Figure 2| Performance evaluation of the DPP smart window. (IMAGE)
Caption
Figure 2 | Performance evaluation of the DPP smart window. a, Comparison of privacy-protection performance, ΔTNIR, and ΔεLWIR among the present work, commercial glass, and reported results. b, IR camera image of the low-e reference, high-e reference, and the DPP smart window. c, Apparent temperature measured over 30~100℃. d, Temperature distribution across the entire car body on a typical summer day (left) and a typical winter day (right), obtained from simulations with the DPP smart window (top) and with commercial glass (bottom). The averaged surface temperatures (T) of the used glass are shown in the upper-left corner. e, Ambient temperature and solar irradiance on a typical summer day (top). The mean interior car temperature for the two glazing configurations (DPP smart window vs commercial privacy glass) (bottom). f, Ambient temperature and solar irradiance on a typical winter day (top). The mean interior car temperature for the two glazing configurations (DPP smart window vs commercial privacy glass) (bottom). g, Simulated building energy consumption for commercial privacy glass, low-e privacy glass, and the DPP smart window. h, Annual heating and cooling energy-saving potential of the DPP smart window compared to low-e privacy glass in ten mid-latitude cities.
Credit
Yi Long et al.
Usage Restrictions
Credit must be given to the creator.
License
CC BY