Foam Filled Or Partial Fill

[Altazi]

I don't see how taking a picture of a spa cover lying on the ground breaks any code. . .

[Jim_The_Jim]

Jim you have some valid points above except for the one about me not understanding. Just for the point of speculation and correct me anywhere I am wrong because I know how smart you are compared to me and everyone else. How much...wait let me lay these out and see if you will answer any in your oh so smart wisdom.

1. How much of the total heat loss when a spa is shut down is from the top versus the side walls. With the cover off Jimmy?

2. How much of an increase in R-Factor does 1 inch of foam of the spec used in your covers equate to?

3. As flawed as the results of the ARC test were to me. If they wer'nt to you, then speculate as to what you think the results of the test would of been if all tubs used had the same r-factor on the top?

Remember Jimmy speculation is a very important part of science. And we would not know how a wheel works if we hadnt speculated long ago.

The "problem" with the ARC test is they don't know how their own spas really work. So the instructions for use is incorrect. They needed to increase the filter times for cold weather.

Once again, you still don't see the whole picture, and I am tired of explaining it. I wrote enough on the site for any engineer to understand it.

If the foam is pure 2# density it is about R-7 per inch. Most are around R-6 per inch.

If you use a thermal Blanket on any spa it increases the R value up to R-10 on any spa, because it stops the "steam" from contacting the cover's bottom side. Steam contains a tremendous amount of heat, remove the steam and you remove that heat transfer as the molecules of warm water can't touch the bottom of the cover. It is part of our instructions to use a thermal blanket, especially in cold climates. So a cheaper cover can have up to R-22 equivelent.

This was the test results of the "Starlight" cover company back in 1992.

Here is the Imperical testing at a customer's home. We have a Paramount Lakeshore in the mountains of NC. The customer called and said he did not like his electric bill since the spa was installed. I asked him all the normal questions on use of his spa. They were using the spa twice a day for over 2 hours per day in winter. This was a new Haven Spa and so many of our customers use them like that, because they are so amazing. I told him to set the filter times to 24 hours a day on a 5 HP Executive motor. The next month with the same use and about 5 degrees colder average, the electric consumption dropped 20%. It went from oaver $50 per month to under $40, same use colder month. That electric consumption is extremely low for that use and on that powerful of a spa. $50 is still low for that time of year with two hours with the cover off daily.

You go do the math and tell me how that can be?

On our latest SE and SC models we have increased the total outer insulation to R-31 according to the manufacturers of the materials and we have lowered the sound even more by 19db more. These spas are quiet and POWERFUL as well as having just about the lowest electric consumption I have ever hear of or read about.

I don't see how taking a picture of a spa cover lying on the ground breaks any code. . .

Andy, is always coming up with ways to work aound things. The server blocks .com . c o m, so he is using .info. I am guessing that is what it is all about.

[Roger]

If the foam is pure 2# density it is about R-7 per inch. Most are around R-6 per inch.

Well we got a start to one answer of one question but it was wrong anyway. 2lb cover foam can go as high as about 4.5 not 7 Spray on foam can go higher to about 7, but not cover foam.

Still waiting for the rest of the answers and speculation from the self proclaimed kuru.

[Spa User Guy]

Well we got a start to one answer of one question but it was wrong anyway. 2lb cover foam can go as high as about 4.5 not 7 Spray on foam can go higher to about 7, but not cover foam.

Still waiting for the rest of the answers and speculation from the self proclaimed kuru.

What is a Kuru???

[Roger]

What is a Kuru???

I meant to correct it to guru but for some reason when I tryed my fingers stopped moving and froze up. I also got all sweaty and started shaking....hmmmmm!!!!

[Spa User Guy]

I meant to correct it to guru but for some reason when I tryed my fingers stopped moving and froze up. I also got all sweaty and started shaking....hmmmmm!!!!

lol, I hate it when that happens to me. If your like me it happens all too often.

[Jim_The_Jim]

Well we got a start to one answer of one question but it was wrong anyway. 2lb cover foam can go as high as about 4.5 not 7 Spray on foam can go higher to about 7, but not cover foam.

Still waiting for the rest of the answers and speculation from the self proclaimed kuru.

You were asking about foam. Go look it up in an engineering book.

They don't allow links any more or I would post a link to the charts on foam and different types of foam.

Cover foam can go higher, depeding on the type of foam. You don't know all of the cover foams that are used.

You asked about foam and I was not understanding that it was the standard cover foam.

Most 4 to 2 inch covers are about R 12 to R14.

We use a 5 inch cover and always recommend a thermal blanket.

You might want to ask your questions more clearly.

[Roger]

You were asking about foam. Go look it up in an engineering book.

They don't allow links any more or I would post a link to the charts on foam and different types of foam.

Cover foam can go higher, depeding on the type of foam. You don't know all of the cover foams that are used.

You asked about foam and I was not understanding that it was the standard cover foam.

Most 4 to 2 inch covers are about R 12 to R14.

We use a 5 inch cover and always recommend a thermal blanket.

You might want to ask your questions more clearly.

OK, I am sorry Jim that it wasn't clear. I will try and make it clearer.

So if the ARC test showed very very small savings to the top brand over the second place brand, and there was a 1" difference in the cover thickness. And I will assume you agree that 80 percent of the heat loss is from the cover area. The 1 inch in extra cover thickness equates to an extra r-factor over the entire 7x7 or 8x8 area on the cover of R 4.5 more then the cover used on the second place tub.

If the test was done with equal r-factor in the cover area of both first and second place which brand would of come out on top?

[Jim_The_Jim]

OK, I am sorry Jim that it wasn't clear. I will try and make it clearer.

So if the ARC test showed very very small savings to the top brand over the second place brand, and there was a 1" difference in the cover thickness. And I will assume you agree that 80 percent of the heat loss is from the cover area. The 1 inch in extra cover thickness equates to an extra r-factor over the entire 7x7 or 8x8 area on the cover of R 4.5 more then the cover used on the second place tub.

If the test was done with equal r-factor in the cover area of both first and second place which brand would of come out on top?

I was playing music for about 6 hours yesterday and last night. I was on this forum between sessions. I should have read your post better. I did not realize that you are STILL on this cover thing, that is so darn important to you.

You are still not understanding, and I think you have some mental block about it. After, how many years of me explaining it to you.

If the Arctic spa was run according to my instructions, the differerence in the electric consumption would be a lot less energy use on the Arctic, in the "cold test". It would have been a much bigger gap to the better energy use in the Arctic,

You also forget that the Arctic spa as I recall has twin 56 Frame 4 HP water pumps. They run about 12 AMPs on high and about 4 amps on low. So, how is it possible for that spa using that much power on low speed to come in on top.

If they had switched to 24 hour filtering, then the heater would have never come on and the heat from the pump would have gone into the water and petty much taken care of any loss out the top. The warm air generated would have stopped 100% of the heat loss from the sides of the vessel.

In my tests putting a full size 5 HP 16.4 AMP high, and 4.8 FLA on low and running it 24 hours per day on low reduces the cost of running the spa by 20% in winter, mean temp 20 degrees F.

One more time. If you can stop the wasteful use of the electric heater (take the heater watts out) , while filtering like crazy, with extremely clean water, and put the heat into the water and into the room of the spa cabinet, you stop all the heat losses out of the sides of the vessel, filter extremely well, and put the heat back into the spa water that is escaping out the top. It is similar to putting the spa vessel underneath in a hot room of 113 to 119 degrees F and that is hotter than a tropical paradise. The sides of the vessel is much bigger than the surface.

The Hot Spring uses a worhtless tiny pump and low horse power to compensate for a poor design. They put on three way diverter valves to con their customers into belieiving the spa acutally has therapy.

When you realize that the Arctic is a REAL spa wiht a real shell and with real jet pumps, and it still beat out the weak Hot Spring, you can get off the jag of the cover. One inch of cover with better foam is not going to make that much difference!!!

A thermal blanket does make a hell of a lot more difference. It is close to adding another 2.5 inches of foam to the existing cover, and if the cover is saturated, it makes the cover almost like new in terms of comparing it with a cover with no blanket.

Now, if you use our methods of insulation, with foam on the shell, Thermal foil, Foam, Thermal foil, thermal foil foam board, thermal foil, and wood on the outside of the cabinet you can reduce the heat from teh circulation pump to 1.3 amps and keep it warm and toasty. So that it is running with 40,000 gallons of filtering and no heater use for 95% of the time you are doing it according to thermodynamic engineering to a much higher degree than has ever been done before. It costs about 400% more to build an insulation system like this, but it is worth it. We build real value into our products. However they are not for ignorant consumers, who do not know anything about science. I actually try to not sell to people who don't have the ability to understand what they are buying. I will spend up to 5 hours on the phone discussing every detail as long as the person is willing to listen and keeps asking questions. It is what I do.

The cheaper spas using full foam, basically it takes one guy with a foam gun to stuff it with foam. It is pretty cheap. We realize that it is cheap, and we do sell some full foam spas that are also cheap to sell, about $2600 to $3200 retail. These are the FreeFlow spas. They are a much better value than most any of the mass merchant spas, better equipment and better electronics.

Now, when a company takes an ABS acrylic shell puts in minimal underpowered equipment, no second suctions, oor filtering, and stuffs it with foam to keep it from falling apart, that is not a real spa, It is a kiddy toy, in my opinion. Anybody who buys one is really not informed at all. They are selling that crap for over 10,000. That just tells me one thing, my work to educate is not over.

I plan on expanding the HTSCI, Hot Tub and Spa Consumer Institute, and to do side by side testing, just like I proposed That will put an end to this, because I will publish the exacting data, and all the parameters. I may even put the same brand and thikness of cover on each spa, just for your sake.

One more thing. In a full foam spa there is a huge cubic feet of space that cannot be insulated, in the equipment are. It is a cold box in Colorado winter and sucks heat out of the equipment. So, your 80% is not correct. Most spas like Sundance are very poor in Colorado winters compared to an Arctic and even worse when you compare to a Haven Vista, SE, Paramont, or Super Custom Spa.

There have been side by side tests done with Arctic and Sundance side by side in full winter. 10 degrees average temp, and 7 degrees average temp. They chose Sundance because the differerece is drastic at those temperatures and Sundance is your typical real spa wiht real horse power..

[Roger]

There have been side by side tests done with Arctic and Sundance side by side in full winter. 10 degrees average temp, and 7 degrees average temp. They chose Sundance because the differerece is drastic at those temperatures and Sundance is your typical real spa wiht real horse power..

I made one paragraph.........sorry. Forget the questions. It's not important. Not answering is enough of an answer.

[Stevie]

I made one paragraph.........sorry. Forget the questions. It's not important. Not answering is enough of an answer.

He thinks people read all of his crap... It's done for self serving reasons only... He's the only one that cares.

I do however, get kick out of it when new consumers come here telling him that they would NEVER buy anything from him due to his insulting posts and ramblings.

Pull your head out of your arse Puddin Head... you are your worst enemy and we just feed ya the ammo!

[Tom]

As we have discussed many times Tom in public and in private. <snip> I however will not stop pointing out something that I am sure anyone who reads the test will not notice, one small detail not printed clearly on the "independent test"

... speculate what the test results would of been had the r-factors in the high heat loss area been equal simply by getting a 100 dollar upgrade

We have indeed discussed it, Roger, and I've enjoyed every chat because IMO you know what you are talking about, you stick to the facts, you argue well, and you don't get sore when someone disagrees with you.

I lack your experience with plumbing and hot tubs. I've owned a spa for 10 years, and have worked for Arctic for almost four years. That time has included three months on the production floor, nine months in our mold shop, our sales training, and an opportunity to examine and compare competing models. However, I do have a BSc (Honors), have worked as a research associate, and have taught science for fifteen years. While I'm not an engineer or a physicist, I'd say I have a reasonable background for discussing scientific studies.

I do see your point that what was standard in Alberta in 2002 when the ARC test was conducted may not be standard in Minnesota. However, it might equally be argued that the Hot Springs spa should have had its foam dug out until only 3" remained around the perimeter of the cabinet, or that the pumps should all have been made the same size, and so on. To argue any of these things is to obviate the very purpose of the study, which was to compare floor models of different brands.

Speculation is, as you say, an important aspect of science, and it would be interesting to have a similar comparative test of various brands tricked out for maximum energy efficiency, best cover, "enersaver" settings, and so on. Almost certainly that would give different results from what the ARC found.

Likewise, Chas (or Dr. Spa?) suggested testing the effect of wind, where I would expect that smaller spas with less surface area would be more efficient than larger models.

In regard to other posters who have suggested that such studies be done "outside", that would leave too many variables at random - wind direction, wind velocity, eddy effects, wind temperature, gusts, etc. might affect each spa differently. The results of any such "study" would be suggestive but not as conclusive as if done under controlled conditions.

In the not too distant future, government regulation will be in place and hot tubs will be labelled with an energy-consumption figure. That will probably end this discussion, and we will find other things to argue about!

Tom

[Chas]

In the not too distant future, government regulation will be in place and hot tubs will be labelled with an energy-consumption figure.

That will be fine for most brands - and I don't know if there will be much difference in the costs. In my experience, a well-insulated tub - and I put Arctic in that category - will cost about the same as another well-insulated tub of similar size. That would be based on similar use. If the spa in question sports two or even three huge jets pumps, the cost will go up accordingly, and again, the use will determine the cost of operation since the base heating will be about the same, but time with the lid open and amount of pump run time will be the biggest factors.

If I understand Roger's thinking correctly, I do agree that if somebody wanted to get the absolute lowest-cost of operation, based on the ARC study, they might want to try the HS Vanguard with a thicker cover. I fully agree that the ARC study was accurate in that it tested tubs just as the consumer would buy them. That is fair, and I don't see a problem with the thinking. But the Vanguard can be ordered with a more dense cover right through the regular dealers, or a person could custom order a thicker cover from any of a dozen sources - one in particular comes to mind. Or try adding a floating blanket. I don't see any savings here in paradise with those, but many posters in snow country swear by them. No, it's not the way most customers would order it, but it IS the way most customers who live in snow country would most likely order it, and we would have to poll those dealers in ultra-cold climate areas, they may very well put floaters in the mix as a matter of course.

Pure speculation. OK, maybe 'tainted' slightly by my bias, but close to pure.

It is great to have you around here BTW Tom, I hadn't really looked seriously at Arctic until you showed up.

[Roger]

We have indeed discussed it, Roger, and I've enjoyed every chat because IMO you know what you are talking about, you stick to the facts, you argue well, and you don't get sore when someone disagrees with you.

Tom

Thank you for the kind words Tom and also the very well though out post. Arctic is lucky to have you on there payroll (or do you work for nothing?) Just kidding.

I agree with everything you said and I will let it go. It is a sales tool (the ARC study) that Arctic should use to it's fullest advantage. Maybe I am the only one that found holes in it, maybe not. Maybe I think to much!!

But it was thrown at me during a presentation from one of your team a long time ago. I had a bad taste in my mouth at that time for your brand because of there sales practices. I think Arctic has come a long ways in both the sales paractices and cracking the Old hot tub regime. Remember I have not sweat a copper joint or glued a PVC joint for some time and have been involved in purchasing, and believe it or not they have classes for smart buying and looking past the sales retoric. Maybe I took to many of those classes? LOL

Again Tom....you da man. How about this. Arctic Spas Duluth.........We leave them outside because that's where your going to put it. Our showroom with counter and shelfs can be in a fenced area, and our sales person can wear a parka. Right through the winter. Of course we will store all the spas in a warehouse. But instead of a store all the tub models will be set up in the fenced area. We'll shovel snow paths to all the models and keep them clear of snow to test and look at. An acre and a pole building is all I need...oh and electricity. Big flood lights for night and a hot coco machine.

And same as Chas, Tom has been a breath of fresh air for Arctic.

Thank you for the kind words Tom and also the very well though out post. Arctic is lucky to have you on there payroll (or do you work for nothing?) Just kidding.

And one more thing. regarding Jims Post. He has a valid point the Arctic has alot more HP and it is using the same amount of hydro (Canidian for Electricity) as the Hot Springs. But 10 HP or 3 if the jet feel is right for you, it's nothing but a number.

Maybe one brand can get a great jet feel with 3 HP while another has to have 6-8-10 to get a good jet feel. Kinda makes you wonder about how those others with big HP numbers are plumbed.

Disclaimer..............I'm not bashing any brand just stating MY OPINION!!!!

[Jim_The_Jim]

That will be fine for most brands - and I don't know if there will be much difference in the costs. In my experience, a well-insulated tub - and I put Arctic in that category - will cost about the same as another well-insulated tub of similar size. That would be based on similar use. If the spa in question sports two or even three huge jets pumps, the cost will go up accordingly, and again, the use will determine the cost of operation since the base heating will be about the same, but time with the lid open and amount of pump run time will be the biggest factors.

If I understand Roger's thinking correctly, I do agree that if somebody wanted to get the absolute lowest-cost of operation, based on the ARC study, they might want to try the HS Vanguard with a thicker cover. I fully agree that the ARC study was accurate in that it tested tubs just as the consumer would buy them. That is fair, and I don't see a problem with the thinking. But the Vanguard can be ordered with a more dense cover right through the regular dealers, or a person could custom order a thicker cover from any of a dozen sources - one in particular comes to mind. Or try adding a floating blanket. I don't see any savings here in paradise with those, but many posters in snow country swear by them. No, it's not the way most customers would order it, but it IS the way most customers who live in snow country would most likely order it, and we would have to poll those dealers in ultra-cold climate areas, they may very well put floaters in the mix as a matter of course.

Pure speculation. OK, maybe 'tainted' slightly by my bias, but close to pure.

It is great to have you around here BTW Tom, I hadn't really looked seriously at Arctic until you showed up.

Rogers thinking is not based on facts. It is based on speculation of the amount of heat loss from the sides of a tub vs the top.

And as for testing outside, the Spa Challenge addresses all the issues. Same location same time, same weather same metering. If you want a real test you need weather, wind and real use by human beings.

Was the Hot Spring run for the 10 minutes after each use? No. Was there any humans in the spa to cause the water to become filthy? NO.

The testing needs to be REAL.

The Haven Spas in the SC and SE have five air chambers and four layers of insulation. It costs about %400 more in materials and labor the end result is the absolute lowest energy consumption and the least amount of electric heater use. There are three layers of the thermal foil in all of this.

With three inches of foam on the outer wall and no infrared reflection (thermal foil), there is a lot less insulation on an Arctic and it still beat out the competition. It is easy to explain to another engineer, but not to people who can't comprehend what is going on. Haveing R 4 to R 5 more on top is not the answer.

I have explained this to Roger about 10 times and he still is questioning it. I think that is a mental block, because all of the scientist and engineers I have explained this to understand immediately. This is not a put down, I am just tired of roger asking the same questions over and over and not understanding the answer.

Maybe, Roger, you could contact one of our customers who is an engineer and have them explain it to you.

[Roger]

Maybe, Roger, you could contact one of our customers who is an engineer and have them explain it to you.

Theres no point Jim. Ya see the problem here is I do understand it from non biased eyes. Unlike you who are pitching for a sale, I am not.

1$ a day to operate 80 cents out the top 20 cents out the sides. r-4 more in the cover will save more than increasing the side walls by r-12 if you totaly eliminate side wall loss (which you claim to have done) thats fine but it comes at the cost of operating an electric motor. And with vent holes in the bottom of the cabinet a slight breeze eliminates your r-infinity on the side walls. Poof r-4 is huge in the cover.

[dlynn]

I don't think you get a good test of FF verses PF unless you put the same cover on both and run the tub at the same set temp and next to each other without using the spa (leave the cover on for the entire test). If you use the spa then the test is not of the insulation value it is of the entire spa. Of course a cheap spa with little pumps and FF insulation will cost less to operate than a spa with 4 large pumps, but what have you learned, nothing exept that large pumps use more energy than small pumps. To get a true test of insulation differences, just make all things equal as best as you can and compare energy usage to just maintain the temp without any other factors. This whole discussion about what type of insulation is best is a no win discussion because you can argue both ways, and I would not make a buying decision on that point alone. Sales people just use that point to discredit the other guy. Some Full Faom tubs are junk and some Part Foam tubs are junk, also some Full Foam tubs are good and some Part Foam tubs are good. You can't put all Full Foam tubs in the same catagory as junk any more than you can put all Part Foam tubs in the catagory as junk. One method is not better than the other IMO. I know there are many out there that disagree but consumers are not that concerned, they just want a well insulated tub, but that is not the main thing they are looking for. Consumers buy a relaxing experience not nuts and bolts, and you salesmen out there selling nuts and bolts will not be as effective as the salesmen selling a relaxing experience. There are a few people out there looking for nuts and bolts but that is the exception. Sell on emotion not on logic, that is why the major brands are so successful, not because they have a better product. Jim probably does have a better product than most of the major brands, but he will never compete with them using his tactics. In fact his tactics may just put him out of business. There is always a better mouse trap, but the key is in the sales method not in the construction. So don't sell fiberglass, 56 Frame, and foam. Sell nice looking, feel good, relaxing comfort and you will be more successful. I will admit that I am a nuts and bolts person, but I have been in sales and business long enough to know that 90% of the conusmers are feel good consumers. What good does it do to have a better mouse trap if you can't sell it, and you don't sell it by cutting down the old mouse trap, you have got to get the customer emotionally involved in the product. Engineers make poor salesmen, women are good at sales because they don't try to explain all the workings, they just talk about how nice the product is.

[John Karna]

I don't think you get a good test of FF verses PF unless you put the same cover on both and run the tub at the same set temp and next to each other without using the spa (leave the cover on for the entire test). If you use the spa then the test is not of the insulation value it is of the entire spa. Of course a cheap spa with little pumps and FF insulation will cost less to operate than a spa with 4 large pumps, but what have you learned, nothing exept that large pumps use more energy than small pumps. To get a true test of insulation differences, just make all things equal as best as you can and compare energy usage to just maintain the temp without any other factors. This whole discussion about what type of insulation is best is a no win discussion because you can argue both ways, and I would not make a buying decision on that point alone. Sales people just use that point to discredit the other guy. Some Full Faom tubs are junk and some Part Foam tubs are junk, also some Full Foam tubs are good and some Part Foam tubs are good. You can't put all Full Foam tubs in the same catagory as junk any more than you can put all Part Foam tubs in the catagory as junk. One method is not better than the other IMO. I know there are many out there that disagree but consumers are not that concerned, they just want a well insulated tub, but that is not the main thing they are looking for. Consumers buy a relaxing experience not nuts and bolts, and you salesmen out there selling nuts and bolts will not be as effective as the salesmen selling a relaxing experience. There are a few people out there looking for nuts and bolts but that is the exception. Sell on emotion not on logic, that is why the major brands are so successful, not because they have a better product. Jim probably does have a better product than most of the major brands, but he will never compete with them using his tactics. In fact his tactics may just put him out of business. There is always a better mouse trap, but the key is in the sales method not in the construction. So don't sell fiberglass, 56 Frame, and foam. Sell nice looking, feel good, relaxing comfort and you will be more successful. I will admit that I am a nuts and bolts person, but I have been in sales and business long enough to know that 90% of the conusmers are feel good consumers. What good does it do to have a better mouse trap if you can't sell it, and you don't sell it by cutting down the old mouse trap, you have got to get the customer emotionally involved in the product. Engineers make poor salesmen, women are good at sales because they don't try to explain all the workings, they just talk about how nice the product is.

Amazing.

You say " Jim probably does have a better product than most of the major brands,"

Why do you say that? I have a feeling you are tyring to split the difference to come to an acceptable conclusion. But do you have any facts? Any measurable data? What leads you to that conclusion?

I am baffled that you would say that, given the volumes that have been written about safety, customer support and the basic engineering principles that have been debunked here. Some products are better than others.

Most of the in fighting in this particular forum is due to the fact the Arjuna has somehow raised his product in the eyes of some to be even considered with the other major brands. The simple facts don't support that.

Did you read the your last line "Engineers make poor salesmen,"

Jim is not an engineer. He is however a salesman, and it seems he's persuaded you to belive several things, despite the facts. There are no engineers here that are affilated with a spa company. None. You've been lulled into beliveing something that's not true.

[Jim_The_Jim]

I don't think you get a good test of FF verses PF unless you put the same cover on both and run the tub at the same set temp and next to each other without using the spa (leave the cover on for the entire test). If you use the spa then the test is not of the insulation value it is of the entire spa. Of course a cheap spa with little pumps and FF insulation will cost less to operate than a spa with 4 large pumps, but what have you learned, nothing exept that large pumps use more energy than small pumps. To get a true test of insulation differences, just make all things equal as best as you can and compare energy usage to just maintain the temp without any other factors. This whole discussion about what type of insulation is best is a no win discussion because you can argue both ways, and I would not make a buying decision on that point alone. Sales people just use that point to discredit the other guy. Some Full Faom tubs are junk and some Part Foam tubs are junk, also some Full Foam tubs are good and some Part Foam tubs are good. You can't put all Full Foam tubs in the same catagory as junk any more than you can put all Part Foam tubs in the catagory as junk. One method is not better than the other IMO. I know there are many out there that disagree but consumers are not that concerned, they just want a well insulated tub, but that is not the main thing they are looking for. Consumers buy a relaxing experience not nuts and bolts, and you salesmen out there selling nuts and bolts will not be as effective as the salesmen selling a relaxing experience. There are a few people out there looking for nuts and bolts but that is the exception. Sell on emotion not on logic, that is why the major brands are so successful, not because they have a better product. Jim probably does have a better product than most of the major brands, but he will never compete with them using his tactics. In fact his tactics may just put him out of business. There is always a better mouse trap, but the key is in the sales method not in the construction. So don't sell fiberglass, 56 Frame, and foam. Sell nice looking, feel good, relaxing comfort and you will be more successful. I will admit that I am a nuts and bolts person, but I have been in sales and business long enough to know that 90% of the conusmers are feel good consumers. What good does it do to have a better mouse trap if you can't sell it, and you don't sell it by cutting down the old mouse trap, you have got to get the customer emotionally involved in the product. Engineers make poor salesmen, women are good at sales because they don't try to explain all the workings, they just talk about how nice the product is.

Why on earth would you not want to use with non professional people and test the tubs to copy an exact use in people's back yards?

Why would you not want a group of indepenedent "wet testers" to write an evaulation on the comfort, therapy and over all impressions?

When I read evaluations of any product the owner's evaluations of the product are much more important that pretty much anything else.

A side by side test in severe cold is just about the strongest statement of a hot tub.

[Chas]

Why on earth would you not want to use with non professional people and test the tubs to copy an exact use in people's back yards?Why would you not want a group of indepenedent "wet testers" to write an evaulation on the comfort, therapy and over all impressions?

Because in order for a test to be valid, it has to be repeatable. That means all parameters must be carefully controlled. For example, if you had the guts to send one of your tubs to Exponant Inc. they could put it through the exact same test which they ran on the HotSpring Sovereign. And then the four people who care could see how the cost of operation stacks up. The spa would be in a test chamber, just like the Sov, and the temperature and humidity could be set to the exact same levels. The power use could be measured in the eact same way, and a very solid comparison could be made.

Would the spas cost the same to operate in a windy backyard in Park City, or in my yard here in Southern Cal? Most likely not, but that's the point: if one spa is on a windy corner and another is more protected, any comparison is useless. And having people hop in and out is very hard to monitor.

So I, for one, would like it if you stopped trying to sell folks on your spa comparison test done in a snowy backyard somewhere, and pony up the money to send a spa to a legitimate test organization as HotSpring already has done. Or conatact the folks who did the Arctic test, and see when they could arrange to put one of your spas into their test chamber.

[Jim_The_Jim]

Theres no point Jim. Ya see the problem here is I do understand it from non biased eyes. Unlike you who are pitching for a sale, I am not.

1$ a day to operate 80 cents out the top 20 cents out the sides. r-4 more in the cover will save more than increasing the side walls by r-12 if you totaly eliminate side wall loss (which you claim to have done) thats fine but it comes at the cost of operating an electric motor. And with vent holes in the bottom of the cabinet a slight breeze eliminates your r-infinity on the side walls. Poof r-4 is huge in the cover.

We are talking about the huge difference in cost to run an electric heater to heat water and the fact that air is 1341 times less expensive to heat than water. You seem to always miss that part and it is extremely simple to understand. So, that leads me to the conclusion that you have some mental block about obvious scientific facts. Why do you think in the Tong and Rogers report, side by side analysis this is what they said:

"a fully insulated spa {full foam} makes no attempt to recover and use waste heat." (Tong and Rogers 1996). "...the performance of an insulating system which makes use of a thermal barrier, generated by waste heat rejected from the motors and pumps, in an enclosed air cavity around the tub is superior to a system which simply insulates the tub directly."

You do not understand how it works, because you are still saying the same thing over and over like a broken record with a total lack of any understanding of the thermodynamics involved. I am sorry that you don't understand it. It is not my problem. I have offered to get an independent owner and engineer to explain it to you, because of your dislike of me.

I hate sales crap with a passion, because of who I am. My customers are pretty much the same. They just want to know what the heck they are buying, and not some sales pitch.

You need to contact some engineers, and chat with them like I do. My site attracts a lot of engineers and I like talking shop with them.

Because in order for a test to be valid, it has to be repeatable. That means all parameters must be carefully controlled. For example, if you had the guts to send one of your tubs to Exponant Inc. they could put it through the exact same test which they ran on the HotSpring Sovereign. And then the four people who care could see how the cost of operation stacks up. The spa would be in a test chamber, just like the Sov, and the temperature and humidity could be set to the exact same levels. The power use could be measured in the eact same way, and a very solid comparison could be made.

Would the spas cost the same to operate in a windy backyard in Park City, or in my yard here in Southern Cal? Most likely not, but that's the point: if one spa is on a windy corner and another is more protected, any comparison is useless. And having people hop in and out is very hard to monitor.

So I, for one, would like it if you stopped trying to sell folks on your spa comparison test done in a snowy backyard somewhere, and pony up the money to send a spa to a legitimate test organization as HotSpring already has done. Or conatact the folks who did the Arctic test, and see when they could arrange to put one of your spas into their test chamber.

Chas, Why don't you consider using your intelligence for a better purpose?

This is just another side stepping BS attempt to deflect the nonsense in that test.

I think I have covered all the nonsense in a test like that.

No bathers, no wind, no use of the spas, 115 V spa that looses heat rapidly in winter, the end temperature is never stated for each time the spa cover is removed in the winter test simulation.

With a 115 v heater in Colorado, after 20 minutes you have to go in and take a hot bath to get the chill off.

There is an old saying; "figures don't lie, but liars figure."

If you are trying to manipulate some test to make it sound good to ignorant consumers you are doing a good job. If you want to be truthful, you would not leave out the obvious "shortcomings" of that Bull Crap test. You are not stupid, so why are you doing this. Could it be because you have your whole life wrapped up in a greedy corporation and you manipulate "facts" as needed to say what you want?

Why don't you consider using your God given talents in a better way? What are you afraid of to go out on your own and create something better for yourself? Something where you don't have to do that crap any more?

[Chas]

No bathers, no wind, no use of the spas, 115 V spa that looses heat rapidly in winter, the end temperature is never stated for each time the spa cover is removed in the winter test simulation.

And the exact same test would be run on your spa. Then we could move from reading your opinion to reading fact.

Are you afraid to try it? Why wouldn't you want to send one of your tubs in for this simple testing? It is totally fair and unbiased - they simply run the spa exactly as they ran the others, and figure the power consumption.

Do you think your tubs are not up to the task?

[Roger]

When I read evaluations of any product the owner's evaluations of the product are much more important that pretty much anything else.

Ouch Jim.......kinda stuck your foot in your mouth here huh. Well I'll point it out so everyone can see it. Hundreds of thousands of Hot Springs owners that love there tubs are then what? Stupid or wrong? Come on tell us please. Cause your saying they are junk and hundreds of thousands of owners are saying the love there tubs, there reliable, effiecient and long lasting. And you also say that the owners evaluation is more important than, well never mind I think I said enough!!!

[Jim_The_Jim]

And the exact same test would be run on your spa. Then we could move from reading your opinion to reading fact.

Are you afraid to try it? Why wouldn't you want to send one of your tubs in for this simple testing? It is totally fair and unbiased - they simply run the spa exactly as they ran the others, and figure the power consumption.

Do you think your tubs are not up to the task?

You are totally off your rocker. They did not publish all of the data to concoct a BS sales pitch. There is no way to use that "energy chart" to predict the cost to run in a 240V spa in Chicago, yet your sleazy company does that. And nobody is going to own a 115 Volt spa in Chicago winter and use it for 20 minutes in the wind and cold. It will not stay hot for 20 minutes.

Do you remember all of the old tubs with the mechanical thermostat. Most all of the 115 V spas in colorado were recalibrated to 110 Degrees. That way when the user got in it was hot and because of all the excess heat, it would stay above 98 for much longer. That was the only way to get any soak time in a 115V hot spring.

You are really starting to sound like a totaly screwed up Hot Spring "kool aid" driking person. I really thougth that you had a least a tiny bit of awarness of the truth. Wat a ####head!

[Jim_The_Jim]

Ouch Jim.......kinda stuck your foot in your mouth here huh. Well I'll point it out so everyone can see it. Hundreds of thousands of Hot Springs owners that love there tubs are then what? Stupid or wrong? Come on tell us please. Cause your saying they are junk and hundreds of thousands of owners are saying the love there tubs, there reliable, effiecient and long lasting. And you also say that the owners evaluation is more important than, well never mind I think I said enough!!!

Do, you have any idea how many customers we have who have owned other brands, and especially Hot Spring and were totally disappointed with it?

One of my all time favorite was this really wealthy fellow from England who is an electrical engineer. Made a lot of money in the pioneer days of internet systems. Sold his company for so darn much money I could not even begin to know what to do with that much money.

What he said about his old Hot Spring spa was this in a brittish accent; "It is so damn borring."

I remember this shopper who went out looking for a new spa, because he left his old Hot Spring at the old home. So, he went out and looked at many spas, including Hot Spring. What he said was that his 8 year old hot spring is the same as the new ones. Everybody else has better spas.

Only a blind person would buy a Hot Spring spa. Blinded by some friggin sales pitch and all the bull that Hot Spring uses on ignornant shoppers.

Anybody who buys a second hot spring either has no other dealers in town or they are stupid.

h t t p : / / s p a s p e c i a l i s t . c o m / Bogus.html