In Part One, we discussed The Hidden Strength of prepainted metal. It’s easy to take for granted all that lies beneath the surface of prepainted metal: the cleaning and pretreatment of the base metal, the metallic coating, and the continuous process that prepares the metal strip for primer and topcoat, all in one pass through the coil coating line. Here in Part Two, we’ll learn about the only feature that is actually visible in a prepainted part—the topcoat; that is, The Visible Beauty. There is, however, more to it than meets the eye. Continue reading
Part One (of Three)
When you look at a piece of prepainted metal, what do you see? Certainly a colorful article that may or may not have some shape to it. Often the metal is fabricated with “ribs” to add structural strength to the panel, or it may be flat, as is the case with a metal composite material (MCM) panel. The surface of the prepainted article might be a smooth, homogeneous surface, or it may have a wood-grained pattern, or it might have a subtle pebbly texture. The color of prepainted metal ranges from whites, grays, and blacks to neutral earth tones to saturated, brilliant colors. Some of the colors have metallic or color-shifting effects. But this layer of color is only what you actually see. What you don’t see is all that is under the surface. Continue reading
Several years ago, scientists hypothesized that a narrow spectrum of ultraviolet light called far-UVC could kill microbes without damaging healthy tissue. Far-UVC light at about 222 nanometers (nm) has a very limited range and cannot penetrate through the outer dead-cell layer of human skin or the tear layer in the eye, so it’s not a human health hazard. But because viruses and bacteria are much smaller than human cells, far-UVC light can reach their DNA and kill them. In the study, aerosolized H1N1 virus—a common strain of flu virus—was released into a test chamber and exposed to very low doses of 222nm far-UVC light. A control group of aerosolized virus was not exposed to the UVC light. The far-UVC light efficiently inactivated the flu viruses with about the same efficiency as conventional germicidal UV light. Continue reading
Thanks for sticking with us—this is the sixth and final post about the NCCA Color Project experiment we conducted at METALCON. In the previous five posts, we presented our analyses of the 28 observers’ ratings to see how discerning and consistent they were. We concluded that human observers see color differences differently; some see a lot of difference, some just a little. This was not unexpected. Finally, it’s time to look at the observed color differences plotted against the machine readings for color difference.
Let’s quickly review the previous two posts on NCCA’s “The Color Project”:
- In Part Three, we showed that about 20% of our observers fell into an “extremes” category (i.e., they were either notably far less critical or far more critical); but the majority—80%—of the observers were more or less in agreement.
- In Part Four, we concluded that most of the people, most of the time, were not fooled by the identical-pair panels. Only 9% of the time were there notable color differences declared, and half of the observers saw no difference at all. If you expect to see a color difference, by golly, you will!
In Part Three of “The Color Project” blog post series, we began to discuss the vast amount of data collected from the NCCA color experiment at METALCON. We also looked at how each individual observer compared to the other observers. We found that about 20% fell into an “extreme” category (i.e., they were notably far less critical or far more critical), but the majority—80%—of the observers were more or less in agreement.
Parts One and Two of this series of posts on NCCA’s “The Color Project” discussed why we needed to run a visual assessment experiment and how we structured the study. You may recall that we created 54 panel pairs, and within this set there were 15 repeats (i.e., pairs that were shown to the observers—unbeknownst to them—a second time to see how closely they would rate the pairs), as well as 8 pairs of identical panels (i.e., take a panel, cut it in half, tape the halves together, and call it a color difference pair). I also mentioned the tedium of collecting data for 13 solid hours. And lastly, I teased you with promise of revealing data here in Part Three. So, without further ado, let’s dive in. But first, let’s discuss the visual observations. We’ll talk color data later. Continue reading