DEFINITY,Trivex, and Transitions...........

[hcjilson]

Usually a relationship with three ends in disaster, this is the one exception to that rule and has answered my prayers.

My love for DEFINITY lenses is no secret- It's been going on since I first tried the product. The wider field of vision, useable periphery, and ground view advantage have made this lens my progressive of choice for the past 4 or 5 years. My plea's for an edition in Trivex fell on deaf ears at J&J's Spectacle Lens Group. I think they had all they could do to keep up with the demand for the product in CR-39, Poly, and 1.60.

My love for Transitions and Trivex is not a well kept secret either. You can research this by plugging these terms into our search engine and following along the conversation. Please pay particular attention to the "Trivex" wars between Pete Hanlin vs Billy Brock and me. :D:D

In any event, Essilor is now the source for Definity and in my opinion, have carried the product to new heights, releasing a 1.67 version, and a Trivex DEFINITY this past winter. This was an absolutely superior product to the others because of the clarity and weight, but still lacked the one ingredient to make it complete.

A little over a week ago Essilor released the DEFINITY in Trivex Transition in grey or brown. I got mine just before lunch today and I am here to say that this lens is the best product I have ever seen......or seen through!..... That is in my career........and that started officially on August 26th 1959 so I've seen one or two come down the pike. This lens is AWESOME SQUARED! You may recommend this product with complete confidence that the wearer will still thank you for it....even after writing the check.
Give it a try!
Harry C Jilson

[For-Life]

I do not think we are allowed to say anything good about Essilor on this forum. Trust me, I still have rope burns around my neck from it.

[Pete Hanlin]

You should try WORKING for Essilor!

I vary my driving routes to and from work "just in case..." ;)

Glad you like the product, Harry. I still prefer polycarbonate as a substrate- and my blood still runs Varilux blue- but the fact that professionals such as yourself (and many others who have communicated with me over the years) find the performance of DEFINITY to be exceptional is not lost on me. Essilor International's corporate slogan is "Seeing the World Better." Anything that helps you accomplish that (be it DEFINITY, Accolade, or Varilux) works for me!

Enjoy those DEFINITY Trivex in Transitions lenses!
Pete

PS- I would note my father (who has worked with blueprints his whole life) is perhaps the most visually particular person on the planet- his Varilux Ipseo in Airwear are his favorite lenses.

[hcjilson]

You should try WORKING for Essilor!


PS- I would note my father (who has worked with blueprints his whole life) is perhaps the most visually particular person on the planet- his Varilux Ipseo in Airwear are his favorite lenses.

C'mon Pete! Break down and get him a pair of DEFINITY'S,He'll never go back to the Ipseo's....and while you're at it, in Trivex so he can see more clearly and doesn't have all the weight to carry around!:D

[optigrrl]

You should try WORKING for Essilor!

I vary my driving routes to and from work "just in case..." ;)

Glad you like the product, Harry. I still prefer polycarbonate as a substrate- and my blood still runs Varilux blue- but the fact that professionals such as yourself (and many others who have communicated with me over the years) find the performance of DEFINITY to be exceptional is not lost on me. Essilor International's corporate slogan is "Seeing the World Better." Anything that helps you accomplish that (be it DEFINITY, Accolade, or Varilux) works for me!

Enjoy those DEFINITY Trivex in Transitions lenses!
Pete

PS- I would note my father (who has worked with blueprints his whole life) is perhaps the most visually particular person on the planet- his Varilux Ipseo in Airwear are his favorite lenses.

At least until Essilor goes 100% Trivex :cheers:

[Craig]

You should try WORKING for Essilor!

I vary my driving routes to and from work "just in case..." ;)


Glad you like the product, Harry. I still prefer polycarbonate as a substrate- and my blood still runs Varilux blue- but the fact that professionals such as yourself (and many others who have communicated with me over the years) find the performance of DEFINITY to be exceptional is not lost on me. Essilor International's corporate slogan is "Seeing the World Better." Anything that helps you accomplish that (be it DEFINITY, Accolade, or Varilux) works for me!

Enjoy those DEFINITY Trivex in Transitions lenses!

Pete

PS- I would note my father (who has worked with blueprints his whole life) is perhaps the most visually particular person on the planet- his Varilux Ipseo in Airwear are his favorite lenses.

You are a funny man for a techy!

I have re-posted some info from Harry and it is clearly in favor of trivex. I was a guy who introduced poly to the world and got yelled at about all the problems, I never had a problem with poly for any reason, it WAS the material of choice for many years. This is now!:drop:

The past 1.5 years we have used trivex products and it is the best thing we ever did in the lab. We needed to work thru some surfacing, coating and thickness issues, but it is now 75% of our lenses and will be 95% when the NXT polarized is released at Expo.
Below is a post from Optiboard and the comparison is interesting! It shows thickness is not an issue, but Trivex is clearly superior in the weight and optics to poly and the other materials.

This information can be made into a very compelling marketing piece and help further the cause of no more poly. Hope it helps get the marketing juices flowing.



Craig



RX -1.50 sphere


Thicknesses at 50mm, using the left eye's sph equiv.

CR-39 = 3.2mm
Trivex = 2.6mm
Poly = 2.5mm
1.67 = 2.3mm

1.67 is the thinnest by 0.2mm, let's look at the sacrifice

Chromatic Aberration threshold of 0.1

CR-39 = 33mm from OC = 100 percent of the lens area is below threshold
Trivex = 25mm from OC = 100 percent of the lens area is below threshold
Poly = 17mm from OC = 68 percent of the lens area is below the threshold
1.67 = 18mm from OC = 72 percent of the lens area is below threshold

Weight: This is the number one item to patient comfort in wearing the lenses and it doesn't hurt that they cannot break in any frame design.

CR-39 = 6.7g
Trivex = 4.5g
Poly = 4.7g
1.67 = 5.2g

Trivex seems to be the best choice to me in this scenario, lighter in weight, provides crisp optics throughout a generous portion of the lens, and only slightly thicker, however if we were to surface trivex down to 1.0mm CT then it would be thinner as well so it's obviously the better choice here.



Respectfully,

Craig Chasnov
Technology Broker

[hcjilson]

At least until Essilor goes 100% Trivex :cheers:
I remember saying to Pete, very early on in the "Trivex War" that someday all other lens materials will become obsolete because of Trivex. Sure you will still need the specialty glass lenses for glassblowing etc but for normal spectacle wear nothing beats it. Pete, at the time, had not made the move to Essilor and I must say he was a firm believer in Poly even back when he was dispensing. Pete may well have some of the Pennsylvania Dutch still in him because, as you can plainly see, he hasn't changed his mind.

Billy Brock made a photo of his SUV front tire on a 75MM Trivex blank, and posted it somewhere on these pages. If you decide to look for it, it is entitled "Pete's Speed Bump" i thought that would do it, but Pete remained unconvinced. You can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead!

[Happylady]

I have some concerns about Trivex with AR losing it's impact resistance. What can you tell me about this?

[hcjilson]

Happy Lady, do a search on it. Somewhere in this age wracked brain of mine I recall someone posting either the pictures from the video or a link to the video showing the impact resistant proberties of CR39, Poly, 1.6 and Trivex. Far and way the data showed Trivex outperforming them all. I can't remember who produced the video but it is my understanding that its a PPG product so maybe you could start there.

[For-Life]

honestly, I would not worry about trivex and AR. What are you going to take to the lens that putting AR on it is going to cause it to break?

[Fezz]

Trivex is awesome! I suggest that you check out this fantastic, well written, very informative, authored by a very sophisticated and learned individual, not very humble, author:


It is was written for Eye Care Professional Magazine!

Those guys and gals that write for this industry LEADER are BRILLIANT!!!

http://www.ecpmag.com/1webmagazine/2008/07jul/content/through_the_lens/trivex-children's-eyewear.asp

;):cheers::D:cheers::shiner:

[Fezz]

If that well written, enthusiastic, handsome author did not impress you, I suggest that you start at another source!

PPG has a wealth of info!

http://corporateportal.ppg.com/NA/chemicals/Optical/Trivex/

Have fun!

;):cheers::D:D:cheers::eek:

[Fezz]

AR may affect the impact resistance of any lens material. A little research into the subject can shed a lot of light on the subject.

[For-Life]

I still argue that trivex is more of a replacement for CR-39 than Poly. Of course, I am Canadian, so we have not gotten into the Impact Resistance crazy. Poly tends to be used here for its thinness. Of course, for safety, we do use poly.

Actually, with the improvements made to 1.6, it is my go to lens. It is thin, light, very resistant to chipping, very easy to work with, and works well with AR.

[Fezz]

IOf course, for safety, we do use poly.



Why not Trivex?

You seem like a professional that promotes quality-why use poly? You often mention the "quality" of frames, and the "quality" of lenses. It just seems odd to me that such a well educated and forward thinking Optical Professional would use.....poly?

[Happylady]

I like Trivex just fine. But it is often sold as an impact resistant lens like poly is. Poly is still impact resistant with an AR. I understand that Trivex is much less with an AR.

[Ocular Dexter]

I have some concerns about Trivex with AR losing it's impact resistance. What can you tell me about this?
AR reduces IR on avg by 20%. Hard coat. reduces IR on avg by 45%. This is not just for trivex but all lenses.

[hcjilson]

Dear Ocular,
Count the day lost when you can't learn something new! I have never heard, read, or to my knowledge seen, any info on the loss of Impact resistance on an AR treated lens. Where can I find the studies?

[For-Life]

Why not Trivex?

You seem like a professional that promotes quality-why use poly? You often mention the "quality" of frames, and the "quality" of lenses. It just seems odd to me that such a well educated and forward thinking Optical Professional would use.....poly?

Because I can get poly at safety thickness for 20% less than trivex at safety thickness.

[Happylady]

So should we not AR safety lenses, even poly?

[Fezz]

Happylady,

Since this thread is veering of course, how about posting that question in the general forum! I think the answers will be very interesting!

:cheers::cheers::cheers:

[For-Life]

So should we not AR safety lenses, even poly?

At 3mm thick, what is going to go through it?

[rinselberg]

Dear Ocular,
Count the day lost when you can't learn something new! I have never heard, read, or to my knowledge seen, any info on the loss of Impact resistance on an AR treated lens. Where can I find the studies?"Effect of multiple antireflection coatings on impact resistance of Hoya Phoenix spectacle lenses"; Clinical and Experimental Optometry (2006).

Abstract: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118563985/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Full text in PDF format: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118563985/PDFSTART

This white paper would be a good starting point for anyone who wants to research this topic.

"Phoenix" is Hoya's version of trivex.

Here's a paste of the article abstract..

ORIGINAL PAPER
Effect of multiple antireflection coatings on impact resistance of Hoya Phoenix spectacle lenses

B Ralph Chou*† MSc OD FAAO and Jeffery K Hovis* OD PhD FAAO
* School of Optometry, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
† School of Optometry and Vision Science, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
E-mail: bchou@uwaterloo.ca
Correspondence to Dr B Ralph Chou
School of Optometry
University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1
CANADA
E-mail: bchou@uwaterloo.ca
KEYWORDS
coatings • impact resistance • Phoenix • spectacle lenses • Trivex

ABSTRACT
Purpose: To investigate how the impact resistance of Hoya Phoenix spectacle lenses is affected by centre thickness and the application of a multilayer antireflection (MAR) coating.

Methods: Four groups of plano lenses were tested: dress thickness with scratch resistant (SR) coating on both surfaces, dress thickness with SR and MAR, industrial thickness with SR and industrial thickness with SR and MAR. Lenses were edged to a clear circular aperture of 50 mm with a 0.5 mm hidden bevel and mounted in a specially-designed lens support. A pneumatic gun was used to propel a 6.35 mm steel ball at the centre of each lens. Impact speed was varied using the ZEST protocol to determine the threshold breakage speed.

Results: The threshold breakage speeds of the dress and industrial thickness SR lenses were 55.1 and 63.2 m/s, respectively and the corresponding threshold breakage speeds for SR-MAR lenses were 50.1 and 54.7 m/s. All comparisons were statistically significant using Student's t-test with a rejection level of p < 0.005. Unlike polycarbonate lenses, dress thickness Phoenix lenses do not display 'oilcanning' deformation on high energy impact and therefore are less likely to be dislodged from their mountings.

Conclusions: We found that the mean impact resistance of the Phoenix lenses was greater than the level required of eye protector lenses by the standards AS/NZS 1337:1992, ANSI Z87.1-2003 and CSA Z94.3-02. Similar to CR39 and polycarbonate, the application of MAR to Phoenix lenses reduces their impact resistance, however, they provide an acceptable level of impact protection in industrial settings, where there is little danger of exposure to pointed or sharp-edged high-speed missiles.

Submitted: 26 April 2005
Revised: 5 August 2005
Accepted for publication: 20 August 2005

[Ocular Dexter]

Dear Ocular,
Count the day lost when you can't learn something new! I have never heard, read, or to my knowledge seen, any info on the loss of Impact resistance on an AR treated lens. Where can I find the studies?

Thats what makes being in the optical business so great! There is not a day that goes by that I don't learn something new. I have learned volumes on Optiboard alone.

The study was done by COLTS, here's the link http://www.lwwvisioncare.com/emails/colts/newsletter/4/index.html

[Happylady]

Happylady,

Since this thread is veering of course, how about posting that question in the general forum! I think the answers will be very interesting.

Fezz, I did start a thread about this a few weeks ago but it didn't go anywhere.

Thanks for all the links and information, people! :cheers:

[hcjilson]

to get a thread going is address it to the right people! :D:D

[optigrrl]

"We found that the mean impact resistance of the Phoenix lenses was greater than the level required of eye protector lenses by the standards AS/NZS 1337:1992, ANSI Z87.1-2003 and CSA Z94.3-02. Similar to CR39 and polycarbonate, the application of MAR to Phoenix lenses reduces their impact resistance, however, they provide an acceptable level of impact protection in industrial settings, where there is little danger of exposure to pointed or sharp-edged high-speed missiles.

Submitted: 26 April 2005
Revised: 5 August 2005
Accepted for publication: 20 August 2005

Yay, Hoya!!!!

[HarryChiling]

Fezz, I did start a thread about this a few weeks ago but it didn't go anywhere.

Thanks for all the links and information, people! :cheers:

You'll also find that flatter base curves reduce impact resistance, so what's an optician to do skip the AR and thin lenses? No you move on even with AR on trivex it's still a more impact resistant lens than many lenses with AR or not.

[optiman37]

Usually a relationship with three ends in disaster, this is the one exception to that rule and has answered my prayers.

My love for DEFINITY lenses is no secret- It's been going on since I first tried the product. The wider field of vision, useable periphery, and ground view advantage have made this lens my progressive of choice for the past 4 or 5 years. My plea's for an edition in Trivex fell on deaf ears at J&J's Spectacle Lens Group. I think they had all they could do to keep up with the demand for the product in CR-39, Poly, and 1.60.

My love for Transitions and Trivex is not a well kept secret either. You can research this by plugging these terms into our search engine and following along the conversation. Please pay particular attention to the "Trivex" wars between Pete Hanlin vs Billy Brock and me. :D:D

In any event, Essilor is now the source for Definity and in my opinion, have carried the product to new heights, releasing a 1.67 version, and a Trivex DEFINITY this past winter. This was an absolutely superior product to the others because of the clarity and weight, but still lacked the one ingredient to make it complete.

A little over a week ago Essilor released the DEFINITY in Trivex Transition in grey or brown. I got mine just before lunch today and I am here to say that this lens is the best product I have ever seen......or seen through!..... That is in my career........and that started officially on August 26th 1959 so I've seen one or two come down the pike. This lens is AWESOME SQUARED! You may recommend this product with complete confidence that the wearer will still thank you for it....even after writing the check.
Give it a try!
Harry C Jilson


regarding the trivex lense. I work and have sold the trivex line bifocal and have to comments from customer that the optics is not as good as poly or plastic line bifocal. It was that bad that they changed out from trivex lenses

[Fezz]

regarding the trivex lense. I work and have sold the trivex line bifocal and have to comments from customer that the optics is not as good as poly or plastic line bifocal. It was that bad that they changed out from trivex lenses


That is just silly! Come on.....I think that there may be more to the patients complaints than Trivex. Swing over to the General optics Forum. I posted some info for you in another thread concerning this very issue!

[Craig]

That is just silly! Come on.....I think that there may be more to the patients complaints than Trivex. Swing over to the General optics Forum. I posted some info for you in another thread concerning this very issue!

This is what you are talking about.


Below is a post from Optiboard and the comparison is interesting! It shows
thickness is not an issue, but Trivex is clearly superior in the weight and
optics to poly and the other materials.
This information can be made into a very compelling marketing piece and help
further the cause of no more poly. Hope it helps get the marketing juices
flowing.

Thicknesses at 50mm, using -1.50 sph equiv.

CR-39 = 3.2mm
Trivex = 2.6mm
Poly = 2.5mm
1.67 = 2.3mm

1.67 is the thinnest by 0.2mm, let's look at the sacrifice

Chromatic Aberration threshold of 0.1

CR-39 = 33mm from OC = 100 percent of the lens area is below threshold
Trivex = 25mm from OC = 100 percent of the lens area is below threshold
Poly = 17mm from OC = 68 percent of the lens area is below the threshold
1.67 = 18mm from OC = 72 percent of the lens area is below threshold

Weight:

CR-39 = 6.7g
Trivex = 4.5g
Poly = 4.7g
1.67 = 5.2g

Trivex seems to be the best choice to me in this scenario, lighter in
weight, provides crisp optics throughout a generous portion of the lens, and
only slightly thicker, however if we were to surface trivex down to 1.0mm CT
then it would be thinner as well so it's obviously the better choice here.
Craig

[Robert Martellaro]

In any event, Essilor is now the source for Definity and in my opinion, have carried the product to new heights, releasing a 1.67 version, and a Trivex DEFINITY this past winter. Harry C Jilson


Glad you like the product, Harry. I still prefer polycarbonate as a substrate- and my blood still runs Varilux blue- but the fact that professionals such as yourself (and many others who have communicated with me over the years) find the performance of DEFINITY to be exceptional is not lost on me. Pete

I tried the JJ lens when it came out about five years ago. I have them in front of me- the fitting cross is 1mm above the 180 (they're poly). Back then, the lens was not atoric, used a standard inset, and had no off-axis optimizations. A portion of the Add was placed on the back using free-form generators.

Question.

Is this lens (the JJ Definity) the same lens design as the Essilor Definity? If not, what is different?

[Samuel Jong]

Should we use two steps fining for Trivex lens?

[Fezz]

Should we use two steps fining for Trivex lens?


Sam,

Here is everything you wanted, need, and could care less about Trivex lenses!

Try here:

http://www.youngeroptics.com/trilogy.aspx

They have a whole section on processing Trivex!

This is also a good site!


http://corporateportal.ppg.com/NA/chemicals/Optical/Trivex/

Good luck!

:cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers:

[Samuel Jong]

Sam,

Here is everything you wanted, need, and could care less about Trivex lenses!

Try here:

http://www.youngeroptics.com/trilogy.aspx

They have a whole section on processing Trivex!

This is also a good site!


http://corporateportal.ppg.com/NA/chemicals/Optical/Trivex/

Good luck!

:cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers:
Fezz, thanks a lot. :cheers:

[KStraker]

I've asked this a couple of times now(in other threads) and no one has answered. So, I'd still like to know how the ground view advantage effects the size of the reading area in the Definity short? Do they take this zone in to account when they list the minimum seg ht? Thanks-kevin

[rinselberg]

I've asked this a couple of times now(in other threads) and no one has answered. So, I'd still like to know how the ground view advantage effects the size of the reading area in the Definity short? Do they take this zone in to account when they list the minimum seg ht? Thanks-kevinYou could send your question via email to the Definity group at Essilor:

http://www.Definity.com/Professionals/Definity+Resources/Contact+Us.asp

[KStraker]

You could send your question via email to the Definity group at Essilor:

http://www.Definity.com/Professionals/Definity+Resources/Contact+Us.asp


There is an Essilor rep in this thread and others who swear by this lens. Yet, three days later, still no response. Something is starting to smell funny.

[hcjilson]

Can you possibly think there is a sinister plot afoot because of your question?

Kevin,
I do not now, nor have I ever worn the DEFINITY short so I am at a loss to give you an answer from a wearers standpoint but I think your question more properly should be, does the reading area affect the ground view advantage, rather than the other way round. You must remember that the reading area is the reason for the lens to begin with, and the ground view advantage was a spin off of the lens design. It was never the reason J&J designed the lens. I have only sold a few shorts and have had no complaints. I am not avoiding your question but I am not answering it either.

I would think if the answer were that important to you that you would have followed Rinsie's advice and gotten it straight from the horses mouth..as it were./
hcj

[KStraker]

Can you possibly think there is a sinister plot afoot because of your question?

Kevin,
I do not now, nor have I ever worn the DEFINITY short so I am at a loss to give you an answer from a wearers standpoint but I think your question more properly should be, does the reading area affect the ground view advantage, rather than the other way round. You must remember that the reading area is the reason for the lens to begin with, and the ground view advantage was a spin off of the lens design. It was never the reason J&J designed the lens. I have only sold a few shorts and have had no complaints. I am not avoiding your question but I am not answering it either.

I would think if the answer were that important to you that you would have followed Rinsie's advice and gotten it straight from the horses mouth..as it were./
hcj

OK, maybe the smell was the Bojangles biscuit I had for breakfast. I wanted the more objective opinions of practioners and wearers. Maybe I'll have to ask the manufacturer, but I trust your opinions more. What the heck ,I'll ask Essilor and see what they have to say.

thanks-kevin


HJC-Looking at the lens diagram, I see your point regarding the phrasing of my question. I guess a better question would be, if you set the bifocal ht at 15mm how far down from the fitting cross does the GVA start?

[Happylady]

I've asked this a couple of times now(in other threads) and no one has answered. So, I'd still like to know how the ground view advantage effects the size of the reading area in the Definity short? Do they take this zone in to account when they list the minimum seg ht? Thanks-kevin

My newest glasses are Definity Short. I think I have them at 18, but I'm not sure. I notice no groundview advantage. The reading area goes all the way to the bottom.

I do think the reading area at 18 is not very deep. It's wide enough, but deeper would be better. The intermediate is good as is the distance.

[KStraker]

My newest glasses are Definity Short. I think I have them at 18, but I'm not sure. I notice no groundview advantage. The reading area goes all the way to the bottom.

I do think the reading area at 18 is not very deep. It's wide enough, but deeper would be better. The intermediate is good as is the distance.

Thanks for the opinion. I guess with free form generators you can put the bifocal wherever you want it, with respect to the GVA area. This is speculation since the people at Essilor have not answered my email.

[hcjilson]

why not just email Pete Hanlin directly. If he can't answer your question, he can hook you up with someone who can.I imagine they get one or two inquiries a day and perhaps are running behind.