IR Rejection Primer

July 7, 2008

one reason we don't get recognition from the glass industry, if they did certify a product or line of products we would be competing against them directly. all this "new glass" going into buildings is the major reason. I had a GC ask me on a job the other day what low-e glass was and why it was installed on the building.

im going to call the tech lab and findout what the IR rejection is at different parts of the IR spectrum.

July 7, 2008

From what I was told from friend (3M dealer)and 3M rep. there PR films are prism related and prism's defract colors. on angle they can get a better TSER. but however if you angle that film and look at something white it wil be purple or red then twist it slightly from side to side and youll notice it goes purple/white/purple we have been wipeing up the 3M guy's lately and still getting 3-4 $ more a sq.ft. than them :thumb .

July 7, 2008

From what I was told from friend (3M dealer)and 3M rep. there PR films are prism related and prism's defract colors. on angle they can get a better TSER. but however if you angle that film and look at something white it wil be purple or red then twist it slightly from side to side and youll notice it goes purple/white/purple we have been wipeing up the 3M guy's lately and still getting 3-4 $ more a sq.ft. than them .

:thumb not in my neighbor hood you dont.

and your friend is full of :thumb on the twist and turn comment. maybe if he was break dancing on top of a ladder he saw some purple and red an blue and and .... :poop

July 7, 2008

one reason we don't get recognition from the glass industry, if they did certify a product or line of products we would be competing against them directly. all this "new glass" going into buildings is the major reason. I had a GC ask me on a job the other day what low-e glass was and why it was installed on the building.
im going to call the tech lab and findout what the IR rejection is at different parts of the IR spectrum.

Research LowE and you shall find LowE (obsolete in many ways), Low2 (or squared), LowE3, LowE4 and anything but the original now obsolete is very efficient window glazing. Window film will boost solar performance on these new generation LowE's minimally and boost UV absorption to that of solar control film.

yeah, we do UV test on all the glass we estamate and for that particular job thats what they went with.

July 7, 2008

one reason we don't get recognition from the glass industry, if they did certify a product or line of products we would be competing against them directly. all this "new glass" going into buildings is the major reason. I had a GC ask me on a job the other day what low-e glass was and why it was installed on the building.
im going to call the tech lab and findout what the IR rejection is at different parts of the IR spectrum.

Good luck getting that info, I find it hard enough simply to get the SHGC from most manufacturers :thumb

July 7, 2008

the factory guys are pretty good at helping us out with these things.

July 8, 2008

im going to call the tech lab and findout what the IR rejection is at different parts of the IR spectrum.

CP already tested the Prestige line and from 780-1000nm, transmission exceeds 60% in the shorter wavelengths, and from 1100-1500nm transmission exceeds 20% at the peak of the “bell” curve. So there no way that the claim of 97% IR “rejection” can be from 780-2500nm.

I'd be curious to see what the 3M guys tell you.

Tinitman · July 8, 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.

I bet to differ where I am located. It is marked as a high heat rejecting film to satisfy the heat gain on the western exposure where I am located. I am far from being pissy about the amount of IR claims to be blocked. I am more concerned the customer believes that light of a film will reduce enough heat load in a building.

The angle issue.

Take the common sense route, when is it the hottest during the day 2:00 or 5:00? Besides as said before, NFRC does not recognize 45 degree only 90.

V4V · July 8, 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.

I beg to differ where I am located. It is marked as a high heat rejecting film to satisfy the heat gain on the western exposure where I am located. I am far from being pissy about the amount of IR claims to be blocked. I am more concerned the customer believes that light of a film will reduce enough heat load in a building.

The angle issue.

Take the common sense route, when is it the hottest during the day 2:00 or 5:00? Besides as said before, NFRC does not recognize 45 degree only 90.

My recollection was that the original performance was quite average on these nano-layered films. The film itself in a slightly different format had been designed for OEM automotive application under the name SRF. The angle measure came about as they tried quantifying performance and noted that there was higher angular performance. My read was that was an innocent error in judgment. Once they recognized that all glass and all window films perform in the exact same way (thanks again to CP Films who jumped all over this hyperbole) the dye was cast.

The brochures were printed, the training modules prepared.

Dealers simply parroted the information they heard or thought they heard. Clear Film that eliminates 97% of the IR, or more hyperbole - -the heat!

The important question isn't simply whether 3M or their dealers exaggerate the performance of Prestige?

The real question concerns the consumer who trusts the brand and is being ill served.

Whether this entails a rigged heat lamp BTU test, videos of corroding films implying all other competitors corrode, or this silly angle of incidence business!

This is why the NFRC Certification has become so critical and in the future Energy Star Ratings based upon this NFRC quantified results. It's all (or rather, should be) about ethics and consumer protection.