“I’d like data. How should we prove it with data, which one is better?”
Obviously the term “better” needs to be narrowly defined, since there are many anecdotal and subjective reasons which compel a person to put a ccf on top OR below which have good merit, and work perfectly well for the user.
However, if you are specifically referring to the best arrangement to create a superior insulator, it’s true that “on paper” the arrangement shouldn’t matter whatsoever, since R values are simply additive.
But we are dealing with two different types of insulators (one of which is semi-dependent on radiant energy transmission to become effective.) It is also pretty clear that there’s a lot experience out there that points to one approach being “warmer” than the other.
Here’s a way to collect some data for those inclined (and with the right “tools”): How about warming up a 50lb bag of potatoes to a certain temperature and stuffing the sack into a sleeping bag, then letting it “rest” over top of a ccf/air mattress system for the night, while data recording the heat loss in a variety of locations inside and outside the bag. Then repeat the experiment the next night with the pads reversed. But I’d also recommend making sure the ambient temperature is real cold. Anyone have access to a walk-in freezer?
Regardless, I see three reasons (supported by my own anecdotal experiences), why I believe a ccf pad on top would “technically” create a better insulator overall:
1) CCF pads have a higher R value per inch of material than their air mattress counterparts. They are also a stable insulator. When it comes to maximizing the reduction of heat loss, placing the highest R per inch material closest to the heat source seems to be intuitive to me. In this arrangement, I suspect one would burn less energy staying warm earlier in the evening than they would by “warming up” an air mattress, even if it’s theoretically possible the same number of calories might be burned throughout the night (which I still don’t believe would happen, due to reasons 2 and 3).
2) Because the firmness of the ccf pad will more evenly distribute a person’s weight over top of an air mattress, this will reduce “point loads” on different parts of the pad (especially under the hips, buttocks, and shoulders.) This will suspend the person higher above the ground than with the ccf pad underneath. Roger spoke at length about this issue in his 2011 sleeping pad review, and it seemed clear that air mattresses showed a much wider “R value range” due to their ability to be easily compressed.
3) People move A LOT while sleeping through the night (1.6 times per hour, on average). While a person’s movement has zero effect on the R value of a ccf pad, moving around on an air mattress circulates the air inside of it “resetting “it, so to speak. When I first started using a NeoRest many years ago, I very quickly observed the phenomenon the first time I went from my side to my back. Therefore, assuming the CCF pad is nicely coupled to the air mattress, I believe a ccf pad on top dampens the intensity of of a person’s movement on an air mattress, reducing the undesired air circulation inside of it.
My 2¢