I want real world opinions about scratch resistance of these coatings.
I want real world opinions about scratch resistance of these coatings.
They are all made from polysiloxane and are basically all the same. They provide a very slippery surface. The scartch resistance is that objects tend to slide off instead of hooking ond and scratching the lens.
It has nothing to do with the under coat?
Chris:
The underlying hard coatings are made of polysiloxane however the superhydropobic such as "Alize" is a compound that bonds to the polysiloxane or silicon based surface such as the AR stack.They are all made from polysiloxane and are basically all the same.
I will see no difference in durability of all three?
It has everything to do with the undercoat or hardcoat. The reason A/R coatings are growing in use now is due to the combination of a high quality thermal cure hardcoat applied to both sides of the lens, a proven A/R thin film process and a high performance hydrophobic coating.All 3 of these coatings are very good. In our tests Teflon has the best bayer reading with a bayer of 6 or higher. However all 3 will do well in the field with every day cleaning and wear.
The hardcoat under the AR stack is the core of the durability factor. The harder the surface, obviously the more durable the AR will be. The oleophobic top coat increases the durability factor by repeling the offending particulates from the surface. Despite popular opinion not all AR coatings are created equal. They may use common compounds in the formula but the recipe is very different. According to a Hoya literature that I have, they report the Bayer rating of Teflon at 6.0, Alize at 5.0 and Stainless (which was not included) is rated at 8.0. We are testing our AR against others by a leading indusrty testing lab which hopefully will allow us to publish the results for all to compare.
Lee Prewitt, ABOM
Independent Sales Representative
AIT Industries
224 W. James St.
Bensenville, IL 60106
Cell : (425) 241-1689
Phone: (800) 729-1959, Ext 137
Direct: (630) 274-6136
Fax: (630) 595-1006
www.aitindustries.com
leep@aitindustries.com
More Than A Patternless Edger Company
Gosh, Lee. You quoted from the HOYA literature with comparative Bayer Abrasion Scale results, and neglected to mention HOYA's Super HiVision AR coating which achieved a result of 10.9. Surely that was an oversight on your part.
RT
My head is 15.0:hammer:
Not necessarily an ommission as the thread was comparing Teflon, Alize, and Stainless. And yes, Super HiVision is rated at 10.9.Originally Posted by RT
Lee Prewitt, ABOM
Independent Sales Representative
AIT Industries
224 W. James St.
Bensenville, IL 60106
Cell : (425) 241-1689
Phone: (800) 729-1959, Ext 137
Direct: (630) 274-6136
Fax: (630) 595-1006
www.aitindustries.com
leep@aitindustries.com
More Than A Patternless Edger Company
Originally Posted by RT
So when Hoya SD puts VP on top of SET, what rating does that get????? :shiner: :hammer:
Let the refining and improving of your own life keep you so busy that you have little time to criticize others. -H. Jackson Brown Jr.
If the only tool you have is a hammer you will approach every problem as though it were a nail
That seems like an incredibly high figure. Just out of curiosity, was this an internal test or was it done at an independent laboratory (e.g., COLTS)?Originally Posted by RT
Darryl J. Meister, ABOM
Hoya does use the 10.9 result on their website and ads but doesn't state where/who performed the test.Originally Posted by Darryl Meister
Here is a link to a press release when the coating was released back in 2002. It was posted here on OptiBoard by Newsroom. This shows the coating results as 12.431. If you go back to this post on OptiBoard at the bottom there is a side note that states Bayer Test Results were obtained by COLTS Laboratories. http://www.optiboard.com/forums/arch...hp/t-5806.html
This post goes back to 2002 though so I'm not sure where they are now getting their updated figure of 10.9. It does seem really high just like Darryl had said. I know this didn't really answer Darryl's question of where the number 10.9 came from but it at one time appartently was tested at COLTS. Maybe someone can shed more light on that number.
I can tell you that we had Teflon tested by COLTS against a variety of competitive coatings and it consistently outperformed them in the Bayer test. However, I don't recall whether that particular "flavor" of Hoya AR was included or not.
Darryl J. Meister, ABOM
Yes, the Bayer abrasion results for SHV in the HOYA literature quoted by Lee Prewitt came from COLTS. The coating was announced in the US in 2002, but not actually released until later. The Bayer abrasion results of 10.9 came from production samples.
When HOYA's View Protect (VP) topcoat is applied to an AR coat, it generally enhances the abrasion resistance as measured by the Bayer test. I'm not aware of any specific tests done on the SET/VP combination that Karen asks about, however.
In terms of the original question, I think that the answer in general is that the category of super-slippery AR coats has better real world abrasion resistance than non-slippery AR coats. This is based on both Bayer test results, as well as my own personal experience.
RT
Originally Posted by RT
I was being a bit sarcastic-I was under the impression that this would be a big no no but I have accounts telling me they are doing it (and selling it for a very affordable price-as in less than Carat or Advantage)
Let the refining and improving of your own life keep you so busy that you have little time to criticize others. -H. Jackson Brown Jr.
If the only tool you have is a hammer you will approach every problem as though it were a nail
i was told that the 10.9 on the super hi vision wasn't consistent. that some of the lenses sampled scored that high on the bayer test and others didn't and they just reported the highest they were able to obtain. and on the other hand the lowest score for the teflon was a 6.1 and they had some higher but chose to use this figure. true or not, don't know. just what i was told.
i was told that the 10.9 on the super hi vision wasn't consistent. that some of the lenses sampled scored that high on the bayer test and others didn't and they just reported the highest they were able to obtain. and on the other hand the lowest score for the teflon was a 6.1 and they had some higher but chose to use this figure. true or not, don't know. just what i was told.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks