|
You are not authorized to post a reply.
|
 Prev Next
|
| Author |
Messages |
|
Alton
Registered Users
Advanced Member
Posts:662
 |
| 05/06/2009 8:33 AM |
|
| Other than Serious Windows (formerly Alpen) which companies use the Heat Mirror technology in new construction windows? |
|
Alton C. Keown
Residential Designer and Construction Technology Consultant
Auburn, Alabama
E-mail: alton at auburn dot edu |
|
|
|
|
lambabbey
Registered Users
Basic Member
Posts:126
|
| 05/19/2009 11:28 AM |
|
Alton:
I'd give a call to AIA Industries in CO. They're skylight folks, but I'm sure they can point you in the right direction. You'll find a list of their heat mirror configurations here.
John
|
|
John A Gasbarre
Lamb Abbey Orchards
Union, ME 04862
orchard@lambabbey.com
|
|
|
Tim Biedermann
Registered Users
New Member
Posts:9
|
| 05/19/2009 7:26 PM |
|
Here are some of the top end (fiberglass) ones that I can think of. I'm 99% they use heat mirror.
Inline Fiberglass (I think they use it) http://www.inlinefiberglass.com/commercial/aboutus_com.html
Thermotech Fiberglass (on some models): http://www.thermotechfiberglass.com/index.htm
I am struggling myself whether to go with a heat mirror product or a triple glass glazed product, as one post brought up a theoretical concern of trusting heat mirror's long term durability. in my limited research I've found no such documented problems. Good luck.
|
|
|
|
|
windowrookie
Registered Users
New Member
Posts:14
|
| 05/19/2009 9:06 PM |
|
I checked NFRC, I saw that Inline(TC 88) had it but didn't see Thermotech there(cannot comment). Fibertec had quad and will probably assume that it was heat mirror.
I am a fan of triple, very good performance, price and warranty. No need to worry about long term durability.
My two cents.... |
|
|
|
|
smartwall
Registered Users
Basic Member
Posts:129
|
| 05/20/2009 6:45 AM |
|
| In the late 80's Hurd Window used Heat Mirror in it's R-8 windows and it was a disaster. If the product is such a big boost in R-value then why don't the big players in the window business use. Don't you think Anderson hasn't looked at and tested this and similar products. |
|
|
|
|
SoCalScott
Registered Users
New Member
Posts:91
|
| 05/21/2009 9:57 AM |
|
What was the nature of the Hurd disaster?
Lets see if you can answer your own questions: If the product performs so well, why don't the "big players" use it? Thats like saying that if fuel efficient cars were so great, don't you think that ford and GM would already be making them.
|
|
|
|
|
Tim Biedermann
Registered Users
New Member
Posts:9
|
| 05/21/2009 5:26 PM |
|
I can't agree more with the last quote. Go on the Andersen web site, it is nearly, if not totally impossible to find and U values or other numbers or scientifically meaningful info. It is all fancy glossy brochure stuff for mainstream consumers who care more about interior design than energy effeciency. If the ad says 'energy effecient' they can tell their friends they have a green house, and that is the extent of thier research. What percent of consumers do you think actually go to NFRC and look up the numbers on windows they are considering? I would guess <0.5.
Third party numbers at NFRC show the facts, and the 'big players' in windows are way behind the curve of the future. It doesn't have to be heat mirror, they could offer 3 glazings of glass to get U below 0.2. But energy is still cheaper than it should be for consumers, and the 'big player's' boards of directors are not going to make windows better untill they see a true threat to their revenue stream, especially as thier current strategy of just pasting 'green', 'sustainable', and 'energy effecient' on thier advertising material keeps working on most consumers.
Furthermore, although I'm still a tiny bit leary of heat mirror, I've done extensive research on the Hurd issue. I've reviewed the legal suits. Hurd tried to sue Southwall Tech, the Heat Mirror maker. It seems, though I'm not 100%, that Southwall won because it was defective seals in the Hurd product that was the problem, and this would have ruined triple pane glass or any triple glaze also. Perhaps, that is why all the problems have been with one or two companies. I don't hear anything about problems with Alpen, Thermotech, Inline, etc etc and Alpen has been making them for a very long time with heat mirror. |
|
|
|
|
Oberon
Registered Users
New Member
Posts:25
|
| 05/22/2009 9:28 PM |
|
http://www.windowdoorlawsuit.com/My_Homepage_Files/Page3.html
95- CV-1695: FOUR SEASONS SOLAR PRODUCTS CORP., VS. BLACK & DECKER CORP., BOSTIK, INC., AND
SOUTHWALL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.:
|
97-CV-3701: JELD-WEN, INC. VS SOUTHWALL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., AND BOSTIK, INC.
|
|
00-CV-3820: HURD MILLWORK COMPANY, INC. VS. SOUTHWALL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tim Biedermann
Registered Users
New Member
Posts:9
|
| 06/02/2009 8:53 AM |
|
Thanks for the lawsuit list. But have you been able to find out any details, who won these cases, what the details were. I think Southwall successfully defended themselves, proving it was the window companies poor seal, not their heat mirror film that was the problem.
More importantly, America 2009 is a lawsuit culture. It's not good, but 99% of lawsuits are frivolous. My spouse is a doctor and knows that every single doctor, even the best, get sued every 5-10 years, mostly totally un-justified. When McDonald's got sued for hot coffee, America started down this endo-canaballistic road. As our lawmakers are all lawyers, tort reform is not going to happen soon. What I am trying to say is that everyone sues everyone every day for no reason, so listing some law suits with no other info is not helpful. Please note 'big players' Pella and especially Marvin are equally dinged by your list. I'm sure the 3 huge venture capital firms that dumped millions and millions into Serious Materials did 1000 times more homework on this Heat Mirror issue than you and I ever could. |
|
|
|
|
Oberon
Registered Users
New Member
Posts:25
|
| 06/06/2009 11:39 AM |
|
I listed the lawsuits simply because folks were discussing them - I made no comments beyond that.
I would suggest that there is a flaw in your analysis of the lawsuits, however.
Corporations are typically not law-suit happy. Maunfacturers simply don't sue their suppliers because it is not productive and it is ultimately bad for business.
A manufacturer suing a supplier has nothing to do with whether or not we live in a litigious society, it has to do with the manufacturer using a product from a supplier that did not meet the manufacturers expectations or requirements. And even in those cases, it is a much better business decision to work thru the problem rather than to go to court over it. Often, there are months or even years of negotiations between corporations, especially in the case of a manufacturer and a supplier, before the issue ends up in court - if ever.
Because of statue-of-limitation laws, a company will often "sue" even if there is no intention to ultimately go to court. This is necessary to keep the issue "open" during negotiations. If the issue wasn't kept open, then the wronged party would lose the potential leverage of a lawsuit when statute-of-limitations expired.
No manufacturing corporation wants to be involved in a lawsuit - neither as the litigant or as the defendant.
Unfortunately, sometimes it is necessary because the companies can't resolve the issue between themselves. This is typically due to copyright infringement, or (as in this case), failed product that neither side feels was their fault…or something along those lines. But trivial and frivolous lawsuits? Not between the big companies.
Prior to having to actually go to court, most companies will try just about anything reasonable to help avoid the expense (time and money) of a court case. If it goes to court, then both companies will consider it a loss, no matter the outcome.
Lawsuits result in lost productive time for senior employees and often significant legal fees that may never be recovered. If they go to court, then it is a last resort because there were no other options left to try.
It is entirely possible that none of the three cases involving Southwall ever made it to court - they may have been settled prior to that which could result in orders to not discuss or disclose any agreements between the companies. I would also suggest that Heat Mirror isn’t more widely used simply because of the history of the product with the only three "major" window companies that ever used it extensively.
I would suggest that the other major window companies are very well aware of that history, and they know the results of the lawsuits – there are no secrets in the window/door industry.
The cases that you mentioned concerning Pella and Marvin are different. Those cases did not involve corporations suing one another; they did involve lawsuits brought against the company by customers who were dissatisfied for one reason or another.
You might also take a few minutes to research the entire history of the "McDonald's" coffee lawsuit. It is really rather interesting and not exactly as portrayed by the media.
|
|
|
|
|
SoCalScott
Registered Users
New Member
Posts:91
|
| 06/07/2009 11:45 PM |
|
In most cases whne you have a lawsuit you end up with a winner and a loser. One side that knows they are right, but now have to prove it, and the other side is wrong, but hopes it can find a way to skew the facts to for a favorable outcome (or they are too stupid to realize they were wrong in the first place). Most of the decisions (whether to sue or fight a suit) have to do with actuarial statistics and/or ego.
"If it goes to court, then both companies will consider it a loss, no matter the outcome."
This sounds a little nieve to me. Many companies have adversely negative results from lawsuits, especially when they determine who is liable for a vast number of warranty claims. So spending $2,000,000 on lawyers to fight a potential $10,000,000 judgement might be worth it. The outcome definitely determines whether the entire thing was a win or a loss.
Anyways, this is a green building forum, not business law 101. Any pertinant information (judgemants, settlements, etc.) on the aforementioned lawsuits is, I am sure, more than welcome. (hurd, southwall, etc.)
|
|
|
|
|
Alton
Registered Users
Advanced Member
Posts:662
|
| 06/08/2009 8:32 AM |
|
| I would love to use windows with Heat Mirror technology but I can not determine if there will be problems with it. What is the latest as far as quality concerns go? |
|
Alton C. Keown
Residential Designer and Construction Technology Consultant
Auburn, Alabama
E-mail: alton at auburn dot edu |
|
|
rancov
Registered Users
New Member
Posts:24
|
| 06/09/2009 11:48 PM |
|
I have been in the window business for the last twenty years. I have sold Heat Mirror. It has fallen out of favor for a variety of reasons, primarily cost, but quality is another issue. If you go through the
denver airport, take a close look at the glass and you will see what I mean.
There have also been great advances in coatinfgs in the last few years and their are products that rival the performance of HM at lowers cost (Guardian RLE and Cardinal loe366 specifically. For a better understanding of this see:
shcg, u-value and visible light transmission.
|
|
Randy |
|
|
rancov
Registered Users
New Member
Posts:24
|
| 06/09/2009 11:51 PM |
|
The biggest problem with Heat Mirror is that if the IG is not heat cured properly, the film will pull loose from the spacer and be an unsightly mess. If you go through Denver Airport, look at the glass on the bridge from the terminal to A concourse and you will see what I mean.
for more on green windows.
|
|
Randy |
|
|
SoCalScott
Registered Users
New Member
Posts:91
|
| 06/10/2009 1:12 AM |
|
Two main causes of "failure" for coated suspended film in windows:
1) improper/insufficient sealing during assembly
2) Improper installation, typically in commercial applications where there are tools used to "jimmy" or pry the IG into the frame and on tho the setting blocks, can cause trauma to the seal of the IG.
In residential windows the IG is placed squarely into the frame, then supported from behind with glazing strips after the IG is in place without the need for tools.
As long as the manufacturer (any that use HM style films) has done substantial R&D for their window sealing there should be very minimal defect in the final products (no more than the typical errors or mishaps that exist an any production line)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.6
|
Professionals Serving
Your Location:
|