You almost lost me at “nanometer”. 😂 But you explained everything! We are picking up a new car today and have an appointment for ceramic tint on Tuesday. Thanks for the lesson!
to my understandings. TSER is a calculated specification based on the window films percentages of absorption, radiation (in / out), and Reflected energy.
Miami summer gets brutal... What is the nm value of the sun on a typical clear sunny 95 degree day? If it never reaches much over 1000nm then it doesn't matter what film you choose.
Let me rephrase... I'm assuming sunlight is approximately 500nm so what would be the reason to choose one film vs another if sunlight can't get to 1000nm?
+andrewpm2 If you just want to block out light to reduce glare, all you need is a dyed film. If you want to block out more bad stuff from the sun, you need additional technology to filter out Ultra violent rays and infrared radiation. I guess some people would just be happy blocking visible light and nothing else. Suntan lotion is no different in my opinion. I see some people using cooking oil to tan with while other people use expensive lotions with very high spf protection. I guess it boils down to what makes you happy.
Sunlight goes beyond 500nm. See this graph: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#/media/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg. Notice how a good portion of the area under the curve is still above 500nm and in the IR region. IR still heats up the inside of your car. Think about how a IR oven/"microwave" (ie. Nuwave 20326) heats up the food. Same concept applies here with sunlight. A film that blocks IR well will cool the interior noticeably, around 15-25F cooler with it.
Hello how are you? am the Junior am window film applicator in Brazil five years, I would like to know from you what is the possibility to work to get a job there in the USA in your company thank you
Quick question. I paid extra for ceramic tint however it's kinda greenish and I think he used copper film. How are we as consumers supposed to know of we got what we paid for?
Shmag Shmag The first thing I would do is find out what brand it was... then let somebody like me know and I will tell you exactly what it does and how it is constructed. Sound like a sun tek product.
This is a 7 year old video, so can be excused. Information is not exactly right, there are several factors left out, TSER in fact takes into account absorbed and reflected heat, it is more accurate than one point reading. Dyed is NOT the best film without a metal or ceramic second layer.
this is informative. however it would seem that total energy reduction takes into account how much energy there is at each wavelength. if the energy at each wavelength were equal then there would be a huge difference in TSER between ceramic and carbon, and there isnt. Most of the energy is under 1000nm where performance is identical and nearly 100% of it is under 1700nm where the ceramic has yet to go to near zero. Interestingly this explains how you can fool someone with a demo into thinking the ceramic is way better - simply use a high wavelength IR heat lamp! while it might only reduce sun energy by 5% it could cut the IR heat by 90%
hahaha i just got to the “your hand will never lie to you” in a heat lamp demo. that’s the whole point - your hand will TOTALLY lie to you because thats how the demo is rigged. A heat lamp doesn’t put out the same spectrum as the sun so its a bogus test!
Doesn't matter that the heat lamp spectrum is different. If you want heat rejection, then the heat lamp test is appropriate. If you only want UV rejection, then get the film with the highest rejection in the UV portion of the spectrum. Gotta choose your poison.
I think you are assuming that IR radiation causes heat and visible light doesn't cause heat, so you can just look at IR transmissivity to measure heat. That's not true. In fact most solar energy is in the visible range. The test does not appropriately represent that. That's why TSER makes sense as a heat transfer metric because it accounts for the energy of IR + vis + UV, in the same proportions as present in the sun's radiation. You can just look the values up too without a misleading demo. Put another way, there is a theoretical limit even with a "perfect" film on how much heat it can block, because you have to be able to see out of it. That visible light transmission is associated with most of the heat that comes through the window, and only a small fraction is due to IR. Ceramics are really close to perfect, but the benefit is incremental. Ceramic films are superior to other technologies for a given visible light transmission. They are just not as proportionally better as an IR lamp test would indicate. It's not like 9:1 difference just because IR blocking is 9:1 at IR rejection. It's more like 60 to 50 difference. If the sun emitted more IR, then the ceramic film would be more like the 9:1 benefit-we just don't happen to live in that solar system.
Why not provide a real world test? (last paragraph) You admit sellers of this product are very selective in 1. The way the data is presented or 2. By using a narrow range of data to support their argument. Your graph shows energy/power/heat on the Y axis and Spectrum in (nm) nanometers on the X axis. The performance of the Ceramic material results in a curve that has the same basic shape and trends as a graph that shows the natural decrease and flattening out of energy/power/heat in watts/meter squared on the Y axis as the (nm) on the X axis increase. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#/media/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg Both graphs show energy increasing steeply, peaking and then decreasing quickly before slowing down it’s rate of change and flattening out as the (nm) get into the higher numbers. It is this flattening out area of the graph that you claim is the area that differentiates the Ceramic from the Dye and Carbon films. But as those (nm) get larger, the energy per (nm) on the Y axis is smaller and smaller. So there is not much energy to block in the first place at these higher spectrum (nm) numbers. I like your idea of holding samples of different film types in front of a Infra Red Light and then sensing the difference in heat coming through the filters to determine which filter blocks more energy. But it doesn’t emulate a real-life situation where rate of temperature change (inside a vehicle) is the critical measurement. We all know eventually the interior of the vehicle will reach the outside temperature of the vehicle and then it will exceed it for a period of time and then the temperature will come down and again equal the outside temperature and all of that will repeat in each 24 hour cycle. What we want to get a feel for is the rate of change and the max inside temperature relative to the outside temperatures. It’s easy to show on camera the degree to which these filters reduce visible light. The other reason a person would purchase the window tint is to reduce the time it takes for the sun to heat up the inside of their vehicle. This could be important because 1. Comfort - at end of day the person does not want to enter a Very Hot vehicle. 2. Contents - vehicle may have valuable contents that will melt or spoil at high temperatures. 3. Pet - A dog or cat is left in the vehicle for a specified amount of time and the owner needs to know how long he has (minutes or hours) before the temperature increases from the starting temp to a maximum comfortable temp at which time the owner must return and cool the vehicle or remove the pet. Why not borrow or rent or trade for free tinting jobs a minimum of 2 identical passenger vans for a day. One is the control and has no tinting. The second has your most effective film for filtering Infra Red light. (Get additional vans for additional product to test (35% - Dye only, 35% Carbon only etc…but they all must be done on the same day under the same conditions for these comparisons to have any value when comparing relative effectiveness). Pick a hot day with temps forecasted in the high 90’s or more. Apply the different tints the night before. Park the Vans outside at 8am side by side facing south, 20 feet apart, with doors and windows closed. Place thermometers in several areas of each van, use the exact same spots. Use electronic thermometers with wifi or Bluetooth connection and record temperatures of each device every 15 minutes. If no Bluetooth or wifi, leave one window un-tinted or partially tinted on east side and/or north side to physically view and record by hand the tempetatures at regular intervals. Also have a thermometer on the exterior of each vehicle (roof or hood) to record outside air temperature. Collecting and then publishing this kind of data in a chart and graph is the only way for you to pass on something of value to your (potential) customers so they can make an informed decision. 1st - does the product slow down the rate of heating enough to justify the expense and 2. Do the less costly versions (non-ceramic) perform close enough to the premium product or is there a big and valuable difference. I suspect the actual real-life difference between products is small, thus the fancy numbers and graphs used for persuasion. And maybe even the best product to reduce heat gain is minimally different from the cheaper product that only claims light filtering and not infra-red reduction in the mid and higher ranges. You have invested a bunch of time with the theoretical presentations on youtube. How about doing a real-life practical application video using real vehicles with a control (no windows tinted) and a group of testers (vehicles with various tints), set up everything so the testing environment is identical and record the data and then share it with us.
Tim Hardman Thanks for your comment. Is this real world enough? I used two of my personal vehicles to to a real world demo and I continue to enjoy the benefits of this Window film daily compared to no window film. I tried very hard to make this video as real world as possible and NOT technical. th-cam.com/video/cbttKzKfTEY/w-d-xo.html
I am not accusing you and your product of being phony. But usually, when someone is being 100% honest and up front they just do the most logical and simple test to prove their point. The test you designed is very similar to the accusation you made about other companies cherry picking their data, making up test criteria that are not relevant and then selectively showing the results. That’s exactly what you did with this test that you provided the link for. Why make it so difficult? You made it unnecessarily complicated and you did not show us a starting temperature for the interior of each vehicle. Another critic in the comments for that video said the same thing. Naples Tint Company commented “why don't you use a temperature probe in each car? You have $200k worth of cars... the probes are less than $100. It would give you better results for the video.” Or, why not show the “interior temperature” on the touch screen at the beginning of each test…it would have only taken a few extra seconds and not cost you anything. Did you not think that was a relevant measurement for your roundabout test? Your complicated experiment verifies without a doubt that one car started the test with a much warmer interior than the other and the implication is, the car with the cooler interior is due to the film on the windows. Well maybe that is the truth and maybe it’s not. But this test does not prove that. Usually one does such a test and films it in a way that proves the hypothesis. That did not happen here. Sometimes, what is left out of the picture is more important than what is included in the picture. I really have no doubt that the window film slows the heating of the interior of a vehicle while it sits in the sun. What the consumer wants to know is: how effective is it? What is the rate of change of temperature in each vehicle so we can compare the two different numbers and then decide if the price of the product is worth the benefit. That would provide us with meaningful data. I will admit, my interest is focused more on how fast the interior of the car heats up. Most of your customers are probably focused on how fast their car will cool down with and without the film because the problem they are trying to solve is getting into their parked car after it has been sitting in the parking lot all day while at work. For those people, your test probably makes more sense to them but still….show the starting temperatures!!!! And, in addition to showing the test with the “ultimate” most expensive product, duplicate the test with “middle” priced product and then the “economy” product to prove the value of each one. Those cars were very easy to apply the film. Stripping them and applying new film at the quality level required for this test would take you less than 30 minutes. The cost of the film is peanuts. The only complicating factor (with an easy solution) is getting the cars cooled back down to the same internal temperatures for an equal starting point again. The test itself does most of that cooling with the air conditioner. The car that started out warmer will need extra cooling time to ring out the absorbed heat, below the surface materials, but 30 minutes of full blast A/C will take care of that. You would not need to restart the test with the exact same air temperature in each vehicle. As long as they were within a few degrees, it would still be good enough to prove the test. So in your next test, don’t focus so much of your attention and budget on the “shiny distracting objects” like Teslas resulting in you not having enough time or money left over to buy a few thermometers or to be able to rent/buy/borrow the cars for 2 days to do all of your testing instead of having them for just a few hours. Saying you did not have time to carry out additional tests (your other video referenced this) doesn’t pass the smell test. Buy 2 identical old yellow 5 window school buses for $500 each as your permanent test platforms and test every product under every situation until you have covered every possible combination. This way, you will not interfere with the busy life of your Teslas. And then redo the testing every time you get a “new and improved” product. Your numbers will be more meaningful using the permanent test vehicles in your parking lot and they will be paid for after the first test. They don’t even need to run, you can push or tow them into position for each test. You probably have a good product, don’t make it so hard for us to know that too.
Tim Hardman All this sounds good but I think you are over thinking it. I don't want to sound disrespectful but my brain is hurting just reading all this. If my brain is hurting, just think what the average customer is going through. For some reason most people want to measure everything with a thermometer. Window film basically slows down solar energy from entering the car. It does not stop it and solar energy is not heat just like fire is not smoke but that conversation is for another time. To use a thermometer in a car with window film is like trying to use a thermometer to measure how good your sunscreen is working on the beach. Either you got a sunburn or you did not get a sunburn. Most people would not return their sunscreen just because they were hot on the beach all day. This experiment is simple. With film your car will work less to keep it cool and you will not feel a radiation burn despite the interior temperature if you have a good IR film. If you really wanted to focus on temperature, you should glue space shuttle tiles to your car and wrap it with aluminum foil. I believe you would be impressed with the results. I probably sound like a smart butt but I am just trying to make a point from what I perceive to be the appropriate angle which is more about solar energy and not so much about heat. I do respect your request to redo my experiment but it really sounds impractical. I also would enjoy to see that exact experiment done with any film by anybody anywhere in the world. I do not believe it has ever been attempted anywhere to that extent. I could be wrong. I would consider it but I am not that much of a tint nerd. I am a tint nerd but not on that level. Lol I just enjoy selling what I know makes people feel better in their car. I also know there are other IR films out there to buy but the product we sell is among the best to absorb solar energy. I made another video to demonstrate this... enjoy. th-cam.com/video/-rwGnj_y_Kg/w-d-xo.html
Tim Hardman Thank you for your comment. I appreciate your point of view. Just remember that in our industry we only have substrates that can either reflect or absorb solar energy. They all have advantages and disadvantages. Some work better than others but they all effectively do the same thing. I have yet to find the miracle product that is without some fault.
see environ.andrew.cmu.edu/m3/s2/02sun.shtml. yes ceramic outperforms carbon at super high wavelengths. but the portion of the sun’s energy at very high wavelengths is negligible relative to the amount that is at 1000nm or lower. you have to multiply the traces in your graph by the graph above to make a fair comparison
This ceramic film didnt exist till just a very few years ago....I assume ? I JUST had the tint on 1 window in my car replaced, and the new tint is 5%...'limo dark' tint. BUT it is the ceramic film. But it wasn't around 10 years ago, when I got my current car tinted. Let alone the other 20 cars/trucks I have had tinted since I was like 16yo. So I have 5% all around, I assume 'dye' or maybe 'carbon' film, on my current car. It is a top of the line tint, and was the most expensive, with a lifetime replacement warranty, at the time it was done. It is still DARK 12 years later. No bubbles/fade/peeling, except that 1 window. Thus when this side window needed to be replaced, I got the ceramic tint. Instead of dye or carbon tint. Since I paid for the most expensive tint when I bought it and got the warranty, I got it replaced with ceramic, there is a slight difference in its 'look'. But I saw the price for the ceramic, and it is VERY expensive. IF I had a new car, or redid my current car, I couldn't afford it. I would have to stick with 'dye' or 'carbon', a step down I guess. BUT thats all I have ever used, thats all there ever was. Hope the rest of my windows bubble up or peel off, so I can get ceramic all around!
This has to be one of the best informational videos I have ever seen about any. wow.
Top notch for sure!
You almost lost me at “nanometer”. 😂 But you explained everything! We are picking up a new car today and have an appointment for ceramic tint on Tuesday. Thanks for the lesson!
to my understandings. TSER is a calculated specification based on the window films percentages of absorption, radiation (in / out), and Reflected energy.
I was very impressed with your video. This deserves a lot more attention!
could you make a video using cheap film vs quality?
Thanks Ralph!
That was really helpful especially when ambient temperature is above 122 F!
I am even not into tinting. But your explanation and analysis totally win my respect. You should freaking economist or something
Which is the best brand?
Thankyou for the tutorial. I gained confidence. Cheers
Miami summer gets brutal... What is the nm value of the sun on a typical clear sunny 95 degree day? If it never reaches much over 1000nm then it doesn't matter what film you choose.
Are you trying to express temperature? Temperature can not be expressed in Nanometers. A nm is 1/1,000,000,000 of a meter.
Let me rephrase... I'm assuming sunlight is approximately 500nm so what would be the reason to choose one film vs another if sunlight can't get to 1000nm?
+andrewpm2 If you just want to block out light to reduce glare, all you need is a dyed film. If you want to block out more bad stuff from the sun, you need additional technology to filter out Ultra violent rays and infrared radiation. I guess some people would just be happy blocking visible light and nothing else. Suntan lotion is no different in my opinion. I see some people using cooking oil to tan with while other people use expensive lotions with very high spf protection. I guess it boils down to what makes you happy.
Sunlight goes beyond 500nm. See this graph: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#/media/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg. Notice how a good portion of the area under the curve is still above 500nm and in the IR region. IR still heats up the inside of your car. Think about how a IR oven/"microwave" (ie. Nuwave 20326) heats up the food. Same concept applies here with sunlight.
A film that blocks IR well will cool the interior noticeably, around 15-25F cooler with it.
Hello how are you? am the Junior am window film applicator in Brazil five years, I would like to know from you what is the possibility to work to get a job there in the USA in your company thank you
Quick question. I paid extra for ceramic tint however it's kinda greenish and I think he used copper film. How are we as consumers supposed to know of we got what we paid for?
Shmag Shmag
The first thing I would do is find out what brand it was... then let somebody like me know and I will tell you exactly what it does and how it is constructed. Sound like a sun tek product.
The brand is 3M.
This was a great explanation. Thank you!
This is a 7 year old video, so can be excused. Information is not exactly right, there are several factors left out, TSER in fact takes into account absorbed and reflected heat, it is more accurate than one point reading. Dyed is NOT the best film without a metal or ceramic second layer.
Good job, Ralph!
Thank you
this is informative. however it would seem that total energy reduction takes into account how much energy there is at each wavelength. if the energy at each wavelength were equal then there would be a huge difference in TSER between ceramic and carbon, and there isnt. Most of the energy is under 1000nm where performance is identical and nearly 100% of it is under 1700nm where the ceramic has yet to go to near zero. Interestingly this explains how you can fool someone with a demo into thinking the ceramic is way better - simply use a high wavelength IR heat lamp! while it might only reduce sun energy by 5% it could cut the IR heat by 90%
hahaha i just got to the “your hand will never lie to you” in a heat lamp demo. that’s the whole point - your hand will TOTALLY lie to you because thats how the demo is rigged. A heat lamp doesn’t put out the same spectrum as the sun so its a bogus test!
Doesn't matter that the heat lamp spectrum is different. If you want heat rejection, then the heat lamp test is appropriate. If you only want UV rejection, then get the film with the highest rejection in the UV portion of the spectrum. Gotta choose your poison.
I think you are assuming that IR radiation causes heat and visible light doesn't cause heat, so you can just look at IR transmissivity to measure heat. That's not true.
In fact most solar energy is in the visible range. The test does not appropriately represent that. That's why TSER makes sense as a heat transfer metric because it accounts for the energy of IR + vis + UV, in the same proportions as present in the sun's radiation. You can just look the values up too without a misleading demo.
Put another way, there is a theoretical limit even with a "perfect" film on how much heat it can block, because you have to be able to see out of it. That visible light transmission is associated with most of the heat that comes through the window, and only a small fraction is due to IR. Ceramics are really close to perfect, but the benefit is incremental.
Ceramic films are superior to other technologies for a given visible light transmission. They are just not as proportionally better as an IR lamp test would indicate. It's not like 9:1 difference just because IR blocking is 9:1 at IR rejection. It's more like 60 to 50 difference. If the sun emitted more IR, then the ceramic film would be more like the 9:1 benefit-we just don't happen to live in that solar system.
Good one. Thanks
Why not provide a real world test? (last paragraph) You admit sellers of this product are very selective in 1. The way the data is presented or 2. By using a narrow range of data to support their argument.
Your graph shows energy/power/heat on the Y axis and Spectrum in (nm) nanometers on the X axis. The performance of the Ceramic material results in a curve that has the same basic shape and trends as a graph that shows the natural decrease and flattening out of energy/power/heat in watts/meter squared on the Y axis as the (nm) on the X axis increase. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#/media/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg Both graphs show energy increasing steeply, peaking and then decreasing quickly before slowing down it’s rate of change and flattening out as the (nm) get into the higher numbers. It is this flattening out area of the graph that you claim is the area that differentiates the Ceramic from the Dye and Carbon films. But as those (nm) get larger, the energy per (nm) on the Y axis is smaller and smaller. So there is not much energy to block in the first place at these higher spectrum (nm) numbers.
I like your idea of holding samples of different film types in front of a Infra Red Light and then sensing the difference in heat coming through the filters to determine which filter blocks more energy. But it doesn’t emulate a real-life situation where rate of temperature change (inside a vehicle) is the critical measurement. We all know eventually the interior of the vehicle will reach the outside temperature of the vehicle and then it will exceed it for a period of time and then the temperature will come down and again equal the outside temperature and all of that will repeat in each 24 hour cycle. What we want to get a feel for is the rate of change and the max inside temperature relative to the outside temperatures.
It’s easy to show on camera the degree to which these filters reduce visible light. The other reason a person would purchase the window tint is to reduce the time it takes for the sun to heat up the inside of their vehicle. This could be important because 1. Comfort - at end of day the person does not want to enter a Very Hot vehicle. 2. Contents - vehicle may have valuable contents that will melt or spoil at high temperatures. 3. Pet - A dog or cat is left in the vehicle for a specified amount of time and the owner needs to know how long he has (minutes or hours) before the temperature increases from the starting temp to a maximum comfortable temp at which time the owner must return and cool the vehicle or remove the pet.
Why not borrow or rent or trade for free tinting jobs a minimum of 2 identical passenger vans for a day. One is the control and has no tinting. The second has your most effective film for filtering Infra Red light. (Get additional vans for additional product to test (35% - Dye only, 35% Carbon only etc…but they all must be done on the same day under the same conditions for these comparisons to have any value when comparing relative effectiveness). Pick a hot day with temps forecasted in the high 90’s or more. Apply the different tints the night before. Park the Vans outside at 8am side by side facing south, 20 feet apart, with doors and windows closed. Place thermometers in several areas of each van, use the exact same spots. Use electronic thermometers with wifi or Bluetooth connection and record temperatures of each device every 15 minutes. If no Bluetooth or wifi, leave one window un-tinted or partially tinted on east side and/or north side to physically view and record by hand the tempetatures at regular intervals. Also have a thermometer on the exterior of each vehicle (roof or hood) to record outside air temperature.
Collecting and then publishing this kind of data in a chart and graph is the only way for you to pass on something of value to your (potential) customers so they can make an informed decision. 1st - does the product slow down the rate of heating enough to justify the expense and 2. Do the less costly versions (non-ceramic) perform close enough to the premium product or is there a big and valuable difference. I suspect the actual real-life difference between products is small, thus the fancy numbers and graphs used for persuasion. And maybe even the best product to reduce heat gain is minimally different from the cheaper product that only claims light filtering and not infra-red reduction in the mid and higher ranges. You have invested a bunch of time with the theoretical presentations on youtube. How about doing a real-life practical application video using real vehicles with a control (no windows tinted) and a group of testers (vehicles with various tints), set up everything so the testing environment is identical and record the data and then share it with us.
Tim Hardman
Thanks for your comment. Is this real world enough? I used two of my personal vehicles to to a real world demo and I continue to enjoy the benefits of this Window film daily compared to no window film. I tried very hard to make this video as real world as possible and NOT technical. th-cam.com/video/cbttKzKfTEY/w-d-xo.html
I am not accusing you and your product of being phony. But usually, when someone is being 100% honest and up front they just do the most logical and simple test to prove their point. The test you designed is very similar to the accusation you made about other companies cherry picking their data, making up test criteria that are not relevant and then selectively showing the results. That’s exactly what you did with this test that you provided the link for. Why make it so difficult?
You made it unnecessarily complicated and you did not show us a starting temperature for the interior of each vehicle. Another critic in the comments for that video said the same thing. Naples Tint Company commented “why don't you use a temperature probe in each car? You have $200k worth of cars... the probes are less than $100. It would give you better results for the video.” Or, why not show the “interior temperature” on the touch screen at the beginning of each test…it would have only taken a few extra seconds and not cost you anything. Did you not think that was a relevant measurement for your roundabout test?
Your complicated experiment verifies without a doubt that one car started the test with a much warmer interior than the other and the implication is, the car with the cooler interior is due to the film on the windows. Well maybe that is the truth and maybe it’s not. But this test does not prove that. Usually one does such a test and films it in a way that proves the hypothesis. That did not happen here. Sometimes, what is left out of the picture is more important than what is included in the picture. I really have no doubt that the window film slows the heating of the interior of a vehicle while it sits in the sun. What the consumer wants to know is: how effective is it? What is the rate of change of temperature in each vehicle so we can compare the two different numbers and then decide if the price of the product is worth the benefit. That would provide us with meaningful data.
I will admit, my interest is focused more on how fast the interior of the car heats up. Most of your customers are probably focused on how fast their car will cool down with and without the film because the problem they are trying to solve is getting into their parked car after it has been sitting in the parking lot all day while at work. For those people, your test probably makes more sense to them but still….show the starting temperatures!!!! And, in addition to showing the test with the “ultimate” most expensive product, duplicate the test with “middle” priced product and then the “economy” product to prove the value of each one.
Those cars were very easy to apply the film. Stripping them and applying new film at the quality level required for this test would take you less than 30 minutes. The cost of the film is peanuts. The only complicating factor (with an easy solution) is getting the cars cooled back down to the same internal temperatures for an equal starting point again. The test itself does most of that cooling with the air conditioner. The car that started out warmer will need extra cooling time to ring out the absorbed heat, below the surface materials, but 30 minutes of full blast A/C will take care of that. You would not need to restart the test with the exact same air temperature in each vehicle. As long as they were within a few degrees, it would still be good enough to prove the test.
So in your next test, don’t focus so much of your attention and budget on the “shiny distracting objects” like Teslas resulting in you not having enough time or money left over to buy a few thermometers or to be able to rent/buy/borrow the cars for 2 days to do all of your testing instead of having them for just a few hours. Saying you did not have time to carry out additional tests (your other video referenced this) doesn’t pass the smell test. Buy 2 identical old yellow 5 window school buses for $500 each as your permanent test platforms and test every product under every situation until you have covered every possible combination. This way, you will not interfere with the busy life of your Teslas. And then redo the testing every time you get a “new and improved” product. Your numbers will be more meaningful using the permanent test vehicles in your parking lot and they will be paid for after the first test. They don’t even need to run, you can push or tow them into position for each test.
You probably have a good product, don’t make it so hard for us to know that too.
Tim Hardman
All this sounds good but I think you are over thinking it. I don't want to sound disrespectful but my brain is hurting just reading all this. If my brain is hurting, just think what the average customer is going through. For some reason most people want to measure everything with a thermometer. Window film basically slows down solar energy from entering the car. It does not stop it and solar energy is not heat just like fire is not smoke but that conversation is for another time. To use a thermometer in a car with window film is like trying to use a thermometer to measure how good your sunscreen is working on the beach. Either you got a sunburn or you did not get a sunburn. Most people would not return their sunscreen just because they were hot on the beach all day. This experiment is simple. With film your car will work less to keep it cool and you will not feel a radiation burn despite the interior temperature if you have a good IR film. If you really wanted to focus on temperature, you should glue space shuttle tiles to your car and wrap it with aluminum foil. I believe you would be impressed with the results. I probably sound like a smart butt but I am just trying to make a point from what I perceive to be the appropriate angle which is more about solar energy and not so much about heat. I do respect your request to redo my experiment but it really sounds impractical. I also would enjoy to see that exact experiment done with any film by anybody anywhere in the world. I do not believe it has ever been attempted anywhere to that extent. I could be wrong. I would consider it but I am not that much of a tint nerd. I am a tint nerd but not on that level. Lol
I just enjoy selling what I know makes people feel better in their car. I also know there are other IR films out there to buy but the product we sell is among the best to absorb solar energy. I made another video to demonstrate this... enjoy. th-cam.com/video/-rwGnj_y_Kg/w-d-xo.html
This answer speaks volumes to my concerns. But I'm done here. Wishing you continued success with your tinting business. Peace.
Tim Hardman
Thank you for your comment. I appreciate your point of view. Just remember that in our industry we only have substrates that can either reflect or absorb solar energy. They all have advantages and disadvantages. Some work better than others but they all effectively do the same thing. I have yet to find the miracle product that is without some fault.
New video?
and also a step by step tutorial
Almost everything you said about IR light was wrong.
you forgot to mention metalized tint.....which happens to blow the ceramic one out of the water......funny that
Please explain how it works...
chris gala one year later yoy haven’t explained to him how Metalized is better
thanks
I understand the graph now 😎
see environ.andrew.cmu.edu/m3/s2/02sun.shtml. yes ceramic outperforms carbon at super high wavelengths. but the portion of the sun’s energy at very high wavelengths is negligible relative to the amount that is at 1000nm or lower. you have to multiply the traces in your graph by the graph above to make a fair comparison
I didn't learn a damn thing.
Time for some new videos.
I agree
+Ralph Van Pelt I agree as well.
This ceramic film didnt exist till just a very few years ago....I assume ? I JUST had the tint on 1 window in my car replaced, and the new tint is 5%...'limo dark' tint. BUT it is the ceramic film. But it wasn't around 10 years ago, when I got my current car tinted. Let alone the other 20 cars/trucks I have had tinted since I was like 16yo.
So I have 5% all around, I assume 'dye' or maybe 'carbon' film, on my current car. It is a top of the line tint, and was the most expensive, with a lifetime replacement warranty, at the time it was done. It is still DARK 12 years later. No bubbles/fade/peeling, except that 1 window. Thus when this side window needed to be replaced, I got the ceramic tint. Instead of dye or carbon tint.
Since I paid for the most expensive tint when I bought it and got the warranty, I got it replaced with ceramic, there is a slight difference in its 'look'.
But I saw the price for the ceramic, and it is VERY expensive. IF I had a new car, or redid my current car, I couldn't afford it. I would have to stick with 'dye' or 'carbon', a step down I guess.
BUT thats all I have ever used, thats all there ever was. Hope the rest of my windows bubble up or peel off, so I can get ceramic all around!