Vista V70 film installation

Has anyone installed Vista V70, it sez there is a need to seal it after installation? Anyone have a techniques used to reduce the potential mess, also how should I fiqure what to charge?

Thanks

Hi Charlie,

As an alternative, you can consider our Pearl Ceramic 6865 instead. Same SC (Shading Coefficient) 0.56, same Lifetime Warranty and no edge sealing hassles. Our pricing is also much better.

Regards,

Howard Paritsky
Express Films

Use Spectraseal, poor small amount in glass container like baby food jar, use artist brush to paint a thin layer around edge cut. Not really very time consuming or hard. Upcharge whatever you believe to be necessary.

Where is your installation, how far from the ocean?




Howard,

How does the UV rejection compare?

What adhesive?

And no "low angle haze" I'm assuming?

VC,

99.1% UV Blockage
PS
Haze Free

No edge sealing required (on any Express Ceramics). What a hassle. I would never want a dealer to waste time on that.

Lifetime Residential Warranty

Need sample?? PM me with your physical address. I would be proud to send you our decks & specs.

-Howard

vkool-vk70,vista-vs70, pano-hilite70 are intirely different films. the luminous efficacy are all 1.4 or higher. there is one draw back with these types of film, if your by water or have humidity it will corrode. even with edge sealing, i've seen the stuff corrode with any of these brands sooner or later.
ceramic films want to be like those films, but can't perform like them. the good thing is that you won't have to seal the edges.
weight what you need and go for it.
good luck.

Heat problem?? Forget LE.

It's just a matter of time before we collectively accept the fact that high VLT films are poor choices for heat control applications. Follow the example set by the NFRC and focus on the SC (or SHGC as applied to DP).

Everyone is familiar with the fading "pie chart". At present, there is no pie chart for what causes an interior space to heat up, but make no mistake that visible light is a major contributor. Terrestrial heating of the earth's surface is caused 50% by IR and 50% by visible light which is absorbed and the re-radiated at longer wavelengths (IR). If your focus is strictly on IR, you only have one eye on the target.

There is a time and a place for high LE films: One example would be storefront display windows.

The problem is that these films are being marketed as the latest and greatest "silver bullet" for residences and office buildings with heat load issues. On top of their poor comparative (SC) performance, they are ultra-expensive. This can double or triple the payback time. If you are dealing with heat load, start with films that have an SC south of 0.50. There are many excellent films to choose from.

As far as sealing edges: What a time consuming hassle! There are other ways to deposit the material onto the film that don't require installers to perform that labor intensive step. Our Pearl Ceramics require no edge sealing, have similar SC performance and a lifetime residential warranty.

Howard
Express Films

Well put!!!!
I'm glad not everyone buys into all the hype.

no kidding...excellent post EWF.

Howard,

ROI on residential is not like an ROI on commercial. You cannot always directly quantify it in dollars. If you have a hot spot in a home that deems a room uninhabitable at certain times of the day, then your ROI is valued by recouping a part of the house that you could not occupy. Some homes need the low reflectivity and high light transmission, for example a house with glass facing due East and night time city views. A dark reflective film is probably going to perform better but it is going to ruin the views at night. Other residential issues are deed restrictions against certain architectural transgressions from a master plan. Reflective dark films do not always compliment a master plan theme.

Another thing to be aware of is that SC is more of a single pane measurement used commonly in the glazing industry to rate the relative effectiveness of glass by ratio to a "standard window." However, the glazing industry is moving away from use of the term since a "standard window" is no longer a single pane clear window with double strength glass. The SHGC is the preferred measurement of choice now.

True silver (Ag) tech films are expensive. But expense should be viewed in "value" rather than in which films is the cheapest. I don't think I need to go into too much explanation about that. Just reference my example above. Ag films have had to be edge sealed in the past but Southwall's Gen 3 materials do not need to be sealed. So that opens up a lot of applications to great performing high vlt products for circumstances that really need them rather than darker reflective counterparts.

When you look at base component performance silver (Ag) is one of the most efficient elements you can use for solar energy control. There are other elements that perform even better but look at a Ag tech film comparatively to a similar vlt and vis reflectance non-Ag film and you will see the Ag tech performing better. Once these types of films start filtering visible light from about 58% down lower than 35% they become very efficient. Look at Huper's Drei for instance... .30 SHGC 35%vlt and 12% reflectance. It performs good enough for a PUC rebate like many films much more reflective qualify for. But a lot of customers do not want the additional reflectance and in some cases the lower vlt.

With all due respect I see a little hypocrisy here. The Pearl Ceramic... Is it dye free? Are the performance measurements NFRC Certified? If not, then why not? How can we be sure it performs as stated?

charlie, just have your windows tinted. support our industry, you can't go wrong either way.
good luck.

TS read the first post I believe charlie is the one doing the installation.

Hey charlie, follow the directions that come in the box DON'T SKIP A STEP or you will end up losing big $$$.

thanks for posting that VC....so that i didn't have to.

I'll leave the spell-check up to you to handle.

cool

excellent post

Clear fingernail polish, and a small paintbrush

Don't do it

Use the MFG recommended sealant.

Where did Howard go?

On the faasst track with the NFRC.

Don't do it

Use the MFG recommended sealant.

Where did Howard go?

[/quote]

VC >> I took the day off yesterday!!

Question: I don't know much about the edge sealants. We don't sell anything that requires them.

-Howard

Brilliant Thread here.

No fair Howard, the rest of us are all working or at least we think we are.

VC,

You have declared war on the laws of physics and the NFRC. This is a battle you will not win.

You are among the minions that are hawking the high VLT, high LE films for heat control. You’re presenting IRR data to customers that is accurate, but incomplete.

The party is over, VC. The NFRC took away your punch bowl, but you refuse to go home.

Visible light is half the problem (roughly), yet you make high VLT a selling point. At what point in the selling process do you disclose to the customer that all that visible light will be absorbed by their furnishings and get instantly re-radiated as heat? You don’t.

Instead, you recite the talking points about “killing the view”. I have already posted on the physiology of the variable aperture human eye pupil.

In regard to the example you cite, if you were presented with a room rendered useless due to solar heat load, as a professional, you have an affirmative obligation to offer a low SC option to that customer. So many of these customers are being sold on films with “high IR rejection” but have poor relative SCs.

The NFRC’s stated objective is to clear up the confusion and present the data in a manner that customers can use when comparing Film A to Film B. You don’t buy it. Fair enough, but more and more customers are now realizing that they are paying more and getting less if they follow your advice.

For the clarification of some others (you know this already) SHGC=SC(*0.85). They are directly proportional. In the interest of avoiding confusion, I always speak in terms of SC so that it encompasses single pane. By simply multiplying SC*0.85, you can calculate the SHGC, which is actually what the NFRC publishes.

I have nothing against the Ag films, but the performance does not justify the expense.

Our Pearl Ceramics are dye free. The data is accurate. NFRC Certification is currently pending on our 4 top selling films.


-Howard

Aaahhhh Howard… quite to the contrary. Minions, me? Sorry, not so… I advocate the best product fit for the application at hand and the best fit would encompass performance, longevity, optical clarity, aesthetics, and visible light transmittance among many other factors including warranty. We must not forget that energy efficiency is not a single product solution but rather a combination of needed technologies working in conjunction with one another to increase efficiency. In addition to this no one film, and that includes vlt, is the defacto solution to window efficiency if you are taking into consideration the entire scope of a customer’s needs.

So let’s get started… If you do a little looking around for the past 4 or more yrs on this site you will see that I am among the foremost advocates of the NFRC applied films program. I welcome it, embrace it, and look forward to many great things to come, namely Energy Star Rating Standards for window films. There is no way that you or anyone can prove, paint, imply or otherwise that I am anti-NFRC (See the supporting link). Sorry not gonna happen…

Supporting Link "Is It Accurate"

You also claim that I present IR rejection data to customers that is “accurate but incomplete.” Could you please prove that? If I’m not mistaken, I have consistently taken a stance against IR rejection due to the fact that it is a regional measurement and not a total performance measurement. Let me prove it, here are a few links to my position:

Supporting Link "IR Rejection"

Supporting Link "IR Rejection 2 Slight of Bandwidth"

As for your claim that I recite points about “killing the view” let’s bring that into context rather than make such a broad unfocused statement. What I meant by “killing the view” is that a darker vlt film, which is more often than not higher in reflectivity, is backlit at night the reflectivity from the film does reflect back into the room reducing or even diminishing the view altogether. That is a very important factor to consider before recommending a window film product, especially when nighttime “view” is a factor. Is it a good practice to ignore such factors, in my experience I would say “no” and the reason being is that we “fix” a lot of mistakes made by other window film “professionals” that recommend the wrong product for the application. If a home with a room that is too hot were presented to you would you recommend a 15% reflective silver film because after all, the SC is .20 and that is among the lowest SC’s? I am sure you would have a major issue with the consumer after the job was installed especially if it was a room with a view.

I’m not sure where you are getting that I “don’t buy” the NFRC, their purpose, and their measurements. Please show me where I have taken a stance against this. To the contrary, as I have shown evidence, I welcome comparing NFRC measurements because they take in more than just glass SC. Let me show you where you are making a big mistake Howard. You said the SHGC is “SHGC=SC(*0.85)” which is correct. So then logic says that SHGC and SC are proportional and thus you continue your reasoning that the NFRC certified measuring process of film performance which renders results in SHGC is proportionate based on the previously mentioned equation. What you are failing to consider is the NFRC’s SHGC result, IT IS FAR DIFFERENT FROM THE FILM ON GLASS RESULT THAT IS LISTED IN JUST ABOUT EVERY FILM MFG’s PERFORMANCE DATA PAGE, INCLUDING YOUR WINDOW FILMS’s PERFORMANCE DATA PAGE. Why is it different? Because the typical film on 3mm glass is a “center of glass” SHGC measurement which in itself is very narrow. It does NOT include the window frame. It does not include the bite of the glass, and it does not include the averages of all of these and other factors. However, the NFRC performance measurement SHGC result DOES take all of these things into consideration in a very complex set of equations, much more complex than the equation used to find the center of glass SHGC that is published on yours and every other supplier’s film performance data sheets.

The NFRC standard makes sense, why? Do we not install most of our products on windows WITH FRAMES? Wouldn’t it stand to reason the NFRC which is exists to sort out confusion as you said, and I might add to also promote accuracy so that consumers do not get mislead or even worse, lied too (See NFRC Mission Statement)? If this is their task then they must take into account more than the center of glass SHGC to rate fenestration performance and applied film performance, AND THEY DO JUST THAT. Notice that they do not use SC or TSER. Why is that?

So let us compare some results of these measurements with films that have differing SC’s. I would love to include Pearl Ceramic but for whatever the reason, it is absent from the NFRC catalog. These should have very different vlt’s and SC’s.



VK 70 (From VK CSI Spec)
Film on 3mm clear:
VLT= 70%
SHGC= .44
SC= .51

VK 70 NFRC 3mm clear w/Film
VT= .56
SHGC= .37



Madico DG 35
Film on 3mm clear
VLT= 38%
SHGC= .44
SC= .52

DG 35 NFRC 3mm clear w/Film
VT= .41
SHGC= .38

Two different vlt films with almost the same SHGC result. I would do more but as you know time is money… I am in this one for the challenge. Why do these two films perform almost identical when one blocks much more vlt than the other?

VC,

They perform differently because of differences in VLR-e.

Let’s just cut to the chase:

You are an advocate for the NFRC’s principles. Terrific. Allow me to remind you that our discussion focuses on consumers with heat control problems.

A simple statement: For heat control applications, the lower the SHGC, the better the performance. You can’t seem to reconcile yourself to that.

VC – I have Ceramics in my catalog with similar specs as the ones you sell. Without question, they have their benefits. Got a storefront display window application?? High VLT Ceramics are the ticket. But if you have a customer trying to lower their energy bills – start with the lowest SHGC film they can live with (visibly) and work up from there. Not the other way around.

Thanks for the information about NFRC incorporating the entire glazing system in their calculations. It’s totally irrelevant to this discussion. What should a customer do if they have glazing which differs from the NFRC’s test glazing? Disregard the data?

The basis of our disagreement:

My premise is that high VLT films are poor choices for heat control. There is a very broad misconception that films which boast “high VLT and Low IRT” are some kind of magic bullet that keeps the room bright and cool at the same time.

It's a myth.

Have a great holiday.

Howard

Howard you have been talking out of both ends of your mouth. Those two films I used perform almost identical and have completely different VLT's. VLRE in this case does not explain anything. Complex stacking with an efficient element does.

Actually, the thread is about Vista VS 70 but who's paying attention? You made me out to be someone that I am not so I laid down evidence to prove you wrong concerning your claims. That is relevant to me personally.

NFRC gives plenty of different glazing scenarios to help the consumer determine performance for their application. Does it cover everything? No, but it does do a better job than the ever before. Yes framing is relevant, you can determine building performance without considering the framing type and making the appropriate calculations...

Everything that I have ever said or written supports the entire spectrum including visible light as needing to be regulated by film. The more you regulate (reflect, absorb, whatever) the more energy you reduce.

High vlt films do make a difference. Let me put it to you in plain NFRC language... Their data sticker help everyone to appreciate the difference make between "Film on glass" and No Film on glass" for instance:

VK 70 NFRC


SHGC NO FILM= .71

SHGC W/ FILM= .37

Is there a difference? I believe so.

Can you reject more energy with a lower vlt film? Yes.

Is a lower vlt always the right solution? No.

NO MYTH, JUST FACTS...

VC,

Sir.

Madico DG35 VLRe = 24
VKool 70 VLRe = 8

The VKool is impressive because the undesirable VLRe is so much lower, yet the SC is the same. It is (as you state) due to the stacking of advanced materials. I was giving VKool credit where credit is due. You missed it.

24 vs. 8 – That’s a 300% difference. You stand corrected. Retract !!!!

The “pearl” in your post came at the bottom:

“Can you reject more energy with a lower VLT film? Yes.”

On this we can agree !!!

Are we finally done ??

-Howard

You wrote a pile of garbage about me that couldn't be further from the truth and you want me to retract 24 vs 8 vlre? IT DOESN'T MATTER, we were talking about one film that is high vlt keeping up with another that is low vlt. I showed you an example of how it is true and gave an explanation. Of course there is a difference in VLRE (tell me something I don't already know about low VLRE) and that just adds an explanation point behind the argument that Ag tech films are no myth, they can perform well. Are they the best performers period? No. Buy a dark mirror for that...

Are we done??? I've still got thoughts on the darker films losing their light filtering and IR absorbing ability over time which brings down their overall performance but I can save that for another thread.

VC,

The difference in the VLT is 35 vs. 70 (a 200% difference).
The difference in VLRe is 24 vs. 8 (a 300% difference).

Hence, VLRe is a significantly larger contributory factor. Retract !!!!!

VKool is an excellent film. I never said otherwise about it (or about you for that matter). Read my posts again.

I get 10-20 calls per week asking about “the films that block 90% of the heat but still let all the light in”. You tell me: Who is out there perpetuating this widespread misconception?? Are you going to deny this exists??

Ag films are very impressive. There you have it. I never said otherwise! But the price?? Ouch !!!

You seem to pepper your posts with agreeable language, but only in the context of the extreme. Have you no appreciation for moderation?

“Are they the best performers period? No. Buy a dark mirror for that...”

Since no manufacturer I am aware of publishes any longitudinal solar performance data, it would be pure speculation. I am certain that performance will degrade over time, but given the cost of lab tests, I doubt you will see anything soon on that. We do observe VLT gain in the QUV – which (based on our continuous arguments) must correlate to some loss of solar performance.

I know where you are going - It stands to reason that the Ag based films are probably very stable over time – but the performance loss of a competing film may be so insignificant as to not justify the cost of the Ag. It’s a tough sell because everyone gives a lifetime warranty – but not on the solar performance.

Now are we done?

-Howard

i like your style EWF

No retraction

Show me a 35% vlt 8% VLRE film with a .37 SHGC? I can't think of one. Don't forget Howard, we've been focusing on vlt of the lack thereof and now you are shifting the issue to VLRE?



Um I hate to remind you... remember the phrase "silver bullet" and the word "myth?" How about "minions," or "declared war on the laws physics and the NFRC?" I present IR rejection data to customers that is “accurate but incomplete.” Ring any bells??? Who was that referring too?



Howard... Have you been in the 3M thread lately?




One word... "value" you get what you pay for.




And you sir are schilling your wares on this site so be prepared for some tough questions if you choose to market here. I look back at your VLT comments and the word "extreme" can be used to describe some of your statements as well. You speak about the NFRC ratings bring relevance to film performance but you yourself at this time have zero products that are NFRC certified. I hoist the flag proudly and call that fact out.



Perhaps the NFRC will do that for consumers so that they don't have to find out what an imported 5yr MFG warrantied film disguised as a lifetime warranty product really is...



I think I am now.

Time to BBQ. Have a great weekend.

VC,



Please. You posed a question; I gave you the correct and most mathematically relevant answer. Next, you accuse me of shifting the focus and stubbornly refuse to back down. That’s silly.



You don’t get what you pay for VC, you get what you bargain for. Your films are very nice, but they’re no bargain. There are 15 other terrific sources (including Express) offering better value to their customers.



We have access to domestic as well as imported lines. We discriminate based upon quality and value, not country of origin. Surely you know that we could add Ag films into our catalog if we chose to do so. We just don’t think they are worth it.



That was a cheap shot. I think it reflects more upon you than it does upon us.



I told you our NFRC certs are pending. One of us is going to have egg on his face. Since I am in somewhat of a better position to know the status of our application, my advice to you is to get a towel and soap ready.



Enjoy your BBQ.



-Howard

www.nfrc.org/.../NFRC_PCP-Ballot_Applied-films-2009-07_ballot.doc -


More changes for NFRC attachment labels.

i can t get that link?.

great posting EWF...I can wait to see the egg wash..

NFRC Ballot Template

try this.

http://www.madico.com/pdf/MadicoTechnicalBulletin_1029.pdf
A few interesting things in this.

To To Howard and VC,

I appreciate the open debate to better discover what are facts and what is just sales hype.

Forums such as these expose misleading marketing when MFG'S perform tests that skew the numbers.

I would have never known about the misuse of BTU meters had it not been for TD.

VC has a passion about the products he represents, mainly because of exhaustive research and accurate data that supports his belief.

We have the ability to sell "Nano Ceramic" films as well, however, I'm going to keep my mouth shut until the facts are in!

I hope the debate continues.

very nice.

Best post yet on this thread. Im going to have to go with VC on this one. Readers and posters keep in mind Vclimber stands nothing to gain from his posts. He doesnt have film to sell and in my belief has nothing to gain by bringing these debates out in the open. If you are as passionaite about the industry and saving it as a whole you need to study these threads and gain what you can from them. EWF I like your post and knowledge to but somewhere in the back of my mind I think some of these posts are to just keep your name out there and sell film. These kind of healthy debates do us all good. Truth be told if I was to go "all in" my money is on vclimber

And your personal vendetta with Vclimber and always trying to prove him wrong does what for these conversations I would give up the fight, I have yet to see you win one, how does egg feel on the face all the time

OK..im editing what i said ...because it was not in good taste...and i will admit that.

as for PT comment...i will take all the egg i can take...i have nothining against V..WELL...maybe a little...but im getting better... ...as for winning and losing...i dont care..all of our disagreements i have learned at least one thing out of it..and if that takes getting a little eggs..i will take it.

Dear ValueTint (VT),




Thanks for weighing in on this and tempering the debate.



Let me tell you exactly what we need to put this debate to rest: A "heat pie chart". Allow me to explain:



We all know the fading pie chart. Nobody disputes it.



40% UV

25% Visible

25% IR

10% Misc



Notice that visible and IR share equal percentages. That’s no coincidence. The visible light is absorbed and converted to heat.



If there was a “heat” pie chart it would look like this:



50% IR

50% Visible



The laws of physics don’t take sides. Want to knock down the heat? You need to block visible light. Now you understand my point.



VC has every right to be proud of those films. They are unique constructions that offer better performance than any compatible film of a similar VLT. VC thinks his points are wasted on me, but I assure you I get his message.



Our debate centers on whether or not they are indicated for heat control applications. VC makes the point that there are situations where visibility is critical. Again we agree on that. Show that customer the Ag film – but for heaven’s sake, also show the customer something in the 35% range that will also knock down the VLT. Tell that customer that it’s in his or her own interest to pick the darkest film he or she can live with.



The customer has to understand that visible light is heating their space in equal proportions to IR. This is conspicuously missing from the high end marketing literature and never brought to the attention of the customer during the proposal phase.



If I seem to be on a “crusade” it’s because widespread misconceptions within our industry need to be cleared up. If we were all physics professors, there would be no debate. This thread may have caused more confusion than anything else. That's why the heat pie chart would be so helpful.





Only you can decide whether or not to put the Ag films into your own catalog. If the “heat pie chart” one day becomes as popular as the fading pie chart, those films will only be compatible with very specific applications, instead of mainstream heat control products.



IR data must be viewed within the larger context. IR and Visible light transmission must be equally considered when it comes to heat control. When you were young, did you ever take a magnifying glass outside on a sunny day and use it to burn a hole in a piece of wood? There is an example of visible light being converted to heat!


[/size]


Make no mistake, people fork over big $$$ and think they just blocked 90%+ of the heat coming in because they purchased the most expensive film that was offered to them. I have seen it happen to homeowners as well as building mangers.



[size="2"]-Howard

Great post Howard,

Sounds like an awesome idea. I like that kind of graphic presentation.

If it could be formatted using agreed upon methods of testing, hopefully we can close the gap between the differences.

Thanks for your contribution of ideas to TD.

another good post Howard...

VT:

I would really like to see the heat pie chart take it's rightful place next to the fading pie chart. If that comes about as a result of this thread, I'll feel really great about it. All those who know (as I do) that high VLT films are not the best choice for primary heat control will then have an effective tool to compete with 3M and several others in that segment of the market.

As a reference, I used a meteorology textbook I had left over from college. I was in school from 1978-1981. I doubt such a fundamental concept has been contradicted since then.

Infrared radiation is popularly known as "heat" or sometimes "heat radiation", since many people attribute all radiant heating to infrared light and/or to all infrared radiation to being a result of heating. This is a widespread misconception, since light and electromagnetic waves of any frequency will heat surfaces that absorb them. Infrared light from the Sun only accounts for 49% of the heating of the Earth, with the rest being caused by visible light that is absorbed then re-radiated at longer wavelengths. Visible light or ultraviolet-emitting lasers can char paper and incandescently hot objects emit visible radiation. It is true that objects at room temperatureemit radiation mostly concentrated in the 8 to 25 micrometer band, but this is not distinct from the emission of visible light by incandescent objects and ultraviolet by even hotter objects.

I don't know where within the industry that we could turn for a set of guidelines on this. If anyone knows a PhD, college level physics professor, etc., that can confirm or refute the 49/51 theory - please do weigh in. I think I have a good grasp on it, but I don't pretend to be an expert on electromagnetic physics.

Between the fact that IR and Visible have an equal share on the fading pie chart and what I found in my met textbook, I think I am solid ground here.

Just let me just say again - I like those films (I sell them), but we need to get this right. High VLT is a double edged sword - not an outright benefit.

-Howard

I have to laugh at this whole thread… I need to regress for a moment. This thread started with a member asking for help on how to edge seal VS 70 which he presumably sold, otherwise why would he ask such a question? Blade was the only one to catch it.

Howard, you then pitched your Pearl ceramic films which have nothing to do with the thread. Then tinstar mentions LE and off you go about how they are poor heat control and yadda yadda yadda. Well, your Pearl ceramics also happen to be high VLT for the most part which I found ironic. Then you add that we should follow the example of the NFRC which I thought was hilarious being that you did not have any NFRC certified products so I couldn’t help but ask a few questions…

Then off you go on me being anti-NFRC. I’m sorry, I understand your frustration with energy distribution across the solar spectrum versus high VLT products, but man, I see a larger agenda here.

Howard, you may well be on your way to NFRC certification for 4 of your films and I really hope you get there as soon as possible. Why? Because it will separate out the unknown. What do I mean by unknown? Well, look at your performance data sheet. Where do those figures come from, how are they generated? I don’t see any AIMCAL, ASHRAE, NFRC, LBNL, W5.0 verification references that tell us how that performance data was generated. I’m just looking at your position and it doesn’t add up. You are so busy calling out high VLT marketing propaganda and yet, you do not have much to establish your own product data. Or maybe you do?

The simple fact is this industry is in dire need of everyone to pick a standard and stay on the same page. Its reputation depends on it. Hopefully everyone moves to NFRC ratings so that the poor consumer can have a chance a really seeing how one product compares to the next. Do we want to keep things as is and continue look like a bunch of idiots in the eyes of the engineering community and the glass industry?

You said that I took a cheap shot at you. Not so, I am pointing out industry realities. You know as well as I that it is a reality that in foreign markets many of the IR films carry a 5 yr warranty at best. So how do these films all of the sudden become lifetime warranty products when the hit US soil? I can guarantee you that it is not due to a structural change in the product. So then are these films now going to last longer because they have a “better warranty?”

Again, we need a standard to separate hype in a totally different arena. That of product durability and longevity. Consumers need to be protected. It doesn’t matter how well a product performs, if it starts to lose its ability to regulate visible light then its performance will be degredated. I’ve talked to people that have spectral performance data from QUV and Zenon tests on a lot of these “bargain technology” films. It is not good news.

So as much as establishing the distribution of energy across the solar spectrum is important to your point, I would just say that it is equal if not more important to verify durability and the potential for failure on any side of the spectrum because it will have a direct affect on overall performance whether it be SHGC, TSER, or even the beloved SC.

-BTW why are you asking for a pie chart? The Solar Spectrum distribution was always published as:

44% Visible Light
53% IR
3% UV

But that has been challenged and the new figures are similar to your reference:

49.26% Visible Light
48.93% IR
1.81% UV


The pie charts are on my blog and they have been there for quite some time now. Old understanding and new understanding.

Despite this several facts will always stand and there really doesn’t have to be much deliberation over it all. Just:

-Compare SHGC if you want to see performance differences in varying VLT products

-Try to model the entire application (framing etc) rather than just film on glass as accurately as possible because it does affect the overall performance result

Oh, and one more thing. I can’t believe I am going to even begin to defend this one… I’d be real careful about calling out Prestige, energy transmission, and high vlt. Check you patent info before you say anything more.

VC,

Yes. From what I have found, visible light is now believed to be a slightly higher percentage of the total than IR. The reason I want a simple pie chart is so consumers can look upon it and be able to see that they need to knock down the VLT when heat control is primary. Any reference to the “solar spectrum” causes confusion for them. It should simply be labeled “Causes Of Heat” in the same manner as the “Causes For Fading” chart is labeled. That is why I want a simple pie chart.

You are right about our Pearl line. That’s why I never pitch them for heat control. That’s my point. I only recommend them under a narrow set of circumstances where a reduction in VLT cannot be tolerated. In such cases, the high VLT low IR films are absolutely the best products to go with.

I don’t mind your questioning the authenticity of our published data. That’s a legitimate topic to raise. Transmission and emissivity tests can run $500-$1,500 each. We have 109 films in the catalog. We require our manufacturing partners to bear the costs and submit signed reports from independent labs. The labs are in the USA, Asia and Europe. Several of them are on the NFRC approved list.

The sooner we receive our certs the better. We will then have the most competitively priced NFRC approved films in the market. It’s going to be great for our business. That's why we made the investment.

I am familiar with the foreign IR films you mentioned. Specifically, those are made with IR absorbing dyes. If you were under the impression that our films were made with those dyes, allow me to correct you on that. We have our own set of reasons for not including such films, but the decision was not based on performance or longevity. We have seen no evidence to support your assertion that they are inferior. You happen to be right about the changes in the warranty term, but the export markets operate by their own set of rules and customs. There are export customers that are able to get lifetime coverage on IR dyed films if they negotiate for it.

True. A gain in VLT translates to a loss of solar control performance. Again we agree. One convenient thing about that is that VLT is easy to measure. That being said, most of the major films we test hold up very well compared to their peers. Any differences we observe are nominal at best. I don’t think you’ll be seeing any marketing claims focused on performance longevity. Now that everyone has “gone lifetime”, what more can we offer? I can’t recall the last retail customer I heard of that owned a spectrometer.

You don’t have to speculate about my agenda. I want to be careful. I want to be accurate. A single sale means very little to us. Our business is built entirely on repeat customers who trust us to deliver quality and value.

I’ll give you the last word on it, OK? Let’s wrap this up !!!

-Howard