Hi All!
m new here!
If i may ask, are there any drawbacks to this material, MR-10, besides its low ABBE?
Hi All!
m new here!
If i may ask, are there any drawbacks to this material, MR-10, besides its low ABBE?
Higher cost!Originally Posted by Iakwin
MR-10 is essentially a newer version of the MR-7 1.66/67 high-index lens material, with a few subtle improvements. Both materials offer relatively good heat, chemical, and impact resistance (though poly would still be a better choice for impact resistance). Both materials also offer excellent tensile and flexural strength. And, of course, they both of a very high refractive index and relatively low density, with an Abbe value that's still better than Poly's.
Best regards,
Darryl
Thanx for your replyOriginally Posted by Darryl Meister
Hmmm.... so MR-10 has a lower impact resistance than poly?
but, I read from the Seiko website that their MR-10 1.67 lens are stronger than poly.
Besides Seiko, who else is using MR10 ?
Probably meant that it has a higher tensile strength.Originally Posted by Iakwin
Why does anyone care or even bother to rate tensile strength on spectacle lenses? They will never be pulled apart or subjected to any stresses that this applies to?
Chip
In terms of straight tensile strength, as measured by those pull tests you often see, MR-10 may have a slight advantage. It's also more mechanically rigid than poly (less likely to flex against an applied force). However, poly generally shows more impact resistance -- at least in the test results I've seen. Of course, tensile strength is heavily influenced by a number of factors, including lens thickness, coatings, and so on, and both materials offer an extremely high level of tensile strength.I read from the Seiko website that their MR-10 1.67 lens are stronger than poly.
Really, even an impact failure ultimately depends a great deal on the tensile strength of the material, since fractures frequently occur when the lens flexes from the impact, causing the surface to literally tear apart at the rear. However, pull-like tests generally measure tensile strength as it relates to rimless mountings.Why does anyone care or even bother to rate tensile strength on spectacle lenses? They will never be pulled apart or subjected to any stresses that this applies to?
Best regards,
Darryl
Is one of them more scratch resistant?
MR 10 is more scratch resistant than poly. The added advatage is that with MR 10 you can place it in a styrofoam cup in the microwave for 15 seconds at a time and the lens will fill in light scratches when it is heated this way. Place the lens in the cup concave side down with no air trapped underneath.Is one of them more scratch resistant?
1st* HTML5 Tracer Software
1st Mac Compatible Tracer Software
1st Linux Compatible Tracer Software
*Dave at OptiVision has a web based tracer integration package that's awesome.
Would not want to try that with AROriginally Posted by HarryChiling
And there really is no point in selling a 1.67 without AR
You would be suprised how many people still don't like AR. Even with the newer coatings some people are just harsher on glasses.And there really is no point in selling a 1.67 without AR
1st* HTML5 Tracer Software
1st Mac Compatible Tracer Software
1st Linux Compatible Tracer Software
*Dave at OptiVision has a web based tracer integration package that's awesome.
a 1.67 without AR just makes the lenses look awful. In my opinion, a lens is more cosmetically pleasing with AR and a 1.5 index, than without and a 1.67 index.
Originally Posted by For-Life
I agree but we keep getting asked for them especially for sunglasses!!!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks