Originally Posted by bruce can
OK let's be serious for a sec ok .
Are you going to buy your microscope or just borrow pb's and MM's ?
I think if they have developed a mix that is working down to the molecular level they should provide pics from their slides to show us what is going on differently before and after the "fusion " right ?
let me explain my position...and it is only my own opinion. whether it agrees with mm and pbmaxxx does not mean i am taking any side one way or another. so, from a technical point of view, the individual pigments that are used in any paint are solids. that is the definition of a pigment. the solids do not dissolve and retain the same properties that they have when not mixed into a liquid base such as latex or acrylic. now, if any dye based paints are being used, then the story is different since dyes are already liquid. i believe that the different metalic pigments being used (silver, pearl, gold, copper, etc.) are all slightly different mica pigment paints. solid particles of mica. when it comes to light, all things work at the molecular level whether it be paint, metal, wood, or that apple you're eating. red pigment reflects red because at the molecular level, red light is at just the right wavelength that it reflects off the molecular structure, and other wavelengths are absorbed. now, when it comes to black flame, i don't think that their specific mix does anything different than any other color balanced gray metalic paint. it's nothing more than a balance act, the same balancing act that behr does with silverscreen. now, when it comes to metalics, i agree that their affect is to give some degree of gain which must decrease viewing cone when no latex or poly is present. when the latex and poly are present however, the gain is either completely negated or dimished to a point that it's hard to detect. if that affect is completely negated, then the use of the metalics makes no sense because you can get the same thing from using a titanium dioxide based paint. i agree that if mississippiman is going to put forward statements about the paint working at the molecular level, then he should be able to explain how it works to us. that request so far goes ignored. i in particular have concerns about whether black flame reduces view cone, and whether or not it can truly reflect more projected light than ambient light. think of it like this. assume you have a gray paint that reflects 50% of the light that hits it. it reflects 50% of all the projected light that hits it and 50% of all the ambient light that hits it. this is exactly what a neutral gray screen should do. how is black flame any different? that is the main question i have. that is why i have asked for scientific proof. i don't want to bash anyone, just want to find the answers. the fact that mississippiman hasn't responded to the request, does not help me gain any respect for him or his mix. supposedly, the mix is protected by a patent application so technical discussion of the mix should be flowing freely. since that is not happening, it gives me the impression that mississippiman doesn't completely understand how his mix works. i hope he can disprove me so we can all benefit from a reasonable/logical explanation.