Leybold CCS or Satis SP200? / AR coating system

[Alan_Roe]

Hi all,

I am interested in the difference between the Leybold CCS and the Satis SP200.

From all I know, the Satis machine is a sputtering machine and by that you are restricted in your use of materials, taking away some flexibility, right?
The Leybold CCS uses an e-beam evaporation source and you can even have a super-hydrophobic layer on top of your AR coating, correct?

I am asking because I am trying to help someone finding a good vacuum coater for his lab.

Thanks!

Best regards
Alan

[Jacqui]

You might also want to check the new Coburn units and those from Optovision.

[Mauro.Airoldi]

I have a good experience of both machines, the company where I work now have CCSII and Boxer machinery, both manufactured by Leybold, and the SP200 Satisloh I've tested during the beginnings of its production (as process engineer in Satis).
The two machines have two different philosophies of deposition, CCS II use PVD deposition, SP200 is a sputtering system.PVD Physical vapor deposition consists in 'evaporation (under vacuum) and oxides of various metals by heating of these channeled through a beam of electrons. He is currently the reference system for almost all manufacturers of AR.
Sputtering consists in the bombing of the material to be evaporated with high-energy ions (Argon), the material is evaporated and recondenses on the lenses. The system is still little used in optics because of the costs and low productivity of existing plants.
The first system (CCS)is more flexible, in the future you can change evaporation materials and so you can change the process. You can evaporate AR + water-repellent layer
The second system use only one material, Silicon, that is combined with Oxygen to give SiO2 (for low index layers)or with Nitrogen to give you Si3N4 (for high index layers). You can’t produce water repellent layer in the plant
It is a simply plant but NOT flexible. It is a advantage if you have not experience in AR technology .
In any case you have to verify the plant capability, CCSII give more than the double lenses/hours in front of SP200.
The right comparison must be between CCSII and 380 Satisloh.
Conclusions? I like SP200 and I like Satisloh but I have a lot of lenses to produce with the best technology , I have CCSII and Boxer …

[Tito]

Check out the Optotech AR coating machines (PVD +Ion assisted) courrently sold through Coburn Tech They are very reliable equipment

[Tito]

Check out the Optotech AR coating machines (PVD +Ion assisted) courrently sold through Coburn Tech They are very reliable equipment

[sharpstick777]

You may want to consider which AR's you wish to produce, and contact those companies for the best machines designed for their process. They usually will give you a recommendation based on the testing they have done themselves.

What machine you choose will limit the AR's you can make.

[Tito]

I fully agree it is good to compare different AR processes,mirror coatings on different equipments before deciding

[sharpstick777]

I have a good experience of both machines, the company where I work now have CCSII and Boxer machinery, both manufactured by Leybold, and the SP200 Satisloh I've tested during the beginnings of its production (as process engineer in Satis).
The two machines have two different philosophies of deposition, CCS II use PVD deposition, SP200 is a sputtering system.PVD Physical vapor deposition consists in 'evaporation (under vacuum) and oxides of various metals by heating of these channeled through a beam of electrons. He is currently the reference system for almost all manufacturers of AR.
Sputtering consists in the bombing of the material to be evaporated with high-energy ions (Argon), the material is evaporated and recondenses on the lenses. The system is still little used in optics because of the costs and low productivity of existing plants.
The first system (CCS)is more flexible, in the future you can change evaporation materials and so you can change the process. You can evaporate AR + water-repellent layer
The second system use only one material, Silicon, that is combined with Oxygen to give SiO2 (for low index layers)or with Nitrogen to give you Si3N4 (for high index layers). You can’t produce water repellent layer in the plant
It is a simply plant but NOT flexible. It is a advantage if you have not experience in AR technology .
In any case you have to verify the plant capability, CCSII give more than the double lenses/hours in front of SP200.
The right comparison must be between CCSII and 380 Satisloh. Conclusions? I like SP200 and I like Satisloh but I have a lot of lenses to produce with the best technology , I have CCSII and Boxer …

Great information, thanks.

[Alan_Roe]

double post

[Alan_Roe]

Hi all and thank you very much for your help and your valuable information.

I had the possibility to have closer look at the three machines you mentioned, and this is what I found out:

Satis SP200:
Advantages:
- Small footprint
- Highly productive

Disadvantages:
- Fairly high priced
- Sputtering
- No hydrophobic top coats possible
- Essilor says that no Crizal-like coatings are possible
- Many customers tried to give this machine back to Satis, but they didn't take it back
- Not flexible
- They don't tell you, which materials you have to use for your processes (they have strange codes for their materials, which you have to buy from them)

Leybold CCS:
Advantages:
- Highly experienced company
- Highly flexible machine
- Wide variety of optional equipment
- Small footprint
- AR + hydrophobic/super-hydrophobic coatings possible

Disadvantages:
- Unfriendly sales people (they don't want to get small customers??)
- Difficult to get into the chamber
- Expensive consumables (coating materials)
- Expensive
- Plant in China

OptoTech OAC-25:
- Service is very fast
- Smallest footprint
- Lowest price of machine and consumables
- AR + super-hydrophobic coatings
- Gradient mirrors possible (at least they told me)
- Easy to get into the chamber
- Easy-to-operate (nice touch-screen animation)
- Seems to be reliable (talked to two customers from them)
- Parts only from Germany and Italy

Disadvantages:
- Not as experienced as Leybold and Satis

I couldn't really find more disadvantages on the OptoTech system.
I think I will decide for this machine.

Thanks to all of you!

[Tito]

Hi Alan
I bought my first coating machine 10 years ago and had my second machine installed recently.I am happy with Optotech. Very reliable AR coating machine,good quality lenses,excelent Super hydrophobic,dielectric mirror coatings.

Good choice.

[bhess25]

the optotech machines are distributed by essilor correct?

[Tito]

Optotech is an independent company located in Wettenberg , Germany / www.optotech.de

[Alan_Roe]

the optotech machines are distributed by essilor correct?

Hi,

OptoTech is completely independend and a German company.
Satisloh belongs to Essilor. However, I got the impression Essilor is not very happy with Satisloh :)

[Chris Ryser]

Who can say that, coatings, custom and standard, have been tested to meet the stringent environmental and durability testing as specified by the following Military Specifications:

• Mil-M-13508C • Mil-PRF-13830B • Mil-C-14806A
• Mil-C-48497A • Mil-F-48616 • Mil-C-675C • ANSI/ISO 9211-3

for example why should ophthalmic lenses be excluded from official standards ?

Abstract ISO 9211-3

Identifies surface treatments of components and substrates excluding ophthalmic optics (spectacles) by the application of optical coatings and gives a standard form for their specification. Defines the general characteristics and the test and measurement methods whenever necessary, but is not intended to define the process method. This part specifies categories of use for optical coatings and identifies corresponding environmental tests.

Environmental tests for optical coatings

ANSI/ISO 9211-3

[PDF]
Link: ANSI/ISO 9211-3

[Alan_Roe]

Wouldn't this be very complicated?

There are several systems for quality inspections of ophthalmic lenses:

Artificial Weathering Test QUV (UV-50)
Quality Test of the Coating Through Accelerated Aging Under Treatment with Heat, Humidity and UV-Radiation

• Smart setup for a uniform and homogenous treatment of all test-glasses
• Easy-to-operate due to touch-screen

Bayer Test (BT-150)
Quality Test for the Measurement of the Abrasion Resistance Properties

• Cushioned against shaking through smart counter balancing plate
• Easy-to-operate due to touch-screen

( http://www.optotech.de/uk/coating/quality-inspection/ )

[braheem24]

the optotech machines are distributed by essilor correct?

Gerber Coburn

[Alan_Roe]

Gerber Coburn

That's actually not quite correct, they are selling their machines by themselves.
Coburn does only distribute the coating machines in the US, but together with OptoTech.

[bhess25]

Gerber Coburn

i was having a moron moment, thats what i meant to say. Sad part is i was looking at them on coburns website when i posted that.

[sharpstick777]

the optotech machines are distributed by essilor correct?

Coburn is now and independant company (again), and sells the Optotech under their own brand name, but with Coburn they have US based service.

[Georg Mayer]

Dear all,

this is a late reply, stumbled onto this only today, but i have to comment on some of the previous statements made here,
Quote start
I had the possibility to have closer look at the three machines you mentioned, and this is what I found out:

Satis SP200:
Advantages:
- Small footprint
- Highly productive

Disadvantages:
- Fairly high priced
- Sputtering
- No hydrophobic top coats possible
- Essilor says that no Crizal-like coatings are possible
- Many customers tried to give this machine back to Satis, but they didn't take it back
- Not flexible
- They don't tell you, which materials you have to use for your processes (they have strange codes for their materials, which you have to buy from them)

Leybold CCS:
Advantages:
- Highly experienced company
- Highly flexible machine
- Wide variety of optional equipment
- Small footprint
- AR + hydrophobic/super-hydrophobic coatings possible

Disadvantages:
- Unfriendly sales people (they don't want to get small customers??)
- Difficult to get into the chamber
- Expensive consumables (coating materials)
- Expensive
- Plant in China

OptoTech OAC-25:
- Service is very fast
- Smallest footprint
- Lowest price of machine and consumables
- AR + super-hydrophobic coatings
- Gradient mirrors possible (at least they told me)
- Easy to get into the chamber
- Easy-to-operate (nice touch-screen animation)
- Seems to be reliable (talked to two customers from them)
- Parts only from Germany and Italy

Disadvantages:
- Not as experienced as Leybold and Satis

I couldn't really find more disadvantages on the OptoTech system.
I think I will decide for this machine.

Unquote.

My comments to some of the above points are
- LO Plant in China - the boxer and CCS machines are 100% German built, the rumors "Made in China" are deliberatley spread in other markets.
The big type 1350 machines suitable built mostly for high volume mass production by LO in China are only for the chinese market.
- Consumables are expensive from all of the three suppliers as they will only guanrantee the process if these are used,
if you choose to switch to cheaper generic materials the process responsibility will be yours - your choice.
- the unfriendly sales staff might be a personal experience, that you should really point out to Leybold HQ
- reg. different price levels, you can expect that a company servicing 100eds of coaters around the world since decades
has a larger organisational structure than a newcomer to the AR business. However this larger manpower and experience
will come handy if you need extensive support. What I want to say is that as an "old hand" in coating you can take risks
as buying a lesser proven machine and generic materials, as newcomer to AR I would lean heaviliy onto the established AR players.

Georg Mayer

[Chris Ryser]

- Consumables are expensive from all of the three suppliers as they will only guanrantee the process if these are used,
if you choose to switch to cheaper generic materials the process responsibility will be yours - your choice.

This sounds and looks like opticians not wanting to service on-line purchased glasses against a fee. Invalidate a warranty on a eletcro mechanical
machine because you use SIO2 (silicone dioxide) and other basic products available at much better prices on an open market from another supplier is unfair competition

The machinery is an electro mechanical product, most of which are used in other industries than the optical. The consumables are all made in the far east and have been generic until those manufacturers have put their company stamp on them. This is unfair competition:

Any fraudulent, deceptive, or dishonest trade practice that is prohibited by statute, regulation, or the Common Law.

The law of unfair competition serves five purposes. First, the law seeks to protect the economic, intellectual, and creative investments made by businesses in distinguishing themselves and their products. Second, the law seeks to preserve the good will that businesses have established with consumers. Third, the law seeks to deter businesses from appropriating the good will of their competitors. Fourth, the law seeks to promote clarity and stability by encouraging consumers to rely on a merchant's good will and reputation when evaluating the quality of rival products. Fifth, the law seeks to increase competition by providing businesses with incentives to offer better goods and services than others in the same field.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...ir+Competition

Unfair competition used to be practised in the optical by the big old corporations until 1960s when they refused to sell new optical machinery to anybody who wted to open full service wholesale lab. It all ended when Coburn as a private business opened the market for all.

In this case of AR coating supplies there a other suppliers on the market which are boycotted through sales contracts on these machines that force the operaters to purchase the same supplies for a highly inflated prices at their own corporation owned suppliers.

[ASenior]

Let me ask a question since the consumable price question has been brought up here.
Substraight aside, cost of unit aside, labor and electric consumption aside....what does the actual AR coating (chemical/mineral) cost per PAIR lets say on a small run (knowing that the larger the run the less the cost)?

Does the average Optician know what it actually costs to put this on the lens that they just paid $??.??-$??.?? for? (we cant talk dollars and cents here on optiboard can we?)

More over, would Zeiss, Hoya and Essilor want the Optician to know how much it ACTUALLY cost?? Just saying.

[Chris Ryser]

More over, would Zeiss, Hoya and Essilor want the Optician to know how much it ACTUALLY cost?? Just saying.

Of course not.........................however you might get an idea when you look at the advertising cost for those products which have to produce the profit to pay for them.

[ASenior]

all the more reason to manufacture all that you can your self. You don't always have to be a part of paying for someone elses advertising $'s.
A/R is starting to become a conversation for some retailers who do a high volume of A/R, premium or not. And it's a penny's on the dollar conversation....Lord forbid it screw up their advertising budget.