IR Rejection Primer

V4V · July 4, 2008

Finally!

There is so much nonsense and disinformation about window film brands that purport to block 97% of the IR, etc. that consumers may actually believe that a 70% VLT film will keep all the heat out of their homes. They won't discover they were duped until they get their next electric bill.

This Blog written by VClimber is masterful!

If you compete against hyperbole and baloney, we highly recommend that you become familiar with this posting or simply print it out and carry it with you!

http://windowfilmonline.wordpress.com/2008...ared-rejection/

:thumb

Happy 4th!

July 4, 2008

A good read, thanx :thumb

Cuttingedge · July 4, 2008

Good article. That is pretty much how I explain it to the custy. Sometimes I still get that blank look when I am done...lol

Tinitman · July 4, 2008

Good read, keep it up.

Tinitman · July 5, 2008

I just read one of the posts about misinformation. I read the web site of the dealer linked on that post. I am laughing so hard I have tears flowing on my cheeks.

And we wonder why our industry is struggling so hard

July 5, 2008

I have a question. does anyone have proof that it does not block 97% IR. im only talking about 3M which everyone here seems to be scared to death to mention by name. all this bashing really sounds like a well staged sales pitch to compete with (against) 3M dealers. really, if its not what there scientists say it is how cool would it be for the rest of the manufactures to shoot them down. a 26 billion dollar corp, that does 1.6 billion a year in R&D of it's products. as of now I have read nothing other than what a few posters on this board have to say, which unless you can prove with some real data, still sounds like a sales pitch.

If you compete against hyperbole and baloney, we highly recommend that you become familiar with this posting or simply print it out and carry it with you!

after reading this statement its hard to tell who is trying to dupe who, or compete with who.

and yes im a 3M dealer. and this is just my opinion.

V4V · July 5, 2008

I have a question. does anyone have proof that it does not block 97% IR. im only talking about 3M which everyone here seems to be scared to death to mention by name. all this bashing really sounds like a well staged sales pitch to compete with (against) 3M dealers. really, if its not what there scientists say it is how cool would it be for the rest of the manufactures to shoot them down. a 26 billion dollar corp, that does 1.6 billion a year in R&D of it's products. as of now I have read nothing other than what a few posters on this board have to say, which unless you can prove with some real data, still sounds like a sales pitch.
If you compete against hyperbole and baloney, we highly recommend that you become familiar with this posting or simply print it out and carry it with you!

after reading this statement its hard to tell who is trying to dupe who, or compete with who.

and yes im a 3M dealer. and this is just my opinion.

I assume may other posters will want to take on your comment. Let me try to explain this to you as well as I can.

3M knows that their prestige film does not block 97% of the entire infrared. The literature and sample cards were very quickly amended to add an asterisk at the very bottom of the card explaining the range of IR wavelength that is being factored out. When the initial testing done on the 70 indicated lower than expected TSER they hushed that and using that angle of sun improvement (they really did think this was unique at the time until CP Films educated them) to make the film look like a better heat rejector.

The IWFA shot them down in this study about IR that you'll find on their home page at http://www.iwfa.com

I've tried to educate my customers and readers of my blog on many postings read this one:

http://advancedfilmfl.net/2008/03/30/the-c...tical-film.aspx

Fact over fiction.

Now when and if my former company develops a next generation multi-layered optical film with better documented NFRC certified numbers I'll be the first to say "Cheers!" to them and their dealers.

It's consumers who deserve this accurate data.

Call the 3M Tech Lab Director and ask him yourself. Tell him I asked you to call him!

Mike Feldman

Former 3M National Sales Manager and 33 years at the Mining!

Tinitman · July 6, 2008

All solar control window films block a certain percentage of the IR. The problem I see is the dealer is taught to promote those numbers as a means of heat rejection. The Prestige 70 SC is only .58, that is a pretty low number when it is promoted as a heat rejecting window film. You can get the same performance with a 50% VLT traditional film and the customer will have a hard time determining if that film is installed on their home.

Most utility companies who offer rebates demand at least .44 SC or lower in order for the customer to receive the rebate. Why is that product being promoted as a heat blocking product?

If it was promoted at a light film that only blocks 50% Total Solar Energy, that is a different story.

July 7, 2008

If it was promoted at a light film that only blocks 50% Total Solar Energy, that is a different story.

it is promoted as a 70% film that has a TSER of 50%. so everyone is pissed it advertised 97% IR. with all the other manufactures claiming the same or near IR rejection. what part of the spectrum do they claim to reject IR at. someone mentioned when you average the IR rejection across the spectrum the PR-70 was lower than the rest of the ceramic films of the same VLT. also why all the talk about "on angle" TSER. id like to hear some thoughts on that as well.

July 7, 2008

If it was promoted at a light film that only blocks 50% Total Solar Energy, that is a different story.

it is promoted as a 70% film that has a TSER of 50%. so everyone is pissed it advertised 97% IR. with all the other manufactures claiming the same or near IR rejection. what part of the spectrum do they claim to reject IR at. someone mentioned when you average the IR rejection across the spectrum the PR-70 was lower than the rest of the ceramic films of the same VLT. also why all the talk about "on angle" TSER. id like to hear some thoughts on that as well.

Dryshrinker the blog I wrote on IR Rejection was not specifically singling out Prestige, I just used it as an example and I did not link too or name names. Other "selective" Ir measurements can be found on Madico's Wincos films and these measurements hit several select regions.

From what I have learned, if a MFG does not specify that an IR measurement is being taken across a select wavelegth (ie. Prestige footnote 900-100nm) then it can be assumed that they are at least measuring 780-2500nm which is the NIR spectrum. If they do not measure the entire NIR then they have to disclose it or someone will come along and expose their omission of what is fact.

Is it a big deal? I think so... it is very deceptive to do single region measurements that lead a consumer to think that it is total solar performance. :thumb

I know that the IR measurements for TiN ceramic products are measured from 780-2500nm.

As for on-angle measuring... Lawrence Berkley Labs has been doing angular data on glass coatings and films for many years. The window film industry as a whole never adopted it though. The benefit of NFRC testing and Certification far outweighs angular data because angular data is not recognized by the NFRC or the DOE for programs like Energy Star. The glass industry has never used angular measurements and yet their products are affected by the sun's orientation just like ours. So if we want recognition by the glass industry, who's specification criteria should we use?