Talk:Low emissivity

Some old discussions
it sounded like the only sensible thing to do BUT here in southern Spain, our low e- glass does not seem to perform to well if fact - it does so badly, that I started doubting the glass IS LOW E...

?anybody knows how one can tell weather the glass IS what the sticker that came on it syas?

thanx YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO HOLD A LIGHTER UP TO THE GLASS AND ON THE CLEAR SIDE YOU SHOULD SEE 2 REFLECTIONS AND ON THE LOW-E SIDE OF THE GLASS YOU SHOULD SEE 4 REFLECTIONS.

"Coating a glass surface with a low-emittance material reflects a significant amount of this radiant heat, thus lowering the total heat flow through the window." - Shouldn't it be the other way around? The pure definition of Low-emissivity as its name suggests, is that its ability to emit energy is low. Because of this inability to lose energy, it inevitably reflects radiant heat.

"Low-E coatings are transparent to visible light, and opaque to infrared radiation. Different types of Low-E coatings have been designed to allow for high solar gain, moderate solar gain, or low solar gain." Low-E coatings are opaque to long-infrared rather than near-infrared. The latter is the IR from the sun while the former is converted from other wavelengths like UV, Visible Light, Near-Infrared, etc.

The reason why Low-E coatings are now able to allow for moderate- or low-solar heat gain is because of solar control coatings that have been added to the glass or coated onto IGUs.

Soft-coat or Sputtered Low-E Coatings must be placed within IGUs. Pyrolytic or Hard-coat Low-E can be on single-pane (monolithic) but its effectiveness cannot match up to the sputtered ones. Also, for pyrolytic Low-E glass to achieve low-solar heat gain, the glass can be tinted. Again, it is not the Low-E coating which reduces heat. This is a gross misunderstanding in the glazing industry.

So in essence, Low-E coatings are primarily for heat retention (for winter in temperate countries or heating environments), and NOT for keeping out the heat from the sun. That probably explains why your Low-E window in Southern Spain is not working. --NVX 02:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

NVX, while what you say is essentially true, it is also true that most window coating products on the market now are both low emissivity and solar control coatings (not two seperate coatings but one product that achieves both). --Chapuisat 21:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Chapuisat, thanks for your point. There are a handful of products which are like that. A typical one has a soft-coat (or sputtered), probably fabry-perot stack coating, which enables it to cut out huge amounts of infra-red radiation without compromising on its visible clarity. This coating is primarily a solar control coating but its exposed surface (within an IGU's air gap) enables it to be Low-E as well. This is extremely costly and not common at all. Make no mistake, this is a classic product!

That said, what bugs me to no end is the fact that many glass suppliers jump on to the bandwagon and claim that their Low-E glass can do that when in actual fact they can't.

Take pyrolytic ones for example. They are cheaper and need not be in IGUs. The fact that their surfaces are not exposed, means that the emissivity of the window takes the value of the glass (since emissivity is a surface characteristic). This means the Low-E function is sort of muted.

Sputtered ones: there are those which are a single-layer of metal sputtered onto the glass (within the IGU). This does indeed give it a Low-E capability, but its solar control ability is very limited. These are more expensive than the pyrolytic ones but cheaper than the first one I mentioned. (ie. the "classic" product)NVX 04:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, message was truncated.

The bone I'm picking is that glass suppliers are using the capability of the "classic" products, and spreading the word that ALL Low-E windows are the same! The thing is that Low-E windows are not meant for tropical climates because they keep the heat in, unless they definitely have that solar control capability (like the "classic" product).

A colleague of mine shared this true account: A building in a tropical country had Low-E windows installed. According to the glass supplier, it would reduce the heat gain. So when a visitor remarked that the place was still very warm, the building facilities manager responded saying that thankfully they had Low-E windows installed, else it would have been EVEN hotter! The fact was that Low-E windows had been the reason the interior was hotter. In fact, in a case like this, leaving the original plain windows would have been a better option.

NVX 06:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)06:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Misunderstandings still persist about the qualities of both low, mid and high solar gain glass. Unfortunately the window industry has many overzealous sales and marketing people who misrepresent the characteristics of their competitors coatings in order to increase market share for themselves.

The anecdotes referred to earlier in this discussion show that glazing choices must be made after considering information from knowledgable, unbiased sources. Many glass suppliers offer all types of coatings to help lower energy load on buildings. Many window companies can provide windows with different levels of solar control AND heat gain qualities within the same building depending on the exposure, size of glazed area and other conditions in order to achieve comfortable temperatures while reducing Greenhouse Gas emmissions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.12.136 (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Material
What specific materials are utilized in low e coatings? I'll attempt to ascertain. LorenzoB (talk) 05:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Soft coat Low - e uses silver, Hard coat uses tinHschlarb (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge to Insulated glazing
It appears that this article only applies to Insulated glazing, and the content here is no longer than what is already in the appropriate section there. &mdash; Sebastian 19:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Longer isn't the only measure of usefulness. Which is clearer and better written?Ccrrccrr (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am leaning towards agreeing with Ccrrccrr although finishing with what appears to be a rhetorical question leaves some ambiguity. The detailing supplied in the Insulated glass article is moving away from the topic to a more technical discussion of components. Either we expand the Insulating glass article to address all of the characteristics that affect the performance (ie Solar Heat Gain Coefficients, Sealants (forthcoming), Security applications) or simply supply links to the appropriate content.Hschlarb (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You're misunderstanding the request. For a merge request it has no bearing which of the mergeable articles or sections is better written. The very idea of merging is that you take the best of both. I don't think anybody ever suggested otherwise.
 * The reason why I mentioned length was because I contemplated whether we could merge the other way; from there to here, and keep this here as an independent article. That would mean shortening the section there, and fleshing this article out with the merged information. I came to the conclusion that I would prefer merging from here to there. The reason is because we will still get a normal size section there with what we have, and I don't see a need to keep a separate article here. If the section grows to a nice article size, we can still bring it back here. &mdash; Sebastian 01:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right--I misunderstood the point of saying it was longer. However, that's something of a moot point.  Based on the discussion below, I think it is good to move most of that information here and merge it into what is here.  Ccrrccrr (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd be in favor of moving the more technical content back to Low-emissivity and just provide a link for more information in the Insulating Glass article. Hschlarb (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I have to admit there's some advantage in that because it would reduce the overall size of the IGU article. So, you really feel that we have enough material on Low-emissivity for this to be a valuable article of its own? &mdash; Sebastian 03:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. Most people that would be interested in reading the IG article understand that Insulated Glazing is a good thing. My direction would be to hint at what to look for in a well constructed unit, what can be done to make it even better, give them the terminolgy they need to keep the shysters from overwhelming them and then point them in the right direction on the details.Hschlarb (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This sounds like a good plan. I just hadn't thought of this. So I'll support you! &mdash; Sebastian 06:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge - the concept of low emissivity applies to more than just glazing - see http://www.low-e.com/, for example. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism
Looks like the lead paragraph was lifted verbatim from http://www.efficientwindows.org/lowe.cfm. Archive.org proves that the text there predates the article here. I am going to remove the lead and replace it with a rudimentary lead. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Radiation and greenhouses
An editor has been repeatedly deleting this section. I'm bringing this discussion here, as the comments on the edits haven't been sufficient


 * In typical insulated glazing, the low-e coating is found on one of the interior faces of the glass. A simple low-e coating helps to reduce heat loss but allows the room to be warmed by any sunshine. If solar control is required then the outside pane of glass would have either a film or a body tint to reflect solar radiation. The principle of operation is similar to the way selective wavelength transmission of glass or other glazing helps warm a greenhouse, popularly known as the greenhouse effect, in which short wavelength radiation is transmitted through the pane, but longer wavelength radiation absorbed rather than transmitted. However, low-e glass reflects the radiation rather than absorbing it, improving performance compared to the glass in a simple greenhouse.

The edit comment was:
 * Saying one thing in the text and then explain that it was incorrect in a fotnote makes no sense and is misleading. Greenhouse effect is a poor comparison. And other parts of the text is unclear.

The footnote does not contradict the text. The text says that the selective wavelength transmission helps warm a greenhouse, not that it's the dominant effect. The footnote says that another effect is important, not that selective wavelength transmission does not matter.

As for the other parts that may be unclear, please specify which, so that we can improve them. Ccrrccrr (talk) 13:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am the editor Ccrrccrr is referring to.


 * To begin with I certainly did not remove any tag, as indicated above, it wasn't even in that part of the article.


 * This makes no sense: "A simple low-e coating helps to reduce heat loss but allows the room to be warmed by any sunshine". This is unclear at best: "If solar control is required then the outside pane of glass would have either a film or a body tint to reflect solar radiation."


 * This is not true: "The principle of operation is similar to the way selective wavelength transmission of glass or other glazing helps warm a greenhouse, popularly known as the greenhouse effect". The greenhouse effect has little if anything to do with real greenhouses. (The footnote, while correct doesn't help, and kind of contradicts the previous statement). And whether "selective wavelength transmission of glass" actually helps to "warm a greenhouse", to any non negligible extent, is dubious. As explained in the footnote, the main effect that keeps a greenhouse warm is preventing convection.


 * Finally the section ends with: "However, low-e glass reflects the radiation rather than absorbing it, improving performance compared to the glass in a simple greenhouse.", this is correct and makes the entire "greenhouse" and "greenhouse effect" comparison fail.

—Apis (talk ) 14:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thus the section makes no sense.


 * Oops, sorry for the tag--I meant to type  to show the footnote.  I've corrected that above.


 * Thanks for the more specific complaints. I'll reply as time permits.Ccrrccrr (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, now to respond. This is said to make no sense.  "A simple low-e coating helps to reduce heat loss but allows the room to be warmed by any sunshine".  I don't see any problem with it.  Solar radiation passes through glass and passes through a standard simple low-e coating.  That allows solar gain.  "warmed by any sunshine" is that idea in lay terms.


 * This is said to be unclear. "If solar control is required then the outside pane of glass would have either a film or a body tint to reflect solar radiation."  I'm not sure what is unclear to you--a question would help.  The application of interest is where heat is undesired--e.g. where air conditioning is in use.  A film is some coating on the surface of the glass to reflect more of the solar radiation than with the simple low-e coating.  It would be designed to reflect most IR and maybe some of the visible depending on the desire for light and view.  A body tint is mixed into the glass itself to absorb the same wavelengths.


 * The text said to be untrue "The principle of operation is similar to the way selective wavelength transmission of glass or other glazing helps warm a greenhouse, popularly known as the greenhouse effect" is in fact true. The statement includes the qualifiers needed to make it true: 1) "helps" and 2) "popularly known as".  The footnote does not contradict it but expands on those qualifiers.  As Apis says, "the main effect that keeps a greenhouse warm is preventing convection," but that does not contradict the fact that there are other more minor effects.


 * The final text is said to be correct. I agree there.  But it's also said to refute the greenhouse and greenhouse effect reference fail.  I presume that the assumption there is that if low-e is better than plain glass (at stopping thermal radiation from escaping), then plain glass can't be better than nothing (again, at stopping thermal radiation from escaping).  That's a fallacy.  If a gallon is bigger than a quart, a quart can still be bigger than a pint.


 * Before we put the text back in, I'd like to clarify the parts that are unclear. If you can point out which parts of my explanation above were most helpful I could try to incorporate those into the text before putting it back in. Ccrrccrr (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we agree on the first two sentences. My objection against the first part was that it was (or now "is" since the editor Pratt brought here reverted my edit again) unclear. If they mean what I think they mean (i.e. the same as you think they do) they just repeated information from the previous paragraph. I think adding a clarified version of that text would be great though, since it's not particularly clear as it is.


 * Regarding the rest (which is what I'm mainly concerned about) let me begin to point out that low-e stands for Low-emissivity, i.e. reflective as opposed to "black". This makes the greenhouse effect analogy a really bad one in this article since that involves a "high-e" atmosphere.


 * Also, low-e windows are typically insulated by using several layers of glass (with different coatings) with a low conductivity gas layer in between to prevent thermal conduction through the window. Some greenhouses have multilayer coverings but far from all, and not this advanced, so it's not typically true for a greenhouse either (and obviously not the greenhouse effect either!).


 * The idea that the greenhouse effect plays any significant role in a typical greenhouse is a common misconception. The comparison with the greenhouse effect is misleading and helps spread this idea. The point of covering a greenhouse in glass is to thermodynamically insulate it from the surroundings while still allowing light in for plant photosynthesis. That is, the point is not to heat the greenhouse. Adding low-e glazing makes a lot of sense in this case though, but it's probably too expensive for most real greenhouses to make any economical sense.


 * Also the point in using reflective coating in normal windows isn't necessarily to heat a building either, but to insulate it while still allowing sunlight (i.e. for lighting) and a view to the outside. If you don't need the light or the scenery then you are better off without windows. The heating effect from sunlight through such windows can easily become a big problem. Any passive house design would have to carefully take this into account so the house doesn't get overheated (e.g. during summers or sunny days). That is why you might need "solar control". But I think focusing on "solar heating" is wrong in this article since what one is generally after is better insulation.

—Apis (talk ) 09:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is fine to explain this heating effect from sunlight though, it's benefits and disadvantages. But we should keep any "greenhouse" analogies out of it. And we shouldn't help spread the misleading greenhouse effect == real greenhouse analogy.


 * Thanks for continuing this discussion. It seems that there are two issues here.  One is the presentation and emphasis in the material about the effect of low-e windows on solar gain.  That seems like it's fixable, and we should leave it in and work on improving it.  The other is whether to mention the word greenhouse.  I'm hearing that the wording doesn't have any particular problems, but the concern is that just mentioning it will reinforce the naive model.  My philosophy is that the best way to fight the naive model is to put more accurate information out there, not to maintain silence about it.  So I'd rather keep the discussion in, bolstering the caveats as needed until it's fully accurate.  Rather than avoiding mention of it, we should include an accurate description, whatever it takes to do that.  Ccrrccrr (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

—Apis (talk ) 06:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I agree on the first two sentences. Regarding greenhouses, the main problem isn't only that it might reinforce a naive model (although that would be a problem as well). Rather the analogy is wrong here, the greenhouse effect is caused by high-e greenhouse gases, while this article is about low-e. And, as is trying to be explained on the solar greenhouse page, the greenhouse effect shouldn't be compared to real greenhouses. If I understand it correctly, you assume that you can ignore the atmosphere in and outside the greenhouse (and a lot of other factors), but that is not true. Nor is "solar gain" the reason for material choice in a greenhouse, but rather insulation and transparency in the photosynthetic active light region. Still these discussions are irrelevant on this page. I don't see how (or why) to add that without getting off topic.


 * Right, the point that the atmospheric greenhouse effect, as well as the glass greenhouse effect as described in old botany textbooks, is high-e, whereas this is a low-e article, is a critical one to keep clear. I guess my philosophy is that if there is potential confusion about that, one ought to explain it well, rather than to keep safely clear of it.  Certainly an analogy "this is just like" is a really bad idea; but drawing the contrast can help people sharpen their understanding.


 * It's true that if fossil fuel is cheap, insulation (U-value) and photosynthetic transmission are the two key criteria for a greenhouse glazing material. But given that the whole point of the greenhouse is to stay warmer than the outside, solar gain is beneficial in reducing fossil fuel use.  Some of the solar gain is wasted when venting during the day is needed, but it can extend the season over which heating during the day is not needed in cold climates.


 * Here's an attempt to edit it to meet these objections.


 * In typical insulated glazing, the low-e coating is found on one of the interior faces of the glass. A simple low-e coating helps to reduce heat loss but allows the room to be warmed by any sunshine. If solar control is required then the outside pane of glass would have either a film or a body tint to reflect solar radiation. The mechanism of warming a room through a high-solar gain low-e window has some similarities to the way selective wavelength transmission of glass or other glazing helps warm a greenhouse, popularly known as the greenhouse effect, in which short wavelength radiation is transmitted through the pane, but longer wavelength radiation absorbed rather than transmitted. However, there is one important difference: low-e glass reflects the radiation rather than absorbing it, decreasing heat loss compared to the glass in a simple greenhouse.

—Apis (talk ) 12:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if small, that is an improvement. :) Didn't we agree on to clarify the first two sentences? And I'm still not happy with the greenhouse part. But maybe we should wait for a cocnclusion on the greenhouse page first.


 * I'm glad you at least think this is moving in the right direction. We did agree to clarify the first two--thanks.  I'll work on that next (which might not be right away).  As for waiting for a conclusion on the solar greenhouse page...that might take a while--just reading the latest posts on talk there will take quite a while. Ccrrccrr (talk) 14:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Apis: "The greenhouse effect has little if anything to do with real greenhouses." Apis is part of a group dedicated to the proposition that greenhouses don't work the way physicists say they do.  Somehow they're convinced they understand the physics of radiation better than the physicists.
 * This would not be so bad if Apis did not also subscribe to the philosophy that it's absolutely fine on Wikipedia to revert an expert's carefully worded paragraph when he (Apis) personally disputes it, passing the buck to others to bring it up on the talk page---if they instead re-revert it he simply re-re-reverts it. You can see his arguments for this and a raft of remarkably uninformed assertions about radiation at the section Blocking IR does not enhance the warming effect of the talk page of the article on solar greenhouses, all of them contradicting the picture painted following the second table at Planck's law.
 * Apis has been a big time sink for me at Solar greenhouse. If he's like this with other articles, his innocent protest that he is "improving Wikipedia" doesn't seem terribly compelling. Taking away from people's editing time by having to deal with his unilateral reverts of legitimate material is hardly a valuable contribution.  --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Naming goofiness, etc.
Why is the name of this article Low-emissivity, with Low-emittance the bolded name in the intro, and no mention of "low-emissivity" in article, and why is Low-emittance red? What about low emittance, low emissivity, etc.? Why is the "E" uppercase, and why isn't it italicized (it should be e). Why isn't the epsilon symbol mentioned? Gene Nygaard (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

What about transmittance?
This article claims that emissivity + reflectivity total 1, but Thermal Radiation claims you must also add transmittance. I believe the latter is correct... am I missing something? --Colanderman (talk) 04:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

emissivity opaque
There is a  with reason=the adjective at this place in the sentence makes no sense to me; what is the intended meaning?. Light coming in must be transmitted, reflected, or absorbed. For an opaque substance, it is either absorbed or reflected. In symbolic form, emissivity is e or ε. For an opaque substance, it might be εo. The adjective then comes after the noun, as that is where the subscript is written. Maybe this helps. Gah4 (talk) 07:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)