[HN Gopher] How white can white paint get?
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       How white can white paint get?
        
       Author : mhb
       Score  : 62 points
       Date   : 2023-03-02 13:08 UTC (9 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (gizmodo.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (gizmodo.com)
        
       | denton-scratch wrote:
       | > cannot cool a surface below the ambient temperature.
       | 
       | Only active cooling can cool anything below the ambient
       | temperature. 100% reflectivity can prevent it absorbing more
       | heat, if you can achieve it, but it doesn't cool anything down.
       | 
       | > "Barium sulfate has reflective properties that allow us to hold
       | below ambient temperature," said Felicelli
       | 
       | That's a bit more like it: 3/4 of the way down the page, someone
       | finally points out that paint can't cool anything, it can only
       | stop it warming up.
        
         | planede wrote:
         | > Only active cooling can cool anything below the ambient
         | temperature.
         | 
         | It's more complex than that. Through thermal radiation objects
         | on the surface of Earth are also thermodynamically connected to
         | the surface of the Sun (~6000K) and Space (~4K).
         | 
         | The way to cool below ambient temperature with passive cooling
         | is to isolate from the Sun, radiation from nearby objects and
         | and conducting heat from surrounding air as much as possible,
         | while making the thermal connection to Space as strong as
         | possible.
         | 
         | 1. How to isolate from the Sun: surface reflective in the
         | spectrum where the thermal radiation from the Sun is the
         | strongest, which is not too surprisingly the visible light
         | spectrum (hence this article)
         | 
         | 2. How to isolate from surrounding objects: insulation against
         | conduction + surface reflective in the spectrum where the
         | surrounding objects' thermal radiation is strongest (somewhere
         | in infrared).
         | 
         | 3. Thermal connection with space: you want to emit in the
         | infrared spectrum as strong as possible.
         | 
         | 2 and 3 are seemingly in contradiction, as a surface can't be a
         | good reflector and good emitter at the same wavelength at the
         | same time. But just have a geometry where the surface
         | satisfying point 2 is pointed towards surrounding objects,
         | while the surface satisfying point 3 radiates towards space.
        
         | dahart wrote:
         | What's the difference in practice, in summer weather? If the
         | ambient temp is 30C in the morning and heats up to 40C in the
         | afternoon, for example, then a paint that keeps things at 30
         | could replace active cooling on a red house with a brown roof
         | whose surfaces exposed to the sun might even heat up to 50. It
         | seems fair to call paint that effectively reflects the sun's
         | heat a "cooling" method, because it's cooling relative to what
         | you'd have otherwise, right?
        
         | jcims wrote:
         | >Only active cooling can cool anything below the ambient
         | temperature.
         | 
         | Not exactly:
         | 
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_cooling
         | 
         | Couple of videos explaining the effect
         | 
         | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3bJnKmeNJY
         | 
         | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zW9_ztTiw8
        
         | orev wrote:
         | An object in a room at ambient temperature would slowly warm up
         | to equal the same temperature from the conduction of the warmer
         | air around it. If the temperature of an object can "hold below
         | ambient", it means it must be able to allow the object to shed
         | heat energy, at least at the same rate or faster than it
         | absorbs the ambient heat. I.E. cooling.
        
       | OscarCunningham wrote:
       | Would this actually look like bright white paint? Maybe because
       | they're also trying to reflect light outside the visible spectrum
       | it might not be as bright in the colours we can actually see.
        
       | franciscop wrote:
       | > The concept of using white paint to deflect heat isn't new. As
       | far back as the 1970s, scientists and manufacturers had been
       | developing whiter and whiter paints
       | 
       | In the Mediterranean (at least, probably many other areas) this
       | has been done for thousands of years by painting the houses white
       | to keep the heat out as much as possible, as well as a variety of
       | other techniques like smart air management. So I think "as far as
       | the 70s" is fairly misleading, it should be more like "for
       | thousands of years...".
        
         | fractallyte wrote:
         | ...and the 'paint' is made using basic ingredients:
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewash
         | 
         | Easy to apply, long-lasting, biodegradable, and (from the
         | linked article) it "produces a unique surface glow due to the
         | double refraction of calcite crystals."
        
           | franciscop wrote:
           | NEW RELEASE: bio natural organic paint made from seashells to
           | cool down your house 2023 release innovation startup
           | 
           | Mediterraneans: get out of here
           | 
           | Edit: how to make lime/limestone in a low-tech way from
           | Primitive Technology:
           | 
           | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ek3aeUhHaFY
        
           | aidenn0 wrote:
           | And it's so fun to apply that people will pay to do it for
           | you!
        
         | dmitriid wrote:
         | > So I think "as far as the 70s" is fairly misleading
         | 
         | As far as the 70s refers to efforts to create whiter and more
         | reflective paint.
        
           | [deleted]
        
           | nomel wrote:
           | This assumes that the white paint, used on those houses, had
           | an unrelated use, and was never improved in the context of
           | the purpose of why the paint was applied. This doesn't seem
           | like a safe assumption, with the intent required to keep it
           | going for so long.
        
             | Vt71fcAqt7 wrote:
             | It only assumes that a new paint was never created in the
             | context of the purpose of why paint was applied, more
             | accurately, which is possible. The article doesn't know,
             | and I don't think you know either out of hand. That's why
             | it reads "as far back as the 1970s."
        
               | uoaei wrote:
               | Yours is a bald-faced assumption that humans aren't
               | constantly innovating on existing technologies. You
               | demand evidence in place of such assumption.
               | 
               | Yours appears to me to be a view that is very strange not
               | to extend back beyond the 1970s.
               | 
               | We know how people work, in societies, at this broad-
               | stroke level. This level of pedantry gets us nowhere.
        
               | Vt71fcAqt7 wrote:
               | >Yours is a bald-faced assumption that humans aren't
               | constantly innovating on existing technologies.
               | 
               | No it isn't. Mine is an asumption that "white" was just a
               | color before we understood what light is, which doesn't
               | happen until centuries later. Searching for ways to
               | produce "the whitest paint" is unrealisric given that we
               | are talking about objects that reflect invisible light
               | here. Not "white" the color. And there is also a
               | difference between using something and creating something
               | for that purpose. Saying that scientists are _now_
               | searching for the whitest paint does not imply that
               | nobody was _using_ white paint before.
               | 
               | >This level of pedantry gets us nowhere.
               | 
               | It gets us to the question of whether ancient societies
               | looked for ways to produce paint that reflect more light
               | in order to prevent heat absoption which is what has been
               | hapening since at least 1970.
        
             | D13Fd wrote:
             | In context it's pretty clear they are talking about modern
             | efforts rather than historical ones.
        
         | Vt71fcAqt7 wrote:
         | Is there any evidence they where developing whiter paints for
         | this purpose?
        
         | harywilke wrote:
         | In Greece, the iconic whitewashed island house has a public
         | health angle to it. "In 1938, a national order mandated the
         | painting of island homes in blue and white. At the time, Greece
         | was suffering an outbreak of cholera during the dictatorship of
         | Ioannis Metaxas. In an effort to curb the disease, he ordered
         | citizens to whitewash their homes. This might sound strange
         | today, but the whitewash used to paint the houses contained
         | limestone. Limestone is a powerful disinfectant, and not many
         | others were in common use at the time. Greek citizens thus
         | whitewashed their homes to help sanitize them and reduce the
         | spread of cholera." and older
        
       | erybodyknows wrote:
       | This reminds me of the blackest acrylic paint from Stuart Semple.
       | 
       | https://culturehustle.com/products/black-3-0-the-worlds-blac...
        
         | S_Bear wrote:
         | Stuart Semple also has a 'white 2.0' that looks like neon white
         | compared to regular white.
         | 
         | https://www.culturehustleusa.com/products/white-20
        
           | Pet_Ant wrote:
           | If you want an idea of how this might feel on a room scale,
           | here are Action Lab's whitest & blackest rooms:
           | 
           | Whitest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjdFn1RYHDE
           | 
           | Blackest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6q54q2iam8
        
       | wppick wrote:
       | I once bought a paint so white it thought sliced bread was too
       | spicy
        
       | cobbaut wrote:
       | And yet men will not be able to tell the difference. I have a
       | flat with white painted walls, or so I thought... until a woman
       | told me they were cream, milk and eggshell :-/
        
         | wjnc wrote:
         | So we recently went from RAL 9010 to RAL 9016 for the walls
         | (with colours and walls to create a nice atmosphere) and to my
         | horror the difference between the RAL 9001 (cream) doors and
         | frames is suddenly unbearable. This coming from a person who
         | has a hard time naming the less than basic colours.
         | 
         | Not to get me started on the millions of colours you paint your
         | walls in. I did have a laugh when I found out that proprietary
         | paint colours are a big thing, a few weeks after reading on HN
         | about Adobe "cancelling" a colour. Proprietary colours are a
         | thing I can suddenly talk about with repair guys. Car paints
         | are proprietary. Kitchen panel paints are proprietary. It's a
         | whole new world. It's not just RGB, there's gloss and sparkle
         | to consider.
        
         | themitigating wrote:
         | Maybe you can tell the difference but to express your
         | masculinity pretend not to. Why? Because caring and beauty are
         | feminine.
        
           | msm_ wrote:
           | > Because caring and beauty are feminine.
           | 
           | Is this something you (or people you're familiar with)
           | believe? Never encountered this norm before.
        
             | yowzadave wrote:
             | I believe the comment was meant as an ironic dismissal of
             | GP's assertion that men can't tell the difference between
             | colors, but women can.
             | 
             | As an architect, I can confirm that there are many men who
             | know the difference between cream/milk/eggshell!
        
               | brookst wrote:
               | This is true, and we should be suspicious of gender
               | stereotypes. But it is also true that on average men are
               | worse at seeing color gradations, just because the
               | incidence of color deficiency is 10x higher in men.
               | 
               | So any particular man may see color as well as any
               | particular woman, but if you had to pick one person at
               | random to save the world in the galactic color
               | identification game show, you'd best pick a woman.
        
           | kayodelycaon wrote:
           | So... everyone that works with graphic design is feminine?
        
           | sircastor wrote:
           | Familiarity with these sorts of decorative details are often
           | considered to a non-masculine trait. Though I suspect that
           | most of the time it's just that some people don't care. And
           | it's possible that tracks with gender norms, but I think it's
           | probably that many men don't feel like they're allowed to
           | care.
           | 
           | A reminder that you're allowed to care about whatever you
           | want.
        
           | jwestbury wrote:
           | This is a complicated subject. Color perception is influenced
           | by culture[0], so how someone is raised can impact their
           | ability to discern color differences. It's quite possible
           | that men in (Western|American) cultures are raised in such a
           | way that their color perception is more limited than that of
           | women despite no biological differences.
           | 
           | Of course, there's plenty of research[1] showing women are
           | better at color discrimination than men.
           | 
           | 0. https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/horizon-
           | maga...
           | 
           | 1. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21675035/#:~:text=Color%20
           | wi....
        
             | S_Bear wrote:
             | I started painting miniatures again a few years ago and my
             | appreciation (and vocabulary) for colors has dramatically
             | expanded, especially when I started mixing primaries from
             | scratch. I literally see the world in a different, richer
             | way. I wish I would have realized this sooner.
             | 
             | Maybe gutting art programs in American public schools was a
             | bad idea.
        
               | dekhn wrote:
               | I can second this: spend a lot of time working with
               | subtle color variations (not just frequency, but the
               | various matte/shiny bits). I learned I LOVE highly
               | saturated colors. Recent car paint was also a revelation
               | to me (https://www.blackbirdspyplane.com/p/why-do-new-
               | cars-look-lik...).
        
             | phicoh wrote:
             | I wonder what the effect is of language. If on average men
             | know only a few names of colors, then how can they remember
             | or talk about the variations in between?
        
           | rayiner wrote:
           | There is a biological difference in color perception, as well
           | as hearing and smell: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/body-
           | odd/men-women-really-do-...
           | 
           | > Abramov explained in a statement these elements of vision
           | are linked to specific sets of thalamic neurons in the
           | brain's primary visual cortex. The development of these
           | neurons is controlled by male sex hormones called androgens
           | when the embryo is developing into a fetus.
        
             | dekhn wrote:
             | here's the actual science paper, which is always less
             | exciting than the public press. https://bsd.biomedcentral.c
             | om/articles/10.1186/2042-6410-3-2...
        
         | jjulius wrote:
         | ... just men?
        
         | doikor wrote:
         | A lot of people have a terrible conception of what proper white
         | is.
         | 
         | Often what many think of as white is white mixed with blue.
         | This is super evident after properly calibrating the white
         | point of a (good) TV. Most casual viewers will say that the
         | whites are now yellow/orange but in reality they are just used
         | to always looking at white with a lot of blue mixed in.
         | 
         | I've had similar experience with a interior designer friend of
         | mine who told me my new white walls were not white but cream. I
         | have a spectrophotometer that pretty clearly said that my walls
         | were closer to white then his walls that he insisted were
         | proper white (they were white mixed with blue)
        
           | jwestbury wrote:
           | > Often what many think of as white is white mixed with blue.
           | This is super evident after properly calibrating the white
           | point of a (good) TV. Most casual viewers will say that the
           | whites are now yellow/orange but in reality they are just
           | used to always looking at white with a lot of blue mixed in.
           | 
           | "White" is tricky, because it's dependent on color
           | temperature of the light which is illuminating the given
           | surface. If someone is used to viewing white objects under
           | daylight, but you're calibrating their TV to match the color
           | temperature of their indoor environment (which proper
           | calibration should do), then the "white" displayed on their
           | TV will be a fundamentally different color from the "white"
           | they see reflected off a white surface outside.
           | 
           | This effect is going to be found to be doubly true if you're
           | calibrating to indoor lighting in the evening, but they watch
           | their TV at noon in the daylight with the windows open --
           | because the color temperature of the environment will now be
           | much higher than the color temperature of the screen.
        
             | euroderf wrote:
             | It seems to be a kind of common knowledge that a bit of
             | blue makes a white look whiter. I wonder if there's any
             | studies done on this tho.
        
               | brookst wrote:
               | That's color temperature. A bit of blue makes white look
               | more like white does in direct sunlight, which we think
               | of as whiter.
               | 
               | A but of orange will make white look more like white does
               | in the evening, or in firelight.
        
               | joncrocks wrote:
               | Might be relevant:
               | 
               | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_brightener
        
           | ghusbands wrote:
           | > A lot of people have a terrible conception of what proper
           | white is.
           | 
           | Color is a perceptual phenomenon that is not independent of
           | surroundings and is especially tricky when you're talking
           | about emission. Just as a piece of white paper in a candle-
           | lit room is very different to a piece of white paper outdoors
           | in sunlight, what is perceived as white on a TV can differ
           | greatly depending on the room it is in or even what else is
           | displayed on-screen.
           | 
           | Rather than insulting people's conception of what "proper
           | white" is, perhaps consider that it's not quite as simple as
           | you think.
        
           | sp332 wrote:
           | Are you calibrating the TV to 5000k when they expect 6000k?
        
             | doikor wrote:
             | 6500K is what one should be calibrating for. A TV straight
             | from the shop in some cases is more like 7500 or 8000K or
             | even more (well into the blue range)
             | 
             | Most content is mastered for this 6500K as that is what the
             | D65 standard is and the tv/film standards like Rec709 and
             | Rec2020 use D65.
        
               | morcheeba wrote:
               | There are also cultural differences, too. Asian companies
               | preferred colder whites, while our US customer wanted a
               | warmer white. We were told this made the different skin
               | tones more attractive.
        
         | dekhn wrote:
         | This seems like an unnecessary stereotype to state in a comment
         | on Hacker News.
        
           | fwlr wrote:
           | So there's these three sets of cells in the eye, each tuned
           | to a different wavelength of light, and the difference in
           | relative activations of each cell type in response to a given
           | light is what provides color information. Which wavelength
           | each set of cells is tuned to varies quite a bit person to
           | person. If your wavelength "tunings" for two types of cells
           | are too close together, then there's less relative difference
           | in their activation for any given wavelength of light, and
           | thus - in the most rigorous information-theoretic sense -
           | there is literally less color information available.
           | 
           | We pick an arbitrary threshold of diminished color
           | information and call that CVD, color vision deficiency.
           | Depending on which threshold you pick for CVD, males are
           | anywhere from 10 to 20 to 50 _times_ more likely to have it
           | than females. Of course, this "has / does not have CVD"
           | binary is an artifact of us picking a threshold; the real
           | underlying mechanism is that the distribution of wavelength
           | tunings in the male population is much more heavily weighted
           | towards "overlapping".
           | 
           | Put another way, you have two overlapping bell curves of "how
           | much color information can your eye cells theoretically
           | generate" and if you drop a single point on that graph you
           | can capture 1% of females and 10% of males to the left of it
           | (for that 10x figure), or 0.02% of females and 1% of males to
           | the left of the chosen point (for that 50x figure), or
           | anywhere in between. And the fact that you can do this tells
           | us the two bell curves very likely have different means and
           | standard deviations.
           | 
           | The search term is "spectral sensitivity" if you're
           | interested in finding out more.
           | 
           | (I do know that "but it's true" isn't considered to be a good
           | rebuttal to "it's a stereotype", but it kinda seems like it
           | should be, and I don't really know why it isn't. Also, as
           | someone with extreme CVD, color vision is just a
           | fantastically interesting topic regardless of sex
           | differences. The way those EnChroma glasses that "treat"
           | color vision deficiency work is they block out a small
           | section of the light wavelengths where CVD tends to have high
           | overlap. This artificially increases the relative difference
           | in activation, meaning the brain can extract more color data,
           | with the practical result that people with CVD put on these
           | glasses and see colors with an intensity they've never seen
           | before. But it gets even cooler! For instance, did you know
           | if we develop the technology to directly stimulate those
           | different wavelength receptors independently of each other,
           | we can make those receptors report "differences in relative
           | activation" that are literally impossible to achieve with any
           | combination of light wavelengths? That is, the cells will
           | happily report perfectly well-formed color data to the brain,
           | except that it's data in a range that no brain has ever
           | received before. The visual cortex seems like it does fairly
           | general information processing, at least at the lower levels
           | before we start tagging that information with e.g. emotional
           | responses or linguistic names, so on some level our brain
           | would probably be able to make immediate sense of this
           | previously "out of band" information. It must be able to do
           | so, or else CVD sufferers wouldn't get such vivid reactions
           | to EnChroma glasses. So it's very plausible that this
           | procedure would instantly unlock actual "new color
           | experiences" for everyone. How cool is that?)
        
             | chowells wrote:
             | "But it's true" isn't a good rebuttal to a stereotype
             | that's based on social factors.
             | 
             | For instance, "Jewish people are good with money" is a
             | social construct, caused by the Catholics banning their
             | adherants from working in banks for centuries. There's no
             | inherent difference between groups as far as being able to
             | do the job. It's the result of centuries of social
             | distortions applied to who can do what job. If the social
             | distortions (which still happen today, often propagated by
             | the stereotype itself) ended, the difference would cease to
             | exist.
             | 
             | It's important to distinguish the difference between
             | intrinsic differences and socially-constructed differences.
             | And we keep discovering more differences are socially
             | constructed than we had previously thought. Even the idea
             | that men are worse at color perception has a significant
             | social component. That's what the OP was referring to - the
             | social construct caused by telling children that caring
             | about color distinctions isn't a masculine trait. Sure,
             | there's also an intrinsic difference, with color perception
             | having a sex-linked genetic component. That is real. But
             | it's not the entire story, and I'd be wary of making
             | blanket statements that assume the intrinsic property is
             | the only one.
        
             | dekhn wrote:
             | I'm a biologist with a PhD in biophysics and work in
             | optics, you don't need to explain the biology.
             | 
             | My complaint was with the way it was said, it looks
             | immature and promoting stereotypes about color perception
             | in daily life.
             | 
             | With the exception of color blindness, the difference in
             | perception between women and men is much smaller than the
             | variation across all humans. There are many things where we
             | can measure a difference that is "significant" but in
             | reality, insignificant (IE, passes a t-test with bonferroni
             | or other multiple tests correction, but doesn't matter in
             | any way at all during life).
             | 
             | Much more interesting than "seeing"/"perceiving" colors
             | that most humans don't (example: tetrachromancy) is seeing
             | polarization. I can see polarization but it was self-taught
             | (see the page on Haidinger's brush and then go outside and
             | look at the sky with polarized glasses on/off.... after a
             | bit, you will realize you actualyl can "see" the
             | polarization.
        
       | nunodonato wrote:
       | Got me wondering, how viable would it be to paint your house
       | white in the summer and with a darker color in the winter? From a
       | cost perspective (paint cost+work vs heat/cooling savings). And
       | how much does it matter if you have good insulation in the walls?
       | is the paint still relevant?
        
         | bombcar wrote:
         | The "normal" way this is done is with trees. During the summer,
         | they have lots of leaves and shade the house (especially if you
         | have them in the right place for the summer sun) and in the
         | winter the leaves fall off and the winter sun can shine
         | through.
         | 
         | But insulation matters much more in the winter; the color/shade
         | only reduces the energy load, it doesn't dissipate it.
        
           | nunodonato wrote:
           | yes, its ridiculous how in my country people can't plant
           | trees to close to houses due to the summer fires
        
             | bombcar wrote:
             | Those firebreak rules make sense, but they should be more
             | along the line of "within X feet of the building there must
             | be a firebreak of Y feet width" or similar - so you can
             | have shade trees and still have a break.
        
         | awestroke wrote:
         | Painting is labor intensive
        
           | albert_e wrote:
           | e-ink roofs :)
           | 
           | press a button to turn the walls from black to white :)
        
             | dylan604 wrote:
             | "Down the road, Ruan said, he's also interested in creating
             | reflective paint in different colors, as well as paints
             | that could switch from reflective to absorptive, depending
             | on the season--like a building-size version of drinkware
             | that changes color when you pour hot or cold water into
             | it."
             | 
             | From the TFA
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | A_D_E_P_T wrote:
       | What's especially interesting is that the coloring agent they hit
       | upon -- hexagonal boron nitride -- is structurally analogous to
       | graphite.
       | 
       | Graphite and its compounds are important black dyes.
       | 
       | To go a step further: Vantablack, like most other carbon
       | nanostructures, is functionally graphitic (sp2 bonding). And it's
       | the blackest pigment known.
       | 
       | I wonder if the boundaries of hBN can be pushed in the same
       | manner. Perhaps hBN nanostructures can make for even whiter
       | pigments? It'll be interesting to find out.
       | 
       | As an aside, I had once heard that beryllium oxide is the whitest
       | known pigment, but it's so rare and toxic that it can never leave
       | the lab under any reasonable circumstances.
        
         | inkcapmushroom wrote:
         | >I had once heard that beryllium oxide is the whitest known
         | pigment, but it's so rare and toxic
         | 
         | Don't let industry know about it, they'll be putting it in our
         | toothpaste!
        
       | yellow_lead wrote:
       | > Eventually, Ruan's team came up with a paint that used high
       | concentrations of barium sulfate particles of varying sizes,
       | which was able to reflect 95% of sunlight.
       | 
       | This substance is also used as a radiographic contrast agent and
       | turns your poop white.
        
       | DeathArrow wrote:
       | [flagged]
        
       | college_physics wrote:
       | > As far back as the 1970s, scientists and manufacturers had been
       | developing whiter and whiter paints to help reflect sunlight and
       | keep buildings and other surfaces cool
       | 
       | The thing I am pondering: if the objective is to reflect as much
       | as possible sunlight shouldn't the solution be more like a...
       | mirror than a white paint? According to wikipedia a very complex
       | dielectric mirror can reflect up to 99.999% of the light incident
       | upon it while simple mirrors may reflect 99.9% of the light.
       | 
       | Cost and practicality will significantly lower these figures but
       | there is still a gap versus the current 98.1% white paint record.
       | I recall seeing various gold tinted mirrors covering buildings
       | but they seem out of fashion.
        
         | Vt71fcAqt7 wrote:
         | Most mirrors are covered in glass which greatly reduces the
         | effectiveness[0] (also now you live in a glass house..) If you
         | don't use glass you will have aluminum oxide which is much less
         | reflective. So paint will always be better. SSS doesn't really
         | matter (and is prefered, imo) as long as the light is being
         | reflected out of the material in the end.
         | 
         | [0]visual proof: https://i.imgur.com/Ar80FYZ.jpg
        
         | s_dev wrote:
         | I would imagine it comes down to the fact mirrors need to be
         | cleaned and can break easily from rapid temperature changes --
         | a hot day and suddenly cool rain comes down can break a mirror.
        
           | hutzlibu wrote:
           | Or that it would be a quite surreal (and dangerous)
           | experience walking through a town made of mirrors.
           | 
           | It would be blinding and burning and visually be confusing.
        
         | the8472 wrote:
         | To shed heat you want it to be reflective in the parts of the
         | spectrum that represents sunlight and emissive in the IR
         | windows so it can radiate into space.
        
         | lm28469 wrote:
         | > According to wikipedia a very complex dielectric mirror can
         | reflect up to 99.999% of the light
         | 
         | You skipped the "but only for a narrow range of wavelengths,
         | ranging from a bandwidth of only 10 nm to as wide as 100 nm"
         | part
         | 
         | > while simple mirrors may reflect 99.9% of the light.
         | 
         | Simple as in "enhanced silver mirror" ? Not that simple
         | https://www.thorlabs.com/newgrouppage9.cfm?objectgroup_id=81...
         | 
         | The regular silver mirror part is:
         | 
         | > Silver is expensive, soft, and quickly tarnishes, but has the
         | highest reflectivity in the visual to near-infrared of any
         | metal. Silver can reflect up to 98 or 99%
        
           | samstave wrote:
           | >> _" but only for a narrow range of wavelengths..."_
           | 
           | Curious ; what wavelengths 'carry' the most heat? or capable
           | of carrying the most heat?
           | 
           | And what reflective material/color is best at reflecting most
           | heat?
           | 
           | I ask because I used to have a friend who was a physicist at
           | Intel and he couldnt tell me what heat actually was...
           | 
           | Do we have an answer to this?
        
             | agileAlligator wrote:
             | >what wavelengths 'carry' the most heat? or capable of
             | carrying the most heat?
             | 
             | Most of heating is from infrared iirc
        
             | AlotOfReading wrote:
             | Simplifying _heavily_ , Heat is essentially the kinetic
             | energy of the molecules and atoms of a material. It's
             | transferred radiatively at all wavelengths, but shorter
             | wavelengths carry more energy per photon. When those
             | photons are absorbed by a material, the kinetic energy (and
             | thus its temperature) rises. If you want to minimize
             | radiative transfer, you have to maximize the amount of
             | light reflected in the spectrum that's transferring energy
             | and minimize absorption. When something is white, it's
             | diffusely reflecting the entire visible spectrum. That
             | works pretty well for a house in a sunny place, but you
             | don't want to paint the mirrors in your optical cavity
             | white though because there's only a narrow spectrum of
             | light that needs extremely high reflectivity to be usable.
             | For those we use specialized mirrors that can achieve much
             | higher reflectivity over narrow ranges tuned to the
             | application.
        
             | zwieback wrote:
             | Depending on the temperature of the object there will be a
             | characteristic distribution of wavelengths. It's tricky
             | because a hot object will only radiate specific
             | wavelengths, based on how the heat is generated.
             | 
             | That's why the concept of a black body, an idealized thing
             | that radiates a continuous spectrum is used to reason about
             | heat transfer from radiation.
             | 
             | Bottom line, there's no single wavelength that carries most
             | heat, it depends on how the heat is generated, what the
             | emissivity of the generating body is and what the
             | absorption of the receiving surface is.
        
               | samstave wrote:
               | So you can tune a body to the emitting source, if it is
               | understood - thus revealing stealth capabilities if you
               | know the radar emission freq?
               | 
               | How much is geometry vs material science?
               | 
               | We know that anachoic chambers have pyramid-ic structures
               | of foam.
               | 
               | So I propose the most stealthy paint would be tiny
               | pyramids of aero-graphene in a spray with a carbon based
               | paint, such that the pyrs absorb bot heat and sound and
               | radio waves.
        
             | dekhn wrote:
             | It's a bit complicated, but heat is expressed in several
             | ways: in the form of kinetic energy of a system (which is
             | measured by a thermometer), and in the form of infrared
             | radiation emitted by hot objects (which is measured through
             | radiation).
        
               | samstave wrote:
               | Thank you, but what, specifically is "heat"
               | 
               | What property of matter is 'heat'
        
             | sbaiddn wrote:
             | The photon energy is proportional to its wavelength, but
             | its not relevant.
             | 
             | Look up Plank's Law. Its an equation for black body
             | radiation (like, effectively, the Sun). That'll tell you
             | how much heat the Sun radiates at any given wavelength.
             | 
             | That's not the same spectrum as falls on your house, the
             | atmosphere has absorbed or scattered some of it. But the
             | distribution that falls on your house is well known.
             | 
             | A dielectric mirror is fairly narrow band, compared to this
             | distribution. A dielectric mirror might work well for a
             | factor of two bandwidth, but solar radiation is significant
             | for about a factor of ten.
             | 
             | Also dielectric mirrors are: 1. Hard to design 2. Expensive
             | relative to paint 3. Rather fragile compared to paint.
             | 
             | Point 3 is important. You can't just pressure wash your
             | siding to clean it without stripping the dielectric mirror.
             | But if you don't clean your siding the mirrors can't
             | reflect the sunlight!
             | 
             | As to heat, heat is _technically_ thermal energy
             | transferred from system A to system B by a temperature
             | difference. It has units Joules. In practice it also refers
             | to the thermal energy a system has.
             | 
             | Thermal energy is the kinetic energy a material's atoms and
             | molecules have because they're vibrating about.
             | 
             | Finally, these are hard questions because they start to hit
             | upon the fundamental definitions in physics and everyday
             | misuse of definitions by physicists themselves. Furthermore
             | laymen have used the word "heart" far before physicists
             | stole the term to refer to something similar but technicals
             | in their field. They did the same thing with the words mass
             | and weight when we needed to distinguish between the force
             | and the mass in the 17th century (its _perfectly_ Ok to say
             | "weight" to refer to mass in most situations including most
             | engineering, chemistry and physics applications)
        
               | samstave wrote:
               | Thank you, but what, specifically is "heat"
               | 
               | What property of matter is 'heat'
        
               | shrimp_emoji wrote:
               | Basically, heat is the thing you say to describe your
               | detection of a transfer of internal energy from an object
               | to its surroundings.
               | 
               | E.g., an object's atoms are vibrating a lot, and you
               | touch it, and that vibration spreads to your atoms, so
               | you say you've noticed "heat" in that object. Or the
               | vibrations are emitting radiation (like infrared light)
               | to you, and the radiation begins vibrating your atoms, so
               | you might say "heat is coming off of that object".
               | 
               | > _Heat is energy in transfer to or from a thermodynamic
               | system, by a mechanism that involves the microscopic
               | atomic modes of motion or the corresponding macroscopic
               | properties._
               | 
               | > _In the kinetic theory, heat is explained in terms of
               | the microscopic motions and interactions of constituent
               | particles, such as electrons, atoms, and molecules.[57]
               | The immediate meaning of the kinetic energy of the
               | constituent particles is not as heat. It is as a
               | component of internal energy. In microscopic terms, heat
               | is a transfer quantity, and is described by a transport
               | theory, not as steadily localized kinetic energy of
               | particles. Heat transfer arises from temperature
               | gradients or differences, through the diffuse exchange of
               | microscopic kinetic and potential particle energy, by
               | particle collisions and other interactions._ [0]
               | 
               | 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat
        
         | benj111 wrote:
         | Surely solar would be a better tradeoff than mirrors? More
         | expensive but you get energy out.
         | 
         | White paint is at least cheap.
        
           | college_physics wrote:
           | yes, definitely part of the mix (of what to cover building
           | surfaces with) but a decision that probably happens higher in
           | the flow chart. Mirrors vs paint in some sense closer
           | substitutes.
           | 
           | Besides optimizing reflective performance versus monetary
           | cost one would have to also take into account the full
           | product lifecycle (dependence on fossil fuel, recyclability
           | etc). I know what "a fresh lick of paint" means, no idea what
           | "a fresh mirror coating" would look like :-)
           | 
           | But overall a fascinating topic which like the converse
           | (insulation of buildings in cold climates) has a major
           | footprint
        
         | carlmr wrote:
         | Specular reflections will blind pilots, drivers and even
         | pedestrians, melt things if the mirrors aren't completely
         | planar, and cause all kinds of issues.
        
           | brookst wrote:
           | So there must be some downsides?
        
           | college_physics wrote:
           | you could reduce that by making the surface locally rough or
           | having random geometric segments - whatever is easier to
           | manufacture. Since this is not a mirror that must preserve
           | image integrity anything goes.
        
             | awestroke wrote:
             | Sounds like you're pitching white paint
        
               | college_physics wrote:
               | ha ha, size (of your reflectors) matters
        
             | slackdog wrote:
             | > _you could reduce that by making the surface locally
             | rough or having random geometric segments_
             | 
             | That actually makes the problem much worse. Normally with a
             | few flat reflective surfaces around, you'll catch
             | occasional reflections of sunlight and flinch away from
             | them. But with a very reflective rough surface, you catch
             | reflections of sunlight every direction you look and it
             | will burn your eyes.
             | 
             | This is how "snow blindness" works. Fresh white snow is
             | very reflective and very rough, on a bright day with fresh
             | snow, you catch sunlight reflections every direction you
             | look and if you don't limit your exposure, you can get
             | painful UV burns on your eyeballs. Sunglasses or
             | traditional snow goggles become essential if you're outside
             | for long in these sort of conditions:
             | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_goggles
             | 
             | It can also happen when you're on the water on a bright
             | day, depending on the state of the waves. At somewhere
             | around sea state 1 or 2, you start catching sunlight
             | reflections off waves every direction you look and if you
             | don't have sunglasses you'll be in for a shitty time. When
             | it happened to me, it felt like having glass powder trapped
             | under my eyelids.
        
               | aksss wrote:
               | _Black Sabbath has entered the conversation_
        
               | college_physics wrote:
               | > That actually makes the problem much worse
               | 
               | the more directed the light source the more damaging for
               | retinas (all other things being equal). that is why you
               | have prohibitions on powerful laser pointers.
               | 
               | what you are describing is the effect where diffuse
               | reflections can _integrate_ over time (since the impact
               | is not immediately felt) and cause damage this way
        
               | slackdog wrote:
               | > _the more directed the light source the more damaging
               | for retinas (all other things being equal)._
               | 
               | Yes certainly, but in the real world the human blink
               | reflex means that all other things aren't equal. If you
               | walk past a shiny glass building, you might catch a
               | reflection of sunlight but only for a brief instant. Turn
               | another direction and you'll see another shiny building,
               | but you probably won't get a sunlight reflection off that
               | shiny building because the angles are different and the
               | sunlight is being reflected somewhere else.
               | 
               | You can walk around a mirrored city all day and your eyes
               | will be fine. But when you're surrounded by diffuse
               | reflectors, now can't turn away from that reflected
               | light. A city of pure white reflective buildings would be
               | likely be quite painful on a bright day.
        
             | ominous_prime wrote:
             | You literally described diffuse reflection, which is "white
             | paint"
        
           | roter wrote:
           | Exactly. Water surfaces or solar panels near airports or
           | buildings near expensive cars [0].
           | 
           | [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-23930675
        
       | lkbm wrote:
       | > The paint is also being perfected and tested to ensure it can
       | resist dirt and can last as long under UV light as commercial
       | white paints.
       | 
       | Having stored some old closet doors on the porch near a small
       | urban road for a few months, this was my first thought. The grime
       | that accumulated from exhaust was incredible. (There were leaf
       | blowers running across the way a couple times a week, so I'm
       | guessing those were the main culprit.)
       | 
       | Things turn dingy in the city remarkably fast. Cleaner cars and
       | elimination of two-stroke engines will help, but for now I think
       | that for most exterior uses, "resists smog" will be more
       | important than "starts out very white" unless you clean it
       | frequently and thoroughly.
        
         | bombcar wrote:
         | A surprising amount of that "grime" is rubber dust from tires.
         | The exhaust helps in getting the items a bit "sticky" and then
         | dust and dirt clings much easier to it.
        
       | mhb wrote:
       | There is also two part IR reflective paint. With an IR reflecting
       | bottom layer and a colored top layer. Doesn't say what percentage
       | IR is reflected though:
       | 
       | https://www.newscientist.com/article/2241717-infrared-reflec...
        
       | olivierduval wrote:
       | 98,1% of the heat is reflected... to where ?
       | 
       | It's nice to have a room "not too warm"... unless it's a lot
       | warmer in the street and you cant go outside!
       | 
       | Let's imagine a "totally white" town (white on walls, streets,
       | roofs): the air will be quite hot, or am I misunderstanding
       | something ? So it look to me that we will trade one problem (warm
       | outside and inside) for another one (cooler inside and warmer
       | outside)
        
         | Rexxar wrote:
         | Light is reflected, not heat, and a part of it goes directly in
         | space.
        
         | dahart wrote:
         | What's the problem with cooler inside and warmer outside? How
         | much warmer outside do you suppose this white paint makes the
         | outside?
        
         | planede wrote:
         | In any case, it's better to keep the heat outside than letting
         | it in then pump it out with an AC with some additional heat on
         | top.
        
         | CorrectHorseBat wrote:
         | Heat mostly travels through air, air gets hot from being in
         | contact with hot things. The heat will be reflected back to
         | space.
        
         | roter wrote:
         | What you seek to do is increase the bulk albedo of the
         | ground/surface/neighbourhood/city resulting in the net
         | reflected solar radiation approaching the incoming leading to
         | minimal absorbed shortwave and thus less compensating emitted
         | longwave (sigma * T_surf*4). If you increase albedo, you're
         | definitely going to lower the air temperature during the day.
         | Rays are going to bounce around and eventually leave without
         | warming anything. Other than your body if you haven't painted
         | yourself white.
         | 
         | However, with all these reflective surfaces you do get
         | concerned with direct solar i.e. skiing in shorts & glare e.g.
         | the "walkie-talkie" building [0].
         | 
         | [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-23930675
        
         | hammock wrote:
         | "The air" is big, and warming affects winds which move the air
         | elsewhere.
         | 
         | I would also mention the ground (very big, planet-sized) as a
         | heat sink, but in cities where it's all covered with concrete
         | and pavement it does reflect a lot of heat back which is one
         | reason why we observe cities hotter than the country otherwise
         | would be
        
       | Syzygies wrote:
       | Two decades ago I painted my apartment with artist grade titanium
       | white acrylic. It still looks new.
       | 
       | A temperament that I share with everyone on HN is a suspicion of
       | convention. So many common practices are dumb that it's hard to
       | see each one coming in advance. One is always on edge waiting for
       | the next shoe to drop. I'm supposed to spend days clearing my
       | apartment, so the bottom rung of the construction trades can come
       | in using paint that only lasts four years, dabbing hanging peels
       | back in place with their brushes? Why did I actually have to go
       | through this once to see this is the poster child for "stupid"?
       | 
       | I've also never understood the fashion choice of "off white".
       | Titanium white is brighter, a better lit room day or night. It
       | can become a color mirror, where a corner looks red because a red
       | object is nearby.
       | 
       | For anyone tempted to try this, the student grades have less
       | pigment, and the most expensive brands have the most pigment. It
       | would also appear in an art supply store that there's only one
       | kind of primer, and mediums vary only by gloss. Going to the
       | manufacturer's sites, there are variations intended to survive
       | the outside wall of a building. One could probably wind up
       | someone on a phone call, and get excellent advice on which
       | products to use. On the other hand, I used what I found at Pearl
       | Paint in NYC, and it held up fine.
        
         | JohnFen wrote:
         | > I've also never understood the fashion choice of "off white".
         | 
         | Personally, if it's a room I'm going to be relaxing in
         | (bedroom, living room, etc.) as opposed to a work room, I
         | strongly prefer an off-white over a bright white. It's more
         | muted and relaxing.
        
           | brookst wrote:
           | I think the argument is that you can produce a relaxing shade
           | by using pure white and controlling the lighting / decor,
           | rather than relying on paint color to subtract certain colors
           | out.
           | 
           | For instance, bright white paint + 2800k lamps may vibe
           | similar to eggshell + 3200k lamps.
        
             | DannyBee wrote:
             | If your main concern is lighting effect, you should just be
             | using LRV.
             | 
             | Sheen has almost no effect on LRV and thus how much light
             | reflected from a fixture is bounced in the room.
             | 
             | While it is true that matte finishes have particles that
             | are diffusing light so that the surface does not look as
             | shiny, no sheen is actually specular enough to reflect a
             | meaningful amount of light.
             | 
             | Especially compared to the color
             | 
             | (This is crazy for people to accept at first but it is in
             | fact correct and you can prove it to yourself if you want)
        
             | JohnFen wrote:
             | I see. That seems like an overly complex solution to a very
             | simple problem, though. Not to mention the unnecessary use
             | of electricity.
        
               | MichaelZuo wrote:
               | Your using electricity in either case, and they're both
               | of the same complexity.
        
               | JohnFen wrote:
               | Well, I'm only using electricity at night. During the
               | day, the sun lights everything. But now that I say that,
               | I realize that's not going to be the same for everybody.
               | 
               | But adjusting the wall color through lighting is more
               | complex than just having the walls be painted the shade
               | you want.
        
               | MichaelZuo wrote:
               | All lighting adjusts the 'wall color'. It's impossible
               | for it not to.
               | 
               | There's no man made source that exactly replicates the
               | sun.
        
               | JohnFen wrote:
               | Well, sure, I'm speaking in approximations. My only point
               | is that my personal preferences mean that a bright white
               | room would drive me crazy. I could fix that with various
               | methods, sure, but it seems to me the easiest and best
               | solution is just to paint it a color I would prefer.
               | 
               | I'm certainly not saying that anyone else is wrong for
               | having tastes that differ from mine.
        
             | silisili wrote:
             | If you're prepping a home to sell, sure.
             | 
             | Stark white in a brightly lit room can be overwhelming.
             | Sure you could dim the whole room, but now you've dimmed
             | everything. For something like a gathering room, where a
             | person may want to be reading, such a solution doesn't
             | work.
             | 
             | And I'm not using 'soft' white bulbs that make everyone
             | look jaundiced to hide the wall color.
             | 
             | Much easier all around to go offwhite(or anything but
             | white) on the walls, using neutral 3kish bulbs to your
             | preferred brightness.
        
               | brookst wrote:
               | Dimming and color tone are not the same thing.
               | 
               | Yes, using paint color to control room light is easier.
               | It's just less flexible. If you just want to throw a
               | bunch of furniture and lights in, paint color is simpler.
               | 
               | If you want the flexibility for the room to present as
               | daylight white sometimes and cozy amber evenings at other
               | times, it takes more work in lighting and for furniture
               | choices, and neutral white walls increase flexibility.
               | 
               | Neither answer is "better" in some objective sense. It's
               | just a simplicity vs power choice.
        
         | daniel_reetz wrote:
         | The primary ingredient in housepaint is rutile titanium dioxide
         | particles, which have a very high refractive index. The
         | particles are suspended in a carrier which, when drying,
         | creates air voids. The air/TiO2 refractive index change, as
         | light bounces around inside, is what gives white paint it's
         | hiding/wall covering power.
         | 
         | In other words, artist paint and house paint use the same base
         | pigment. Almost all commercially available "white" housepaints
         | are based on titanium dioxide pigment. The special thing about
         | artist paint is the extraordinarily high concentration of
         | pigment.
        
           | jjeaff wrote:
           | I would think that high end construction paint also has more
           | pigment. Not sure how it would compare, but I know painting a
           | large area with artist grade paint could get exorbitantly
           | expensive.
        
         | dieselgate wrote:
         | Why the negativity towards and when did painters become the
         | bottom rung of construction trade? (Thought those were earth
         | workers but I'm just kidding - question still remains)
        
         | _a_a_a_ wrote:
         | Because it's the chromatic equivalent of happy hardcore techno.
         | Sometimes you just not in the mood for that.
        
         | Syzygies wrote:
         | Once I recognized that art supplies can substitute for
         | construction materials, this opened up a world for me. For
         | example, though miscommunication I had many holes to fill in
         | some period kitchen cabinet doors in my house. The normal
         | sequence would be filler, primer, cabinet paint. Instead I
         | played with stiff acrylic modeling compound. I got the paint
         | store to give me a sample of what they squirt into the paint,
         | and I played around with the pigment and different mediums
         | until the color and gloss was an exact match. Now I could fill
         | each hole in one pass, no painting, and no one could find the
         | hole afterwards.
        
         | johnohara wrote:
         | The sad but interesting story of Pearl Paint.
         | https://www.artistsnetwork.com/magazine/pearl-paint/
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-03-02 23:02 UTC)