Huper Optik X3 Ceramic

February 8, 2009

First, let me start with the fact that I'm at a bit of a loss about the SHGC and SA of C-40 film because as far as I can find on the internet Huper doesn't publish those numbers. I understand that since Huper publishes a SC of .53 for C-40 you can multiply that number times .86 to arrive at approximately .46 for SHGC They don't publish enough info for the SA numbers to be extrapolated as far as I can tell, but if you want to help me out with that I'd appreciate it.
Second, I agree that SHGC is supposed to be a measurement of heat gain that includes the portion that is absorbed and re-radiated inward. Ideally, two different films with the same SHGC would be equally effective at all times. In reality, this is not true. Because SHGC involves both reflected Solar energy and absorbed solar energy, it is possible to have a SHGC that is equal for two films but where the reflectivity is high and absorption is low on one and reflectivity is low and absorption is high on the other. Most likely, the more reflective PD-35 film would have the lower SA of the two.

This is taken into account. The LBNL software that is used to produce what we use as film performance specifications calculates the selected product or product combination under selected environmental conditions to evaluate its U-Value, SHGC and SC. These “summer conditions” are factored into the equations that produce the SHGC result that we see. It accounts for a room being cooler than the outside air. There are environmental conditions factors for different parts of the world to account for varying conditions when computing fenestration performance.

There are two problems that can occur as a result of the low reflectivity/high absorption film...
A) In a real world situation in a modern building or home the indoor air temperature is cooler than the outdoor air temperature during warmer months. Since warmer months are when solar heat gain is a greater problem, and since conductive heat travels in the direction of lower energy, a highly absorptive window that is being heated by the sun will conduct more of the heat inwardly than it will outwardly when indoor air temperature is lower.

Again, this is accounted for in the SHGC. The reverse is also factored in when accounting for the U value during winter months when interior temps are warmer than exterior. To ignore these conditions when trying to calculate SHGC, U Value, and SC would be a highly inaccurate mistake.

Diagram A: When it is warmer outside, glass will conduct heat towards the inside surface.
Diagram B: Conversely, glass will conduct heat to the outside surface when it is cooler outside.

B)The problem is further increased with dual-pane glass because the airspace between the panes causes the convection effect to be reduced. The heat in the inner piece of glass cannot move toward the outside air because the airspace and second piece of glass insulates it from the outside air, so instead it is convected toward the inside of the building.

In the NFRC Certified Products Directory under “Applied Films” you will find dual pane specs for Hüper Optik Films and others. These performance measurements factor in the environmental conditions as well as the entire window system (frame)so that when you read the SHGC result it will be inclusive of all of these factors plus inward convection.

The problem here is that Hüper has the dual pane results in the NFRC directory but JWF has yet to get their products Certified Tested to NFRC Standards. I am at a loss as to why JWF does not join the other major MFG’s and test their products to a standard that is recognized by the DOE and monitored by peer groups for accuracy. This is the only process to qualify films for future Energy Star ratings. Surely, if the performance #’s were not accurate, then window film would not be in the NFRC Certified Product Directory, nor would it have a hope of making the Energy Star Program some day.

Since the performance specifications published by manufacturers typically is based on readings taken from the film on 1/8" clear glass, it's important for both the actual glass being installed on and the prevailing climate to be taken into account. It's not a "theory" that a film with a higher SA would often be transmitting more energy (heat) to the interior, it's a fact.

It is a “theory” when you make a blanket statement and do not factor in some of the points mentioned above. Yes, you have to factor in the actual glass as well as the framing, environmental conditions, reduction in NIR transmittance, the affect of the HVAC system, orientation of the window, time of year, and a whole host of other factors.

Technicalities aside, I have taken the higher absorbing ceramics and placed them on glass next to single ply versions and the dual reflective films that perform similarly. There is not a big difference unless you put your face right up to the window and when you do that, all of the films feel hot. Temperature samples show about a 5F surface temp difference depending on the film used.

hoosierwindowtek · February 8, 2009

You keep making this an argument between Huper and Johnson.

Are you trying to prove that Absorption does not affect SHGC? All you have to do is look at 2 different films, one with higher SA and one with lower SA and you'll see on the NFRC specs that the higher SA film has a higher SHGC on dual pane glass than a lower SA film does even if the SHGC is the same on clear single pane. An example of this on the NFRC website is comparing Vkool 40 to 3m Silver 35. I can't think any other reason for this phenomenon.

My argument is that ceramic from any manufacturer may not be the best choice of film for certain situations, especially for a darker ceramic.

I think all ceramic films are better than no film. That's a given. But some films might be better than ceramic in terms of performance.

I know what you're gonna say to that, that performance is a matter of what you need and what the customer wants... blah blah blah.

If you don't agree that Johnson makes a good product for the money then fine.

I don't need to hear that from you. I have enjoyed the discussion.

This is a quote from the discussion board at JWF:

We are currently working on certification documents showing which JWF films meet the qualifications within certain climate zones around the country.

We will keep everyone posted when this information is available.

Thanks.

Cody

Cody Forbes

Marketing Director

Johnson Window Films, Inc.

I don't know why they haven't done it yet, but I do know that 3M was the first to pass ISO certification and at the time they were saying they were the only manufacturer that could afford to do so in the industry. (This was during the time when Panther film was still being manufactured) Eventually a bunch of others have passed so these things take time.

I think the Llumar tech bulletin put it well when it said, "A film merely being “ceramic” does not automatically

mean 'excellent in every way.' "

Johnson may not have NFRC certification, but they are more forthcoming about some of the specs of their films, like Solar Absorption, and at least they don't try tricks like on-angle performance like another manufacturer.

According to the published specs from Johnson; "Tests, equipment and methods according to ASTM, ANSI and NFRC standards. "

BTW, I keep editing this because I'm adding stuff as I have time.

February 8, 2009

and at least they don't try tricks like on-angle performance like another manufacturer.

thats funny, they do exist weather people want to pony-up to it or not. when the NFRC gets off there oneway teat sessions and says so some people will eat a whole bunch of ceramic crow. vc do you sell other films besides ceramic. when I show products I try and sell to the custys needs and expectations first and there budget second.

blade · February 8, 2009

vc do you sell other films besides ceramic.

are you kiddin' me? I bet his company polos are ceramic. :lol

February 8, 2009

You keep making this an argument between Huper and Johnson.

Well… this is a thread about Hüper and you started talking about Johnson.

Are you trying to prove that Absorption does not affect SHGC? All you have to do is look at 2 different films, one with higher SA and one with lower SA and you'll see on the NFRC specs that the higher SA film has a higher SHGC on dual pane glass than a lower SA film does even if the SHGC is the same on clear single pane. An example of this on the NFRC website is comparing Vkool 40 to 3m Silver 35. I can't think any other reason for this phenomenon.

No, I am trying to show you that SA and inward convection is already accounted for in the SHGC using the NFRC test method.

My argument is that ceramic from any manufacturer may not be the best choice of film for certain situations, especially for a darker ceramic.

He wanted glare reduction first and foremost. That means he either has to go with a low vlt non-reflective film or a low vlt reflective film. Put two 30%vlt films up, one ceramic and one DR, then ask which looks the best and I bet most people choose the ceramic.

I know what you're gonna say to that, that performance is a matter of what you need and what the customer wants... blah blah blah.

No, I’m gonna say something else…

If you don't agree that Johnson makes a good product for the money then fine.

What I see is that JWF is sourcing their ceramic from the same place that Madico sourced MAC ceramic with the same limitations. Look at the MAC program, it fell on its face and is practically dead. How do we know? Well, how did JWF get in? Madico couldn’t move enough material. So if the past is a predictor of the future, I would guess that Palisade won’t grab much market share. I could be wrong but that is my guess.

I don't need to hear that from you. I have enjoyed the discussion.
This is a quote from the discussion board at JWF:

We are currently working on certification documents showing which JWF films meet the qualifications within certain climate zones around the country.

We will keep everyone posted when this information is available.

Thanks.

Cody

Cody Forbes

Marketing Director

Johnson Window Films, Inc.

I don't know why they haven't done it yet, but I do know that 3M was the first to pass ISO certification and at the time they were saying they were the only manufacturer that could afford to do so in the industry. (This was during the time when Panther film was still being manufactured) Eventually a bunch of others have passed so these things take time.

They've had a year now.

I think the Llumar tech bulletin put it well when it said, "A film merely being “ceramic” does not automatically mean 'excellent in every way.' "

Nope, it sure doesn’t. Look at Vista’s Ceramic, it had corrosion issues. :lol

Johnson may not have NFRC certification, but they are more forthcoming about some of the specs of their films, like Solar Absorption, and at least they don't try tricks like on-angle performance like another manufacturer.
According to the published specs from Johnson; "Tests, equipment and methods according to ASTM, ANSI and NFRC standards. "

BTW, I keep editing this because I'm adding stuff as I have time.

Johnson also gets asked why no 72” all the time. Their excuse is that there is not that much demand for it. My question would be, if there is not that much demand, then why is everyone asking about 72”? :lol

February 8, 2009

and at least they don't try tricks like on-angle performance like another manufacturer.

thats funny, they do exist weather people want to pony-up to it or not. when the NFRC gets off there oneway teat sessions and says so some people will eat a whole bunch of ceramic crow. vc do you sell other films besides ceramic. when I show products I try and sell to the custys needs and expectations first and there budget second.

I do, I sell a ton of graffiti film and SS, a lot of DREI (Gen 3 we be taking the Achilles heal away, nothing can touch it now), Fusion is looking like a winner, and then deco is a staple for me too. I just like talking about ceramic because so many people bash it. :lol Something to do I guess... :lol

February 8, 2009

I dont know about this statement

I would guess that Palisade won’t grab much market share. I could be wrong but that is my guess.

the way the econ is ..ppl are not going to be able to justify a high end film like HO..as much as they have in the past...I guess we will see..unless the dealers come down on sqft price to get it sold..then they will be shooting them selfs in the foot..and once they do that..it will be hard to get the price back up in a later time.

but im guess that is why they came out with a DR that they can sell as an alternative?

hoosierwindowtek · February 9, 2009

My hunch is that Madico's problem with ceramic film is that the buy-in is (was?) too high.

They wanted way too much money for ceramics and they're only marginally better than standard neutral films, if at all.

hoosierwindowtek · February 9, 2009

Okay, V, I finally figured out how to explain why I have gotten so impassioned about all of this. Please read it closely, and without bias, if possible, because I'm seriously trying to explain to you and everyone why I am concerned...

Yes, SHGC is a number that includes absorption. (Clearly I undertand that fact, which you failed to acknowledge even though I posted diagrams of the REAL issue.)

Yes, Huper makes some of the best versions if not the best versions of ceramics. (I.e., lower reflectivity and higher clarity.)

Yes, the clarity might be a little better and visible light reflectivity may be lower than Johnson Palisade.

I suggested Palisade because of 1 reason: price.

I'm pretty sure that even though I don't know the cost of Huper films, Palisade is probably less than half the price.

It would make sense to pay twice as much or more for a film that offers twice the performance benefit, but that's simply not the case. Not only does C-30 not perform twice as good, it's even lower performing than some less expensive films on dual pane glass. And, I'm not talking about dark, highly reflective films, either. I'm talking about non-ceramic neutral metalized films.

Huper doesn't publish SHGC numbers for anything other than single pane clear glass, so I'm glad you told me where to find them. According to the NFRC website, when installed on double pane glass, either tinted or untinted, Huper C-35 film has lower performance numbers than a considerably less expensive neutral film. That would be hard for me to feel good about selling to a customer who has dual pane windows. Even in cases where the Huper product is better performing, the difference is so slight that it would take years to recover the higher cost.

Because of the fact that Huper doesn't publish those numbers on it's website, it's potentially misleading to the customer because they don't have the numbers for their own windows unless they have windows made of 1/8" clear glass which isn't very common. Yes, I'm aware that Johnson doesn't publish dual pane numbers either. I can't find them on anyone's websites, but then again, Johnson's not trying to r*pe anyone with price.

I was trying to be helpful to the original poster, but you seem bent on discrediting everything I say. if matuss, or anyone else will read all of this, they'll hopefully realize that the evidence being presented by Huper's websites is selectively forgetful at best but the way to still get the truth is from the NFRC website. I guess it is good that Huper got certified because that's the only way to get the full story.

I know Huper has super low reflectivity numbers. I also know that few people would know how reflective a film is in their own home unless you install 2 or more types side by side. To put it another way, show a customer a sample of Huper ceramic and a sample of Johnson ceramic and a sample of Madico ceramic. Then, have them leave, and install one of them on all the windows. When they come back, I seriously doubt most people could tell you which one you installed.

I myself didn't even know all these issues until I started doing the research in the last couple of days. The only reason I did that was because you acted like I'm an idiot when you're the one who misread my initial post. Either way, I'm glad I did the research because now I see through the hype of ceramics.

I also don't understand why you're defending the Huper product so adamantly, because as far as I can tell, you're not even in the running to get the job. Maybe it's just so you can sleep at night. Just because someone asked about a specific product doesn't mean you can't recommend an alternative. If someone asked me what I thought of crack for headache relief, I'd feel obligated to suggest he try Ibuprophen instead.

Put simply, matuss, save your money and go with an equal or better performing less expensive film.

February 9, 2009

Okay, V, I finally figured out how to explain why I have gotten so impassioned about all of this. Please read it closely, and without bias, if possible, because I'm seriously trying to explain to you and everyone why I am concerned...
Yes, SHGC is a number that includes absorption. (Clearly I undertand that fact, which you failed to acknowledge even though I posted diagrams of the REAL issue.)

Yes, Huper makes some of the best versions if not the best versions of ceramics. (I.e., lower reflectivity and higher clarity.)

Yes, the clarity might be a little better and visible light reflectivity may be lower than Johnson Palisade.

I suggested Palisade because of 1 reason: price.

I'm pretty sure that even though I don't know the cost of Huper films, Palisade is probably less than half the price.

It would make sense to pay twice as much or more for a film that offers twice the performance benefit, but that's simply not the case. Not only does C-30 not perform twice as good, it's even lower performing than some less expensive films on dual pane glass. And, I'm not talking about dark, highly reflective films, either. I'm talking about non-ceramic neutral metalized films.

Huper doesn't publish SHGC numbers for anything other than single pane clear glass, so I'm glad you told me where to find them. According to the NFRC website, when installed on double pane glass, either tinted or untinted, Huper C-35 film has lower performance numbers than a considerably less expensive neutral film. That would be hard for me to feel good about selling to a customer who has dual pane windows. Even in cases where the Huper product is better performing, the difference is so slight that it would take years to recover the higher cost.

Because of the fact that Huper doesn't publish those numbers on it's website, it's potentially misleading to the customer because they don't have the numbers for their own windows unless they have windows made of 1/8" clear glass which isn't very common. Yes, I'm aware that Johnson doesn't publish dual pane numbers either. I can't find them on anyone's websites, but then again, Johnson's not trying to r*pe anyone with price.

I was trying to be helpful to the original poster, but you seem bent on discrediting everything I say. if matuss, or anyone else will read all of this, they'll hopefully realize that the evidence being presented by Huper's websites is selectively forgetful at best but the way to still get the truth is from the NFRC website. I guess it is good that Huper got certified because that's the only way to get the full story.

I know Huper has super low reflectivity numbers. I also know that few people would know how reflective a film is in their own home unless you install 2 or more types side by side. To put it another way, show a customer a sample of Huper ceramic and a sample of Johnson ceramic and a sample of Madico ceramic. Then, have them leave, and install one of them on all the windows. When they come back, I seriously doubt most people could tell you which one you installed.

I myself didn't even know all these issues until I started doing the research in the last couple of days. The only reason I did that was because you acted like I'm an idiot when you're the one who misread my initial post. Either way, I'm glad I did the research because now I see through the hype of ceramics.

I also don't understand why you're defending the Huper product so adamantly, because as far as I can tell, you're not even in the running to get the job. Maybe it's just so you can sleep at night. Just because someone asked about a specific product doesn't mean you can't recommend an alternative. If someone asked me what I thought of crack for headache relief, I'd feel obligated to suggest he try Ibuprophen instead.

Put simply, matuss, save your money and go with an equal or better performing less expensive film.