Micro Puff Jacket vs.U.L.Thermawrap Parka

[Ryan Faulkner]

sorry I did notice the JR.
now I understand

[J R]

Ryan, dont sweat it, Kevin has a thing for calling people out directly in his posts… usually putting their name in the post topic.

No sweat.

[kevin davidson]

Thanks, Joe for the answer.

“Ryan, dont sweat it, Kevin has a thing for calling people out directly in his posts.”

Is that so bad?

[Ryan Faulkner]

its not bad kevin, but can I recomend writing the name in the post insted of the heading

[J R]

“Is that so bad?”

Not really, just a little more… umm… pointed… than some people might prefer. Again, no sweat.

“So, Joe— what about that research?
I simply want to know what you might have uncovered. My stuff in Delta is less than a year old.”

did you fail to read the post I made?

[Mark]

That’s pretty cool, Joe. I hope you can find those numbers, and share them if you do.

Do you recall any of the varieties of insulation standing out in any way, whether good or bad?
-Mark

[kevin davidson]

Joe, yes I read it ( previous post edited) –interesting. Can you share more on your compression and drying methodologies? I wonder if over compression might not be Delta’s bane. If so, not a problem for me as I am conservative when stuffing synthetics. It would be interesting to see more testing done on equivalent
amounts, weights of exceloft.

Pointed, probably, yep—I tend to be rather direct ( but not hostile).
If you prefer, I can post names in body—although putting them in the header does seem effective in getting a response from the person I would like to hear from. I didn’t think of it as being off-putting.

[J R]

“Can you share more on your compression and drying methodologies?”

I used alot of different ways to compress and dry. My goal was to simulate long term use in a condensed time frame. I did the same thing for each insulation but I did many different things over the course of the test. I compressed things wet, dry, loose pack, hard pack, balled up, layed flat, etc. I also dryed things with similar amounts of variation. I dryed in the sun, in a clothes dryer, in “a cool dry place”, while loose, while compressed, etc etc etc. Again, the idea was to see how the insulation would hold up under abuse (it should be noted that this test was NOT specifically to test Delta. It was originally to test the specious claims in regards to a certain synthetic insulation which claims it can withstand any abuse without loss of loft. An untrue statement.)

Im not sure what specifically was deltas downfall. It could have been compression, but the test didnt account for individual factors, just cummulative.

anything Id give in that regard would be speculation, but I almost wonder if Delta is just pushing the limits of what a hollow core fiber can be expected to produce?

WRT posting peoples names in the subject line… I can see your point, and its no skin off my nose, but I can see people taking it as a bit of a challenge to their post.

[paul johnson]

i’d really like to know for sure how these fabrics “work”.

i’ve read a little bit about Delta – not much, just a little – some on the PG website, some on other sites, and some on this site as i follow all of the very interesting Posts on this (and other related) Thread(s).

generally, you don’t get something for nuttin’.

so, what do you think about this (i’m just wonderin’ out loud, so i could really be off-the-wall here):

the somewhat superior performance of Delta when wet is directly related to why some websites say Delta returns to loft or looses loft more readily than some other synthetics, e.g. 3D. NOTE: the websites don’t specifically connect the two phenomena. i am just wondering if they are connected.

how might this work? i don’t know; perhaps both of these phenonmena are related to the larger internal volume of the Delta fibers as compared to other synth. fibers (e.g. 3D). these fibers holds more air and so retains more warmth when wet? (is this why it’s warmer when wet, than let’s say 3D or other synth???). for the same reason, this larger int. volume causes the Delta to return to full loft more slowly and may over the long run cause it to “break down”/lose loft a bit more readily. if there is a larger int. volume, then maybe these fibers can be compressed more, requiring more time to return to full loft, as well as suffering damage a bit more readily, as relatively speaking, they can undergo more extreme compression due to the larger internal volume.

just some thoughts. i actually have no idea if any of this is correct. some is what i’ve read, but the connection of the two phenomena is purely my own “off-the-wall” musings.

do y’all think that there is anything to these thoughts, or should i just go back to sleep, or be content to read your insightful Posts without further comment?

[J R]

if there is a larger int. volume, then maybe these fibers can be compressed more, requiring more time to return to full loft, as well as suffering damage a bit more readily, as relatively speaking, they can undergo more extreme compression due to the larger internal volume.

This would me my thought on the subject.

I think you either need to have a sidewall that is durable enough to withstand repeated compression, or have a solid core filament interwoven that will reloft quickly and be less prone to damage, and allow time for the hollow core fibers to properly reloft without having to “work” as hard to do it.

[paul johnson]

Joe,

lacking other facts, it does seem somewhat reasonable doesn’t it.

i see your point. question: what you’re suggesting, wouldn’t that also then reduce the “warmth when wet” factor a bit?

the 3D fibers have a significantly smaller O.D. than Delta. 3D has smaller int. vol. than Delta and also (i think) a higher wall thickness to O.D. ratio i’m guessing that this accounts for 3D’s slightly poorer warmth when wet factor and 3D’s slightly better return to loft and long term durability.

oh well…i guess we’ll just have to wait for the perfect fiber.

thanks for taking the time to reply.

[J R]

Paul, Im not sure what it is that Im suggesting……. or how it would effect “warmth when wet”.

Unless Im totally off my mark, the higher surface area and internal volume in Delta still wont have the same amount of warm air trapped within the insulation structure as a bag which relofts quicker. You might have a “quicker” retainment of heat with the Delta over 3D, but Im not sure it would be a “fuller” retainment….. I think I just buched the english language pretty good, so let me know if Im not making sense.

(its been a very bad night, Im not 100% sure anything I said makes any sense at all)

[paul johnson]

Joe,

i understand (i think) what you are saying. maybe it was my point that wasn’t clear. here’s what i was really thinking.

1) insulation insulates by trapping air. so a dual/binary filament insulation like you suggested would improve “retainment” of heat as you stated, but reduce the www-factor (i.e. “warmth-when-wet”-factor).
2) air can be trapped intra-fiberly and inter-fiberly (yeah…i think i may have just made those terms up – but, i trust you get the idea).
3) when the bag gets wet. water displaces air inter-fiberly, but not intra-fiberly (anyone know if this is really how it works???)
4) this leaves only the intra-fiber air voids (in the worst case of a 100% soaked/saturated bag – this is just an example)
5) perhaps this is why Delta is supposedly warmer than 3D when wet.
6) i’ve seen x-sect. pics of 3D & Delta. Delta has a whole lot more air space inside the fibers and the O.D. is much greater.
7) point #6, in part, perhaps accounts for why Delta takes longer to regain loft after compression, making 3D better, JUST AS YOU STATED, viz. “a ‘quicker’ retainment of heat”.
8) i think that point #6 also MIGHT account for why Delta breaks down faster (supposedly??? so i read somewhere a few months ago). my guess is the larger air space inside of each fiber allows the fiber to compress more, putting more stress on the sharper curvature that results from compressing the Delta fibers.
9) i really don’t know if ANY of my conclusions are correct. some of the facts prob. are correct though as i’ve read/seen them elsewhere.
10) since i haven’t found enough detailed info on the web about these materials, i was really trying to draw a real knowledgeable person out who might teach me (and other readers) something by either agreeing or (more likely?) disagreeing with me.

Joe, i appreciate the time you’ve taken to reply and educate me. many thanks.

[note: CAPS, here and in all my posts, are solely for emphasis (when i’m too lazy to type HTML markup to bold, underscore, or emphasize text). please, do not misconstrue to be “yelling in anger”. my daughter, a couple yrs ago, educated me on this fact when i used some CAPS in an email to her.]

[J R]

Paul, Im going to try and address this point to point. But itll bounce around I think….

1) WWW Factor is a function of trapped air… and I dont think that with the size of the fibers were discussing, you can possibly equal the trapped air space inside compressed fibers as you would with quickly relofting fibers.
2)true.
3) Yes thats how it works (TMK)… however the displacement of intrafiber air only occurs for a short period. The displacment is longer in direct proportion to the fibers ability to shed moister, and to compensate for the water weight and reloft.
4) see 3
5) Not to compair apples and oranges, but primaloft 1 claims identical warmth when wet as when dry, and its insulation does not depend on hollow fibers to retain non-displaceable void. I dont know if primalofts claim for 100% warmth retention is true (never checked) but the claim would indicate that its not the hollow fiber specifically which is retaining the warmth, but rather the ability to quickly shed moisture inter fiberally and allow for the rapid re-creation of warm air pockets.
6) seen the same pics. Wouldnt a greatly larger outer surface on the fiber create more surface for the warmth to radiate from? Do you know what the respective deniers are for 3D and Delta?
7) maybe.
8) probably. thats my general thinking on the subject. Id appreciate any contradictory evidence if anyone cares to provide it.

as for CAPS… I read them as emphasis, not yelling. I dont tend to read it as yelling unless the whole post/email/whatever is written like that. especially on this forum where the utter lack of any WYSIWYG makes for rough posts sometimes

[paul johnson]

dbl-post

[paul johnson]

Joe,

thanks for the reply. very informative. i do appreciate the time it took you to type it up.

sorry, don’t know the deniers for 3D & Delta.

i’m a bit skeptical of the Primaloft claim. however, since i know nothing of the fiber’s design, my skepticism is based upon ignorance.

>>”Wouldnt a greatly larger outer surface on the fiber create more surface for the warmth to radiate from?”

regarding that statement. it’s really more of a volume to surface area ratio issue. my guess is that 3D has a lower v-2-s-area ratio than Delta. that is, in 3D a greater % of the trapped air is in direct contact with the fiber than with the larger internal vol. of air trapped in a Delta fiber.

oh…BTW…TMK??? (anyone)

thanks again, Joe.

[J R]

Ill defer to your v-2-s assesment. Im still trying to figure it all out. Math is not my strong suit, and I have a feeling this is one of those “Ill never need to know this stuff” discussions.

TMK= to my knowledge.

[paul johnson]

Joe,

i was going to post a reply with a couple of examples to illustrate surface-area-to-volume ratio but did not want to seem pedantic (i know…to late for that).

i still will if you want. however, first check out this link i found a few minutes ago. see if it helps you out. if not, let me know.

this will help in understanding surface-area-to-volume ratio – it uses the classic example of cubes and then relates it to animal body sizes just like they taught “eons” ago when i was in school

[Ryan Faulkner]

too many Re:s so I thought I would just reset the header :-)>

[J R]

Paul, I get the basic idea re: surface to volume ratios… Im just not seeing how the amount of air trapped inside the Delta fiber can possibly equal the amount of air space created by an insulation that relofts quicker. Yes, for the very short term, the delta would be holding more warm air. However, in the long term, the faster lofting fiber would seem to create more air pockets by weight.

In light of the fact that Delta has a greater surface area which would expose more area to cold temps (in example, the water) and heat more effecntly radiates from hot to cold areas… It would seem that if the insulation remained in direct contact with cold enough moisture (which may not need to be THAT cold) any heat trapped inside the fibers would be drawn out into the moisture and away from the trapped air.

With the double whammy of slower reloft and increased radiant area….

This isnt to say that a new or well cared for Delta insulated item wont serve the user very well… but I, personally, would be loath to use a delta item that has sustained any hard use.

As I said, my research hasnt given me good vibes on Delta.

[paul johnson]

Joe,

ok. now i get your point. i guess i wasn’t clear. i feel precisely as you do. i don’t think that the trapped air is in anyway close to the volume of air b/t the fibers. i guess we were not connecting on our Posts. no disagreement on reloft issues – give it to 3D vs. Delta. my point was solely when wet. IF it were very wet, then reloft might not be occurring very much. as far as Delta being warmer than 3D when wet, i can’t comment, but others have and that was their conclusion. for my part, i’ll accept that.

your point on wet reloft makes sense IF reloft can occur to any appreciable amount. i guess that would depend upon how wet/SOAKED.

well,…please feel free to reply. for my part, i’m just ’bout worn out on this topic.

i’ve learned something from your posts, however, and appreciate the time you’ve taken to reply. many thanks.

[Douglas Frick]

Ray Jardine on March 4, 2005, posted this on his Ray’s Campfire blog:

The Sales & Marketing Manager for the company that manufactures both 3D and Delta insulation sent me the following note:

“I know you are interested in running Delta but do you know it has less loft than 3D and has worse recovery after vacuum packaging than 3D? Delta has a 37% hollow void and 3D has a 20% void so the that is why Delta has less recovery. After the problems we have had I don’t think Delta is a good product for you to consider. I am afraid you will be disappointed with its loft retention.”

[paul johnson]

Thanks Douglas. That’s exactly what Joe and I were thinking of. We’ve seen this info a couple of times already. I mentioned the details of the info a few weeks ago, but was unable to remember where i had read it. Was it you that actually located it a couple of weeks ago, in response to me mentioning it, or was it someone else who posted it back then in response to me mentioning it? i can’t remember. well, anyways, thanks for posting it again. it’s good to have that info in this Thread for others to see.

[kevin davidson]

Then there is the BPL perspective–
“Any high loft synthetic insulation – whether it’s Polarguard, Primaloft, Thermolite, etc. – is prone to damage resulting from overcompression of a garment or sleeping bag. We chose Polarguard Delta for the Cocoon for its superior warmth-to-weight ratio, but just as important, it’s considered to be one of the most durable insulations on the market relative to its ability to retain and recover its loft in response to compression. However, if you want to get the most out of your synthetic insulated sleeping bags and garments – take care not to overstuff it.”

From my own experience, as it pertains to the Delta-filled Cocoon Pullover—in almost a year of much use (including use as a pillow for all my backpacks) this garment still retains it’s full loft . It has been washed once.

[paul johnson]

Kevin, many thanks for the input. I’ve seen both the RayWay and the BPL take on Delta. I appreciate your first-hand experience. Delta vs. 3D is important to me because I’m planning on ordering a quilt from FanaticFringe. They make a 3D quilt and a Delta quilt – both 30degF quilts w/~2oz diff in wt (Delta being lighter). Not sure which I’ll pick yet (the price diff is not an issue in this case since they’re both relatively inexpensive). thanks again.

[oh…touche on the quote. ;) ]

[Author]

Posts