4 ms·
What the article needed was a comparison with 'normal' white paint, otherwise reporting 99.6% is not meaningful. The linked story https://newatlas.com/materials
by joosters 3y ago
What the article needed was a comparison with 'normal' white paint, otherwise reporting 99.6% is not meaningful. The linked story https://newatlas.com/materials/super-white-paint-teflon-98-suns-heat/ https://newatlas.com/materials/super-white-paint-teflon-98-s... mentions that traditional paint reflects 85% of solar radiation.
85% -> 99.6% is an improvement, but not like a game-changer.
- bell-cot 3y ago85% -> 99.6% is a ~35X reduction is absorbed solar energy. Definitely a game-changer. (Assuming it holds up in real-world use, etc.)
- jerf 3y agoNo, it isn't necessarily. 99.6% to 99.9999996% would be a "one million X" reduction in absorbed solar energy, but it would be of no consequence whatsoever because it would be well below the noise floor of any useful effect (see other people's comments about dust, etc.). The multiplicative factor of the reduction itself is not the relevant thing here. The real effect on a building would have to be measured.
- 4gotunameagain 3y agoyes, but when buildings painted white already get warm from sunlight, we can safely say that a ~35x reduction will be meaningful, as opposed to the example you provided where there will be no observable effect as you correctly pointed out.