a poor adhesive (typically consisting of asphalt, bitumen, petroleum distillates, and/or low grade rubber).

I've said it once and I'll say it again, DO NOT USE PEEL AND SEAL!

Mind exploded?

Crap!... I wish I read this before I installed it. O well.....

whats funny is that information was available to you prior to this post. you just didnt look very hard for it since you wanted/needed the cheap stuff to work.

as much as I hate stating this.... YOU ARE RIGHT. I didn't find this copmplete explanation, otherwise i would have considered something else of better quality.

[santo]

Time to blow some minds and explain why mass loaders and roofing products (i.e. P&S) are inefficient for controlling vibrations.

When it comes to sound deadening there are typically three types of products used, mass loaders, FLDs, and CLDs.

Mass loaders are exactly what they sound like, they add mass to lower the resonance frequency of the panel. Asphalt based products typically fall into this category because they lack the viscoelastic properties that the butyl products do.

Mass loading was a popular technique in years past, but mass loading is EXTREMELY ineffective. Why? You need to apply approximately four times the weight of the panel to drop the panels resonance just one octave. I don't know about you, but I don't want 100 pound doors just to listen to my music clearly.

The other two types of products are CLDs (constrained layer dampers) and FLDs (free-layer dampers).

CLDs include Dynamat, Damplifier, Audio Wrap, SDS Tiles, etc.

Simply put, CLDs convert the vibrational energy into low level negligible heat. The reason P&S ISN'T an effective or efficient CLD is the fact it doesn't have a thick enough constraining layer (foil) to do any good.

FLDs include products like Spectrum, LizardSkin, Cascade VB-1X, etc. There are FLDs that are not liquid, but these are the most common ones in our field.

The way FLDs work is that vibrational energy is dissipated as a result of extension and compression of the damping material, vs. a cld where the energy is lost through shear deformation of the material.

Typically speaking CLDs have the upper hand over FLDs because of their ability to maintain a higher loss factor across a wider range of frequencies, temperatures, and thicknesses of the substrate. Basically they are more efficient at controlling vibrations. This is especially true when applications require a light weight solution. For instance on a substrate of say 1/8", a cld mat of only 1/16" may be required to control the vibrations. The FLD on the other hand may require three or four times the thickness, so 3/16 to 1/4", to achieve the same loss factor.

P&S simply lacks the properties that would make in an effective vibration control product.

It's not heavy enough to make a difference (unless you slap on 50+ pounds of the stuff).

It doesn't have a thick enough constraining layer to withstand the shear strain of panel flex.

It has a poor adhesive (typically consisting of asphalt, bitumen, petroleum distillates, and/or low grade rubber).

I've said it once and I'll say it again, DO NOT USE PEEL AND SEAL!

Mind exploded?

Crap!... I wish I read this before I installed it. O well.....

whats funny is that information was available to you prior to this post. you just didnt look very hard for it since you wanted/needed the cheap stuff to work.

as much as I hate stating this.... YOU ARE RIGHT. I didn't find this complete explanation, otherwise i would have considered something else of better quality.

[LilTeddyP]

Dragging away from the original p&s, i would like an informed decision of the xxx rattle trap from fatmat, as much as i want second skin, i simply cant find it in the budget right now and my roof is getting very annoying to hear rattle.

XXX Rattle Trap is about eighty mils thick but still has a super thin 3 mil constraining layer not making it ideal. That and it uses a rubberized compound as its adhesive...

Want any more insight on it?

So better than p&s but still garbage? Domt waste time and save for good stuff and deal with rattle in the meam time?

[Second Skin Rep Jon]

So better than p&s but still garbage? Domt waste time and save for good stuff and deal with rattle in the meam time?

I'm not quite sure I would rate it better than P&S because MFM (makers of P&S) do have versions that are 100% butyl but they still lack a foil layer that is thick enough.

So yes I would advise to save up from some of the good stuff. You'll do it once and not have to deal with it again and be very happy.

[nickers]

May I say, without being flames, that I used a peal and seal type material in my car. I believer it's called resisto. Anywho my 92 sundance is quite the noise maker. I took out all interior parts in the back as part of my build and the road noise skyrocketed(obviously) so I slapped on some of this shit, and it did work maybe only to reduce road noise but for me it was somewhat effective. I do have a question though. Since I applied this stuff am I still going to be able to apply the legit sound deadeners overtop in the future?