Experience With Teflon or Carat Advantage?

[Ricky4444]

What are your opinions and experiences with either of these coatings (durability,aesthetics,customer satisfaction)?????

[Chris Ryser]

What are your opinions and experiences with either of these coatings (durability,aesthetics,customer satisfaction)?????

This type slick coating.................actually a sealer of the open gaps between the crystals on AR coatings, were dirt and grease accumulates, has been around since 1987. Neither one of the mentioned coatings have been invented by their advertisers.

By sealing these gaps the lens becomes easy to clean, as you can just wipe off the dirt.

You can find out more on the principle at http://optochemicals.com/crystalclear.htm

or gon on the thread: Easy to clean AR

[Ricky4444]

I understand the basic principles of AR coatings...I am just looking for opinions or experiences people are having with Teflon Or Carat Advantage.

[Happylady]

The old Teflon was very good but not as good as some other ARs. A rep came to my shop and told us it has been improved and is much better. I often use Carat Advantage on lenses that I can't put Crizal, Teflon or Super Hi Vision on. I have had no problems with it at all.

[Darryl Meister]

Chris, First of all, neither Teflon nor Carat Advantage is a simple "top coating." These are coating systems, including an extremely durable hard coating, a specially tuned antireflection coating stack, and a super slick top coating. Secondly, the new generation of "super slick" top coatings -- with enhanced hydrophobic, oleophobic, and durability properties -- has not been around since 1987; these coatings have been around for only around 5 years.

[spongiebrownie]

I have had experience with both coating and the Teflon coating was horrible. Before I began using it in my practice I ordered two pairs of my own glasses with the teflon coating. My first pair had a scratch on it in two days and the second pair was so badley crazed that I could not believe this was suppose to be a top of the line a/r coating. When I called to tell the lab about the crazing they actually asked me if I cleaned the lenses properly? Long story short I am sticking with the crizal alize, i have not had one problem with it and my patientts love how easy it is to clean:bbg:

[Chris Ryser]

Secondly, the new generation of "super slick" top coatings -- with enhanced hydrophobic, oleophobic, and durability properties -- has not been around since 1987; these coatings have been around for only around 5 years.

Darryl, this time again, you are dead wrong........................

My company developed, manufactured and advertised and showed it since the OLA exhibition in 1988-89. The original lab that started to test and use it at that time was I-Coat then in California.

Among other major corporations..............Your own employer, SOLA has been a steady customer for this product for over 12 years in many countries, but mainly in the USA.


The product has also been sold by PSI (Practical Systems Inc) under the product name "Easy Clean" since 1993


What all these companies do or did with the product I could not tell..........but I assume they did not drink it at cocktail hour.

Conclusion:

All these new top coats are rehashes of an idea I realized in the mid eighties and shows that the almighty corporations are not better than other copy cats with the exception that they got immense advertising budgets to drown everybody else around them.

Further more, none of you guy's (major optical corporations) does have a version of slick coats that provides ANTI-FOG properties besides all the other goodies heavily advertised. We offer that addition since 1991.

:finger:

[Darryl Meister]

I think you are confusing old generation technology with today's super-slick top coatings, although I was very careful to distinguish between the two in my post. I am aware of only two suppliers for the principal ingredients of these next generation top coatings, and neither of them is your company. Further, I don't know of any products on the market before 2001 (2003 in the US) that employed these top coatings, from SOLA, Zeiss, or anyone else, though several manufacturers now offer them as at least options. But you are right about one thing: We don't make any claims about anti-fog properties.

[Chris Ryser]

Further, I don't know of any products on the market before 2000 (2003 in the US) that employed these top coatings, though several manufacturers now offer them as at least options. But you are right about one thing: We don't make any claims about anti-fog properties[/b].

You dont know................but your company has been using it for many years, therefore they must have known about other suppliers. I guess in big outfits one arm does not know what the other arm is doing.

Now we just have to wait and see when one of you big guy's come up with anti-fog included and claims it to be the newest technology.................

............as you belittle the rest as old technology that give you the same results as your so called newest inventions, that are nothing else than something that has been on the market for nearly 20 years. But you did not know.

[Pete Hanlin]

I would concur with Darryl's input regarding hydrophobic coatings- the substance used to create the current levels of hydrophobicity are only available from one or two sources.

It seems to me there is a way to substantiate your claims that Crystal Clear Guard(tm) is able to impart hydrophobic/oleophobic properties- and will be just as durable- as the integrated coatings produced by manufacturers like Zeiss/SOLA and Essilor...

Simply order some AR treated lenses from a laboratory that has their own in-lab coating system (which will probably use a spin-coat, UV cure process for the hardcoat), and apply Crystal Clear Guard(tm). Then, order some Zeiss Carat Advantage lenses and some Crizal Alize with Clear Guard lenses and send the whole lot off to COLTS Laboratories down in Clearwater, FL for the range of tests- durability, contact angle, cleanability, etc.

I already know how Crizal products, Zeiss Carat Advantage, Teflon, Hoya Super Hi-Vision, etc. perform on these tests, and if you can beat that performance level, you may just have something there! If the results produced by Crystal Clear Guard(tm) do not produce similar or superior results, perhaps you might stop insisting on every AR related post that your product produces similar qualitative results to the integrated HC/AR/Top Coats of Zeiss/SOLA & Essilor...

Having seen the performance of numerous other coatings which employ a non-integrated process, I can rather confidently say that- unless the AR is founded upon a dip-coated/thermally-cured HC (with an appropriate primer layer to ensure adhesion to all lens materials), the basic durability of the product is going to be suspect. Therefore, for an AR with truly superior performance, one is limited to the integrated coatings provided by Essilor, Zeiss/SOLA, and Hoya.

[Darryl Meister]

You dont know

Yes, I do know. And I'm surprised that you feel as though you know more about our company's technology than I do -- especially when you obviously haven't been paying very close attention to these developments. However, I could have our thin films engineer tell you herself, if it would make you feel any better.

Secondly, the suppliers for the primary ingredients of these super-slick coatings aren't lens manufacturers.

[Ory]

Secondly, the suppliers for the primary ingredients of these super-slick coatings aren't lens manufacturers.

Admit it. These "super slick ingredients" are just banana peels rubbed all over the lens! :D

[Pete Hanlin]

Admit it. These "super slick ingredients" are just banana peels rubbed all over the lens!
Ah yes, but knowing how MANY bananas (and at what ripeness and ambient temperature) is the secret!
:p

Actually, as long as the bananas had dissymetric molecules arranged so the silicon dioxide end stuck to the lens and the flourinated ends faced away from the lens, I suppose you could transfer this layer of the stack with bananas! Of course deposition in a vacuum chamber seems to work pretty well, so...
;)

[Darryl Meister]

Actually, as long as the bananas had dissymetric molecules arranged so the silicon dioxide end stuck to the lens and the flourinated ends faced away from the lens, I suppose you could transfer this layer of the stack with bananas!

We had to use a different fruit entirely at Carl Zeiss Vision. Chris had already developed in-office Banana technology. ;)

[Chris Ryser]

Secondly, the suppliers for the primary ingredients of these super-slick coatings aren't lens manufacturers.

That is nothing new.......like many items used in the optical business that have been in use elsewere for years before they made into the optical.

Therefore, for an AR with truly superior performance, one is limited to the integrated coatings provided by Essilor, Zeiss/SOLA, and Hoya.

Now I see you guy's ganging up, smoking the peace pipe and holding hands....................instead of saying that each ones product is better than the other ones as usual, ...................they are suddenly the same.

I do understand that you dont like, that an optician should apply the slick coat himself even if it has besides all features your products provide, it also contains anti-fogging properties which you can not offer.

........................

Furthermore an optician or optical lab will have NO slippage and spoilage when grinding the lenses. This is due to, mounting into the frame.that a non slick coated lens is put through the bevel edger and the lenses are coated just before inserting them into the frame.

This would provide for a sizable saving to be able to process the lenses the normal way without spoiled ones.

Then the optician can purchase the product for the price you three mentioned companies charge for 3 pairs of added slick coats. This would amount to a tremendous savings when you can coat 175 pairs with the contents of a bottle.

This looks like a repeat of the happenings when UV treatments were done in the optical store and optical lab at great savings versus buying UV absorbing lenses at a very inflated price. Of course the lens manufacturers like above 3 mentioned ones would like, or want to control the market right to the end.

[Ory]

We had to use a different fruit entirely at Carl Zeiss Vision. Chris had already developed in-office Banana technology. ;)

I wonder if Hoya is resorting to vegetables.

[Darryl Meister]

Now I see you guy's ganging up, smoking the peace pipe and holding hands....................instead of saying that each ones product is better than the other ones as usual, ...................they are suddenly the same.

First of all, Pete and I have been friends for quite some time, so there is no need for a peace pipe. Secondly, both of our companies do in fact supply high performance, integrated coating systems -- both of which you routinely criticize. (And I invite you to find a thread where one of us did the same with your products.) Lastly, I have never known Pete to sabatoge a thread by promoting his own product over the product in question, so I certainly wouldn't expect him to start touting the superiority of Crizal Alize in thread asking about Teflon and Carat Advantage.

I do understand that you dont like, that an optician should apply the slick coat himself even if it has besides all features your products provide, it also contains anti-fogging properties which you can not offer.

Chris, I cannot speak to the merits of your product in particular because, frankly, we have never had it tested. However, it has been my experience that in-office applied coatings generally offer only minimal performance and very poor long-term durability (that is, in-office applied coatings often erode away from the surface quite rapidly after being exposed to rubbing, cleaning agents, or weathering). Consequently, any marginal advantages you think these products offer may not last long anyway.

That said, I invite you to 1) Send your product off to an independent testing laboratory, such as COLTS, 2) Have your product tested for cleanability, scratch resistance, reflectance, outdoor weathering, and long-term durability; COLTS can do all of these for you, and 3) Report back with the results. Otherwise, you're just making unsubstantiated claims.

This looks like a repeat of the happenings when UV treatments were done in the optical store and optical lab at great savings versus buying UV absorbing lenses at a very inflated price. Of course the lens manufacturers like above 3 mentioned ones would like, or want to control the market right to the end.

First of all, manufacturers don't charge extra for UV absorbing their standard plastic, high-index, and polycarbonate lenses and, as far as I know, never have. Even standard hard resin plastic from most manufacturers comes with significant levels of inherent UV absorption (100% UVB and up to 91% or more UVA). Secondly, applying UV treatments in-office can often compromise the integrity of the lens coating and/or lens surface (e.g., "orange peel"), contribute to AR failure, discolor the lens material, etcetera.

[Chris Ryser]

Chris, I cannot speak to the merits of your product in particular because, frankly, we have never had it tested.

Darryl.........your company only used and applied it for the last 13 years

:D :D

[Pete Hanlin]

Chris,

You seem to avoid the suggestion that you submit lenses for objective testing. If your product truly produces hydrophobic properties similar to that produced by vacuum deposition, I could think of no better marketing tool than some objective verification of your claims.

The problem you are going to have regarding durability is the nature of the hard coat that is underneath the AR you are treating. Spun coated/UV cured coatings vary in quality from batch to batch and are simply not as durable as the dip coated/thermal cured coatings used by the three manufacturers mentioned earlier in this thread.

Its nothing personal. However, considering Essilor and other manufacturers have invested millions of dollars in equipment and R&D, repeated claims that a product sold in a bottle will produce similar results are naturally going to illicit a "well, show me" response.

[Chris Ryser]

........................ nature of the hard coat that is underneath the AR you are treating. Spun coated/UV cured coatings vary in quality from batch to batch and are simply not as durable as the dip coated/thermal cured coatings used by the three manufacturers mentioned earlier in this thread.

I am fully aware of this part and there is no contest. We have been talking about the slick top coat, which has nothing to do with whats underneath. The subject is the slick top coat of whatever name is given.

Its nothing personal. However, considering Essilor and other manufacturers have invested millions of dollars in equipment and R&D, repeated claims that a product sold in a bottle will produce similar results are naturally going to illicit a "well, show me" response.

Same answer as to Darryl...................also Essilor has used the stuff for years.

Therfore your millions of dollar R&D department must have found it passable for use in your production.

Actually I can also supply excellent Hydrophobic pills as well as concentrates to evaporate slick coats in vacuum chamber in the same range as you are presently using.

This said, I dont think I am behind times, I got all the goodies to make what you have and promote, to make your hight tech coatings.

Of course an independent retailer would not be able to get into vacuum coating and use the sophisticated process you are using, but would be willing to work with a product that was good enough to be used by yours and Darryls corporation for many years.

[Darryl Meister]

I am fully aware of this part and there is no contest. We have been talking about the slick top coat, which has nothing to do with whats underneath. The subject is the slick top coat of whatever name is given.

Chris, you have been talking about a slick top coating. The original poster was asking about Teflon and Carat Advantage, which are not top coatings.

[Chris Ryser]

Chris, you have been talking about a slick top coating. The original poster was asking about Teflon and Carat Advantage, which are not top coatings.

Darryl................ you are right it is. So will all got exited for the wrong reason and better get back to the theme of the thread.