3M Prestige 60 Solar Window Film Review
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 мар 2020
- This is my evaluation of the 3M solar film and the items I used to test
Seek Thermal Imager
amzn.to/3c4IHww
Temp Gun
amzn.to/3NVyvDU
Solar Power Meter
amzn.to/3uBJ1Jm 
Наука
Наука
We just had these installed and could not be happier. The window itself is warm if you get close to it, but the rest of the house is considerably MUCH cooler. Radiant heat is blocked, stopping at the film, while before, it would go through the window and warm every surface it touched in the room, creating a greenhouse effect. We have two walls of glass in our condo and can finally enjoy the view without feeling as if we were dying. Not to mention the health benefits from the UV ray blockage. It also reduces the glare when looking out. We got the Prestige 70, which is the lightest version, and it is doing exactly what we paid for. The film was of course installed inside as we live in a condo.
That's interesting, it's quite the opposite of what I have shown. Perhaps mine wasn't installed correctly (3M authorized installer) or is defective, but for my case it's hotter inside than it is outside with a temp gun and thermal imager. I'm not happy with it.
STEM_SAVING Well, today is one of the hottest days yet, and this is very interesting. We are super comfortable in here. The temperature outside is 28 in the shade and rising, AND the temperature inside is also 28 - BUT because the infrared heat is blocked, we don’t feel like there is a wall of solid heat coming towards us from the windows. It is SUPER comfortable here. We had foil on our windows (looked awful, the strata was mad at us) and even with the foil, we felt this very real, very solid wall of heat coming through... and now nothing. Both me and my husband have health issues and we really could not be happier. I baked bread this morning and still the house is fine. I don’t know why you would not notice a difference... I wonder if there is a defect somehow, or if measuring the temperature alone is not enough to notice the infrared issue.
@@stem_saving1644 Are you sure it's installed correctly? I see in your demo that the film is taped to the window. Was the adhesive liner removed?
It does stop the radiant heat from being absorbed by the room, but like I had mentioned in the vidoe, the whole window heats up and then by convection the air gets heated. So, it does stop radiant heat, but converts it to thermal heat.
As you can see in my house, I pretty much have a wall of windows and seen little difference.
I'm assuming so, since it was installed by a certified 3m, installer. That's the only way to buy it at the time.
Awesome video. Thanks for putting this review out. It's been nearly impossible to find any of this type of info through a Google search
Thanks. If you get films, get external ones. As you seen, internal ones provide little value.
Thank you for the review. I was going to buy this, thankfully I saw this. Won’t waste my money on it.
As a currently 3M soalr film user living with hot air inside room...i came to find this gem!
Thanks for being honest
mighty informative
If your using internal films, are you experiencing similar results as I am?
@@stem_saving1644 yes, I do. The film inside gets hot and heating the room, albeit slowly . Now considering 3m prestige 90 exterior.
Thanks for the feedback. Let me know how the exterior works. Not impressed by the interior films at all.
Hi Stem, I appreciate you posting this informational video. A few things I would like to point out as they may not be obvious. 1. With any window film the temperature of the window will increase, that is because the heat has to pass through the glass, hit the film and then pass back through the glass. In this process the glass and film will both get hotter. The good news is that this is heat that is not coming into your home. The amount of heat rejected from coming in your home is proportionately more than the bit of convection from the hot window. 2. If you install blinds the heat will enter undeterred into your home, while the blinds (because they are white) will be a lower temperature than the glass, you will still have radiant heat entering your space, and you will experience convective looping as you call it. 3. I think a fair test would be a before and after of the same space, same day, measuring the temperature of your interior space and furnishings in the light, not just that by the door.
We have installed a fair bit of 3M Prestige, and the heat rejection is so significant that our clients see big differences in their utility bills, not just their interior temperatures.
Thanks for your response. I respectfully disagree with your assessment. 1) if the radiant energy is heating up the glass/film, then by definition you have now said it's heat and now in the house as thermal energy. It's been converted from radiant to thermal.
2) it does stop radiant energy that is true, However, it's converted to thermal energy, which just heats the house indirectly by way of convection looping anyway.
I believe these are misrepresented as total energy rejection...thermal + radiant . If I have a black piece of paper in front of the window and say blocks 100% of total radiant energy that's true, but if I fail to mention it's just converted to heat thats misleading.
Is there some comfort with the films, sure, the radiant Energy doesn't strike you directly when in the space. But you'll still get hot as the air temperature rises from the films and convective looping..
The cellular shades block and encapsulated the remaining heat from entering the space. There is leakage, but it's better than not having them. Shades provided better results than the film from what I have seen.
If you want to see what the difference is in temps, watch my bali shades review. I do exactly that. There I see the 15% savings on energy costs and lower temps. Proof positive they work. Plus you can see how hot it gets on the window.
Bottom line is the film needs to be on the outside of the glass to really reject energy. But they are not designed for that.
@@stem_saving1644 have you ever been in a tinted vs untinted car? How do you explain that vast difference using your train of thought?
The tint absorbs the heat and uses the glass as a heat sink. Just like in my case.
@@stem_saving1644 The shades will likely cause more of this heat loop you are trying to avoid. I really do think you were the victim of bad installer.
If you reach out to 3M they can likely help you run a more complete experiment. Where you measure the temperature in your space on a sunny day and then measure it again with film installed on an equally sunny or sunnier day.
There are millions of square feet of film installed every year mainly because of its ability to keep spaces cooler.
The shades aide in reflecting the remaining radaint energy the film does not reject, as well as contain the thermal heat of the film.
Not sure how the film is installed incorrectly, kind of hard to screw that up.
Priceless info. Thank you
I am supper glad to have found your review and the work you did. This is soo useful for people that are looking to install windows film. note : Never fully trust a sales person ... thank you for your work, this saved me a lot of $$
They now have outside films, probably work better.
Thanks for this interesting info. I have searched (unsuccessfully) for any review (non-commercial) and have found only yours so far. It makes me pause as I am looking for options short of replacing windows. In today's computer age it is strange to not find reviews of products that make good claims. Makes me pause.
Yes sir. I agree. If your going with film, it needs to be on the outside for heat rejection. Mine was inside films. But what these cost to put in, it almost makes sense to get windows with low e glass instead. Please consider subscribing if you haven't already.
I think your testing lacked a complete analysis. You did not measure the temperature of the objects, (floors,walls,etc.), that the light is striking. Your measured the heat of the glass, and of course the plain glass is a lot cooler because it is passing most light and heat through to your house.
I agree that replacing windows is better than film, but that is not always possible. Neither is completely covering the windows with solar shades.
I think you need to re-do your test to include interior surfaces.
I think your mistaken in your understanding of radiant energy. Films such as these are suppose to reject radiant energy, which ( when absorbed) becomes thermal heat. It's simple conservation of energy. If it's not reflected it's aborbed or transmitted.
Which is the point I was trying to make. The radiant energy is absorbed by the film, which then heats up and transmits the heat back into the house via convection.
So, you either heat the house directly from radiant energy with no film or in my case the film heats up and transfers energy into the house via convection.
My btu equipment and thermal analysis shows that. Heat flows from higher potential to lower potential, if my windows are 120 degrees and my house is 75, guess where the heat goes?
@@stem_saving1644 Why don't make 2 glass boxes, one covered in 3M the other not; then put a thermometer inside each of them and see which one is hotter?
No need to. We can see by window testing as well as the sample glass panes that radiant energy will pass through glass with minimal heating . It's when it's absorbed either by the home or film that it converts to thermal energy.
The issue is the film is attempting at using the glass as a heat sink. If the film was made to adhere to the outside of glass it would work. But it's not designed for that. Low e glass works in a similar manner, but the film is on the glass facing the outside and the air gap reduces transmission into the space.
Where my film is on the inside and the same air gap prevents thermal transmission through the glass to the outside. Make sense?
@@stem_saving1644 you just proved your point. It’s absorbed or reflected. You bought film that reflects 8%. So your window film will absorb large amounts of energy. Simply put. Wrong film for your area.
Not correct. Absorbed, reflected, or transmitted. Energy must obey the laws of physics. The film seems to allow some radiant energy in, while absorbing most into the film and using the glass as a heat sink. But yes it's the wrong film. This film does little to reflect heat as the thermal imager shows.
Hi great research with useful data.. I also use 3M Nightvision series.. I did it by my self.. first of all did from inside I get same result as you, it was more hot inside... then I turn the twin glass 180 degree and now is better. Now the film are outside more than 2 year. they are okey, only small scratches due to cleaning isue .. but the film finish point is inside of the frame! so it can not unstick due to winter or summer time.
Thanks
I agree theses should be outside films. Not sure why they were designed to be inside. But if they would be designed for outdoor use they would work great. Unfortunately, they don't in my opinion. They just get hot and heat the house via convection.
Could u share the place u bought it from? I’d like to install 3M on 2 patio doors but can’t seem to find any online retailers (ebay or wide search)
They are only installed through 3M authorized installers. I couldn't, find them online... at least at the time.
If you buy film, buy external film. Those are the ones that work best.
Thanks for the video!
I saw in the 3M website a version called "Prestige 60 Exterior" and looks like it can be applied outside, have you heard about it?
No haven't heard of them. Mine are internal and not very impressed with them. External would work better.
Prestige Exterior is available in 20, 40 70 and 90.....no 60.
I'll pass. Wasn't happy with the interior version. I'm getting new windows instead, as I'm over due.
@@stem_saving1644 Please let us know how the new windows block the heat and UV...we are always trying to learn the new technology of new windows, especially with low-e...Thank you!
I have a sample of prestige 40 (exterior) installed on a window that's not visible for a few years and when the sun is on it you can feel less heat coming through just holding your hand there, but how you actually measure it correctly is more complicated than just an IR reading IMO.
Also the film absolutely without a question needs to be exterior in order to function effectively no matter what any manufacturer decided to print on a piece of paper.
Hey STEM. We had 3M authorised sales guy come to us a few days ago. He recommended that exterior film be used on double glazed windows and NOT the interior film for the EXACT reasons you described. According to the sales guy, multi glazed windows and interior film do not work together if you want to reject any form of heat infiltration. He did mention that the external film is relatively new, with half the warranty period of internal film. Based on his strong recommendation, we are considering having the Prestige 40 external on our sun facing DG windows. We're in Australia, so on our north facing DG windows.
The window would need to be watched for heat gain on the outside as well. Ask how hot the film gets and do they warranty against seal failure for labor and materials.
The interior films did not impress me at all.
This makes sense, because she you have double glass, the problem is that the air between windows gets hot and, as it is "trapped" there it maintains heat a lot more, so this might be the foundation of why an inner film wouldn't work. I'm in Denmark, in an apartment whose windows are all that make up a wall facing west. The temperature in gets 10 degrees hotter than the outside when the sun heat. I can touch the inner glass and get almost burned, but the outter glass is cooler (no film here, I'm renting, not worth the money)
Most windows have the space filled between with a vacuum or inert gas which inhibits heat transfer.
Heat flows from higher potential to lower potential. The greater the potential, the more heat flow. In the inside case, the potential difference inside is greater so most of the energy will transfer inside vs the difference between the inside and outside temps.
@@stem_saving1644 then mine must not have it. The interior gets burning hot and the outtee glass remains cold. Completely opposite than what one would want during hot days
Yes. The issue, I believe, is the hot glass has an easier time dissipating heat into the room vs through the glass. The thermal resistivity of that gap (either vacuum or inert gas) in the window reduced heat transfer.
In layman's terms, the heat has a harder time to get out than move in.
Thanks for posting this really informative. 🙏🏼i'm looking for blinds or film to reduce the heat i live in arizona do you have in recommendation 🤔
Double cell cellular shades or even triple cell. White will give the most bang for the buck as it reflects almost all the suns energy back. If you get films for Windows already installed, they need to be on the outside of the window, otherwise you get the problem I have.
I believe the film should be on the outside of the window and it would prevent the issues he demonstrated. 🙂
Yes. The air between the panes of glass would be a thermal break. Films really need to be on the outside. These were a waste for me.
STEM_SAVING I should say that I was referring to installing NEW windows on new construction 🚧. I need windows and I was looking at my options. After seeing the price for the film, considering your test and seeing that the film goes on the inside, I’ll still spend less money on triple pane windows. Also, air filtration (cold or hot) will be minimized too. Today is a good day. Thank you!
Yes. I'm in the same position. Looking at new windows.
Agree, Shade or curtains are the best and probably cheaper. Unless you are sitting near the windows UV light is actually good because it acts as disinfectant by killing bacteria and viruses. Something to think about.
UV light is horrible for dwellings. It fades almost anything it strikes and on top of that is known to cause cancer
it has to be outside , you need 2 layered windows
What about exterior application?
They are not designed for that. They are held onto the widow with surface tension with water, for example. This is why I don't recommend them.
3M Prestige Exterior is designed to be installed on the outside, and you avoid the glass getting hotter.
Mine were interior films not exterior films. I do agree exterior would work better.
@@seacoolwindowfilms5783 and the Prestige Exterior has a 7 yr warranty; as compared to the Lifetime warranty for the interior version of Prestige...Both versions are incredible products!
I don't think the interior versions do much for keeping heat out. Be interested to see how the exterior does.
I know it's been a while since you posted this video but just my thoughts... The 3M films you show in this video don't seem very reflective on the outside surface. I'm assuming that's why the "Visible Light Reflection" spec is only 8%. Most heat reduction films have higher reflectivity from the outside, not a mirror exactly but you get the idea.
The "Total Solar Energy Rejected" spec of 53% I assume means this is the energy value that's prevented from passing THROUGH the film but, as you say, some of this will be absorbed into the film itself and cause localised heating. The key question is, what effect does this have on the overall room temperature? You'd need to mount an air temperature measuring device in the middle or back of the room (not in direct sunlight) to get an idea of that before and after the film was installed (with similar sunlight conditions).
Yes, the film may be at 120 degrees but does that result in a lower room air temperature compared to allowing the sun to pass into the room and heat the surface of your carpet, soft furnishings etc. You could test this by measuring the carpet in direct sunlight with and without the film. If for example the film measures 120 degrees but the carpet measures 140 degrees in an area not covered by the film, you can see how the film is actually having an effect. Also, measuring the same carpet in an area covered by the film would give presumably a lower reading - by how much I have no idea but just food for thought. These are the experiments I would be doing. Good luck with it all anyway. I hope you get it sorted out! 😉
Don't fall into the total solar energy rejection trap. This is simply radiant energy.
Total solar energy and total energy aren't the same. Total energy=solar + thermal. It's the total energy that's allowed into the space that counts. The film does prevent solar energy from coming through the film, As you can see with my btu meter.
But, it converts it to thermal energy which is heat. So, it's a bit deceptive. It still enters the room, just in another form. That's how the room still heats up.
Also, not all heat is in the visible light spectrum. The visible light transmission shows how dark the film will be.
I did solve the problem, I purchased new low e windows and did some testing which really dropped the total energy into the space. I'll post when I have something ready.
I believe the film is to be installed on the outside
No this is specifically for the inside and as the testing showed, it didn't perform well. At the time this was purchased there was no exterior version.
3m prestige 60 rejects 53% TSER only on clear 1/8 single pane glass. For example, dual pane 1/8 clear glass rejects roughly 24% TSER without window film and around 20% more heat rejection with 3M Prestige 60. Read the normal section data on the sample card that you took that window film sample out of. I've been in the industry for 25 years. It's terrible that 3M makes this so confusing and doesn't make it very clear on the samples, but I explain this to all my customers. Another thing you are not measuring correctly is the surface before and after. You also need to measure the surface temperature of objects in your home. This is not easy to do, but the film reduces heat, just not as much as you were led to believe. Also, dual pane glass absorbs a lot of heat with these types of films. The best option for dual pane glass for heat rejects is metalized window films. I've worked in front of all these films for years and I can tell the difference because I'm much cooler when working with these films. 3M Prestige wasn't designed to block a lot of heat on dual panes. It's designed to block IR, UV, a little glare, and some heat without changing the aesthetics of the glass, and it performs much better on old single-pane glass. I recommended Prestige 70 & 60 for protecting furnishings. Another great option for dual pane heat rejection is exterior silver or ceramic film if you are okay with a shorter warranty and higher cost per sq. ft. These films perform best on the exterior surface of dual pane glass units because the heat is reflected before it enters the thermal pane.
The measurements are accurate, I measured both ways energy can enter the space. Radiant and convection.
It's the total energy rejection that's what's important. If radiant energy is converted into heat and omitted, it's pointless. Which is why the film heats up so much. The film on the inside should not reach the levels of heat seen.
Overall, the interior film is junk.
I'll agree that exterior film is better as the heat can be dissipated via conduction.
@@stem_saving1644 It's not junk. It's just misunderstood by many because 3M has misleading specs. I rarely suggest these films if heat rejection is the primary goal. I've never been a big fan of 3M, but we use a lot of different brands and products since we have many different challenges and requests from our customers. I live where some people actually could use this film in the winter as a benefit of the heat absorption 🤣 🤣As I said before we mostly use 3M prestige on historic buildings or for customers that need to protect valuable furnishings and artwork from UV and IR. Have you tested a single-pane glass? We don't see much single-pane glass in the Northern States, but I believe it should perform better on single-pane glass since the heat can't get trapped in a dual-pane. Glass naturally absorbs more heat like asphalt roofs and driveways. This is why exterior metalized and ceramic films are more effective for heat rejection. Reflecting the heat away from the glass to reduce heat absorption is key. It's not as simple as it sounds when you realize glass and many materials on buildings and homes absorb the sun's heat quickly.
Your explanations doesnt make sense. The film has to reflect off the heat, however it is not 100% efficient so inevitably it absorbs some of the infrared energy and will be converted to heat. The window without any film however lets the infared energy through the window, since it lets it through it does not heat up the window however it heats up the house.
Do remember that infared is a form of light (and could also pass through vacuum), it means that it can be reflected just by putting something shiny. However this shiny object is not perfect and would inevitably absorb some light and heat up but overall more light is reflected outside than absorbed by the film.
Do remember also the difference between this and solar panels. In solar panels the infared is actually absorbed but this light is converted to electricity instead of heating up.
p.s. I got an A for Cambridge A level Physics
The film makes the claim that 53% of solar energy is "rejected". What is very vague is what "rejected" means. It doesn't say reflected, transmitted, or emitted. These are standard measurement terms for radiant (solar) energy. So, if the solar energy is converted into heat from the film (as in my case), is that included as rejected?
Since you have taken physics, you would understand that solar is radiant energy which are E&M waves from visible light all the way up to UV and gamma rays rays.Visible and IR make up a small fraction of that energy. When radiant energy strikes an object it is either reflected, transmitted or absorbed or fractions of all of the above. Conservation of energy says energy can't be created or destroyed so if its not reflected or transmitted it has to be absorbed.
Yes, shiny objects such as metal are called radiant barriers and reflect radiant energy. Which are based on reflectivity and/or emissivity based on how they are used.
Understand you solar panel example, has some holes in the broad brush strokes your applying. Yes I agree the photons are striking and displacing electrons which are creating your power out of the panel. Solar panels have a roughly 20% conversion rate of energy, which implies 80% is lost to heat and/or reflection. If you look at solar panel surface temperatures they can reach 180F+ (I have these documented in my other videos as well). This is similar to what is happening in the film. The film is converting radiant energy to thermal energy and now claiming that 53% energy is "rejected" when its merely converting it to heat and isn't called solar energy anymore since its changed forms to thermal energy.
I have seen days in which the films heat up to 130F+ under higher solar irradiance days.
@stem_savings - whats the latest on this? Seems like putting a reflective film on the outside is the trick...
Yes. Outside is key. At the time, 3M didn't have those. But anything outside will degrade in the sun.
@@stem_saving1644 that's what I'm reading. LLUMAR makes outdoor commercial tint. Need access to that
Video seems flawed because it's not taking into account of specific heat density. Solar films are made of low density metallic plastic usually. Less dense materials transfer much less heat. There's examples of low density ceramics being pulled out of an oven and being safe to hold while still glowing red hot. The temperature doesn't matter as much as the amount of heat being transferred. Glass does a fantastic job at transferring heat. Also, without the tint 100% of the energy would go into the room and heat it up, this is a much worse situation. Whereas it appears that the film reflects 40% and seems to absorb about 10% of the energy as local heat. Hence why the BTU reading significantly outperformed advertised specs. All of that heat hitting the film would go into the room and heat it anyways.
Not sure what your referring to as heat density? Your terminology makes me think your referring to thermal mass.
Or your referring to heat flux. Which is the flow of heat. Not to be confused with radaiant energy. If radiant energy is reflected, then there's little heat flux. However, if the film is absorbing radiant energy and converting it to thermal energy then you have heat flux.
The films efficiency is primarily dictated by how much radiant energy it can reflect without converting to heat. But in my situation this label is decieving because both radiant and thermal energy flow into the space.
There is a direct correlation to heat flux based on how hot something is. The hotter an object gets, the more energy it radiates.
Do you have data showing your ceramic heating example ?
@@stem_saving1644 ruclips.net/video/Pp9Yax8UNoM/видео.html
Glowing hot ceramic cube, because it lacks density, it can't transfer enough energy to burn someone like a cube of iron at the same temperature. Same principal applies to low density plastic, just not as extreme. Except it's the hot low density plastic transferring heat into your room vs ceramic cube transferring heat to your hand. That cube at several hundred degrees transfers less heat than a small piece of metal at 200 degrees. The window trim at higher temperature should (emphasis on should) transfer less heat than glass at lower temperatures.
The video lacks any measurements and isn't scientifically valid as a form of scientific proof.. Mainly a guy talking about how hot something is with no analysis or measurement.
@@stem_saving1644 It's a simple concept. I'm not going to waste more time on this. There's plenty of examples explaining how it works and how items of lower specific heat capacities "insulate" by preventing the transfer of heat. That's literally how insulation works...You're still ignoring that any heat on the film would have gone I to the room anyways. You want to be right, and you've found a hill to die on.
Your confusing heat transfer with energy conversion again. High reflectivity means less heat absorption of the material. The film's R value is very low for all practical purposes almost 0. High r values would resist heat flow and make for a cooler surface. I'm radiating heat into my living space from the windows and that's a fact. A cooler surface doesn't mean it's hotter than the outside temperature.
Fiberglass insulation would do much better in this situation than the film.
If the films total energy reflection were high. A majority of the radiant energy wouldn't absorbed by the film causing it to heat up. Instead it would be reflected as radiant energy.
It's not about being right, it's about being scientifically correct.
Who came up with this brilliant idea to install this on the inside??? It will just heat up your double glazed units even more trapping heat inside... should be on the outside keeping infrared and uv rays out...
Yes. That's what I'm seeing. These were interior films only. Agree 100% these need to be outside, but they aren't designed for that.
Using a small section like that - you are blatantly ignoring ambient heat.
Small section like what? The entire window is hot on the inside. The film is causing the ambient heat inside by its absorption properties!
🤷🏻♂️It seems to me that the film should be on the outside of the window. WHY DIN'T YOU DO THAT? It seems obvious from your experiment. WHAT AM I MISSING? Thanks. 😉
You are absolutely right. These are marketed as heat reduction films. Unfortunately, they do very little to do that and aren't designed to be put on the outside only on the inside. They are really just UV blockers in actuality.
STEM_SAVING Well, there goes that!
Also, this film is not cheap at all. I did the math and I would rather spend the difference on much better windows. Thus far, exterior shutters or blinds are the only solutions for me.
For now, I’ll consider better-tripled pane windows. The price difference seems to be worth it.
Thank you for your experiment.
👍
Yes your correct. Better investment is upgrading the windows. If they made film that worked on the outside, that would be ideal.
You can’t test the film in this manner. You either have the entire window coated or you don’t. That tiny piece of film is clearly being heated by the entire class that isn’t costed.
The science behind it is clear. Look at the sliding door with the sample film, the film adds heat to the glass. It's an additive effect. All glass will absorb some radiant energy when light passes through. In this case the film does nothing more than convert whats left after passing through the glass to thermal energy. The glass gets hotter with the film. It's basic physics.
Put the film on the outside
Not designers for that. It's an inside film
You are not using your thermometer and thermal camera in the right ways. Infrared is still light, so you are not measuring what you think you are measuring when you point your instruments at transparent and/or reflective surfaces like films and windows. There is also the emissivity of each surface to consider when trying to use these tools. It gets very complex. Instead, do it easier and with thermometers: install the film on one of your windows in a ventilated room with some air circulation, like a fan. Take two of something that absorbs light well, like an unglazed terracotta pot or a black plastic planter. Fill the pots with the same temperature water, place one on each windowsill, then measure at intervals with the same thermometer. Such a setup will be more analogous to relative real world results with the film, and circumvent some of your measurement problems.
There aren't any problems, it's simple physics... simply look at the temp of shades down. Around 100F. That implies behind the shade is even hotter. Which follows logically what the temp and imager are measuring. When you put your hand on the film you can feel the difference.
Sure your can do all the things you suggested, but why if the tools I have can do the same job without all the hassle with trying to conduct a science experiment?
@@stem_saving1644 I am trying to gently tell you that there are problems with how you are using your tools. I can lead you to the river, not force you to drink. But I urge you to on your own time and from sources you trust look into emissivity and reflectivity, which affects the readings from both your thermal camera and your infrared thermometer.
Look into the Fluke 62 MAX infrared thermometer, similar form factor to your Ryobi. The Fluke has a setting for emissivity from 0.1 to 1. What does changing that setting do to the measurements from the Fluke? Why do they even have such a setting?
Like you say yourself, you are not conducting a science experiment, but replacing the hassle of doing one with what you read on the displays of your tools. But what if those readings are incorrect, then where does that leave your video? And as I believe you will discover if you decide to look into it, they are incorrect. Do the science experiment please. It's very little hassle, literally two pots and a thermometer.
Science is not about being sure, it is about making sure. Your results should only be confirmed with an experiment measuring the same thing in a different way. In this case however, I do not believe you will be able to replicate the results you show in this video if you choose to explore this from the two pots and a thermometer angle.
@ringpolitiet check out the window casing itself. No alleged emissivity issues, but also almost virtually just as hot, which confirms the results. I'm not worried about a couple of degrees of error, as it's drowning out in heat.
I didn't need a science experiment to confirm the results I could feel. It's good enough for govt work.
I also recently replaced the set of windows below the ones with the film on them and the temps beteewn them were staggering. One was 140, the other 80. Can you guess which one was which?
@@stem_saving1644 I see there will be no drinking from the river today. Maybe tomorrow.
@@ringpolitiet don't need to drink from the river when you have water plumbed in at your house.
Made a basic mistake on your end. Energy rejected isn’t the most important thing. Reflected energy is key. That is where you went wrong. 53% rejection means 47% gets into the home, plus the 8% reflected means you are accounting for 55% of the energy. Where is the other 45%?....you guessed it and proved it, it’s absorbed by the film.....Hence the hot film. If you wanted to reduce the heat in the home you don’t go with a low reflective film....you go higher as you don’t want the energy staying in the film.
Actually yes it is. Total energy rejected is what counts. It is the reflected energy of the film. The higher the rejection the less energy into the space. This is what heats the space up.
@@stem_saving1644 that is your problem. You don’t understand the value of the other data points. The reflected energy is specifically listed at 8%. The rejection is what is blocked out. In your example 53% is blocked. So where does it go? 8% will be reflected the rest stays in the film. You opted to keep it in the film. You can disagree all you want but you have the hot windows and fancy gadgets to prove it.
There are no other data points it's simple physics. Energy in be it by way of conduction, convection, or radiation is still energy that heats the space. You might want to review some physics, it's all solid known facts, which the measuring equipment proves.
@@stem_saving1644 you might want to review the cooler rooms of people that picked the right films. Buying fancy gadgets doesn’t make you a physicist. It’s simple math. 53% energy blocked equals 8% reflected plus 45% absorbed by film. Your gadgets prove the film is absorbing large amounts of heat. You should review how science states that you should follow the evidence not flawed logic. This film is clearly designed to absorb heat, which isn’t what you wanted. You were sold the wrong film.
I don't disagree its the wrong film. Not sure where your getting your numbers from. 53% of the total energy is getting either reflected or absorbed. There is no "blocking" its absorption, reflection, or transmission.
Your 8% visible light is a fraction of the total energy in the spectrum and does not imply the two are a neccessarily a summation as your implying. Most heat and thus energy is not in the visible spectrum. So, the value itself doesn't provide any meaningful data and is very misleading.
Which goes back to my original point. It's how much total energy that gets reflected (not absorbed) that's important.
exactly antique single glazed windows ....
the rest of the world uses 3 and 4 layers of glass with plastic frames and multiple seals and he complains that his house heats up in summer and that his heating costs are astronomical in winter.
modernize your houses instead of buying foils and air conditioners,
fixes the problem, not the symptoms
They are actually double pane windows, if you look at the window.
Of course it need to be installed on the outside.
It's not an outside film. These were designed for inside use
@@stem_saving1644 Ah ok. For keeping the heat outside, it must be exteriour film. But you know that. 😉
Yup. That's why these films aren't worth it
Thank you. I go with the science and the empirical results every time. Your study suggests the product does not perform. Intuitively, your explanation that the film warms up and that the energy is transferred to the glass and then the interior of the room make sense. So, why are people/consumers happy with the results after installation? I would like to see a more formal study of this product before I make a purchase decision. At this point, I will not invest in this product.
Thanks for your response
I think it's the lack of understanding between radiant energy and thermal energy most people have.
They feel cooler since the radiant energy isn't striking them, not knowing the energy is still flooding the space just in another form.... thermal.
This coating would work well on the outside of the glass, similar to a low e costing. But at the time, it wasn't available. I have installed new low e coating windows with similar specs as the film and there is a world of difference in both radiant energy blockage and the indoor temperature of the glass.
Wow, this is the greatest troll video ever!