My fellow mmm haters

[Guest vclimber]

The 97% IR rejection footnote has at least 6 things wrong and misleading about it. The concerning thing is that Prestige is not the only film out there that uses this slight of bandwidth trick. Many IR films are sampled in one, two, and sometimes three different regions. The 900-1000nm region is a much lower intensity region than 780-860nm for example. What does it tell you when companies like these only sample low intensity wavelenghts to report their IR performance?

Let's talk about the BTU test. I have another question... What is an inherent flaw in using an IR lamp and a BTU meter to show that one product's solar performance is better than another's?

[Guest teamfutaba]

The 97% IR rejection footnote has at least 6 things wrong and misleading about it. The concerning thing is that Prestige is not the only film out there that uses this slight of bandwidth trick. Many IR films are sampled in one, two, and sometimes three different regions. The 900-1000nm region is a much lower intensity region than 780-860nm for example. What does it tell you when companies like these only sample low intensity wavelenghts to report their IR performance?

Let's talk about the BTU test. I have another question... What is an inherent flaw in using an IR lamp and a BTU meter to show that one product's solar performance is better than another's?

the lamp only makes a narrow band of infrared not the whole spectrum, also another card thrick I see is the distance between the lamp, sample and meter. if you change the space between the lamp and sample you change the reading you get by changing the intensity. do I get another trophy..

[Booms]

do I get another trophy...........

[Guest mr3y1956]

The 97% IR rejection footnote has at least 6 things wrong and misleading about it. The concerning thing is that Prestige is not the only film out there that uses this slight of bandwidth trick. Many IR films are sampled in one, two, and sometimes three different regions. The 900-1000nm region is a much lower intensity region than 780-860nm for example. What does it tell you when companies like these only sample low intensity wavelenghts to report their IR performance?

Let's talk about the BTU test. I have another question... What is an inherent flaw in using an IR lamp and a BTU meter to show that one product's solar performance is better than another's?

I don't have my BTU meter in front of me, but I want to say that IT only measures 900-1000nm.

[flat rock stan]

The 97% IR rejection footnote has at least 6 things wrong and misleading about it. The concerning thing is that Prestige is not the only film out there that uses this slight of bandwidth trick. Many IR films are sampled in one, two, and sometimes three different regions. The 900-1000nm region is a much lower intensity region than 780-860nm for example. What does it tell you when companies like these only sample low intensity wavelenghts to report their IR performance?

Let's talk about the BTU test. I have another question... What is an inherent flaw in using an IR lamp and a BTU meter to show that one product's solar performance is better than another's?

the lamp only makes a narrow band of infrared not the whole spectrum, also another card thrick I see is the distance between the lamp, sample and meter. if you change the space between the lamp and sample you change the reading you get by changing the intensity. do I get another trophy..

yes

The 97% IR rejection footnote has at least 6 things wrong and misleading about it. The concerning thing is that Prestige is not the only film out there that uses this slight of bandwidth trick. Many IR films are sampled in one, two, and sometimes three different regions. The 900-1000nm region is a much lower intensity region than 780-860nm for example. What does it tell you when companies like these only sample low intensity wavelenghts to report their IR performance?

Let's talk about the BTU test. I have another question... What is an inherent flaw in using an IR lamp and a BTU meter to show that one product's solar performance is better than another's?

I don't have my BTU meter in front of me, but I want to say that IT only measures 900-1000nm.

I think we have the same oneMark

[Guest vclimber]

The 97% IR rejection footnote has at least 6 things wrong and misleading about it. The concerning thing is that Prestige is not the only film out there that uses this slight of bandwidth trick. Many IR films are sampled in one, two, and sometimes three different regions. The 900-1000nm region is a much lower intensity region than 780-860nm for example. What does it tell you when companies like these only sample low intensity wavelenghts to report their IR performance?

Let's talk about the BTU test. I have another question... What is an inherent flaw in using an IR lamp and a BTU meter to show that one product's solar performance is better than another's?

the lamp only makes a narrow band of infrared not the whole spectrum, also another card thrick I see is the distance between the lamp, sample and meter. if you change the space between the lamp and sample you change the reading you get by changing the intensity. do I get another trophy..

We'll paint another kill on the side of your plane.

The other thing that the IR lamp does not do is it cannot create energy in the "visible spectrum." The visible spectrum accounts for almost half of the total solar energy. Therefore, we are not comparing films under actual conditions nor we using and instrument that can compare "Total Performance."

The 97% IR rejection footnote has at least 6 things wrong and misleading about it. The concerning thing is that Prestige is not the only film out there that uses this slight of bandwidth trick. Many IR films are sampled in one, two, and sometimes three different regions. The 900-1000nm region is a much lower intensity region than 780-860nm for example. What does it tell you when companies like these only sample low intensity wavelenghts to report their IR performance?

Let's talk about the BTU test. I have another question... What is an inherent flaw in using an IR lamp and a BTU meter to show that one product's solar performance is better than another's?

I don't have my BTU meter in front of me, but I want to say that IT only measures 900-1000nm.

There you go. Some will go up too 1100nm but again, are we sampling the most intense areas of the IF spectrum? No, we are sampling one of the weaker areas with a film (in the case of Prestige) that is designed to perform better than most films in that specific wavelength.

The next question would be... How accurately are those little meters calibrated? When you combine this with what dryshrinker said about distancing the film, the whole demo becomes meaningless unless you are stuck indoors doing a home show where there is no natural light.

[Guest mr3y1956]

What about a beam splitter? Does that offer any better analysis?

[TTS]

What about a beam splitter? Does that offer any better analysis?

Nope...

[TomTint]

So in a nut shell , it would appear certain mannys are not only in the business of manufacturing window film but also manufacturing performance data that best suits the product they peddle. Again, As I said earlier, The real losers in this "published performance manipulation" is the end user. The dealer / installers who represent the product while full knowing the incomplete data also bear substantial blame. Buyer beware

[Guest Readyman]

Just go by the NFRC data, same testing method for everyone.

The only problem is that for some of the films the NFRC numbers are better than what is posted on the sample cards.