Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Comparing Trivex with 1.56 index

  1. #1
    O.D. Almost Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    998

    Comparing Trivex with 1.56 index

    I need to compare the 2 materials. What I think I know so far is that Trivex is more difficult to work with, harder on finishing equipment, but more durable.

    Changing here to the term HiVex from 1.56, understanding that HiVex is a newer iteration than the old 1.56

    HiVex seems to have better ABBE value than Trivex.

    Both are 100% UV and HiVex UV++ seems to have some visible blue absorption similar to Hoya's version.

    Saw this last version yesterday at Vision Expo. Is somewhat yellow, no where near as yellow as Blue Tech

    Soooooo, here goes:

    1. correct any errors above please

    2. are there any other negatives lurking out there for either material?

    3. any other positives for either?

    4. are either materials environmentally safe (recyclable without too much trouble, lenses, pieces and swarf, and is machining both of them safe)?

    5. Regarding tintability and scratch resistance, are either or both tintable before hard coat, and after hard coat, is there much difference in tintability and in scratch resistance.

    6. any other comments will be appreciated.
    Last edited by Dr. Bill Stacy; 09-20-2015 at 01:30 PM. Reason: added question, changed 1.56 to HiVex

  2. #2
    Bad address email on file
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    2,175
    don't drill or groove the 1.56. Trivex is almost always the lightest weight lens and that means max comfort to me.
    Once you get to 40 or so on the ABBE is there really a benefit to the consumer for anything higher than the eye itself?

  3. #3
    Chemistrie Eyewear
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Bill Stacy View Post
    I need to compare the 2 materials. What I think I know so far is that Trivex is more difficult to work with, harder on finishing equipment, but more durable. 1.56 index is easier to finish, but seems to be available in a more impact resistant version than the old Ormex (essilor) version?

    1.56 seems to have better ABBE value than Trivex, and is quite a bit cheaper.

    Trivex is 100% UV protected by absorption while 1.56 is somewhat UV protected and is now available with infused filter that takes out all UV + some visible blue (Hivex UV++? by Conant)

    Saw this last version yesterday at Vision Expo. Is somewhat yellow, no where near as yellow as Blue Tech

    Soooooo, here goes:

    1. correct any errors above please

    2. are there any other negatives lurking out there for either material?

    3. any other positives for either?

    4. are either materials environmentally safe (recyclable without too much trouble, lenses, pieces and swarf, and is machining both of them safe)?

    5. any other comments will be appreciated.
    What is generically referred to as 1.56 index lenses and Conant's hivex lenses are two different things. Hivex happens to be a lens material with an index of 1.56. They also sell "1.56 index" lenses which are less expensive. I am not sure what monomer the generic 1.56 index lenses are made from. Maybe an old Mitsui monomer? Someone here may know. I believe they are more popular as a mid index lens in Asia. As Craig noted, "1.56 index" lenses are not suitable for drill mounts. However, hivex is suitable for drill mounts. We use hivex for our computer clip lenses as we have been successful having them surfaced ultra thin for clip use. We use the 1.56 lenses for our in the frame reading glasses and computer glasses.

  4. #4
    O.D. Almost Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    998
    Thanks for that distinction. I would rename the thread Comparing Trivex with HiVex, but don't think I can do that. It seems you are right, and I will try to refrain from using 1.56 in my discussions and in my ordering. So maybe they discovered that adding a toughening ingredient also added UV and some blue protection. Good chemistry.

  5. #5
    Manuf. Lens Surface Treatments
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    in Naples FL for the Winter months
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    23,240

    Blue Jumper

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Bill Stacy View Post


    5. Regarding tintability and scratch resistance, are either or both tintable before hard coat, and after hard coat, is there much difference in tintability and in scratch resistance.

    6. any other comments will be appreciated.



    Lenses that are not tintable are usually coated with a tintable hard coat.

    The harder the hard coat the longer it takes to tint them in a dye pot which has limits in heating the dyes.

    However these days you can tint any lens in a microwave in just a few minutes to dark shades, that you can never achieve in a dye pot.

    see at: ===========>
    http://optochemicals.com/micro_shortdescript.htm

  6. #6
    O.D. Almost Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    998
    I've been told that tinting lenses by dye can affect the quality of any subsequent AR coating. Anyone know about this?

  7. #7
    Eyes eastward... Uilleann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Utah
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,237
    In short, to tint a lens, you have to have a place for the tint to go, ie: 'pores' in the lens. The harder the surface, the less tintable it becomes. For A/R, the harder and less "porous" the surface, the better the adhesion tends to get, and the better the scratch resistance.

    At least, this is how the guys from Zeiss, Hoya, Rodenstock, and numerous other lens manufacturers have explained it over the years.

  8. #8
    Master OptiBoarder DanLiv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    700
    Quote Originally Posted by Uilleann View Post
    In short, to tint a lens, you have to have a place for the tint to go, ie: 'pores' in the lens. The harder the surface, the less tintable it becomes. For A/R, the harder and less "porous" the surface, the better the adhesion tends to get, and the better the scratch resistance.

    At least, this is how the guys from Zeiss, Hoya, Rodenstock, and numerous other lens manufacturers have explained it over the years.
    True. This is why the best ARs always incorporate a quality dip hardcoat first to create a uniform smooth surface for the AR stack.

  9. #9
    Bad address email on file
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    2,175
    Quote Originally Posted by DanLiv View Post
    True. This is why the best ARs always incorporate a quality dip hardcoat first to create a uniform smooth surface for the AR stack.
    They claim the scratch resistance in a dip coat is greater but I have not seen any correlation between spin or dip as it relates to consumer satisfaction. That claim does not factor in the increased heat in the process and the harder coating will have a tendency to craze when applied to a flexible lens material.

    I speak to my lab and they use both but the dip is more labor intensive process and who actually has seen a pile of lenses with backside scratches; it does not occur so we are solving for an issue that really does not exist? I brought the dip process to the US market with Crizal and the consumer gains no benefit with a dip coating that they can actually notice or utilize.

    Just my thoughts after bringing Crizal to the US market 20+ years ago and actually seeing what the difference is in coating vs cost.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St. Cloud, Minnesota
    Occupation
    Ophthalmic Technician
    Posts
    3,089
    Or, you could just use glass, and not worry about "pores". *cheesy grin*

  11. #11
    O.D. Almost Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    998
    Getting back to the original post, I've discovered that Hivex is available with the tintable hard coating, so I'm going to order some of those for testing with various tints and subsequent AR coatings. I'm thinking Hivex is going to be my main material in the very near future unless I find some significant drawbacks.

  12. #12
    Master OptiBoarder AngeHamm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Occupation
    Optical Retail
    Posts
    2,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Bill Stacy View Post
    Getting back to the original post, I've discovered that Hivex is available with the tintable hard coating, so I'm going to order some of those for testing with various tints and subsequent AR coatings. I'm thinking Hivex is going to be my main material in the very near future unless I find some significant drawbacks.
    Make sure you are fully aware just how few progressives and polarized options are available in Hivex before you commit. It looks like a great material, but I'll take a superior design with less-than-optimal material over a great material in a sloppy design 95% of the time.
    I'm Andrew Hamm and I approve this message.

  13. #13
    O.D. Almost Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    998
    Quote Originally Posted by AngeHamm View Post
    Make sure you are fully aware just how few progressives and polarized options are available in Hivex before you commit. It looks like a great material, but I'll take a superior design with less-than-optimal material over a great material in a sloppy design 95% of the time.
    Yes and thank you for that. I have found precious little info about this material and the PALs that might be available for it. Will tread gently, maybe only using it for SV lenses for now. Even the index of refraction is not 100% certain to me. \

  14. #14
    One eye sees, the other feels OptiBoard Silver Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wauwatosa Wi
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    5,458
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Bill Stacy View Post
    Yes and thank you for that. I have found precious little info about this material and the PALs that might be available for it. Will tread gently, maybe only using it for SV lenses for now. Even the index of refraction is not 100% certain to me. \
    Refractive index 1.56

    Abbe 46

    Specific Gravity 1.25 g/cm3.

    http://kingstyleglasses.en.alibaba.c..._and_FDA_.html
    Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman

    Experience is the hardest teacher. She gives the test before the lesson.



  15. #15
    O.D. Almost Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    998
    Thanks Robert, I've seen that a lot, but have also seen it as 1.58. Probably a typo. Do you have any experience with using Hivex?

  16. #16
    One eye sees, the other feels OptiBoard Silver Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wauwatosa Wi
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    5,458
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Bill Stacy View Post
    Thanks Robert, I've seen that a lot, but have also seen it as 1.58. Probably a typo. Do you have any experience with using Hivex?
    Just with Chemistrie. Reliability has been excellent. WRT the index variations, that might be due to differences in the reference wavelength.

    http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...fractive-index
    Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman

    Experience is the hardest teacher. She gives the test before the lesson.



  17. #17
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    3,137
    Dip machines are ll automated, so if they are saying its labor intensive they are not really doing dip right. Dip is about 30-40% more scratch resistant, but it also goes on thinner, so spin will hide more mistakes and micro pits. The machine cost is higher for dip, and material cost is slightly higher per liter (but since its thinner it evens out). The problem with UV curing on spin coat is that it leaves behind unreacted catalyst, which means your coating won't be in general as hard. Heat will go deeper into the coating than UV, so heat reactive catalyst is more likely to be completely expended, UV catalyst will begin to stop UV light once it starts curing. Many of the newer dip coats don't require stripping, and the new Spin machine from Ultra Optics is fully automated, so the gap is narrowing a bit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Craig View Post
    They claim the scratch resistance in a dip coat is greater but I have not seen any correlation between spin or dip as it relates to consumer satisfaction. That claim does not factor in the increased heat in the process and the harder coating will have a tendency to craze when applied to a flexible lens material.

    I speak to my lab and they use both but the dip is more labor intensive process and who actually has seen a pile of lenses with backside scratches; it does not occur so we are solving for an issue that really does not exist? I brought the dip process to the US market with Crizal and the consumer gains no benefit with a dip coating that they can actually notice or utilize.

    Just my thoughts after bringing Crizal to the US market 20+ years ago and actually seeing what the difference is in coating vs cost.

  18. #18
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    3,137
    We were the first lab in the US to bring in Hivex, the only major downside to Hivex over Trivex is its slightly heavier specific gravity, but its closer to Poly, so its still lightweight. Hivex has higher Abbe, is thinner, and is less expensive (however Trivex on wholesale is dropping so that may change). Scratch resistance will depend on HC but appears to be equal, I have slightly fewer scratch redos on Hivex but it statistically very small. Hivex is not available in SV Aspheric yet, so that is a factor as well, but aspheric is coming next year I believe in stock finished.

    Mitsui Chemicals is releasing some products secretly, I don't know why (UV+/++/+++ were scrubbed from their website for example) but its my guess Mitsui developed Hivex but is keeping it quiet, but I don't have confirmation of that yet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Bill Stacy View Post
    I with, harder on finishing equipment, but more durable.

    Changing here to the term HiVex from 1.56, understanding that HiVex is a newer iteration than the old 1.56

    HiVex seems to have better ABBE value than Trivex.

    Both are 100% UV and HiVex UV++ seems to have some visible blue absorption similar to Hoya's version.

    Saw this last version yesterday at Vision Expo. Is somewhat yellow, no where near as yellow as Blue Tech

    Soooooo, here goes:

    1. correct any errors above please

    2. are there any other negatives lurking out there for either material?

    3. any other positives for either?

    4. are either materials environmentally safe (recyclable without too much trouble, lenses, pieces and swarf, and is machining both of them safe)?

    5. Regarding tintability and scratch resistance, are either or both tintable before hard coat, and after hard coat, is there much difference in tintability and in scratch resistance.

    6. any other comments will be appreciated.

  19. #19
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    3,137
    Swarf is impossible to recycle at this time, except for Maui Jim, because they have edgers and containment systems dedicated to specifc single materials (after all they only run 3 materials). 1.60 is acrylic, and Poly is a mix of bishenol and phosgene, which will contaminate any other plastic. Mixed plastics can't be recycled well and as a lab we now have over 59 materials run through, so its impossible to separate them. Plus they are soaking wet and that water is very challenging to extract.

    Maui does turn some of their swarf into carpet fiber, but they are the only ones in the US that effectively can do this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Bill Stacy View Post
    4. are either materials environmentally safe (recyclable without too much trouble, lenses, pieces and swarf, and is machining both of them safe)?

    6. any other comments will be appreciated.

  20. #20
    Master OptiBoarder MakeOptics's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    none
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    1,327
    Trivex, hivex are the same materials we have used in the passed enriched with nitrogen. Nitrogenating the lenses leads to nano scale areas of hard and soft sections, providing the flexibility and impact resistance that everyone loves about these products. Technically any other urethane based material can be nitrogenated, however the sulphur molecules are what create the higher indices, so the when nitrogen goes in the balance has to be adjusted and the index is effected. Eventually we will realize a good balance between impact and index and the new material will end in "vex" that's my prediction you can take that to the bank.

    For more info check out our esteemed colleague (Robert Fesmire) documentation via University of Colorado: http://www.uccs.edu/~rtirado/PES_160...rivex_lens.pdf

    Some interesting work on nitrogen substitution was being done in the early 70's late 60's:

    Beachell, H. C., Blumstein, R. and Peterson, J. C. (1969), Linear Polyurethanes and Their Grafted Copolymers: Preparation, Nitrogen Substitution and Grafting Reactions, and Characterization. J. polym. sci., C Polym. symp., 22: 569–585. doi: 10.1002/polc.5070220203
    Last edited by MakeOptics; 10-09-2015 at 09:21 AM.
    http://www.opticians.cc

    Creator of the industries 1st HTML5 Browser based tracer software.
    Creator of the industries 1st Mac tracer software.
    Creator of the industries 1st Linux tracer software.

  21. #21
    Compulsive Truthteller OptiBoard Gold Supporter Uncle Fester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    At a position without dimension...
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    5,300
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Bill Stacy View Post
    Thanks Robert, I've seen that a lot, but have also seen it as 1.58. Probably a typo. Do you have any experience with using Hivex?
    As learned here, I'd bet it's the vacuum's vapor being used in the test chamber. As I recall the US uses one and Europe another. Helium vs Mercury??? Europe's testing to the higher number.

    That's why 1.66 and 1.67 are the same lens material with different indexes of refraction.
    Last edited by Uncle Fester; 10-09-2015 at 10:21 AM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Hi index trivex?
    By Ontario Optician in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-13-2011, 12:30 PM
  2. Is Trivex Mid-Index?
    By harry888 in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 02-09-2010, 12:41 PM
  3. Comparing Generators
    By Joann Raytar in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-31-2003, 09:53 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •