IR and TSER heat rejection claims

[vquestfilms.com]

Using EDTM's new SS2450 LLumar AIR has an IR transmission rate of 17% and Crystalline 60 metered 16% IRT between 780-1700nm. These were metered while installed to 1/8th inch clear glass. Crystalline IRT in the range they advertise; at 950nm metered at 1%. Just understand that 950 nm wavelength is also one of four weakest in intensity regions of the entire IR range between 780 - 2500 nm. 

 

Also note that the numbers above are infrared transmission numbers not rejection numbers because there is no established means of determining what gets absorbed and radiated back out so you cannot deduce IR rejection of Crystalline or AIR 80 as being 83% or 84% respectively, but it would certainly be in close proximity to these values.

 

A marketing department would say that the term "rejection" is more effective because you can advertise a bigger number than with "transmission." Apparently, establishing accuracy is someone else's problem...

[Tintguy1980]

For shiggles I'll add that light turns to heat when it strikes a surface that is why TSER or SHGC account for light along with the other two known forms of solar energy; approx. 49% visible, 49% IR and 2% UV.

Using EDTM's new SS2450 LLumar AIR has an IR transmission rate of 17% and Crystalline 60 metered 16% IRT between 780-1700nm. These were metered while installed to 1/8th inch clear glass. Crystalline IRT in the range they advertise; at 950nm metered at 1%. Just understand that 950 nm wavelength is also one of four weakest in intensity regions of the entire IR range between 780 - 2500 nm. 

 

Also note that the numbers above are infrared transmission numbers not rejection numbers because there is no established means of determining what gets absorbed and radiated back out so you cannot deduce IR rejection of Crystalline or AIR 80 as being 83% or 84% respectively, but it would certainly be in close proximity to these values.

 

A marketing department would say that the term "rejection" is more effective because you can advertise a bigger number than with "transmission." Apparently, establishing accuracy is someone else's problem...

And so it is.

[Z-3]

I think you can explain to your clients that the IR rejections are not all the heat… 

Also when your car is parked under the sun for long enough, the whole car heat up...

You can also tell them you think their tests are inaccurate, you would recommend another

brand/model.

 

By the way, is the below formula correct for the TSER ?

UV Rejection% *6% + IR Rejection% *53% + (1-VLT%) *41% = TSER

[Jayz81]

Using EDTM's new SS2450 LLumar AIR has an IR transmission rate of 17% and Crystalline 60 metered 16% IRT between 780-1700nm. These were metered while installed to 1/8th inch clear glass. Crystalline IRT in the range they advertise; at 950nm metered at 1%. Just understand that 950 nm wavelength is also one of four weakest in intensity regions of the entire IR range between 780 - 2500 nm. 

 

Also note that the numbers above are infrared transmission numbers not rejection numbers because there is no established means of determining what gets absorbed and radiated back out so you cannot deduce IR rejection of Crystalline or AIR 80 as being 83% or 84% respectively, but it would certainly be in close proximity to these values.

Damn. I am still trying to grasp this . Thanks smartie . You rule. 

[rvpjr]

Food for thought...  I am not trying to start a debate but the benefits of IR can't always be explained by numbers or meters alone.  The benefits can be considered biologically.  The IR wavelength is the longest of all the other wavelengths in the solar spectrum.  These wave lengths are the most penetrating to the human body.  When nerve endings under the skin is penetrated by  infrared radiation, the human body usually perceives it as irritation or heat  (aka: discomfort)( everybody is different)   I have not ever heard anyone mention this theory before on this forum.  I know that a good IR film on a car can make people feel good behind the wheel and this might be one of the reasons for that  that needs to be considered. 

[Tintguy1980]

I think you can explain to your clients that the IR rejections are not all the heat… 

Also when your car is parked under the sun for long enough, the whole car heat up...

You can also tell them you think their tests are inaccurate, you would recommend another

brand/model.

 

By the way, is the below formula correct for the TSER ?

UV Rejection% *6% + IR Rejection% *53% + (1-VLT%) *41% = TSER

Those numbers are not accurate; the up to date calculations has them closer to 1.8% UV, 49.3% Visible and 48.9 IR.

 

Food for thought...  I am not trying to start a debate but the benefits of IR can't always be explained by numbers or meters alone.  The benefits can be considered biologically.  The IR wavelength is the longest of all the other wavelengths in the solar spectrum.  These wave lengths are the most penetrating to the human body.  When nerve endings under the skin is penetrated by  infrared radiation, the human body usually perceives it as irritation or heat  (aka: discomfort)( everybody is different)   I have not ever heard anyone mention this theory before on this forum.  I know that a good IR film on a car can make people feel good behind the wheel and this might be one of the reasons for that  that needs to be considered. 

Dessert = IR light heat energy is 'felt' in the immediate, visible light heat energy builds with time. So, if you are doing very short drives to and fro, IR blocking with high visible transmission will leave a person with the perception it is working better than a more balanced combo of IR and visible light blocking film or a film that works in the visible range and or less so in the IR.