2023
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2022.123494
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A simple, accurate, and universal method for characterizing and comparing radiative cooling materials and devices

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The uncovered surface was limited to < 3 °C while the SFP achieved up to 6 °C below ambient, due to the decrease in parasitic heating by the insulating SFP. To quantify the reduction in the parasitic heating rate, the parasitic heat transfer coefficients were measured with and without the SFP, using the method described by Fan et al 35 In this method, the cooling power at ambient temperature and the maximum temperature drop are measured simultaneously with two identical devices. The uncovered 3M ESR surface was found to have a parasitic heat transfer coefficient of h = 8.1 W m −2 K −1 .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The uncovered surface was limited to < 3 °C while the SFP achieved up to 6 °C below ambient, due to the decrease in parasitic heating by the insulating SFP. To quantify the reduction in the parasitic heating rate, the parasitic heat transfer coefficients were measured with and without the SFP, using the method described by Fan et al 35 In this method, the cooling power at ambient temperature and the maximum temperature drop are measured simultaneously with two identical devices. The uncovered 3M ESR surface was found to have a parasitic heat transfer coefficient of h = 8.1 W m −2 K −1 .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The polystyrene lid is coated with a highly reflective white layer, and the box is wrapped in aluminum foil. Note that this setup allows for simultaneously measuring both TDrop and PCool, which is fundamental to compare and characterize passive radiative cooling materials under the same environmental conditions [41].…”
Section: Outdoor Testsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The uncovered surface was limited to < 3 °C while the SAP achieved up to 6 °C below ambient, due to the decrease in parasitic heating by the insulating SAP. To quantify the reduction in the parasitic heating rate, the parasitic heat transfer coefficients were measured with and without the SAP, using the method described by Fan et al [35] In this method, the cooling power at ambient temperature and the maximum temperature drop are measured simultaneously with two identical devices. The uncovered 3M ESR surface was found to have a parasitic heat transfer coefficient of h = 8.1 W m -2 K -1 .…”
Section: Outdoor Testingmentioning
confidence: 99%