Slashdot Mirror


Smart Glass Blocks Infrared - But Only When It's Hot

klevin writes "New Scientist has an article about a new way of making sheets of glass so they block infrared energy at temperatures above 29C (84.2F). Just so long as it doesn't have to get that hot on both sides of the glass. My AC comes on way before 84F. I suppose that with double or triple paned glass, you'd only treat the exterior pane."

303 comments

  1. Safe? Lifespan? by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Interesting
    However, a number of issues still need to be overcome. Firstly, the substance is not permanently fixed to the glass. Also, the coating itself currently has a strong yellow tint.
    Anyone know toxicity of Vanadium dioxide? How would it hold up to acid rain (H2S) and what byproduct is likely if it comes away and combines with other compounds. (Remember the good old days when car brake pads were asbestos and people pissed about asbestos being in the vents, but didn't realize the city air was awash with it?) What kind of lifespan will it have under nominal outdoors conditions, including periodic cleaning?

    How's that yellow tint going to look where indoor light is already greenish from fluorescent lighting? Will we walk outside and everything will look pink or purple? Fun!

    Hopefully in three years they'll give some answers to these questions and more. I've got a couple windows, but we've got no air conditioning and the heat reflects off an earthen bank, most of the heat comes through the walls.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  2. Damn, that's unfortunate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    This will severely hamper my illicit recordings of my neighbors having sex using my hidden wireless camera.

    1. Re:Damn, that's unfortunate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm hoping and praying that wasn't a joke as it was moderated. URL to vids? heh.

    2. Re:Damn, that's unfortunate by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      You could try to break in and then plant some Trek-like "transport enhancers" in the walls.

      Speaking of which, I can see a future where DHS takes home construction a tad further: Add mandatory sensors (active or passive, passive being where the wiring and plenums act as signal boosters or conductors to track motion, warmth, etc...) to new construction homes and offices so the LE (Law Enforcement) can "zero in on" or "zero-out" targets.

      David Syes

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    3. Re:Damn, that's unfortunate by SlamMan · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why would you have sex using a wireless camera?

      --
      Mod point free since 2001
    4. Re:Damn, that's unfortunate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not having sex, my neighbors are! Pay attention.

    5. Re:Damn, that's unfortunate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your neighbours have sex using your wireless camera? That's gross!

    6. Re:Damn, that's unfortunate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well that goes without saying. You're a /. reader.

    7. Re:Damn, that's unfortunate by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      for the ultimate inside shots of course.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    8. Re:Damn, that's unfortunate by martingunnarsson · · Score: 1

      You obviously haven't tried it...

      --
      Martin
  3. window tinting? by natron+2.0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sounds very similar to Ceramic window tinting film that is found on cars

    1. Re:window tinting? by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      This means that if states relax any restrictions on yellow tints, they could then trade up for yellow and disallow black.

      A lot of "hot states" like NM, AZ, CO, west TX and so forth have cars travelling in CA, with way, WAY too-dark windows, even on the front/windshield. With this new glass treatment, people will have a harder time humping or doing whatever in the blacked-out windows. (Remember, in PUBLIC, there is NO guarantee of expectation of privacy, NONE!)

      Also, cops don't have to fear being blasted as they approach suspicious dark cars.

      But, what would this do to the Limo industry, where they can drive cars that allow passengers privacy to be hidden or act an ass, romping or getting drunk.

      Motorcades and dignitaries, tho, would likely be readily identifiable, unless this glass can project glass-surface-level holograms to deceive onlookers.

      Now, if they could only make a presidential car look like an almost inconspicuous jalopy...

      David Syes

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  4. can be used in cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If this technology comes out, a good application is to use it in cars (especially in hot areas).

    1. Re:can be used in cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if your car is made of glass...

      There is more !glass on a car than glass. Metal heats up rather well.

    2. Re:can be used in cars by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      but most of the IR comes in through the glass

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    3. Re:can be used in cars by misleb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ever notice how the inside of a car gets HOTTER than the outside air? That is from the sun's radiation, not conduction through the metal (or glass). If you could block the heat from the sun, cars would be much easier to cool and they might not get so damn hot when parked.

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    4. Re:can be used in cars by e-gold · · Score: 1

      I've often wondered why car-makers (NOT the aftermarket!!) don't design for places like Miami rather than just Detroit/Tokyo/Munich and similar latitudes. Then they try to compensate for baking the contents of your car for hours with too much air-conditioning, which wouldn't be needed with proper design (and I'm not even a professional car designer, the following is off the top of my head!)

      For example: I would LOVE to have a cartop solar cell harnessed to a fan helping to cool the car -- better yet would add an alarm system which cracks windows/sunroof slightly in hot weather BUT senses things like rain (we've put a man on the moon, you'd think it's possible...) or a criminal's fingers (I'd want my window/sunroof to do something that's probably-illegal here!).

      There's already on the market a solar vent-fan device (and even 12volt hybrid battery versions!) that fits over standard sailboat vent-holes and it looks like a small dome. All of this would be trivially-simple to build-in atop a roof or trunk (or both!) and would drastically-increase the comfort of ANY brand's cars in the tropics. (Please, somebody at a car company, steal this idea -- you don't even need to pay me anything, I've been talking about it for years so just do it!!!)

      Second of all, the same car-makers at those same latitudes need to beef up windshield wipers/motors for handling REAL rain, because at least here in Florida, it sometimes decides to rain HARD, and what car-makers call "high" should be labeled "medium" at most IMO, but that's a whole 'nother rant! :)
      JMR

      Speaking ONLY for me, as always.

      --
      Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
    5. Re:can be used in cars by Insightfill · · Score: 1

      I know my Honda Insight uses some IR blocking in the windows, but not sure what it is right now. Gives a slight green tint. The goal is to take a load off the A/C.

    6. Re:can be used in cars by rjstanford · · Score: 4, Informative
      For example: I would LOVE to have a cartop solar cell harnessed to a fan helping to cool the car

      You mean like Audi's "Warm Weather Package"?
      • Solar sunroof (operates fresh air fan when parked in sun)
      • Power rear window and manual rear side window sunshades

      Granted.
      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    7. Re:can be used in cars by e-gold · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but can it pinch the crooks' fingers? :)

      No, seriously...

      That's interesting, and I've heard a lot of good things about Audis in the last few years, so it's not even surprising that it was them. Thanks.
      JMR

      --
      Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
    8. Re:can be used in cars by peragrin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just leave your windows down a quarter inch.

      Those plastic black window treatments you see on trucks and business equipment. Those are just an hard to break plastic, tinted like car windows(can't see in very well but out is fine). If you leave yur windows down just a 1/4 inch or so, the excess hot air climbs leaves the car, making the car just a couple of degrees warmer than the outside air, even on a hot day.

      Second nice feature is that if it rains your car doesn't get wet.

      If a thief first rips one off to help him get into your car, well he is determined enough to just smash the window anyway.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    9. Re:can be used in cars by hb253 · · Score: 1

      Umm, thinking of cars here, but the same would apply to homes too. The greeenhouse effect is due to higher frequency light energy going through glass, getting absorbed by surfaces and then being reradiated into the space as infrared radiation. Here's where I'm confused. I thought glass was fairly opaque to infrared, thus causing the rise in temperature in the space. What good would this coating be in hot climates?

      --
      Self awareness - try it!
    10. Re:can be used in cars by StalinsNotDead · · Score: 2, Funny

      an alarm system which cracks windows/sunroof slightly in hot weather BUT senses things like rain ... or a criminal's fingers

      Or a cat's head

      --
      Thanks to the internet, we can now all die alone together! -SomeWoman
    11. Re:can be used in cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Just go down to your local Target store(probably WalMart, too), they've got a solar-powered window vent for cars.

      Personally, i'd rather have a thermostat, and continuous heating/cooling of the vehicle via the a/c and heating systems the car already has. Just need an extra battery, and something to recharge it when the engine is running.

    12. Re:can be used in cars by Lihtan · · Score: 1

      Cracking your windows open even several inches doesn't cause any noticable difference in interior temperatures. As long as you have clear windows, your car will still act like a greenhouse.

      Tinting your windows will do wonders for lowering interior temperatures (especially if you use a heat-reflective film). However if you live in an area like mine, you may not be legally permitted to tint any of the front windows.

      One very effect method I've found to deal with this is to buy some aluminized bubble wrap, and custom fit to your windshield and front side windows. It's important here that you eliminate any light gaps. Those universal cardboard sunscreens don't do enough. When you park your car, insert the reflective panels into all the front windows.

      This combined with window tinting will prevent most light from getting inside the car (if you sit inside, you'll find the interior quite cark). In my own experience using this, I've even found the inside of my car to be no worse than ambient, sometimes even a few degrees cooler than the temperature outside the car! Other benefits you get from this are reduced sun damage to the interior of the vehicle, as well as preventing anyone from seeing inside (it can even block the VIN on your dashboard). Make sure any parking permits are visible prior to putting the panels up ;-)

      --
      Divide by zero hurts my brain.
  5. Re:Safe? Lifespan? by Leffe · · Score: 4, Funny

    How's that yellow tint going to look

    Oh, that's easy, the opposite of yellow is blue, just use blue glass!

  6. Damn.... by FerretFrottage · · Score: 0

    no more changing the channels on my neighbors tv/satellite set on warm summer days. Back to OTA tv viewing for me.

    --
    "Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
  7. 84 degrees is okay for some things. by lpangelrob2 · · Score: 4, Informative
    First poster brought up good points about toxicity... I'll address the temperature question.

    (sidenote: I guess there's a new geek test out on how to actually post to this story... the Read More link being wrong and everything...)

    84 degrees actually is pretty comfortable for people in the south, especially if it's going to be a dry 84 degrees, which air conditioning can help with. This can be useful, if it's not as expensive as gold, and if it really works as advertised, for people living in dry climates (read: desert southwest) who don't want to run A/C bills through the roof.

    That said, I recall that while a significant percentage of heat comes from solar energy through windows... when the house is sitting in a 110 degree plain, it may not be quite as good as first thought.

    1. Re:84 degrees is okay for some things. by drmike0099 · · Score: 1

      These are good points, especially for southerners. If your a/c kicks on "way before" 84, you have it set to too low a temperature.

      This would, however, be an additional piece of equipment in the effort to keep cooling costs down. You can insulate your building's walls and ceiling to keep the 110-degree ambient air from getting too much heat in, along with double- or triple-paned glass. But since we all don't like to live in dark caves with no windows, this would help keep IR light from heating up the inside by sneaking in through the windows. In fact, if you just put it on the outside pane of a multi-pane window, it would work perfectly as the 110-degree air made that pane turn out the heat, making the insulation of the windows even more effective. Very cool...

    2. Re:84 degrees is okay for some things. by value_added · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That said, I recall that while a significant percentage of heat comes from solar energy through windows... when the house is sitting in a 110 degree plain, it may not be quite as good as first thought.

      What amazes me to this day is that a less hi-tech approach would be to plant a frigging tree. Cities here in Southern California still insist on cutting them down (ostensibly to save money from the city maintenance budgets). Without the shade, you get roofs and attic spaces that easily heat up to over 100 degrees and don't cool until 6-7 hours after nightfall.

    3. Re:84 degrees is okay for some things. by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      84? Balls. You try come living in humid, humid Tennessee.

      Then again, if I could get my wife to quit turning it down below 75 I'd be happy.

      Rich

    4. Re:84 degrees is okay for some things. by a_nonamiss · · Score: 1

      The 84 degree thing is no big deal. Think of it this way: If you have 2 or 3 pane glass, the air in between the outer two panes is going to reach 84 degrees long before the temperature inside the house reaches 70 degrees. Since the air between the panes isn't being serviced directly by the A/C of the house, it's ambient temperature will be much higher than the inside of the house. This means the windows will kick in when the sun gets bright, and will be less affected by ambient temperatures inside the house.

      --
      -Arthur
      Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
    5. Re:84 degrees is okay for some things. by hummassa · · Score: 5, Informative

      Where I live (Belo Horizonte, southwestern Brasil) 84F (29C) is room temperature 9 out of the 12 months of the year. In the northern states, it's 11/12. We usually only turn our ACs on at home when it's 37C (100F) and above.

      Notwithstanding, this is _great_ (if the yellow tint and the toxicity when broken issues are solved) for car windows. AC won't kick in as often (less gas spent), seats/steering wheel won't get ultra-hot when the vehicle is left under the sun (the beach!!), baby-left-in-the-car dehidration deaths won't happen.

      --
      It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
    6. Re:84 degrees is okay for some things. by Feanturi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What amazes me to this day is that a less hi-tech approach would be to plant a frigging tree.

      Given that they seemed most interested in using this glass on skyscrapers, those would need be some mighty tall trees! That, and I don't think I'd want to hang a smaller tree in front of my car either. :)

    7. Re:84 degrees is okay for some things. by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

      Planting trees isn't always the best solution. The guy across the street has a nice dead on that will cost about 2,000 U.S. to cut down and haul away - that destroyed his driveway, and septic system, and I'm pretty sure it cracked the slab too.

      It was planted too close to the house. So if you plant now - it'll take a couple decades to get the shade you're looking for if you've done it properly.

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    8. Re:84 degrees is okay for some things. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like the guy was a dumbass who didn't know how to landscape properly. Cann't blame the tree if someone plants it incorrectly; well you can but you be a dumbass too.

    9. Re:84 degrees is okay for some things. by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Why spend the money for central A/C only to not use it? The inside of a house will get uncomfortably stifling when the air temp is much above 75, unless you have some good ceiling fans.

    10. Re:84 degrees is okay for some things. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If its that big its quite possible he didn't plant it unless he grew up in the house.... But anyone who isn't a dumbass would know that.

    11. Re:84 degrees is okay for some things. by Jacer · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but how am I supposed to kill my baby then?

      --
      --fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
    12. Re:84 degrees is okay for some things. by dsanfte · · Score: 1

      Jesus that's insane. I live in Canada and I'm sweating my ass off at 75F. 65F is comfortable.

      --
      occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
    13. Re:84 degrees is okay for some things. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bought a house that had a glass enclosed porch. Even with all the windows open, the room will melt candle wax in the summer, and with all the windows closed, it never gets above 45 degrees in the winter, and is usually much colder. The room is useless most of the year except a month in the fall and a month in the spring. At all other times the door to that room remains closed, and the room is empty. Eventually I will tear it down and put a regular room in it's place, but I would not reccomend a greenhouse attached to your house to anyone. I guess they are very expensive to build too... This stuff might make such rooms better in the summer, but I don't see them helping in the winter. Solar energy freaks don't know what they are talking about. Deudicious trees combined with the natural sun absorbancy of your roof and siding are much more practical than glass.

    14. Re:84 degrees is okay for some things. by Walkiry · · Score: 1

      The problem with BH is not the outside temperature, is the goddamn slopes and hills. No matter how hot or not hot it is, by the time you've walked 300 metres outside you'll have your tongue hanging out and will be sweating like a pig

      That said, I actually do like the city ;)

      --
      ---- Take the Space Quiz!
    15. Re:84 degrees is okay for some things. by cluckshot · · Score: 1

      My house being a bit conventional in design has a few modifications that save about $100 a month on the electrical for A/C in Alabama which is like Tennessee regards humidity only worse.

      To begin with we in the south USA have a vastly different set of conditions than do the people in much of the world. We get the benefit(??) of the Gulf Stream and it is warm wet air. So TEMPERATURE IS THE ISSUE! We don't have the luxury of spraying water around etc like the desert southwest. We have to cool it.

      Having built my own house, I made a few plan changes that really cut the bills. These include a steeper pitch on the roof. The South Exposure has (planted with the house construction) large trees that save about 5 to 10 degrees of heat and shade the roof and south sided of the house. The overhang is 2 feet causing the sunlight on the windows to never occur in the summer only in the winter.(equinox to equinox) The insulation is awsome. There is a Sun Room with large windows that can be opened.

      I always was the conservation type and I did this setup in 1985!

      When I garden I plant over the septic tank drain field. I even conserve waste water and ions...I have a large yard and I use the grass clippings for fertilizer in my garden. I raise chickens which provide food and fertilizer and improve the energy condition by improving the lawn and trees. The Air conditioners are shaded by big trees as well. Conservation to the max but we still have to set the AC lower than you guys who live where the humidity is 5-10%.

      --
      Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
    16. Re:84 degrees is okay for some things. by Willis+Wasabi · · Score: 1

      Slashdot needs a misapplication-of-physics mod. Your car acts like a green house. Visible light, which glass is almost fully transparent to, is absorbed by the interior. That energy is radiated back as infra-red, which glass is not-so-transparent to.

      With this glass, *more* IR would be trapped inside. What cars need is glass that is *less* opaque to IR so it can radiate harmlessly outward without warming the interior even further.

      This would only work in large buildings because you would be using A/C all the time.

      --
      All true wisdom can be found in sigs.
    17. Re:84 degrees is okay for some things. by schon · · Score: 1

      Given that they seemed most interested in using this glass on skyscrapers

      And given that the post you replied to quoted someone who said house, those would have to be mighty tall houses. (I don't know of any houses that are skyscrapers. Apartment buildings and condos, yes - but no houses.)

    18. Re:84 degrees is okay for some things. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I built my house I selected a lot so my Garage would be on the West side. So the hot afternoon sun would hit the garage. Helps keep the main house cooler.

      In the back yard I have planted a bunch of trees to block the heat of the morning sun. In the winter the leaves fall off and I get the heat of the morning sun to naturally warm up my house.

      Works very nicely. My Air conditioner (in the summer) and my furance (in the winter) only kick an hour a two a day to keep it nice a comfortable in the house. It also helps my house is built to the R2000 standards. Where I live it does get down to -40 degrees for at least a few days in the winter (it sure is nice when you can sleep the entire night with out hearing the furance kicking on).

    19. Re:84 degrees is okay for some things. by stuffman64 · · Score: 1

      Mercedes has had IR reflecting glass in thier S-Class for a few years now. It reflects about 55% of all IR, which can reduce cabin temperatures up to 40 degrees F on a hot day. So that way, you know, your super-duper leather seats won't get so hot that you have to turn on the seat coolers.

      But I think the reason this glass is so great is that in the winter (i.e., cooler temperatures), IR energy is allowed through to provide the heating effects of the sunlight. In the summer, it is blocked, keeping cooling bills down. If only they can lower the threshold a bit and get rid of the yellow, it will be a great alternative to those stupid static-cling things.

      --
      --- At my sig, unleash hell.
    20. Re:84 degrees is okay for some things. by Feanturi · · Score: 1

      The post I replied to had an angry tone to it, that this was all just silly -- just plant some trees and be done with it. If I had mod points, I wouldn't have replied at all, just modded it down as offtopic.

    21. Re:84 degrees is okay for some things. by Nutt · · Score: 1

      Someone mod the parent of this post up. The poster's right on the money.

      Another way to prevent your car from warming up in the summer is to have something that reflects all the visible light back as visible light and not infrared, aka, a mirror. That's why people put those reflective windshield shades in their car when they leave. So the visible light is bounced back out and not absorbed.

    22. Re:84 degrees is okay for some things. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think that's bad? :-) Come to the BC lower mainland... Jesus Christ it's hot here. Usually around 33C and sometimes it gets above 40C. Slightly offtopic... we also had one of the coldest winters in recent times, just a taste of what some other parts of Canada get. -5C feels like t-shirt weather now.

    23. Re:84 degrees is okay for some things. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correction... southern interior, not lower mainland.

    24. Re:84 degrees is okay for some things. by dcmeserve · · Score: 1
      From your link:

      SOLAR -- INFRARED LIGHT

      With a complementary treatment to the glass or interlayer, EPG technologies can also significantly reduce interior heat build-up by rejecting up to 55 percent of infrared (IR) light. According to glass industry testing, EPG with IR-reflective treatment can initially reduce the temperature in a vehicle sitting out in the sun by up to 40 degrees Fahrenheit or 22 degrees Centigrade. That can reduce the amount of energy used by the air conditioner, not to mention reducing the discomfort of getting into a car with a hot steering wheel or seats.

      (emphasis mine)

      This makes me a bit suspicious -- "initially"? Sounds like it may simply delay the heating. i.e. after N minutes, the cabin temperature is 40F cooler than it would be with normal glass. But in N+X minutes, it may catch up, and will have made no difference.

      That makes sense, I think, because it will initially be reflecting off a good deal of the energy that's pouring in (and the key word is reflecting, not absorbing, by the way), but over time the greenhouse effect will still kick in -- and probably harder than with regular glass. That is, if it reflects IR in the other direction too (i.e. back inward), then it may actually trap heat better than regular glass, which only absorbs a certain percentage of the IR. This glass would probably absorb the same percentage, and reflect back another portion. In steady-state, this could counteract the benefits of there being less energy gettting in per unit time.

      --
      "Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - Orwell
    25. Re:84 degrees is okay for some things. by syukton · · Score: 1

      Without the shade, you get roofs and attic spaces that easily heat up to over 100 degrees and don't cool until 6-7 hours after nightfall.



      Let's not forget all those highways we've covered the planet with. It's not like they're black and turning 100% of the inicident sunlight into heat or anything. Global Warming, anyone? oy.
      --
      Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
  8. I'll sum it all up in one word... by FooAtWFU · · Score: 3, Funny

    Cool!

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    1. Re:I'll sum it all up in one word... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That makes me think of some copier company's radio commercials earlier this year. Two morons kept going back and forth about how "cool" or "hot" the low costs were.

    2. Re:I'll sum it all up in one word... by sploo22 · · Score: 1

      You keep using that word. I do not think that it means what you think it means.

      --
      Karma: Segmentation fault (tried to dereference a null post)
  9. Dye to change the color? by tmasssey · · Score: 3, Interesting
    According to the article, they want to add dye to get it to 'change color'. Given the subtractive properties of such a dye, won't that cause the glass to let in less light, just like the tinting they're trying to replace?

    I don't see how you *add* dye to get the coating to let in the light that the coating is currently blocking...

    1. Re:Dye to change the color? by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      Given the subtractive properties of such a dye, won't that cause the glass to let in less light, just like the tinting they're trying to replace?

      One advantage that I can see would be that in low-light situations there would be no visible tint...?

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    2. Re:Dye to change the color? by CapnGib · · Score: 3, Informative

      It is called color compensating. You tint with complementary colors to neutralize a color cast. Yes it will make the window appear a bit tinted as less total light gets through, but it would be less yellow.

      --
      Beauty is truly in the eye of the tiger
  10. 3 years my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    when was the last time one of these "we'll have a commercial product ready in.." came true

  11. Re:Safe? Lifespan? by Nykon · · Score: 1

    wow, a worthwhile first post :)
    I'd mod you up if I had points

    --
    "It's better to be a pirate then join the Navy"
  12. Depends how much it costs... by fejikso · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Depending on the cost of the material, which is not mentioned in the article, it could be a great way to insulate from heat in the summer, while helping trap heat in winter. Specially for big glass buildings, this could translate into big savings in energy and money.

    1. Re:Depends how much it costs... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      I wonder what the cost savings would be factoring in both this glass and the glass mentioned the other day?

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    2. Re:Depends how much it costs... by DarthTeufel · · Score: 1

      Glass itself is really really cheap. It'll disgust you to find out how much the glass for that table top really cost.

      My plant was selling glass with a polished edge and tempered, 6mm thick for roughly $1.60/ft^2 and $.07 / linear inch of polishing. So that replacement table top, total of about 8 ft^2, probably cost only $22 while you paid $70-$100.

      Don't even ask me about shower doors. They are the biggest rip off in the world

  13. Temperature of Glass by Crazy+Man+on+Fire · · Score: 5, Insightful
    My AC comes on way before 84F.
    Looking at the article, it seems that it is the temperature of the glass that must reach 84F, not the temperature of the air inside the room. I would imagine that the glass reaches 84 much faster than the air inside, so your AC shouldn't be much of a factor unless it is cold enough to have a larger impact on the glass temp than the outside air and the solar energy.
    1. Re:Temperature of Glass by Tranzig · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually everything else in the room hit by the sunlight get way beyond 84F before either the window glass or the air inside the room. They start to radiate and heating up the air, much sooner than glass. And a typical window glass has neligible surface connection with other material than air and air has poor heat conduction and storage (sorry I don't know the exact English name of these physic attributes) capabilities, I think it is an educated guess that glass gets hot slower than air, thus this temperature boundary can be a real issue. (Though I have never made such measurements.)

    2. Re:Temperature of Glass by Crazy+Man+on+Fire · · Score: 1

      Hmm. Seems reasonable, but I haven't seen this in practice. When I touch my window on a cold winter day, it is cold (much colder than the air inside my house). When I touch my window on a hot day in the summer, it is very warm (much warmer than the air inside my house). Can anybody with more knowledge on this subject offer some insight?

    3. Re:Temperature of Glass by wanerious · · Score: 3, Informative

      When you touch your bathroom tile, it typically feels colder than the surrounding air. This is not because the tile is somehow cooled with respect to its surroundings, but because the tile is much more efficient at carrying away heat from your body. An air temperature of 70 degrees F can feel very comfortable, since air is a very poor conductor of heat, but 70 F water feels decidedly cool to the skin. Having said that, it still may be the case that your window is cooler or hotter than the inside of your house since it is the boundary between zones --- in fact, this is very likely, since glass is a much better heat conductor than the surrounding walls.

  14. Next step... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2, Funny

    Next step is glass that turns transparent to visible light when it's hot, for example, a bathroom window what turns transparent when a hot woman (or a hot man) gets on the other side...

    1. Re:Next step... by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Funny

      So, for most slashdotters, this would be the same as the frosted glass they already have in their bathrooms?

    2. Re:Next step... by Jhan · · Score: 4, Funny
      Next step is glass that turns transparent to visible light when it's hot[...]

      ... and the step after that is of course glasses that turn opaque when facing peril, thus allowing you to keep your cool.

      --

      I choose to remain celibate, like my father and his father before him.

    3. Re:Next step... by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      ... and the step after that is of course glasses that turn opaque when facing peril, thus allowing you to keep your cool.

      Cool. Use those in computer monitors and no one will be able to install Windows anymore.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  15. Speaking of cars by AndyChrist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The yellow tint issue would have to be definitively solved before this stuff could be used on vehicles, due to some states not allowing certain colors of window tinting (red and yellow, probably reasoning that that would lower the visibility of emergency vehicles and caution lights).

  16. recycle by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How about some electronics grounding that vanadium dioxide? If set up right, when the VO2 transitions to "metallic" above 29C, the panel's photoelectric effect could harness the solar power now more highly available. That in turn could power other devices, like awnings, vent covers, or even fans, to mitigate the heat, using the sun's power against itself.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:recycle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...using the sun's power against itself. Take that Sun!

    2. Re:recycle by WOV · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's too darn hard. I just came off of reading NREL's annual report on the research they're doing to bring down the costs on existing PV materials (silicon, CIGS, TIO2, etc.,) and it's more than enough to make me not want to "reinvent the wheel" on another niche PV compound.

      Better to take existing PV and incorporate it into a window made of something else if you want to do some active cooling. In fact, I wish I could find a good link, but I know that Audi does this with the sunroof on their "warm weather package" models - thin-film PV in the glass of the roof powers fresh air fans behind the headliner when the car is parked, so that you don't have to get into such a heinously hot car when it's been outside for a while. (or burn the gas to run your AC at "Max" for 15 minutes.)

    3. Re:recycle by elhaf · · Score: 1

      Note that one factor affecting existing PV is that it is not as efficient when it gets hot(!). So as another application of this technology, one could lay it over the photovoltaic cells and keep them cooler, perhaps.

      --
      Six score characters.
      Brevity being wit's soul
      I have enough space.
    4. Re:recycle by WOV · · Score: 1

      That...is not necessarily a terrible idea. As long as it was pretty cheap, and stayed out of the (relatively narrow) bandgap used by PV, that would honestly be a potentially useful application.

      Unfortunately, people are already reluctant to put the comparatively inoffensive black or blue panels on their roofs...these vanadium-based ones might be worse.

    5. Re:recycle by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      How much of the Sun's spectrum (as percentage of its power, totaling about 1300W:m^2 insolation at "solar noon") falls outside the PV bandgap?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    6. Re:recycle by WOV · · Score: 1

      A little over half, for conventional crystalline silicon cells; exotic multijunction cells can do better...I'm starting to hear the alarms that mean I'm about to exceed my technical knowledge, so I'll bounce you here:

      http://www.eere.energy.gov/solar/bandgap_energies. html
    7. Re:recycle by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Thanks:

      "Most PV cells cannot use about 55% of the energy of sunlight, because this energy is either below the bandgap of the material or carries excess energy."

      That "lost" 55% probably heats up the material, reportedly reducing the PV efficiency even more. And the shine of these PV materials indicates more lost energy (perfect efficiency would look absolutely black). So recent reports of efficiencies nearing 30% might be rolling towards the asymptotic limits of the PV tech. I'd think that the huge range of semiconductor manufacturing techniques and scales being developed would have bandgaps available that cover the entire spectrum by now. Maybe we'll just have to wait for engineered nanomaterials, or a "tunable" material. I hope the petro fuels last long enough to get there.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    8. Re:recycle by WOV · · Score: 1

      1. Some of it is heat, but some of it is actually reflection or transmission...the shine, you'll see across generations of PV, is decreasing as they get a hold of better glass, and do things like microtexture the front surface (see particularly BP's "Saturn" cells, which are nearly black,) or add a specific antireflective coating.

      Actually, the best efficiency I've seen is 37% - the way to do that is to stack PV materials which have different bandgaps, but are mutually transparent, top to bottom.

      At the end of the day, though, thermodynamic efficiency is not the number 1 problem for our industry...think about it; people are used to using this efficiency in engineering contexts because they're paying for fuel...whereas PV fuel is free. The relevant metric, therefore is *not* efficiency per unit energy input, but rather efficiency per unit capital input - dollars per watt.

      Build a 40% efficient solar cell that's $50 / Watt, and you could sell some to NASA and DOD. Build a 5% efficient cell that's $2 / Watt, and the world would beat a path to your door. Increased efficiencies are not so much the holy grail for PV; they're important, but things like increased manufacturing automation are what's bringing the big bang for the buck right now.

      There are multi-bandgap materials, and tunable nanostructures on the horizon...look into the work of GE, Hitachi, Konarka, and Nanosolar if you're interested in these.

    9. Re:recycle by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Thanks - your distillation of these issues has saved me hours of deadend Googling :). I maintain a spreadsheet of various energy technologies, reduced to $:joule. I'd love to complete it with more PV solar data. I'd need the joules consumed in manufacture, distribution, installation, maintenance and disposal of the gear. I'd also need the generation lifetime of the installed gear, and the dollar costs of that lifecycle. I'm mainly interested in comparing it to biosolar, like a sugarcane->ethanol->(bioreactor/fuelcell)->e - path. Do you have any other helpful pointers to that lifecycle cost:benefit data?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    10. Re:recycle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, though I don't have my Slashdot password to hand. the best I've seen was (.pdf) www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf , which if I recall correctly was more of a literature review than anything else, so its bibliography should be valuable, as well. A recent World Energy Congress study came out in, I think June or July, but it is sufficiently flawed as to be unrecognizable.

      That does not handle disposal...recycling of PV is currently sort of nascent, as it's got a 25-year+ lifetime, and the vast majority of it has been installed in the last 10 years. But you can figure 25 - 30 years at 90% output. To figure out output from rated Watts in any given location, google the tool PVWATTS, and remember to derate DC ratings to 85% of their value to calculate AC ratings. I'd figure de minimis velues for installation and maintenance, and distribution...say, a 200 mile ride in a UPS truck?

      For prices, you can find retail solar PV prices updated monthly at solarbuzz.com, but remember that PV usually equals about 45% of turnkey cost - the rest is the inverter, installation, racks, etc. (that inverter, by the way, probably takes about as much energy to make, distribute, etc., as would a full tower computer, for comparison's sake.)

      Hope this has been helpful...

  17. Well... by iamdrscience · · Score: 2, Informative
    My AC comes on way before 84F.
    Yes, but the surface of your glass is hotter than the air in your house/apartment, so 84 degrees might not be that far off.
    1. Re:Well... by RedHat+Rocky · · Score: 1

      I'm sure they studied what target temparture was desired, I imagine they could go lower if needed. I doubt that 84 just happened to be the lowest temp they could get with the tungsten technique.

      --
      Anything is possible given time and money.
  18. solution by jeffy124 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    three panes of glass, separated by a short distance each. pump warm air into the two gaps. The middle glass is this infrared blocker dealy.

    Or, if only one side needed to be warmed, use two panes instead of three with a small gap. The exterior pane is the infrared blocker. When it's cool outside or the window is shaded, pump warm air into the gap between panes.

    IANACE

    --
    The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
    1. Re:solution by redJag · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, the point of activating it only when it's hot is for cold weather times. When it's cold outside, letting solar energy IN saves money; when it's hot outside, keeping it out saves money. Pumping in hot air would be a waste in three ways (heating the air, pumping the air, and negating the entire point of the treated glass).

    2. Re:solution by Talinom · · Score: 1

      No, typically you want it on the #2 surface. If you want to get technical, argon is the high performance gas of choice for filling the gap in an insulated unit. The two lites are separated by as little as 1/4 inch up to 3/4 inch. The size of the unit will dictate the minimum required.

      Using a polysilicone sealant is also a bonus for prevention of heat transfer as is using an extruded insulating frame as opposed to aluminum.

      There are already many companies that already produce low emission glass.

      Look at some of the current insulation possibilities that exist today.

      --
      "Giving money and power to governments is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." - P.J. O'Rourke
  19. combination by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 2, Interesting

    An interesting combination would be to incorporate it into a photosentive dye (photogrey?) like sunglasses. When it gets brighter, it gets darker. It would be useful in keeping rooms or cars from getting too bright.

    1. Re:combination by aismail3 · · Score: 1

      That's a good idea, but a potential problem is that heat != brightness. That is, the glass detects and blocks infrared, but not visible or ultraviolet, energy. The rooms or cars might stay cool, but it doesn't do anything to solve the brightness problem.

      The visible and ultraviolet energy still penetrates. Also, visible and ultraviolet waves are more energetic than infrared waves, so it would seem to me that in the case of the sun, more of the heat comes from the non-infrared part of the spectrum. Don't we need glass that blocks visible and ultraviolet energy above a certain temperature to solve the heat problem too?

    2. Re:combination by zanderredux · · Score: 1
      As the windows get darker, they might absorb more radiation as well, getting way much hotter than otherwise.

      Convection would be an issue and this would not solve the problem of the perceived heat inside the car or the building.

  20. How to solve the environmental side effects by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

    Simply sandwidtch between panes of glass and seal- that way there's no place for the shield to go, and therefore, it stays put.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  21. Re:Safe? Lifespan? by cephyn · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yellow tint, ew, but as for the Vanadium, if you have a double paned window, treat the inner side of the outer pane. No leakage or exposure to Vanadium, unless you break the glass. And no exposure to H2S rain.

    If you've got heat coming through the walls, just get some old-fashioned IR reflectors -- Aluminum Foil! Put it up to reflect heat away from your walls, and maybe an old fan to blow the heat off of it. Oh, and ripple it. Your very own House Heat Sink. Overclock your house!

    --
    Moo.
  22. Why Block When you can consume by grunt107 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While the lowering of heat-causing agents is noble, the better scientific path (IMO) is to grab this energy and use it to power the home (solar).
    Spend time and effort developing more efficient, resilient, and less-expensive tech on solar energy and every new house could be roofed with 100% solar tiles. These homes could even GENERATE enough exess energy to sell back to the grid, which would help every income level.
    'Zero' dependence on energy businesses could be a very real thing for homes (oh the humanity)...

    1. Re:Why Block When you can consume by JamesKPolk · · Score: 1

      We want to block because we're talking about windows. We want light and sight but not heat.

  23. Perfect for cars!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This will become a standard feature on every car sold in the south. No more jumping in your 120F car and hoping the air cools you down before you pass out.

    1. Re:Perfect for cars!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No more jumping in your 120F car and hoping the air cools you down before you pass out.

      Only 120F?!??! Man, you Americans are such wimps :o)

  24. Buildings as giant heat syncs by Anztac · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is wonderful, and a step in the right direction to be sure. I was actually just pondering if this kind of thing was possible the other day. Unfortunatly, buildings are still made like huge heat syncs. This is because a flat surface has a very poor surface area to volume ratio, other sky scraper shapes, such as cylinders, are even worse. R. Buckminster Fuller explains this in his Critical Path. What really elucidates this is he says if we theoretically covered all the buildings from 20th to 80th St, I think it was, in Manhatten with one large dome we would decrease the surface area exposed to the elements by a factor of 84. Consequently, it would take 1/84th of the energy to heat and cool the environment.

    --
    ~Anztac
    1. Re:Buildings as giant heat syncs by soulsteal · · Score: 3, Funny

      Sure you could make the environemental control costs lower, but then Snake Plissken would have to save the President from the King of New York.

      It's just not worth it.

    2. Re:Buildings as giant heat syncs by paulthomas · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You're right on as far as domes being the way to go. Case in point: The German parliament building.

      The Reichstag in Berlin was recently renovated to put a huge glass dome on top of the existing structure. The dome doesn't cover it but merely sits on top. Running from the very top of the dome to the parliament floor is a funnel which is optimized to move hot air out via convection.

      You can actually go to the top of the dome and stand at the opening to the funnel and feel all the warmth. This is combined with traditionally cooling for a very economic effect.

      It's also a really cool looking building and a must see if you ever find yourself in Germany.

    3. Re:Buildings as giant heat syncs by PitaBred · · Score: 0

      Ok, sorry, I'm gonna rant here... WTF is with people not being able to understand homonyms?
      sync(h) - abbreviation for synchronize
      sink - In your kitchen, an area that collects and disposes of waste heat/water/whatever.
      Same with to, too, etc.
      Please people, read more... it helps you spell correctly, as well as choose the correct word, and keeps you from looking like Cletus! (I done learned summa dem lettar things, yep! I kin now reed and rite!)

    4. Re:Buildings as giant heat syncs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Snake Plissken? I heard he was dead.

    5. Re:Buildings as giant heat syncs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Half the problem is the word homonym itself, because it doesn't distinguish between homophones and homographs, thus the whole concept, as taught in US schools, is muddled from the beginning.

    6. Re:Buildings as giant heat syncs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe his first language isn't English?

  25. Weak. by iamdrscience · · Score: 0, Redundant

    So I guess I can't make any more infrared recordings of my neighbors having sex with the curtains open. Well, not in the summer anyways.

  26. Do not understand by bluyssae · · Score: 1

    If thought it got hotter inside your office than outside because the glass is blocking the infrared light everything in the room is re-emitting. So I would think a smart room would start letting to pass infrared light when a certain threshold temperature is reached.
    The heat of the sun does not reach us by means of infrared light but mostly by the visible. Maybe New Scientist is just wrong.

    1. Re:Do not understand by Jhan · · Score: 1

      Well, the block you work in is also hot.

      So the outside world is radiating IR at your window. The outside world is conciderably larger than your building, so I would hazard a guess that an average window recieves more IR from the outside than from the inside (in summer of course).

      Of course radiation from the outside will fall of with the square of the distance from the radiating surfaces, and local geometry will also play a big role. I guess I have to agree with a previous poster, just plant a tree outside.

      --

      I choose to remain celibate, like my father and his father before him.

    2. Re:Do not understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are partly correct. Much of the infrared emitted by the sun goes straight through a normal window. The objects indoors heat up and reemit infra-red at a lower frequency, which is blocked by the glass.

      Assuming there is not too great an effect on the lower frequency infra-red, blocking the higher frequency infra-red from outside will lower the temperature indoors.

      Reading the related article about frequency selective shielding, which can block certain frequencies of EMR, which can be set with a small electric current, it would be great if that could be adapted to block IR - that way it could be wired in to the airconditioning to set the room to a desired temperature (assuming running the electric current to block IR takes less power than just running the aircon to make up the difference).

  27. Scientific Fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    These university folks are taking credit for a discovery made by Dr. Ouderkirk at 3M. As usual the actual scientist who makes the ground breaking discovering that was considered to prove "known" physcial laws false, gets no credit.

  28. How useful is that? by grahamlee · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Most of the heat that comes into your house will do so by conduction from the air by the window to the glass to the air by the window, then get carried around by convection. It won't get in by radiation, so IR-proof glass will have only a small effect. If you have double glazing then you have a hefty heat buffer between your house and your environment anyway, and the buffering effect is large enough to render any conduction heat exchange negligible. What it *might* do, however, is stop your neighbours from changing the channel on your TV.

    1. Re:How useful is that? by RedHat+Rocky · · Score: 1

      I think you overestimate the conduction by air, it is a good insulator. If air conduction was so great, a house would cool really fast at night and I guarantee this is not true with my 1920's plaster. The sun is the major factor.

      Think about why you stand in the shade when it's really sunny out.

      --
      Anything is possible given time and money.
    2. Re:How useful is that? by dbrower · · Score: 2, Informative
      Most of the heat that comes into your house will do so by conduction from the air by the window to the glass to the air by the window, then get carried around by convection. It won't get in by radiation,

      Wrong. Solar gain from radiation is a significant factor in design. See for instance this, or this, or this, or this.

      Convection/Conduction are certainly at issue when there isn't sun (say, Seattle or Syracuse), but when there is, the radiation transmission is a major factor. This new technology sounds very promising. And yes, deciduous trees planted in good spots are a good low-tech approach.

      -dB

      --
      "It if was easy to do, we'd find someone cheaper than you to do it."
    3. Re:How useful is that? by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Do you have any proof for this? Then why does my room stay cooler when I close my window blinds?
      Get a clue... windows are usually sealed very well any more, and convection is a very poor means of transfering a large amount of heat. Air is actually a very good insulator.
      IR is one of the main ways that homes heat up through windows, by the light/IR coming in, and then being unable to escape because it's shifted to a lower wavelength upon reflections from inside surfaces.

    4. Re:How useful is that? by grahamlee · · Score: 1

      The glass is the conductor, the air the heat buffer.

    5. Re:How useful is that? by grahamlee · · Score: 1

      Consider why people go to the expense of creating vacuum flasks, when if air was such a poor conductor and radiative transfer the most important factor in heat transmission, Dewar could have just covered his flask in tin foil and kept the coffee warm. No, this IR-blocking glass is going to be most useful in low-pressure situations such as PMTs and CCDs in vacuo.

    6. Re:How useful is that? by RedHat+Rocky · · Score: 1

      Have you studied heat transfer at all? Radiative transfer is dependant mainly on the relative temperature differences of the two bodies (among other things). In case you didn't notice, the sun is kind of warm.

      Relating that to a flask that's in the dark? Ehhhh, no.

      Air = Okay insulator
      Vacuum = Better insulator

      --
      Anything is possible given time and money.
    7. Re:How useful is that? by julesh · · Score: 1

      Convection/Conduction are certainly at issue when there isn't sun (say, Seattle [...])

      Ah! So when I'm told to "stick it where the sun don't shine", they're talking about Seattle, right?

    8. Re:How useful is that? by RedHat+Rocky · · Score: 1

      In heat transfer, it takes two to tango.

      --
      Anything is possible given time and money.
    9. Re:How useful is that? by grahamlee · · Score: 1

      Now if you take the 'other things' into consideration, you notice that the ambient temperature of a room with a window in it is dictated more by the conduction and convection of heat between the window and the air than it is by the infra-red heat communication. The IR effects mainly dictate the temperature of the wall in places that have a line-of-sight connection with the Sun. If you'd ever owned one of those electric bar heaters, you'd notice how the temperature of the air in the room with the heater doesn't increase much, and indeed the room stays cold to the sides of the heater. Stand in front of it and you could toast bread.

      Think about it for a half second or so. You want to heat up the ~10m of air in a room by having it absorb IR, so you place your source in a position such that it is separated from the target by ~20km of air. I think you may notice that any radiation that the air can absorb has been absorbed by the time it gets down there, so you only end up with absorption at the surfaces. And not enough to be the main contribution to the temperature change, when the room is in thermal contact with a planet+atmosphere-sized heat bath that it can exchange energy with via conduction.

    10. Re:How useful is that? by RedHat+Rocky · · Score: 1

      Did you copy that from a book or is that all weed induced?

      Good grief.

      Let's sum up. Radiative heat transfer is insignificant, hence blocking glaze will be pointless. Except the some electric heaters heat mainly by infrared. That sun thingy only heats air, the ground certainly doesn't get any energy from it on a hot day. I guess those super hot sidewalks in the summer are actually from geothermal reactions under control of elves.

      Please step away from the keyboard and go directly to your information source of choice and discover the world as it really is, not how it is in your brain.

      --
      Anything is possible given time and money.
  29. whats next? by kaiborg · · Score: 1

    now all we need is a technology like this that will block wifi signals. ;)

    1. Re:whats next? by Breakerofthings · · Score: 1

      Why, in the name of all that is holy, would you want to block wifi signals when the temp reaches 85 F?
      "HotSpot" is a figure of speach, you know ...

  30. Eh?... greenhouse effect??? by Bazzargh · · Score: 1

    Is this correct? The greenhouse effect happens precisely because the atmosphere absorbs infrared but transmits visible light - light heats the earth, the heat is re-radiated in IR, but is trapped here by the atmosphere. To cool down you want to radiate IR, not trap it?

    I presume these people know what they're doing, but its sounds to me like the future holds unformfortably sticky leopardskin seats in our flying cars.

    1. Re:Eh?... greenhouse effect??? by Eudial · · Score: 1

      To cool down you want to radiate IR, not trap it?

      How'bout preventing the IR from getting in in the first place?

      --
      GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
    2. Re:Eh?... greenhouse effect??? by James+Turpin · · Score: 1

      It keeps the infrared out. It probably doesn't keep it in effectively as you describe because normal black body radiation still applies. Since the windows are about as hot as the house, they will still radiate infrared. The problem with greenhous gasses is that they absorb infrared AND they don't remit it quickly because the gasses are cooler than the ground. That, and the infrared typically must pass through several absorption/remittance cycles before escaping Earth's atmosphere (each one with cooler gasses than the previous). With these windows, it only has to go through one layer that is about the same temperature as the house.

      --
      Mathematics is not a crime.
  31. dual-paned glass by ucblockhead · · Score: 1

    Since most windows these days use dual-paned glass for its insulating properties, presumably only the outer pane would be made of this stuff. It then shouldn't matter if the room interior is a bit less than 84 F.

    --
    The cake is a pie
  32. Re:Safe? Lifespan? by GuineaPigMan · · Score: 0, Redundant

    You could use two panes of glass and put the coating in between the two. This would allow for better insulation and would also protect the coating from being dissolved by acid rain and the like. The article also mentioned titanium dioxide(?) to fix the substances together.

  33. Yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... I think I can convert this to a stealth suit and sell it to criminals. If the IR cameras can't see it when they're being chased by the cops, I think I could be in big business!

  34. Re:Safe? Lifespan? by ackthpt · · Score: 1
    if you have a double paned window, treat the inner side of the outer pane.

    Agreed, but I've yet to be in a building where the glass was double or even triple paned. Usually it's that heavy stuff that can withstand the direct impact of a pigeon (no sparrow jokes, please.)

    just get some old-fashioned IR reflectors -- Aluminum Foil!

    Ever put your hand on something chromed that's been sitting in the sun long? I think a white paint would work, but that's pretty close to what we already have.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  35. Could this overheat your house? by techmuse · · Score: 1

    Imagine that you accidently leave the heat on too long, or that you have a fire in your house. Now the air inside is hot enough to cause the coating to phase change, and all the heat gets reflected back INTO your house, causing it to get even hotter!

  36. Re:Safe? Lifespan? by GuineaPigMan · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Sorry, misread the parent... Realized I basically said the same thing :\

  37. Hooray for grandma! by Proc6 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sweet, now I won't feel so bad when I leave Grandma in the car on a hot day with the windows rolled up.

    --

    I'm Rick James with mod points biatch!

  38. turns to metal when the temperature changes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will this keep the alien signals from entering my room? I'm running out of aluminium foil!

  39. "Special" Gardeners, Rejoice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well I for one see an obvious use of heat activated infrared blocking materials - for "special" crop cultivation, as a method to block infrared cameras on overhead "black helicopters".

    Anyone? Anyone? Once you excuse your ramped up power requirements by bringing home a server rack, and leaving it in the home office (with fans whirring and lights blinking but not really on ), you can run a stealth garden!

    Of course, you could just move to Vancouver, and grow it out in the open.

    Anyone? Anyone?

    1. Re:"Special" Gardeners, Rejoice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact /. ran a story on the BBC privacy discussion yesterday and this indeed mention that police used IR cameras to detect Marijuana growth using hydroponics in basements.... ... Free the Weed!

    2. Re:"Special" Gardeners, Rejoice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The practice is illegal, or rather unadmissable in court, in the US. It's gone before a jury and was found an unreasonable invasion of privacy. A cop cant peek through your windows, use a listening device, etc, without a warrant.

      As for cops going through your garbage.. Not while it's still on your curb, but once it's picked up, it's not yours anymore.. So if you're throwing away all that unusable vegetative matter, be careful. Frankly, noone would take the time unless they were already building a case (ie; trying to get that warrant)..

      Truth is, 99.999999% percent of busts happen for one reason: big mouths. Never tell ANYONE, not your best friend, your cousin.. Never show off what you're growing, never flash big amounts, just keep a little personal bag and as far as anyone knows that's all you have, and you payed 100 bucks for it like an idiot.

  40. Re:Safe? Lifespan? by sfire · · Score: 5, Funny

    Usually it's that heavy stuff that can withstand the direct impact of a pigeon (no sparrow jokes, please.)

    Good firewall against IP by carrier pigeon.

  41. Greenhouses by mrogers · · Score: 1
    I was under the impression that glass already relfected a substantial amount of infrared light - isn't that how greenhouses work? Visible light passes through the glass, is absorbed by things inside the greenhouse and re-emitted as infrared, which is reflected by the glass and thus trapped inside the greenhouse.

    Obviously I've misunderstood, otherwise this breakthrough wouldn't be worth writing about, so can someone please explain to me how greenhouses actually work, and why glass that reflects infrared wouldn't cause the room to get hotter rather than cooler?

    1. Re:Greenhouses by afidel · · Score: 1

      Nope, greenhouses work by allowing the infrared light in which hits the material in the greenhouse which in turn conducts the heat to the air. This air is small in volume and thus is easily heated by the relativly high energy per volume from the solar energy. For more info see this article at howstuffworks.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:Greenhouses by dcmeserve · · Score: 1
      I was under the impression that glass already relfected a substantial amount of infrared light - isn't that how greenhouses work? Visible light passes through the glass, is absorbed by things inside the greenhouse and re-emitted as infrared, which is reflected by the glass and thus trapped inside the greenhouse.

      Correct, except that (I think) glass pretty much just absorbs infrared; the amount reflected is probably trivial, as it is for visible light.

      So yes, everything inside the greenhouse (or car, etc.) gets energy from the visible light, plus the re-emitted IR from the glass. The interior itself then re-emits IR, which is also absorbed and re-emitted by the glass. The glass will emit in both directions equally, but it's at a higher temperature than it might otherwise be, because it's essentially being "lit" from both directions (in IR). The interior will be at the same temperature, so you end up with a higher temperature inside than outside.

      Obviously I've misunderstood, otherwise this breakthrough wouldn't be worth writing about...

      The article -- and 80% of the posts here, sad to say -- are obviously written by folks who don't understand the process. But I think there's a bit of value in the product, in that it will lessen the greenhouse effect when the temperature of the glass is below the 84F threshold. i.e. it can still help keep the house cool (in some cicumstances), but for exactly the opposite reson.

      --
      "Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - Orwell
    3. Re:Greenhouses by dcmeserve · · Score: 1
      Nope...

      ...greenhouses work by allowing the infrared light in which hits the material in the greenhouse which in turn conducts the heat to the air. This air is small in volume...

      While this is certainly a factor, you (and the article you link to) totally ignore the fact that air, like all hot things, radiates heat away as IR. If you were to surround the earth in glass, its atmosphere would get quite a bit hotter, despite the larger mass, because it can't radiate the heat away as efficiently anymore. The upper layers of the atmosphere are cooler not just because they're further from the conductive heating from the ground, but also because they can more easily radiate their own heat out to space.

      That is why excess "greenhouse gasses" released into the atmosphere are causing global warming -- they absorb IR more efficiently than the atmosphere's other components, preventing lower-altitude air (and the ground) from radiating heat away as easily. (Actually, they still radiate, but it gets caught, and 50% radiated back down again.)

      --
      "Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - Orwell
  42. Trouble by dr_dank · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Won't this interfere with the thermal imaging cameras fire departments use to find people in fires?

    --
    Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    1. Re:Trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Won't this interfere with the thermal imaging cameras fire departments use to find people in fires?

      Enter the next technological miracle: the axe.

    2. Re:Trouble by PaperTie · · Score: 1

      They usually use those inside the building...

  43. Random idea... by LordZardoz · · Score: 1

    A better smart glass would not just block that extra thermal energy. It would find a way to convert that energy into a useable form or direct it to a useful purpose.

    END COMMUNICATION

  44. Ok, cool... but by petra13 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It seems to me that it would make more sense to come up with a roofing material that blocked infrared above a certain temperature. For example, I'm sure that my house gains far more heat from having the dark roof sitting out in the hot sun all day than it does from the windows. It would be *really* cool if someone set something up that would absorb IR in the winter (like a dark roof) but not in the summer (light roof). Still, I guess windows are better than nothing.

    1. Re:Ok, cool... but by pclminion · · Score: 2, Informative
      It would be *really* cool if someone set something up that would absorb IR in the winter (like a dark roof) but not in the summer (light roof).

      No, you actually still want a light roof in winter. A black roof is a good absorber and a good radiator as well. In the winter, a black roof will radiate the heat out of your house more rapidly than it can heat up from the sun (since the radiant intensity is generally much lower in winter). You still want a light-colored, insulating roof, even in winter.

      In areas of the world that receive snowfall in winter, the snow on the roof is actually helping, by reflecting heat back into the building.

    2. Re:Ok, cool... but by ad0gg · · Score: 2, Informative
      Thats why there are vents on the top of your roof and the bottom of the roof. When your roof gets hot, there's nice airflow going on as the colder air is sucked through the bottom vents and exits through the top. If you house is getting hot because of the roof. Your vents could be blocked.

      In cold weather, it still wouldn't make sense since it would require you to remove the insulation layer which in turn would cause heat to escape from the house. Only solution I could think of is skylights but unless the insulation factor increases on them dramatically, they'll never have the insulation value of a foot fiberglass.

      --

      Have you ever been to a turkish prison?

    3. Re:Ok, cool... but by petra13 · · Score: 1

      Ah, I see. That makes sense. Well, never mind me then.

    4. Re:Ok, cool... but by silicon+not+in+the+v · · Score: 1
      Let's see if we can update your "Informative" comment with some "Correct" information:
      No, you actually still want a light roof in winter. A black roof is a good absorber and a good radiator as well.
      The basic principle that affects all of these is that a light-colored material will mostly reflect the light that hits it (therefore not heating up) and a dark-colored material will absorb the light (heats up). The property of how well something gives off heat from its surface (I suppose this is what you mean by "radiator") is a property of what material it is--unrelated to what color it is.
      In the winter, a black roof will radiate the heat out of your house more rapidly than it can heat up from the sun (since the radiant intensity is generally much lower in winter). You still want a light-colored, insulating roof, even in winter.
      Take a different example to see if this makes sense. Instead of a house, let's say you want to keep a person warm. Which color T-shirt should they wear--white or black? The black one will get warmer as it absorbs more sunlight. Maybe the idea you were going for was that dark-colored objects will give off more heat, but that is because they have absorbed more and therefore have more to give.
      In areas of the world that receive snowfall in winter, the snow on the roof is actually helping, by reflecting heat back into the building.
      The snow does help, but there's no reflecting; it is insulating. It's like having a blanket covering the roof, so that the heat from your furnace doesn't escape the house as fast. One of the neat ways to see which houses are well insulated inside if you are looking to buy a house is to see which houses melt the snow off the roof fastest. Given houses with the same sun exposure, the ones that keep snow on the roof longer are the ones that are insulated better, keeping the heat in the house, rather than escaping up to warm up the roof.
      --
      We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
    5. Re:Ok, cool... but by pclminion · · Score: 1
      The property of how well something gives off heat from its surface (I suppose this is what you mean by "radiator") is a property of what material it is--unrelated to what color it is.

      I don't know where you are getting this "correct" information, but it isn't. Absorption and emission of radiation are both controlled by the material's emissivity. A material which is twice as effective at absorbing energy (as compared to some baseline) is also twice as effective at radiating it.

      Instead of a house, let's say you want to keep a person warm. Which color T-shirt should they wear--white or black? The black one will get warmer as it absorbs more sunlight.

      No, the ideal shirt would be aluminized mylar -- perfectly reflective, allowing no body heat to escape. A black shirt warms up in the sun, but in the absence of sun a black shirt is the worst color you could wear, since it will radiate the heat away from your body much faster than a reflective shirt. And no, not because it got "hotter" than a white shirt would have.

      Maybe the idea you were going for was that dark-colored objects will give off more heat, but that is because they have absorbed more and therefore have more to give.

      Wrong. There is no physical difference between absorption and emission of radiation. They are the same process in different directions. A good absorber is a good radiator. This is made explicit in the equations, which you obviously do not know.

      I have more than a trivial knowledge of what I speak...

    6. Re:Ok, cool... but by silicon+not+in+the+v · · Score: 1
      Wrong. There is no physical difference between absorption and emission of radiation. They are the same process in different directions. A good absorber is a good radiator. This is made explicit in the equations, which you obviously do not know.

      I have more than a trivial knowledge of what I speak...
      Let's hear more on this because I have not studied radiation and heat absorbtion equations, so I'm prepared to grant that you're right if you can explain a few questions I have about why that doesn't make sense to me. It would seem to make sense that absorbtion and emission are reverse equations, but in the real world it seems to show otherwise. Maybe there are other factors you can mention that are changing things.

      If dark objects emit heat faster than lighter objects, then two hot objects placed in the dark (so they're not absorbing more heat from the sun) would cool at different rates, even though made from the same material?

      I've got another couple of questions on this, but have to go somewhere and don't have time now. Sorry if I was shooting off without knowledge on this issue.
      --
      We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
    7. Re:Ok, cool... but by pclminion · · Score: 1
      If dark objects emit heat faster than lighter objects, then two hot objects placed in the dark (so they're not absorbing more heat from the sun) would cool at different rates, even though made from the same material?

      I'm assuming you're referring to a coat of paint on the objects, because if two objects are made of the same material they must surely be the same color, correct?

      If you had, say, two identical cubes of wood, at the same temperature, and one was painted white and one was painted black, and the paint was of the same thickness on each, and the thermal conductivity of the paint was identical on each, then the cube painted black would cool faster.

      I suppose you might be referring to, for example, different colors of plastic. You could have a black polyurethane sheet, and a white one. However these no longer qualify as the "same material" because the black sheet has had particles of black dye added in order to color it black. The black sheet, although made of polyurethane like the white one, will cool/heat faster.

      Now let's go back to the example of the black and white shirts. If the goal is to heat the individual, then clearly the black shirt is better because it absorbs sunlight. Whereas a white shirt can maintain the body heat of the wearer but cannot easily increase it because it cannot absorb sunlight. (In reality the situation is much more complicated because shirts have holes to allow air to pass through.)

      Now, take that person out of the sun and stick him in a crater on the moon. Now, a black shirt is a huge liability because it radiates heat much faster than a white shirt would.

      When it comes down to radiation and absorption on the surface of an object, all that really matters is the blackness of the surface. It might be the case that a particular white object gets hotter faster in the sun than a particular black object, but that means the white object has a lower thermal conductivity and hence cannot "sink" that heat further into the object. "All other things being equal" is the key phrase here.

    8. Re:Ok, cool... but by Zarhan · · Score: 1

      When it comes down to radiation and absorption on the surface of an object, all that really matters is the blackness of the surface.

      A very good example of an application is in MESSENGER. The side facing the sun is white, so it will absorb less heat. The side facing away from the sun is painted black, so that the probe will get rid of the heat even faster.

  45. Re:Safe? Lifespan? by miscGeek · · Score: 2, Funny

    As a side benefit you won't have to wear your tin foil hat inside anymore!

    --
    May the source be with you!
  46. Re:Safe? Lifespan? by Hatta · · Score: 1

    If you've got heat coming through the walls, just get some old-fashioned IR reflectors -- Aluminum Foil! Put it up to reflect heat away from your walls

    I hear this also helps with the mind control rays.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  47. Treat the innermost pane by Kurt+Gray · · Score: 1

    In double glazed or triple glazed windows (with air space between the glass layers) I think you'd treat the outside surface of innermost pane not the outermost pane. The innermost pane has the coolest inside surface and the air spaces between panes are always hot.

  48. Except in areas with exceptional solar exposure by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 3, Informative

    Imagine living in Nevada, where you get sun for more than 300 days a year, and most of those days are high quality 90F or higher sun.

    A solar home can only use so much.
    A trombe wall can only absorb so much.
    Even the new 10% transparent solar collectors can only do so much.

    What do you do with the excess heat?
    You run evaporative coolers and AC.

    The only other way to shed the excess heat is to absorb it (ala these panes or burying the house underground) or redirect it, with things like geothermal heat pumps.

    1. Re:Except in areas with exceptional solar exposure by grunt107 · · Score: 1

      But why can't the consumptive tech be improved so solar collectors/transformers DO use ALL the heat (or the amount above xx Celsius)? Is this some law of nature where thermal can be blocked but not utilized?
      This is not my area of knowledge but it would seem to me that efficient solar/thermal conversion is as possible as the tech described here.

    2. Re:Except in areas with exceptional solar exposure by RaymondRuptime · · Score: 1

      A solar home can only use so much.

      Homes can be fitted with "reverse meters" that allow you to sell power back to the power company (sample /. mention). So, collect all the solar energy you can--collect the entire set!

    3. Re:Except in areas with exceptional solar exposure by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

      There are hard fundamental limits to efficiency.

      The transparent solar collectors are supposed to be more efficient than regular collectors. That still means, however, that ambient heat/light will be transmitted.

      So you have a house entirely built of solar collectors on the south side roof and wall, and a large earth/concrete mass on the north side, and the best you can do is something like 5% efficiency in energy collection. What do you do with the rest of the heat?

  49. something to be said.... by zogger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... for the old ways of construction. 3 foot thick earth-type walls, low deep overhangs for shade. Maybe those old original settlers in the southwest weren't as backwards as we think, just because they didn't have cheap electricity.......

    1. Re:something to be said.... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Overhangs are a liability if you happen to live in an area that has high winds (hurricanes, tornados, etc.). The wind tends to use these overhangs to rip the roof off.

      In the desert part of the southwest, they should be fine, but for many parts of the country they're not.

    2. Re:something to be said.... by SnapShot · · Score: 1

      Wow, you mean build and design for the climate and terrain that you inhabit? What a unique concept.

      In other words, no stucco or adobe in Seattle (it worries me to see the mold and algea covering the walls of some of the houses there). No grass lawns in Nevada. No flat roofs in the Rockies.

      It's depressing to see the exact same style of McMansion in Seattle, D.C., Miami, and Tuscon. Are the developers simply lacking any imagination or is it the buyers that don't have a clue?

      Anyway, I think you overstate the problem with overhangs. I'd rather weather a hurricane in my friend's 1880 house -- with large overhanging porch and all sorts of Victorian gingerbread; it survived Isabelle (a weak hurricane, I'll admit) with a single broken shutter -- than a modern McMansion. You can get away with a lot when you have the resources and craftsmanship available to build things strong. However, this is Maryland with relatively infrequent, and generally weak, storms.

      In Florida, I think you could still design with thick walls and recessed windows. You'd save money on your AC for seven months out of the year in exchange for having to spend a little more on your design.

      --
      Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
    3. Re:something to be said.... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      It's depressing to see the exact same style of McMansion in Seattle, D.C., Miami, and Tuscon. Are the developers simply lacking any imagination or is it the buyers that don't have a clue?

      It's the buyers. They're completely stupid, and they come from other parts of the country (usually the east coast) and expect everything to be the same. Heaven forbid they should go without a grass lawn in the middle of a desert...

      We have this problem in a big way in Phoenix. At least stucco is very popular for new houses, as are Spanish tile roofs. But I hear most new houses don't have swamp coolers, and aren't allowed to because of stupid HOA rules (which also prohibit putting the A/C units on the roof).

      Anyway, I think you overstate the problem with overhangs. I'd rather weather a hurricane in my friend's 1880 house -- with large overhanging porch and all sorts of Victorian gingerbread; it survived Isabelle (a weak hurricane, I'll admit) with a single broken shutter -- than a modern McMansion. You can get away with a lot when you have the resources and craftsmanship available to build things strong. However, this is Maryland with relatively infrequent, and generally weak, storms.

      Yeah, I'd like to see how that house fares from a direct hit by a category 5 storm like Camille. It wouldn't do any better than a McMansion. I'm sure it's fine in MD, but in an area that gets frequent hurricanes, I'd rather have a well-engineered house than a well-built one. There's a big difference between the two; no amount of quality craftsmanship from the 1800's will beat construction techniques that have been learned from over 100 years of experience with storms. Better yet, give me a house built with a steel frame using commercial construction techniques.

    4. Re:something to be said.... by SnapShot · · Score: 1

      Well, it looks like neither of us would choose to live in a McMansion. I am still willing to bet that a "well-engineered" house can be designed to withstand storms AND mitigate the heat that is absorbed by the house (through the use of overhands, porches, etc..).

      --
      Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
  50. Conservation of energy by Asprin · · Score: 2, Interesting


    What happens to all that infrared energy that isn't being absorbed by the interior of the building anymore? Is it absorbed by the glass/film iteself and then dissapated by conduction or convection with other nearby materials like air, glass and steel or is it reflected back outside to make other buildings and surfaces and stuff even hotter?

    --
    "Lawyers are for sucks."
    - Doug McKenzie
    1. Re:Conservation of energy by dbrower · · Score: 2, Informative
      It'll be bounced outside to be absorbed by the rest of the environment. Pretend the building isn't there - the sun is going to hit anyway, so it's not much different unless you have a convex building with a focus.

      If the film is on the inside pane to prevent it from environmental damage, then there will be two passes through the outer pane, which can warm up the gas between the panes, leading ultimately to convection/conduction gain. Coating the outside would be most effective, if it weren't fragile.

      -dB

      --
      "It if was easy to do, we'd find someone cheaper than you to do it."
    2. Re:Conservation of energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It if was easy to do, we'd find someone cheaper than you to do it."

      I read this .sig, then re-read it, something just didn't seem right...
      Then it clicked - "It if was easy".

      Never mind me, I'm just posting to no-one in particular.

  51. Correct me if I'm wrong... by Seft · · Score: 1

    Surely by the time *anything* is 29 degrees, there is enough IR to interfere with a signal?

  52. 84? by siskbc · · Score: 1
    84 degrees actually is pretty comfortable for people in the south, especially if it's going to be a dry 84 degrees

    Except that a dry 84 degrees never occurs in the south, assuming we're talking the southern part of the US. If it''s 84, teh humidity is 90%+.

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

    1. Re:84? by sartin · · Score: 1

      Current temperature at Austin Bergstrom International Airport: 91

      Current humidity at ABIA: 56%

      Current location of ABIA: Austin, TX

      I believe that counts as the southern United States. We're usually binned in the "southwest", so I suppose you could try to hedge that.

      However, current conditions for Tupelo Regional Airport, MS:

      Temperature 84.9 F (29.4 C)
      Dew Point 71.1 F (21.7 C)
      Relative Humidity 63%

      I think Mississippi counts as "the south" in anbody's book.

    2. Re:84? by siskbc · · Score: 1
      I think Mississippi counts as "the south" in anbody's book.

      Of course, it would have to be one of those rare nice summer days as soon as I open my mouth. Trust me, it's rare. The south in summer is freaking miserable. Humidity by 4pm is usually 100% accompanied frequently by pop-up thunderstorms. I'm from KY, and everything south of that is even worse.

      And no, Austin ain't the south. ;)

      --

      -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

    3. Re:84? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Here in Phoenix, it's 100 degress currently, and humidity is 20%.

      Considering I'm less than three hours from the Mexican border, I would say this is the "southern part of the US". If you meant "southeast", you should have said so specifically.

    4. Re:84? by tarquin_fim_bim · · Score: 1

      I think Mississippi counts as "the south" in anbody's book.

      Who is Anbody? By you quotation I wouldn't buy their ill informed tome. Their grip on geography must be regarded as tenuous and ill informed at best. Tierra del Fuego is South, Nueva Loja is around about in the middle and Prudhoe Bay is North. Mississippi is pretty much North on this evidence, or are we talking about a different Mississippi? It's South of Washington, maybe this the center of your world? A definite Topsy-turvy view you have, but an ignorance that is not not uncommon.

      Kisses,
      Tarquin.

  53. People wont buy it by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    What happens when i want to change my neighbours tv channel through the window to piss them off?

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  54. Re:Safe? Lifespan? by mforbes · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Great idea-- but since both the layer and the glass filter the color, you end up with subtractive colors, not additive. With your solution (assuming the tone and density of the vanadium & dye layers match), no light at all gets through.

    --

    Allegedly real newspaper headline from 1998:
    Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charge

  55. Re:Safe? Lifespan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone know toxicity of Vanadium dioxide?

    Who cares? It tastes great!!

  56. Re:Safe? Lifespan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You've never been in a building with double/triple pane glass? Where the fuck do you live, Kyrgyzstan? These windows are extremely common anywhere where heating and cooling costs are extreme. (the same places where heat-resistent glass would be useful

  57. *chip* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > there's no place for the shield to go

    Errant pebble, meet windshield. Windshield, errant pebble. Whoops.

  58. Re:Step in the right direction by sirReal.83. · · Score: 1
    Call me when they are able to use non-visible light to generate solar power.
    Pass the crack pipe. That happened in 1999. It's just still really fucking expensive.
  59. Re:Safe? Lifespan? by antikarma · · Score: 0

    Or you could just go this route.

  60. Re:Safe? Lifespan? by ackthpt · · Score: 1
    Good firewall against IP by carrier pigeon.

    You did hear that Ostriches now have a variant of the bird flu? Thank God they can't fly!

    Firewall be pretty handy if/when pigeons come down with something like that.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  61. I meant by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 1

    I meant that the visible light would cause the glass to darken -- not based on temprature!

  62. I thought visible light was the problem by clone22 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Visible light comes through the window and is absorbed by materials which start radiating that energy as IR. Auto glass is better at transmission of visible light than IR, so inside of car gets hotter. If true, it would help to have better IR transmission than to limit IR transmission.

    --
    Ask me about my vow of silence!
    1. Re:I thought visible light was the problem by deathazre · · Score: 2, Informative

      no, visible light turns into heat when it strikes and is absorbed by an object, as does IR. Transmitting more IR would just make the insides hotter.

      --
      Karma: Negative (Mostly affected by dorm trolling)
    2. Re:I thought visible light was the problem by misleb · · Score: 1

      If I remember correctly from physics, under normal Earth conditions, heat dissipates much more quickly through conduction and convection than it does through radiation. Also, the windows blocking IR from the inside would still tend to cool the inside of a car (in the case of a parked car) because the windows would absorb the IR from the inside and conduct the heat to the cooler outside air. Now, if the windows *reflected* the IR, that would be a different story, but AFAIK, the coating in question absorbs IR.

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
  63. Re:Safe? Lifespan? by ackthpt · · Score: 1
    You've never been in a building with double/triple pane glass? Where the ... do you live..?

    Michigan... California... both extremes, effectively.

    First step in saving money on heating/cooling would be dual pane, but first you have to talk people into spending the money to upgrade the glass they already have -- Answer, in two words: Fat Chance. Most likely a consideration for new buildings.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  64. Bricks? by sik0fewl · · Score: 1

    Why use smart glass when you can use bricks that are.. well.. as dumb as bricks.

    --
    I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler
  65. Transparent Aluminu--no.. vanadium by Havokmon · · Score: 1
    The glass is coated the chemical vanadium dioxide. This material transmits both visible and infrared wavelengths of light, and normally undergoes a change at about 70C.
    Above this transition temperature, the electrons in the material alter their arrangement. This turns it from a semiconductor into a metal, and makes it block infrared light.

    And you thought it was just in the movies!

    --
    "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
  66. wow that's retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you mean, everything would be slightly darker and the same color as before.

  67. Re:Safe? Lifespan? by Sloppy · · Score: 5, Funny
    As a side benefit you won't have to wear your tin foil hat inside anymore!
    That's exactly what they want you to think.

    And since you're thinking it, that means they already got you. You're compromised. We can't have you at the meetings anymore. Er, I mean, what meetings?

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  68. This is odd by GCP · · Score: 2, Informative

    One of the reasons rooms get so hot is that ordinary glass is already blocking a lot of infrared--from getting out. Non-infrared (ordinary visible) light comes through easily and strikes whatever is inside. In doing so, it heats it, so a portion of the visible light is converted to infrared. But, since the glass isn't very permeable to infrared, it can't get out, so the inside space heats up.

    This innovation will make it even harder for infrared to get out, but it also reduces the infrared that gets in. So the question is whether the inside heats up more with visible light converted to infrared that can't get out at all, or visible plus some infrared converted to even more infrared that can get out a little bit.

    I suppose they've done the experiment, but it's not obvious to me which one would be superior or by how much.

    --
    "Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
    1. Re:This is odd by fizzup · · Score: 2, Informative

      Glass has a cutoff for transmittance of wavelengths longer than about 3000nm. The sun, at 6000 Kelvins, radiates a lot in the 700nm - 3000nm range, which is just infrared of visible. Your room, at about 300 Kelvins produces a lot less radiation, and most of it is in the far infrared (peak at around 8000nm) that glass doesn't transmit at all. This coating probably reduces transmittance of the near infrared, and you just have to put up with the default behaviour of glass not transmitting the far infrared.

    2. Re:This is odd by silicon+not+in+the+v · · Score: 1
      One of the reasons rooms get so hot is that ordinary glass is already blocking a lot of infrared--from getting out. Non-infrared (ordinary visible) light comes through easily and strikes whatever is inside. In doing so, it heats it, so a portion of the visible light is converted to infrared. But, since the glass isn't very permeable to infrared, it can't get out, so the inside space heats up.
      Actually your explanation of why rooms heat up is not correct, which is why this doesn't make sense to you. Read this article about the greenhouse effect from wikipedia. Before you say "Aha, see?" read the section titled "Real greenhouses", where they explain that actual greenhouses work differently. Rather than trapping infrared radiation inside, the light coming in heats up the air, and the hot air is trapped inside. Rooms/cars get hot because they can't let the air out. Blocking the IR from coming in these new windows will help by not letting the air get heated inside in the first place.
      --
      We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
    3. Re:This is odd by GCP · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the info. +1 informative virtual mod point to you.

      --
      "Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
    4. Re:This is odd by dcmeserve · · Score: 1
      Just because some greenhouses use air-trapping as a dominant effect doesn't mean that this applies to rooms and cars -- or all greenhouses, for that matter.

      Example: if you get in a car that's been roasting in the sun, just opening the window and exchanging the air doesn't instantly make it cool -- the dashboard, seats, ceiling etc. are still radiating a hell of a lot of IR. If you closed the window after just a short time, you'd find the interior rising back to the full temperature a good deal more quickly than it originally took when the car started off cool.

      Radiative heating is a lot more significant than most people seem to understand.

      --
      "Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - Orwell
    5. Re:This is odd by dcmeserve · · Score: 1
      Let me clarify this:

      The "greenhouse effect" -- trapping energy due to something that lets through visible but not IR wavelengths -- is certainly real, whether it's a matter of the composition of the atmosphere, or having an enclosed space with a lot of glass exposed to the sun.

      The matter of whether it's an enclosed airspace only affects whether the effect gets cut off or not. If you had a window open in a greenhouse, then air can circulate through and bleed the heat away, bringing the interior closer to the ambient temperature. Cutting off the air circulation removes this interference, allowing the greenhouse effect to truly take hold. The interior temperature can then get a good deal hotter than even a patch of ground directly exposed to the sun would be.

      I need to see about correcting that Wikipedia entry...

      --
      "Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - Orwell
    6. Re:This is odd by silicon+not+in+the+v · · Score: 1
      I need to see about correcting that Wikipedia entry...
      Don't mess up Wikipedia with your misunderstanding!
      Hot objects, like car seats, do not normally give off a lot of IR radiant heat, exceptions being glowing-hot type of stuff, flames, lasers, etc. If you had a room that was made of a material that blocked in all IR, but was porous to air, so heated air could escape, the temperature in that room would not go skyrocketing up from the IR.

      Just because some greenhouses use air-trapping as a dominant effect doesn't mean that this applies to rooms and cars -- or all greenhouses, for that matter.
      Yes, rooms, cars, greenhouses, it does apply to all of them.
      --
      We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
    7. Re:This is odd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you kidding?!?!? The human body radiates tons of IR, hot car seats are screaming with IR radiation!

      You are clearly complelty unqualified to comment on the physics of electromagnetic radiation. Just cut it off now.

    8. Re:This is odd by dcmeserve · · Score: 1
      Hot objects, like car seats, do not normally give off a lot of IR radiant heat, exceptions being glowing-hot type of stuff...

      Radiative heat from everyday objects is in fact significant. I don't have any numbers on me, but just try observing it in your daily life -- if you hold your hand close to a warm (or cold) object, without touching it, you can start to feel the temperature difference if you pay enough attention. I remember one time back in high school, someone sitting down next to me in class who had been running to the classroom -- I could immediately feel the heat blasting off this guy (it was a hot day, so this surpassed the comfort threshold; that's why I noticed).

      Anyways, sure, keeping the air from exchanging is important to keeping the heat from getting sucked out, if you want to see the greenhouse effect happen. But radiative heat loss would still keep greenhouses/cars from getting as hot as they do if glass didn't absorb any IR. Now you'd have to do experiments to see how big that effect is relative to the air-trapping itself, but it's certainly non-zero.

      Don't mess up Wikipedia...

      That page is not exactly a thing of beauty. The reference cited to support the idea that the greenhouse effect is a "misnomer" for actual greenhouses doesn't exactly look authoritative (and its validity is questioned in the page's discussion logs already). Also, the page needs to start off by talking about the effect in the abstract, not just as applied to planetary atmospherics.

      Don't worry -- I'm not going to go charging in and turn it all upside-down. I will study the change logs and discussions, and will look for good-quality references to cite. If I don't have time to do it right, I won't do anything.

      --
      "Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - Orwell
    9. Re:This is odd by silicon+not+in+the+v · · Score: 1

      OK, sorry if I jumped into this too much. The point I didn't want you removing about "the effect" was how the temp rises far above ambient because of the lack of air circulation to remove the excess heat. It sounded like you didn't believe that and were going to change it to glass blocking IR as the cause for the rise in temp.

      --
      We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
  69. Bad in cars. Good in greenhouses by Charles+Dodgeson · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I haven't RTFA yet, so maybe they discuss this. But my (limited) understanding of why cars get so hot is because sunlight comes in in the visible range (to which the glass is fully transparent). It gets absorbed by stuff in the car and then re-emitted mostly in the IR range. Because the glass is already more transparent to visible light than to IR the heat gets trapped in the car.

    If I am right about this, then cars would be exactly where you don't want this stuff.

    --
    Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
  70. It should work by DarthTeufel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've worked in the glass industry for over three years, acutally for one of the direct competitors of the people (Pilkington) who came up with this. Coating glass almost always (90% of the time) requires an insulated (two lites of glass) unit. The coating goes on the inner surface because it is easy to scratch the coating off, and since its a near vaccum inside insulated units they don't have to worry about what ambient conditions will do to the coating. Now the yellow tint will be a non-issue come production time. It realy will be either applying it to glass that is already tinted to cancel out the yellow or they'll modify the formula to get it to appear clear. And the fact that it eventually wears out will either be adjusted for in the R&D process (not likely, too expensive), or offering some kind of warranty on it. It is cheaper to re-produce because of the scale of glass plants, than it would be for the R&D to get another year or two of useful life. The process of coating itself is very very interesting. They pretty much ionize particles to bond at a molecular level to the glass. It's a niche field, but one that is very lucrative because there are not that many people in it. And as far as costs are concerned, it should be rather cheap. Glass itself costs around 1-5 cents (US) per squarefoot. A float glass plant produces around 650 tons of glass a day. The process is really really efficient.

    1. Re:It should work by dcmeserve · · Score: 1
      Note that normal glass blocks IR already. The only way this new material would help cool anything is if it allowed transmission of IR where glass does not (think greenhouse effect).

      Applying this to glass would render it completely useless.

      --
      "Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - Orwell
    2. Re:It should work by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      Note that normal glass blocks IR already

      Do you mean ultra-violet light? I don't believe normal glass blocks much IR at all, though there are some special, more expensive glasses (low-E) that block most IR. On the downside this means that on a sunny winter day you can't take much advantage of the sun because the IR is being blocked just as it is on a sunny 30C day.

    3. Re:It should work by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Note that normal glass blocks IR already.

      Wrong. It blocks some IR. It certinaly doesn't block the IR nearer the red spectrum (rather than heat). If it did, I wouldn't be able to take IR photos with my camera.

    4. Re:It should work by SmurfButcher+Bob · · Score: 1

      No, it blocks far (and a good amount of near) IR. A bolometer (thermal imager) will typically see a thermal pane of glass as a "cold" mirror, and it's a 'pane' in the ass (you can't take a look through a window to look for victims or assess conditions when a structure is burning... all you see is yourself.)

      So, who knows... maybe this stuff might allow a TIC to have a peek inside if the room isn't involved, which would be a plus from a firefighting perspective. Now, if we could only do something about those morons who are selling lexan-backed sheetrock, kevlar window screens, and "engineered" wood...

      --

      help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am

  71. Re:Safe? Lifespan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Not an ideal solution, but take a hose to your "hot" wall. The water evaporates and hopefully the heat blows away in the breeze instead of just baking your house and everything inside.

    It works, even if not very well, and it's relatively cheap. Not something you want to do every day forever but on a couple of those screaming hot summer days it works well enough.

  72. Great for Florida by rynthetyn · · Score: 1

    If they get this working and get rid of the yellow tint, I'd definitely buy a car that had the coating on the windows. I'm so sick of getting in my car and hardly being able to touch the steering wheel it's so hot (and I have a light colored car, with a dark car, it's torture). It would also be a great savings on home AC bills.

    --
    Eagles may soar, but weasles don't get sucked into jet engines...
  73. Re:inner pane? by danknight · · Score: 0

    Since you want the coating to react to inside temperature, I would think the coating would need to be on the inside Pane and probably on the inside side of the inside pane (say that a few times fast)

    --
    wanted: one clever sig,apply within
  74. Re:Dye to change the color?--Dye, DYE by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    Remember any of the food dyes?

    I wonder how long before there is a scam or fact that "chemically artificially tinting light" can lead to cancer...

    The automotive and construction industries would have a FIT!

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  75. My AC comes on way before 84F. by tufflove · · Score: 0

    bwahahahahaha........man thats really feeble. I am from Minnesota and have been living in Austin, Texas for 20 years. Let me tell you, if you think 84 is hot, you need to get out more. 105 is hot. 84 is nice. A ceiling fan and a cold beer should get you by just fine without too much trouble. No wonder your power grids are in a shambles.

  76. Roof gardens. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In Tokyo, law requires large buildings to have roof gardens to prevent the roofs from getting so hot. Plants will use that energy to grow, instead of letting that energy hit concrete, metal, etc and become heat. Its estimated that tokyo would be 10 degrees hotter on average without the roof gardens.

    1. Re:Roof gardens. by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sounds great, but we can't have laws like this in the US. It would make too much sense, and would also increase building costs, reducing profits for construction companies.

    2. Re:Roof gardens. by valkraider · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Here in Portland, OR - they try and implement things like this, but then people just complain about the extra cost up-front.

      When will Americans learn - if we build stuff cheap up front it is more expensive long term. If we spend more money up front, we save LOTS of money in the long term...

      Oh, wait. That would be smart...

    3. Re:Roof gardens. by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's the American Way. Buy cheap crap, then spend even more money to fix or replace it. It's why ultra-cheap inkjet printers (with their absurdly priced replacement cartridges) are so popular. I got a laser printer instead, which only costs a penny or two per page, so I'm UnAmerican.

    4. Re:Roof gardens. by dcmeserve · · Score: 1
      n Tokyo, law requires large buildings to have roof gardens to prevent the roofs from getting so hot. Plants will use that energy to grow, instead of letting that energy hit concrete, metal, etc and become heat. Its estimated that tokyo would be 10 degrees hotter on average without the roof gardens.

      Hmm. It certainly would make the interior of the building cooler by not letting the sunlight strike it directly, thereby reducing air-conditioning costs quite a bit. Due to the surface area, the air would carry the heat away from the leaves before they could re-radiate into the building.

      But in terms of the overall city environment, I don't know -- leaves are quite dark, in fact, and will likely absorb more radiation than if you simply painted the roof white. So while the building itself would be cooler, the overall effect might be an increase in air temperatures (relative to having a white roof).

      Of course, using plants makes the city a hell of a lot nicer in a lot of other ways.

      --
      "Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - Orwell
    5. Re:Roof gardens. by AlistairGroves · · Score: 1

      Nope, a HUGE problem over there is the number of people using AC, which raises the temperature of the city a hell of a lot, making more people use AC etc....

      Now if the building is cooler they don't have to use as much AC right?

    6. Re:Roof gardens. by dcmeserve · · Score: 1
      ...number of people using AC...

      Ah, yes, of course - the AC's themselves will generate quite a bit of heat. Thanks!

      --
      "Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - Orwell
    7. Re:Roof gardens. by lazybeam · · Score: 1

      How much would putting a roof garden increase the costs? A few thousand dollars? Over a huge building cost that would be nothing, and they could pass it on to the end-user anyway. (I'm not sure how companies do this - do they rent or sell straight away?)

      I have never lived in a city over 100k people, and have always lived in houses. Next year I'll have finished my degree and will probably have to move to the capital city and into a small apartment. Having a semi-private garden would be handy to a lot of people IMHO.

      --
      --
      no sig for you. come back one year.
    8. Re:Roof gardens. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am so with you on the Laser Jet thingy, itz trew I have a laser thingy and one cartridge has lated me 3 friggin years AND I PRINT A LOT OF STUFF!!!

    9. Re:Roof gardens. by zsau · · Score: 1

      Ten degrees what? (I'm interested... and there's a fair difference between ten degrees Celsius and ten degrees Fahrenheit.)

      --
      Look out!
    10. Re:Roof gardens. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      How much would putting a roof garden increase the costs? A few thousand dollars? Over a huge building cost that would be nothing, and they could pass it on to the end-user anyway. (I'm not sure how companies do this - do they rent or sell straight away?)

      You aren't an American, are you?

      It doesn't matter if it only costs a few hundred dollars. If builders can save a few pennies by cutting corners somewhere, they will. It's the American Way. Cut costs as much as possible, and increase profits as much as possible, regardless of the overall cost (especially to society). Unless the customers will notice and complain, builders aren't going to do anything they don't have to.

      Here's another example for you. In most other civilized countries, automobiles are required to have red brake lights, and amber turn signals, so that it's obvious which is which. In America, this is not the case; both can be red, and you can even reuse the same bulb for both functions! Why is this? Because, years ago, American auto makers lobbied Congress to make it this way, because it allowed them to save a few dollars per car. Of course, having clearer indicator signals would improve safety, but they don't care about that.

  77. That's nothing compared to Aerogel by s_p_oneil · · Score: 1
    Aerogel

    It will be interesting to see which one can be made clear first. A single-pane window that insulates like a tightly-sealed glass window with 10-20 panes would be nice. Although I'm a bit surprised that aerogel isn't being used in more applications today. (NASA only recently licensed the technology to a company, so perhaps we'll see more of it soon.)

    1. Re:That's nothing compared to Aerogel by lpangelrob2 · · Score: 1
      There have been a couple reasons this has been brought up as a bad idea...

      One is that aerogel and water don't typically mix... early generations of the stuff would dissolve in water. (This makes sense; aerogel is a solid formed from special dehydrated Jello, essentially.) One previously mentioned is that the insulation properties of aerogel are too good -- the heat you generate would never be lost outside, and you would suffocate or otherwise die a horrible death. Of course, houses aren't made of aerogel, so this wouldn't be a big problem as long as you had other materials.

      I still have to think cost is a big issue, what with 2 cm circles 1 cm thick being $25.

    2. Re:That's nothing compared to Aerogel by s_p_oneil · · Score: 1

      Aerogel is already being used in translucent windows (to let light in like skylights, but not to see through). I read an article about a hotel chain signing a big deal to have them installed at all their locations (it was part of the article that explained how NASA had licensed the aerogel technology to a company). This indicates that general-purpose problems like water solubility have been dealt with somehow.

      The NASA article I posted a link to was written in 1998, and it stated that Aerogel could be produced for as little as 3 times the cost of glass. It's expensive now because it's not mass-produced. And the mention of suffocation is ridiculous. Air doesn't pass through glass either, yet somehow houses don't suffocate people.

      If someone does manage to cover most of a house in aerogel and it gets too hot inside in the winter without a heater, I doubt people will die of heat-stroke before they manage to open a door or window. ;-) If you think about it, the thermostat for your non-existent heater could simply control how wide to keep a door open through the insulation.

  78. Re:Next step... yer ass os... by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    So, would a fanny up on the pane give rise to a new meaning to...

    "yer ass is GLASS"?

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  79. I just looked by zogger · · Score: 1

    here is a google reference, first hit actually:

    http://membership.acs.org/P/PMSE/awards/creative .h tml

    The recipient of the 2004 ACS Creative Invention Award is Dr. Andrew J. Ouderkirk. Dr. Ouderkirk has received this award for his role as the principal inventor and project leader of the groundbreaking 3M(TM) Multilayer Optical Film (MOF) technology, a core technology within 3M's Light Management platform. The MOF technology uses birefringent polymers in the manufacture of reflective film polarizers and high efficiency mirrors. Dr. Ouderkirk now holds the title of 3M Corporate Scientist in the 3M Company. In addition, he recently became a member of 3M's prestigious Carlton Society in recognition of his pioneering work in the development of the optical film technology.

    yada yada yada, more at URL

    Looks like he is joe brain

  80. Re:Safe? Lifespan? by RobertB-DC · · Score: 1

    If you've got heat coming through the walls, just get some old-fashioned IR reflectors -- Aluminum Foil! Put it up to reflect heat away from your walls, and maybe an old fan to blow the heat off of it. Oh, and ripple it.

    Actually, we used this technology on a west-facing window whose transparency was a bug, not a feature. It gave a great view of the neighbor's bathroom window, but was perfectly situated for the summer sun to beat down on the dining room table (and all its occupants).

    A layer of aluminum foil -- secured in place with duct tape, of course -- took care of both problems.

    Here's my question: I tried to make the new "coating" ripple-free. Was that a mistake? Since the comment has mods of Insightful, Interesting, and Funny, I don't know what to think.

    --
    Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
  81. Only $145.09 per gram... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    https://www1.fishersci.com/Coupon?gid=35397&cid= 13 35

  82. Re:Treat the innermost pane-- potential problems? by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    Someone chime in/correct me, but...

    One thing to consider is that some glass manufacturers used to or still warn against doing things such as placing foil or reflector surfaces on the INSIDE of dual-paned glass.

    The reason is the reflected light builds up the heat inside the dual pane, raising the temp above the design level. In some cases the glass may explode due to the gas sandwiched between the panes.

    Treating the inner pane may be a good idea, but if careless, ignorant, or reckless consumers put black film or silver film or foil on the panes, their "ass could be glass" if they happen to be nearby during an explosion.

    David Syes

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  83. Some weird ones... by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    Occupants should be OK as longa as the glass is not sandwiching between the panes any xylene or carbon tetrachloride...

    Maybe the makers can insert rods like the neon kind, or design self-shaping channels linke see-thru ant farms so that during holidays, at night, they can turn the buildings into art.

    Or, they can camouflage the buildings in the US when we hit Condition Orange.

    Or, this could be used for bicylists who want a transparent cocoon, but don't want the tan...

    Or, battlefield troops could survive in the desert, "to a degree" (pun intended) while awaiting sunset for night movements, or for survival purposes... Dropping lots of these could confuse enemy targetting systems, as they might cause ordnance to be wasted on bogus targets...

    "You could add another substance, like titanium dioxide, to fix it to the glass," he told New Scientist. "And you could use a dye that would cancel out the yellow."" Would going to Titanium Trioxide or Plutonium Heptide or Hexane Arsenide alleviate fears of Condition Yellow?"

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  84. Re:Step in the right direction by s_p_oneil · · Score: 1


    Hey, that hybrid lighting system is neat. I noticed that it specifically mentions using the infra-red portion to generate electricity. What happens to the ultra-violet portion? If it's not efficiently blocked, skin cancer would be a concern.

  85. block by reflecting or absorbing? by nicknicknick · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The article just says "blocks" If the glass blocks by absorbing IR then this would be a problem in double pane windows. The outer pane (or is it lite?) would become dramatically hotter and would expand more than inner one. This could break the seal between the two sheets and release any enclosed gas (argon fill is commonly used to reduce convective currents that transfer heat) as well as allow moisture in causing fogging. This was apparently a problem with some do it some do-it-yourself window tints. I don't know much chemistry but they say it's metal-like above transition temp so maybe that means it reflects. BTW I have now idea why Argon would reduce convective currents. Anyone know? I just know that lower convection is a property of heavy gasses

    1. Re:block by reflecting or absorbing? by DarthTeufel · · Score: 1

      First, you're right. The industry term is 'lite'. It took me a week or two before I asked someone what they were taling about when I started.

      And I don't believe that the glass expansion would be significant if it did absorb the heat, relative the other light. Glass is excellent at holding heat without expansion. If it did expand, tempering glass accurately (currently the specs are at within +/- 1/32") would be impossible.

  86. lol... WRONG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no light at all? so the glass filters *all* non-yellow light? it's not just a "tint". very curious.

    let me guess. you just had a unit on light in your intro science class?

  87. Re:Safe? Lifespan? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    Some quick Googling didn't turn up safety or toxicity data. That's kind of disquieting, since it implies that the material hasn't been deployed or tested much.

    I try to avoid brand new construction materials. Let other people find the problems that show up ten years down the road.

    Hope it works -- nifty idea!

  88. Re:Next step... yer ass os... by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

    Sure, ...in Japan!

  89. Re:Safe? Lifespan? by shepd · · Score: 1

    All I know is that I've spent a lot of time working with cheap-ass tools lavelled "Chrome Vanadium" and I'm still just fine.

    I think.

    --
    If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
  90. Re:Safe? Lifespan? by cephyn · · Score: 1

    not to mention overrated. ;)

    the ripple thing was a joke. if you were actually trying to bleed heat off from the inside, you would want it rippled with a fan, and attached to your house with heat-conductive goo. ;)

    --
    Moo.
  91. Re:Safe? Lifespan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's safer to wear the aluminum on your head, because the rays can still penetrate your walls, unless you live in a glass house and you put up foil over the entire thing.

  92. What about winter-time? by s_p_oneil · · Score: 1

    Passive solar heating of homes is becoming popular, and it relies on allowing sunlight to come in and heat up a large mass (usually a floor or wall built with extra mass to soak up the energy). The overhang of the roof on the south side of the house is calculated to keep the sunlight from coming in through the windows during the warmer months.

    So a careful house design will make this product much less useful. Though I suppose it would still be useful to have a window that only let infrared light pass one way. Then, assuming you could flip the window easily, you could keep infrared in during the winter and out during the summer.

  93. Re:Safe? Lifespan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People who mod correctly don't get to keep mod points. The zealots outnumber the rest and meta-mod with the same bias. I lost my mod points by using them to reverse mod all the +1 informative "linux rules/windows sucks" posts that were redundant flamebait.

  94. Re:"Lower Visibility" of Emergency Lights by WaltFrench · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Of course, red tinting limits little, if any, red. It could make it harder to distinguish red from white. BLUE light is attenuated; green might look kinda dull yellowish.

    OTOH, A sharp blue tint could make red and yellow (emergency) lights difficult to see... up to invisible if one got legalistic about the wording I saw on a Kansas website. If I were to ban any color for safety reasons, it'd surely be blue.

    Perhaps Kansas's lawmakers reasoned that we'd evolve our way around their apparent stupidity. =^>

    --
    "Inquiring Minds Want to Know!"
  95. double/triple pane glass by hummassa · · Score: 1

    Just so you know, more than half the world's population live in places like I do (Belo Horizonte, SE Brasil) where THE FUCKING ROOM TEMPERATURE IS COMPATIBLE WITH HUMAN LIFE ALL YEAR LONG -- that is, between 12C and 35C normally (50-100F?), ranging in extremis from 0C to 45C (30-120F). This includes most of India, large portions of Africa, most of South America, large parts of East Asia, Middle East, large parts of Oceania...

    You deserved the flamebait moderation.

    Now, even for that kind of places (as I said in other post) car windows would be great with this glass...

    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
  96. Grow Houses... by okimsrazor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Good for your neighbourhood grow house. Police Choppers with infared cameras fly overhead in search of heat blooms from grow houses. If it blocks it coming in, should block it going out too.

    No sig... For shame.

    1. Re:Grow Houses... by xee · · Score: 1

      If not, just flip the pane over. :)

      --
      Oh shit! I forgot to click "Post Anonymously"...
  97. Maybe I misunderstand but by Uosdwis · · Score: 1
    According to my ca,r IR/heat already doesn't escape through glass. In or out. The reason my car gets hot is because the visible light heats up the upolstry and the windows trap the heat in. That is why you crack the windows, to give the heat a path out. Your car cools down through conduction of the heat through metal, not because it escapes the same way visible light does.
    Your house is the same way, except here it is the seals in that make the windows, not the glass, lose heat.

    Hot house flowers anyone?
  98. Re:Safe? Lifespan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But, you want Aluminum foil that only works above
    20 degrees (celsius)!

  99. Re:Safe? Lifespan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately, many of those screaming hot summer days coincide with the yearly drought season (how can it be a drought if it happens every year?). Drough season usually puts an end to car-washing and lawn watering. I'd bet house watering would fall under the same restrictions.

  100. Re:Safe? Lifespan? by SnapShot · · Score: 1

    How do you think Twinkies get their yellow tint?

    Of course I realize that doesn't answer the toxicity question...

    --
    Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
  101. Re:Safe? Lifespan? by Aerion · · Score: 1

    Anyone know toxicity of Vanadium dioxide?

    See the MSDS for vanadium dioxide, CAS RN: 12036-21-4.

    I would expect that before this comes into commercial use there will be more thorough studies and inquiries into its safety.

  102. Low tech approaches by zanderredux · · Score: 1

    Additionally to planting trees, do like the mediterraneans: paint the house with whitewash and build with materials that do not retain heat (or you could end up with a house just like mine: in the summer, it gets much hotter than the exterior - it's like a pizza oven, effectively).

    1. Re:Low Tech approaches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That deserved an insightful mod.

      We had really nice grape vines in front of my bedroom window where I grew up - In the winter they were bare, letting in 100% of the light, and in the summer they were very leafy blocking 100% of direct sunlight.

  103. Re:Safe? Lifespan? by Dan+Ost · · Score: 1, Troll

    Someone with mod point, come on. Give this guy a "Funny".

    --

    *sigh* back to work...
  104. Humans and room temperature... by hummassa · · Score: 1

    I lived for a year in sunny Madrid.

    And I took some weeks to get used to their -15C winter.

    But you really have to take in consideration my clothing today [very cold (to us) winter day: 8C (47F) min, 23C (73F) max. -- current temperature]. I left my home at 07:45am, wearing black pants, t-shirt, and a Hard Rock Cafe sweater(*) (which I got off by 3pm).

    When I was in Madrid's winter, I had three to four kilos of wool clothing on to go out...
    And, no, 18C (65F) is cold to me. I would have to put my sweater back on. 23C (73F, the temperature right now (5pm)) is comfortable in my t-shirts.

    (*) is this the right name of this clothing piece?

    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
    1. Re:Humans and room temperature... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humidity also matters. I am from a climate similar to typical Canada, and am very hot at 85F ( 29C ). However, I've been to hot, dry areas and been comfortable at 95F ( 35C ) because of low humidity. Here, it's wet, and humid, and 'mild' summers feel hot. And we get -40F ( -40C ) days sometimes in January...

    2. Re:Humans and room temperature... by TykeClone · · Score: 1
      -15C is around 5F - and that temperature alone is not too bad. In northern Iowa, we get below that temperature, and then add this nice little thing we like to call "wind chill" to it to make it much, much worse.

      Around 0 F is not too bad unless there is a wind. 32F can be terrible with enough wind.

      All in all, I'd say that I hate wind during the winter.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
  105. It's safe by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 4, Informative

    Vanadium is a common alloying element in steel. The two MSDS pages I found indicate that the powdered oxide isn't very good to breathe or eat, but the amount released by breaking a window is probably so small that you wouldn't notice. The biggest hazard would be to people working in the manufacture of such windows.

    1. Re:It's safe by bcattwoo · · Score: 2

      Not to be a stickler but both of those pages you pointed to were vanadium trioxide, not the vanadium dioxide that the article mentions. Hard to say what the difference in toxicity might be. I did a brief search for a MSDS for vanadium dioxide but was unsuccessful.

    2. Re:It's safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      [url=http://www.espi-metals.com/msds's/Vanadium% 20 Oxide%20VO2.htm]http://www.espi-metals.com/msds's/ Vanadium%20Oxide%20VO2.htm[/url]

    3. Re:It's safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  106. Roast and bake by zanderredux · · Score: 1
    if all buildings on the same block reflected efficiently UV, and if this block was located in Manhattan, and if this was a sunny, summer day, planting trees would do no good.

    With all the radiation boncing back and forth, the poor plant would get roasted by the end of the day!

    (Of course, I'm exaggerating, but if we were surrounded with efficiently UV reflective surfaces woudn't this add to the risk of skin cancer??? This reminds me of a crazy ad in Robocop 1 or 2, that depicted a sort of new sunscreen - a blue-colored cream. To achieve maximal protection, the user would pass such a thick coat of the sunscreen that the user would end up looking like a Smurf!)

  107. Good in cars and greenhouses by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 1
    Roughly half of all solar EM radiation is in the infrared, so reflecting it when it's hot is a good way to control unwanted thermal gain.

    The blackbody curve of solar radiation has a peak in about the green wavelengths. The curve falls rapidly as the wavelengths get shorter (bluer), which is why it takes minutes instead of seconds to get a sunburn even under the most intense sunlight. But the curve slopes off much more gently to the red end of the spectrum (see this page).

  108. MOD PARENT UP by dcmeserve · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The amount of scientific illiteracy I'm seeing in this discussion is very disappointing -- I thought this was Slashdot!

    --
    "Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - Orwell
    1. Re:MOD PARENT UP by mabinogi · · Score: 1

      It is slashdot, which is exactly why you're seeing what you're seeing.

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
  109. Re:"Lower Visibility" of Emergency Lights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Around here, all the drivers seem to be using a window tint that makes it hard to distinguish red from green.

  110. Nature says you can't by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 3, Insightful
    But why can't the consumptive tech be improved so solar collectors/transformers DO use ALL the heat (or the amount above xx Celsius)? Is this some law of nature where thermal can be blocked but not utilized?
    Yes. It's called the second law of thermodynamics. You can't convert heat to more-useful forms without a heat "sink" at a lower temperature, and when your house is the thing at the lowest temperature and you want to cool it this is problematic. Just keeping the heat out is the easiest and most economical thing to do; heat that doesn't get in doesn't have to be pumped out again.
    1. Re:Nature says you can't by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

      The Solar Mission Project (http://www.enviromission.com.au/project/project.h tm)(http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/08/21/aus_power _020821) will use sunlight to heat air and convert the kinetic energy of the rising air to electricity.

      --
      Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
  111. Thx for correction:Good in cars & greenhouses by Charles+Dodgeson · · Score: 1
    Thank you for correcting me.

    Let me just rephrase what you are saying to make sure that I got it right: Even though opacity to IR will "trap" some of the energy inside (a car or a greenhouse), opacity to IR will prevent more from getting in in the first place.

    --
    Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
  112. When it creates more problems than it solves. by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 1
    the better scientific path (IMO) is to grab this energy and use it to power the home (solar).
    Scientific? Did you subject this conclusion to peer review, or even research it? ;-) (I know, I'm nit-picking.)
    Spend time and effort developing more efficient, resilient, and less-expensive tech on solar energy and every new house could be roofed with 100% solar tiles. These homes could even GENERATE enough exess energy to sell back to the grid, which would help every income level.
    The cost of this power is set mostly by the carrying costs of the debt you take on to buy the generation gear (or the opportunty costs of the income you forego on the savings you invest). The price you can get for the power is determined by supply and demand. If there are so many buildings covered with PV that the daytime price of power won't cover the cost of the roofing, it wouldn't help anyone's income.
  113. Perfect Mirror can also do this by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

    Though those who developed the "perfect mirror" are busy applying this technology to new long-range fiberoptics (called "omniguide"), I think the most interesting part of the perfect mirror is the ability to "tune" the mirror to specific frequencies of light. That is, this one will block infrared heat at All temperatures, if desired. Google for more thorough descriptions.

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
  114. Re:Thx for correction:Good in cars & greenhous by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 2

    It's even more lopsided than that, because the IR coming in and going out are so wildly different in wavelength. The IR coming into the car from the Sun is around 7000-14000 angstroms, where glass is reasonably clear; in the wavelengths radiated by objects around 300-400 Kelvin, glass is opaque. (If you wear glasses with glass lenses, look at your image in a thermal camera sometime. They will look cold while your face looks warm; the thermal IR from your skin and eyes does not go through them.)

  115. All IR is not created equal by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 1

    The infrared emitted by the Sun is at very short (blue) wavelengths compared to the infrared emitted by objects on the Earth. This should not be surprising, because the wavelength peak of blackbody emissions is proportional to the absolute temperature and the Sun is about 20x as hot as the Earth. The properties (transparency, reflectance) of things like the atmosphere and glass are very different for those two bands.

  116. Nomenclature doesn't always match geography by Starrider · · Score: 1

    The "South" typically includes the southeast, and often times you aren't in the "South" if you aren't in a state that fought with the Confederacy.

    I think you are nitpicking here, as the definition of a word is determined by its usage. People are not going to think Arizona when they here the "South". It is strange though, that Arizona is in the "Southwest" but Georgia is just in the "South."

    When it gets confusing is when you try to determine where a state like Oklahoma fits. We could be part of the "South", but most southerners don't consider it to be, because it was not a state during the civil war. (Regardless of the fact many indian tribes were split down the middle: half the Cherokee nation fought for the Confederacy; half fought for the union.)

    Midwesterners don't count Oklahoma as "Midwest" because we aren't north enough or in some cases, east enough.

    If you say "South-central", which is what many geography books call it, people just look at you funny.

  117. Go Snake! by Starrider · · Score: 1

    And I thought I was the only one to see those movies...

    Best part of Escape from LA: Insane Plastic Surgeons

  118. Re:Safe? Lifespan? by kundor · · Score: 1

    Every house I've lived in has come with dual pane glass.

  119. As the old saying goes: by Black+Copter+Control · · Score: 1
    When you're hot, you're not -- and when you're not, you're hot.

    ... or something like that.

    --
    OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
  120. Re:"Lower Visibility" of Emergency Lights by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure, but I do believe that this exactly happened in Germany. IIRC a law to ban drivers from wearing blue sunglases was proposed.

    --
    USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  121. Re:Safe? Lifespan? by whorfin · · Score: 1

    Or where sound insulation is a good thing.

    I live in SF, where our normal monthly electricity bill, including heating (no cooling needed, thank you) is the $52 minimum charge, despite having multiple computers on most of the time. So we don't need double-paned glass to reduce the cooling costs, but my apartment building has it to reduce the sound of the firetrucks that come racing past several times a day.

    --
    Laugh while you can, monkey-boy!
  122. Pictures? by boo+pixie · · Score: 1

    Am I the only visually-oriented person here? Where are the pictures of the windows?

    --
    -- http://uncannyvalley.org/
  123. here's an idea by spawnofbill · · Score: 1

    make it using triple pane glass, only coat the middle pane. Hook that pane up to high-voltage electrodes, jack it up so the glass is heated to 84 degrees no matter what the outside tempeture is. Of course, the outside tempeture might "leak over" to the middle pane, but it's a thought.

  124. Ultra violet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I was under the impression that glass already relfected a substantial amount of infrared light - isn't that how greenhouses work?


    I think you may be confusing infrared with ultraviolet. Most glass will block UV light, so special forms of glass need to be made for greenhouses.
  125. energy crisis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    its no wonder that US citizens use up so much of the worlds energy resources,
    given they seem to only feel "comfortable" in a very narrow temperature range.

    get real, get un-comfortable.

  126. Re:Safe? Lifespan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fool! Everyone knows yellow and blue makes green!

    who's gots me lucky charms?

  127. but-- by conJunk · · Score: 1

    you dont *have* to heat the glass... if you use it for the simple purpose of blocking IR (that is, heat) into your home, then 29 degrees seems to be a pretty reasonable cut off

    have the special glass be the middle pane of three, and it should head up to 29 degrees in no time, and when its cold outside, it would automatically allow whatever warmth in can into the house

    i reckon it would be a handy way to save money on ac too, if the ac only needs to cool from a 29 degrees point (and not 35 or 40!)

  128. Re:Safe? Lifespan? by seitentaisei · · Score: 0
    Usually it's that heavy stuff that can withstand the direct impact of a pigeon (no sparrow jokes, please.)
    Sparrow jokes? I was planning on pigeon jokes.
  129. Arizona by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The glasses would work 9 months here in Arizona :).

  130. Low Tech approaches by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

    In addition to planting deciduous trees and vines (on trellises), other options include: orientation on the site to optimise solar exposure for different times of the day/night; clever use of ventilation and insulation - consider how heat will move through the building as air currents and accomodate those to stop the building from storing heat in the summer or losing heat in the winter; the use of eaves and awnings designed to keep summer sun from directly hitting windows, but allowing winter sun to reach them.

    There are dozens of options, most of them derived from indigenous design from differing geographic locations and climates - adobe construction is one example

    --
    Sara
    Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
  131. How are thy leaves so verdant by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

    Bring your own tree. If anyone asks, you're preparing for Christmas.

    --
    Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
  132. Re:Safe? Lifespan? by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 2, Interesting

    First off light will still get through, but, onto the the main problem of the parent's post (not really a problem, it was modded funny): anyone who has ever played with the keychain ring of tinted plastic in kindergarden knows that with the parent's solution, you get green. The appropriate color to achieve a colorless tint would be purple, as it, not blue, is the "opposite" color of yellow.

    --

    --

    WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
  133. Re:Safe? Lifespan? by IBX · · Score: 1

    1. Vanadium and tungsten are not poisonous - vanadium compounds are actualy in clinical trials as drug candidates for treatment of diabetes.

    2. H2S (sulfane) makes farts smelling like farts. Sulfane is not contained in acid rain. (Sulfuric acid is).

    3."Cancelling" the unpleasant yellowish tint through complementary color will probably make the glass looking nicely brown. Corporate characters would not mind.

  134. Re:Safe? Lifespan? by julesh · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    That's the first time I've ever seen a moderation request mod'd as funny.

    Things have been going to hell in the 3 months since I last had any mod points, and I'm starting to wonder: why haven't I had any mod points for 3 months? My Karma's 'Excellent', and has been all along. I meta moderate regularly. When I moderate, I do so conscientiously. I used to get mod points about every 2-3 weeks. What is going on?

  135. Re:Thx for correction:Good in cars & greenhous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Energy loss by radiation is not very effective for things below a few hundred Kelvin. Radiative heat loss is proportional to T^4 (Stefan-Boltzmann law) where T_sun = 6700K and T_car = 400K. Heat loss by convection should be far more efficient, i.e. letting some air circulate.

  136. 29C is barely warm by ACDChook · · Score: 1

    Living in Western Australia, where peak summer temperatures are in the range of 47-49C (117-120F), this glass would come into effect too early to allow the house to warm. In summer, aircon generally won't be turned on until it hits at least 40C (104F).And at only 29C, I'd only just be getting close to thinking about moving into summer clothes. Many people would still be wearing heavy winter clothes. I think all the bloody yanks should stop trying to find ways to keep their houses freezing, and just toughen up and live with some warm days in summer. Many people I know don't even have aircon in their houses, and we all still survive. Cold showers do wonders (after you run the water long enough so it doesn't come out scalding).

  137. Re:Safe? Lifespan? by imroy · · Score: 1

    I think you're getting your colour spaces mixed up. Blue + yellow = green only in a subtractive colour space e.g paint or ink. Go look at the circular colour selector in any paint program. Opposite of yellow is blue.

    Imagine white light coming in through the window. If this coating has a yellowish tint, then it must filter out a lot of the blue spectrum, leaving most of the red-green end of the spectrum. If you then have blue glass, it will filter out most of the red-green light. Unfortunately, you might not have much light left after going through the two filters. But it would remove the strong colour tint.