AR Specs, just the facts!

[HarryChiling]

Ok, seems to be a lot of talk about who's AR is the best and what can this AR do compared to that AR. Being your typical alpha male I challenge you to whip it out, lets see you data:

Contact Angle?
Bayer Test?
Anti-Static Test?
AR Cleaner Soak Test?
AR Craze / Heal Test?
Boilig Salt Water - AR Test?
Crosshatch Adhesion?
Enviornmental Durability - QUV Accelerated Weathering Test?
Lifetime Properties?
Salt Water Soak?
Steel Wool Abraison?

And any other relevent data obtained through testing that would help opticians quantify the true merits of a coating, some of this data was posted on other threads and on every ad I see a *data available by request at the bttom of the ads so consider this a request.

[HarryChiling]

Teflon
bayer - 6
reflectance - less than 0.7

Hoya Super Hivision
bayer - 10.9
reflectance - less than 0.5
contact angle - greater than 110

Crizal Avance Scothguard
contact angle - 116
lifetime properties - hydro still performs after 20,000 cleanings

Stainless
bayer - 7
contact angle - 113

[HarryChiling]

No information? Anyone?

[For-Life]

Crizal Alize has a reflection of 0.8 percent and Crizal D Alize has a reflection of 0.4 percent. I think the bayer for both is 5.

[jameselex]

I guess this is the data manufactures don't want to advertise, if not hiding from us. samething on pregressive lenses, they never, or may even hate a orange to orange comparison of PALs. Sorry I don't have any data because usaually I am into this kind of stuff, we only have a very few a/r to choose from here in west Canada, so we judge then by our experience.

[Chris Ryser]

No information? Anyone?

Harry...........................you just made a beautiful presentation, but you do need some political correction.

Every 2-3 years people change their glasses if they are not being ripped off. We should be a bit reasonable, all these test results are good for the manufacturer to Th better or Th worse in one or the other test's.

Furthermore most of the retailers dint' even have a notion what they mean and make their own interpretation. If one brand has a Th harder coating we sell it for another $ 30.00 - 50.00 more.

Then most of the manufactures give a 1 to 200 years of warranty.............who then even cares about all these test's.

AR coating suppliers use all the same basic materials to vacuum coat a lens. Similar to car tires, one product is good for 25,000 miles and the other for 50,000, but they are made from the same materials but the price is different however the advertising makes all justifications.

Obviously brainwashing by the large corporations will take advantage of these tiny details of which the consumer has not the faintest notion.
If he gets into a situation where the lenses will scratch or craze non of those test results will help.

A optician showed me once how a steel wool test would prove that my scratch resistant lenses were no good at a Vision Expo a few years back. He pulled a bundle of steel wool out of his pocket and made one of my lenses opaque..............and said, never as good as my own hard coated lenses.
I offered him to apply the same test to the glasses on his nose........and he hastily departed.

It is good to know for a manufacturer how good you are, but is it really that important on a pair of lenses that will have usefully life span of max 2-3 years before replacement?

Where is the selling of AR coatings going in the next while during an economic low anyhow ?

[HarryChiling]

Harry...........................you just made a beautiful presentation, but you do need some political correction.

Every 2-3 years people change their glasses if they are not being ripped off. We should be a bit reasonable, all these test results are good for the manufacturer to Th better or Th worse in one or the other test's.

Furthermore most of the retailers dint' even have a notion what they mean and make their own interpretation. If one brand has a Th harder coating we sell it for another $ 30.00 - 50.00 more.

Then most of the manufactures give a 1 to 200 years of warranty.............who then even cares about all these test's.

AR coating suppliers use all the same basic materials to vacuum coat a lens. Similar to car tires, one product is good for 25,000 miles and the other for 50,000, but they are made from the same materials but the price is different however the advertising makes all justifications.

Obviously brainwashing by the large corporations will take advantage of these tiny details of which the consumer has not the faintest notion.
If he gets into a situation where the lenses will scratch or craze non of those test results will help.

A optician showed me once how a steel wool test would prove that my scratch resistant lenses were no good at a Vision Expo a few years back. He pulled a bundle of steel wool out of his pocket and made one of my lenses opaque..............and said, never as good as my own hard coated lenses.
I offered him to apply the same test to the glasses on his nose........and he hastily departed.

It is good to know for a manufacturer how good you are, but is it really that important on a pair of lenses that will have usefully life span of max 2-3 years before replacement?

Where is the selling of AR coatings going in the next while during an economic low anyhow ?

Chris,

Data is data, I would rather see the numbers on some of these coatings with these fantastic claims. I totally understand that the lifeof pair of specs is 2 years, but that has nothing to do with the data that justifies some of the claims being made. Their was a 4 page thread on how fantastic one particular coating is yet no data, it's all just hot air IMO. All the advertised data that you see in the magazines have little asterisks at the bottom that say "data on file", well I am requesting that data. I figured I wouldask optiboarders to post what they do know and maybe we can create a resource for this information instead of just going back and forth about which coatins are best and which ones are not.

[chip anderson]

Chris:
What the public and what I want is AR coating that doesn't scratch, get dirty easy, or deteriorate over time. It helps if it doesn't cost a fortune too.
If I get this, if my customers get this I don't give a d*** if it has no warranty at all. Same with frames, if they hold up it's better than any warranty you could get.
Example: With children's frames, if the dam* thing breaks five times a year, the customer may be back for free replacements while the warranty is still in effect but you can bet they are going somewhere else in hope of getting better product when the warranty runs out or the Rx is changed. This being the case no matter how nice you were to them. They are also going to tell thier friends, "I got Johnnie's glasses there but they kept breaking every few months."

Chip

[DragonLensmanWV]

Chris,

Data is data, I would rather see the numbers on some of these coatings with these fantastic claims. I totally understand that the lifeof pair of specs is 2 years, but that has nothing to do with the data that justifies some of the claims being made. Their was a 4 page thread on how fantastic one particular coating is yet no data, it's all just hot air IMO. All the advertised data that you see in the magazines have little asterisks at the bottom that say "data on file", well I am requesting that data. I figured I wouldask optiboarders to post what they do know and maybe we can create a resource for this information instead of just going back and forth about which coatins are best and which ones are not.

Oh, geez, come on Harry! That's entirely too logical.:D
Fortunately we're not them.
And I smell an article in the making.
It's time for massive comparison!:cheers::cheers:

[HarryChiling]

Oh, geez, come on Harry! That's entirely too logical.:D
Fortunately we're not them.
And I smell an article in the making.
It's time for massive comparison!:cheers::cheers:

Sounds good to me.

[DragonLensmanWV]

Teflon
bayer - 6
reflectance - less than 0.7

Hoya Super Hivision
bayer - 10.9
reflectance - less than 0.5
contact angle - greater than 110

Crizal Avance Scothguard
contact angle - 116
lifetime properties - hydro still performs after 20,000 cleanings

Stainless
bayer - 7
contact angle - 113

I've been googling around and it seems that this sort of info is just not too readily available from the manufacturers.

[gemstone]

I've been googling around and it seems that this sort of info is just not too readily available from the manufacturers.

I think Harry should submit a questionare form to all the coaters and publish his findings here.

[Cherry Optical]

Their was a 4 page thread on how fantastic one particular coating is yet no data, it's all just hot air IMO.

Does it really burn you that bad that Essilor is now providing their best coating to date in the US market?

Adam

[rbaker]

In order for any testing to have value the metrics must be:

• Provided by a single independent lab.
• Be performed under precisely the same parameters.
• Be performed on a truly random sample of lenses.
  

I don't think that there is any way that all of the coating vendors would cooperate with such a test. That being the case, some independent body, be it a school, trade organization or trade magazine would have to pony up the cost, which I am sure would be substantial. There is no chance of that happening so I guess you guys will just have to use your wallets and customer acceptance to guide you through the coatings maze. Isn't that the procedure with just about all of the products that you use?
.

[AWTECH]

In order for any testing to have value the metrics must be:

• Provided by a single independent lab.
• Be performed under precisely the same parameters.
• Be performed on a truly random sample of lenses.

I don't think that there is any way that all of the coating vendors would cooperate with such a test. That being the case, some independent body, be it a school, trade organization or trade magazine would have to pony up the cost, which I am sure would be substantial. There is no chance of that happening so I guess you guys will just have to use your wallets and customer acceptance to guide you through the coatings maze. Isn't that the procedure with just about all of the products that you use?
.

Dick; Well said, I think what many who ask for such data fail to understand is there is a downside for providing this. You are just arming a competitor; who can take one aspect out of context and prove with there own test how much better there product is.

Also worth noting is that often a product is improved without any notice. If in the case of a hydrophobic one company may make a big marketing deal out of a 2 percent increase in contact angle while another manufacturers R&D department gets a 3 degree increase and just starts producing the product this way.

The costs of a true independant test, which is what Harry is looking for, would be quite substantial, and I would guess less than 1% of the opticians would even read the results.

I saw a very good presentation on the web recently regarding a subject many on Optiboard have requested information about. The webinar only generated about 100 participants, and one of the sponsors was Lenscrafters. There logic I am sure was to expose there opticians to the truth about the subject. (last time I checked there were a few more than 100 opticians at all of the Lenscrafters).

Actually the information about quality AR was much more important over 5 years ago when there were so many poor AR processes being used.

[Chris Ryser]

Actually the information about quality AR was much more important over 5 years ago when there were so many poor AR processes being used.

The last 2 post's should just about sum it uo...........................

[For-Life]

Actually the information about quality AR was much more important over 5 years ago when there were so many poor AR processes being used.

Still are today. You should see what comes through the door from those people using the so called "exact same coating for a cheaper price." I wish that was never ignored. Unfortunately, on this board, quality seems to be something we are ashamed of.

[thep]

As a Zeiss coating lab, we send samples to Zeiss(now Carl Zeizz Vision) on a weekly basis for testing. FYI:p

[HarryChiling]

I am not asking for independent testing I am asking the manufacturers of these coatings that use this erroneous data in their ads to pony that data up. Sure it may be skewed, but they use this data to market their product so it should be a no brainer. The information I posted above was claims made by the manufacturers abut their prodcuts and you can easily see which vriable are better than others and it is left to the optician to decide if that variable is important or not.

Why is it so difficult to provide the data that was used to come up with this bogus marketing material. I am not asking for much and it should be provided and the answer that ptician should just use blind judgement is a poor excuse for keeping opticians in the dark about products that they tout to b the best. If your company makes any claim that you are better than or the best, in mmy mmind you better have the balls to prove it. If ou say your coating is the slickest I know that it may not be the mst scratch resistant or the most durable, that's not the claim you are making. I want to compare and so far in just about everything a manufacturer in our industry produces the answer seems to be "shut up and sell it". This is taking advantage of the lack of knowledge that most opticians seem to display and is disgusting to me.

I saw a very good presentation on the web recently regarding a subject many on Optiboard have requested information about. The webinar only generated about 100 participants, and one of the sponsors was Lenscrafters.

So you saw something that you think would have been of interest to many on this board and you kept that to yourself, and now you feel that since not many opticians viewed this information we must ll be idiots right? With exception to a few manufacturers almost all of their reps come into our office and all the ones I have worked at and spoon feed me the same old tired line, "We want to be your partner". Let me ask you who here would trust a partner that keeps information from them? How many would want their partner making all the decisions for them? Allen why don't you share these resources if you think that they may be of interest to the community. You feel confident in using your selfishness as an example of how opticians don't want information, typical response.

[chip anderson]

Who cares how a new lens tests? It's how it holds up in patient use over a period of time that counts. Reguardless of "simulated tests" we have seen far too many products that appearently did well in these tests. Only to have them be disasters in the field.

Chip

[AWTECH]

HarryChiling said:

So you saw something that you think would have been of interest to many on this board and you kept that to yourself, and now you feel that since not many opticians viewed this information we must ll be idiots right?

Not exactly; I was reminded by someone that works with me about it 5 min. before it started. I am sure many received the e-mail blast from Vision Care Product news about this. I think they claim they have over 30,000 e-mail address.

Harry Chilling said:

You feel confident in using your selfishness as an example of how opticians don't want information, typical response.

There are only two reasons I keep information from members on the board. Either the lack of time to get the information together to pass it along or I feel the information should be keep within my company due to competitive reasons.

[HarryChiling]

HarryChiling said:

Not exactly; I was reminded by someone that works with me about it 5 min. before it started. I am sure many received the e-mail blast from Vision Care Product news about this. I think they claim they have over 30,000 e-mail address.

Harry Chilling said:

There are only two reasons I keep information from members on the board. Either the lack of time to get the information together to pass it along or I feel the information should be keep within my company due to competitive reasons.

After you mentioned it I looked around and did find that vision care product news has a webinar series that they do pretty often, taht's good info to share. I don't fault you for not sharing proprietary information, and as far as I knw you don't make outrageous claims abotu your AR or your lenses for that matter. When you do I would expect you to answer with data or don't make these ridiculous claims about your product.

Chip,

I know liek everyone else that real world and simulations have nothign to do with one another and can be totally different, but these claims that are made abotu products are supposedly based on data, yet the data can't be shared, I would rater they keep the bull to themselves if they are not confident in sharing the data for others to look at. Anyone that has takena statistics class can tell you that the interpretation of the data can give you varying results and are the tests picked before the data is collected or are the specific tests picked afet the data has been collected? I would guarentee you that every manufacturer will run every test available on their lenses and then the marketing department is going to pick and chose which test they want to focus their efforst on and ignore the not so hot tests. What is one lens was more 10x more scratch resistent than another, yet 10x harder to clean. Which lens would you offer if the patient was upset that their last pair was always dirty? Which would you offer if the patient was upset that their lenses scratched easily?

I thought more people other than myself would find this informaiton usefull, but it seems the same responses get regurgitated, you don't need it. Well I think I might compile the data and keep it to myself, that would give me a competitive edge over my competition.

[Jubilee]

I will look for my Hoya materials. Their ad for Super HiVision, gave the bayer ratings at least for all the major players in the market. I will try to post that at lunch or tonight after work.

[Judy Canty]

www.visionetic.com has posted some of the information on their coatings. I used to have info on Polycore's stuff, but that went back to Reno. You might call and ask them.

[Jubilee]

Here is the information I have provided by Hoya:

Scratch Resistance (Bayer ratings)

Hoya SuperHI 10.9
Sola Teflon 6.0
HiVision with View protect 5.0
Alize 5.0
Zeiss Carat 5.0
standard ar 2.2

The rep had told me at the time that the testing was done through Colts Labs. Whether that was true or not.. who knows.

She had also told me that ARxHP which is Interstate's in house was around 7-8...

Sorry I do not have contact angle information.