Not all "ceramic" or "nano" films are created equal�

[wickedtint]

I had installed a sample of pana flex on my daily driver windshield. I liked working with the film, loved the way it looked and was pleasantly surprised at how much heat rejection I could feel.

That being said, I'm not a gambler and my business reputation is very important to me. I decided to not move forward with flex film because the company is young and doesn't have a "proven" film. That being said I only have and only will sell films that have a proven track record and can withstand the test of time.

Good luck to you Ralph.

6 years experience and you already know what films work? I have worked with the bigger name films and seen it go to crap in as little as 2 years.

[wickedtint]

Actually yes! I trust a lot of the information I read right here on tint dude!! Learn from other people's experiences.

[Ocala]

Well good luck to ya! 

[wickedtint]

Why would I need luck? I install some of the world's best films better than any of my competitors can.

[Ocala]

Like I said before, I have seen the so-called best go bad within a short period of time.

[wickedtint]

It does happen. That's why we should all go with reputable manufactures that back their warranty. Like Howard, global and lulu

[EWF]

It does happen. That's why we should all go with reputable manufactures that back their warranty. Like Howard, global and lulu

 

Hi Wicked,

 

Wow..  sincere thanks for the kind words.  To be mentioned in the same sentence with those two is a high compliment.  I am truly humbled.

 

I am here if you need any thing - have a great weekend.

 

-Howard

[Bham]

Let me see if I somewhat understand and if I have a valid argument here  I could be totally confused here.  

 

You have figured out a way to make the Carbon particles smaller...fine.  The carbon is the stable part of the process.  But it likes to bond easily, so you added a chemical around the carbon ( a chemical that is not carbon??) so that the particles will not bond as easily.  Therefore putting an element or chemical in between your stable carbon and the rest of your materials.  Allowing room for breakdown if I understand correctly.  

 

This is my problem with the claim of longevity in stuff like this.  You went through 4 generations of advancement in technology.  Technology which is changing the products we use, almost as we use them.  How can you claim any kind of longevity with something that is brand new??  It seems to me, all you can do is "hope" and try to back up your mistakes without going under if it fails.  

 

I understand there are all kinds of test that can be done to try prove the durability of your film, but does that really show "real world situations".  I just think there are too many factors for real world testing that can't be proven by a machine that blast your film with whatever rays and heat it can produce, to try show longevity and durability.  While the carbon in your film might be stable, the entire product is not made up of only carbon.  Also we introduce other elements during install (air, water, solvents) that all bond with the adhesives, again creating room for failure.  

 

While I'm sure your film is good and probably performs well..  There are a ton of different films out there. Some are great and some are not.  And the way I see it, there will be a ton more new films to come.  All we can do is try them out for "immediate performance", and hope they last.  

[vquestfilms.com]

 

Carbon particles love to form C-C bonds... I learned that in chemistry class back in the day. It's pretty cool all of the different stuff that can result from different carbon chains... Diamonds to graphite and much more.

 

So as Ralph demonstrated the challenge for film mfg's is breaking up the marriage and controlling the coating on the particle because that too can refract visible wavelengths and cause haze. Interestingly a lot of manufactures have a haze factor in numerical form that they monitor and try to stay under a certain percentage. It is getting better as illustrated.  

 

Carbon in a refined form is nice, it's black which is good for color, it can be refined down to small nano-scale particles with a little work. The only drawback I have seen is that carbon is "organic" and prone to breaking down as organic materials naturally do unless it gets changed to an oxide or other element combination. It would be interesting to post your 1,000 hr QUV and ZA comparative results Ralph.

1. The half-life of a radioactive isotope describes the amount of time that it takes half of the isotope in a sample to decay. In the case of radiocarbon dating, the half-life of carbon 14 is 5,730 years.-------  I have been researching the decay of carbon.  It takes a very long time for it to break down.  I am not trying to be funny but when a mummy is discovered in Egypt, scientist can tell how old it is by carbon dating.  They do not test the dye in the bandages.  I think the dye is gone after several thousand years.  The carbon is still there.  Carbon decays at a steady, predicable rate.  That is how carbon dating is so accurate.  I do not believe that the break down of carbon will be influenced in a QUV and ZA test.  Please correct me if I am wrong.  I will consult with some PhD's that know a heck of a lot more than me and get back. 

 

 

Hope you're not using carbon 14 Ralph... it's kind of radioactive. The warranty claims would be off the hook!

 

Seriously though, I get what you are saying. However, carbon decay and half-life's does not translate as directly to change in VLT as one would gather from that illustration. All you need is for the C element to change a small percentage in its ability to filter visible light which could be possible because unlike a mummy that is sealed under ground, window films and their components are exposed to the sun and therefore subject to the effects of visible, IR and UV whereas mummies are much more insulated from the solar em spectrum.

 

I see a lot of carbon/ceramic combinations hitting the market. On paper and in their spec cards they look good but my questions as to their durability still remain for several reasons:

 

• Why do some carbon films on the market fade?
• If the carbon is the component filtering VLT, then how stable are the components filtering the IR?

Good comparative photospectromic tests pre and post QUV/Zenon Arc will always be telling more so than a jar of acetone or DCM.

[EWF]

Why do some carbon films on the market fade?

 

Hi Rob,

 

This one I know the answer to. 

 

There are "Carbon" Films on the market that have dye in them in addition to Carbon

There are "Carbon" Films on the market today that have no Carbon in them at all - they are NR Dyed films with a carbon look to them

 

If you are using a film with "Carbon" in the name - check with your supplier.  Carbon has become somewhat of a hot buzz-word to sell film. 

 

-Howard