AR coating a 4 to 5.9% improvement in light transmission ...............

[Chris Ryser]

Our OptiBoard member Dr.Bill Stacy sent me 12 lenses to measure in our CECIL spectrophotmeter.

When you look at the first scan there is a difference of 4 to 6% light transmission, between an AR coated or a uncoated lens.

You can check the whole series on my website at:

http://optochemicals.com/spectrotest.htm


Any comments ............ !

[ml43]

Chris, looks like your spectrophotometer needs a tune up.

Do you get the same 580nm dip with no substrate?

other than that the graphs look good.

I hope to do some laser testing later this year with various coatings/materials.

[Chris Ryser]

Chris, looks like your spectrophotometer needs a tune up.

Do you get the same 580nm dip with no substrate?

other than that the graphs look good.

I hope to do some laser testing later this year with various coatings/materials.

Thanks for letting me know, I did not even see that it was on every scan.
Neither did the person that is doing them. I will call the service guy for our area.

[MikeAurelius]

Did you do a 'no sample' calibration run before running the tests? If not, that might have eliminated the "notch". It's probably a grating shift.

[Chris Ryser]

Did you do a 'no sample' calibration run before running the tests? If not, that might have eliminated the "notch". It's probably a grating shift.

I have not touched the spectro in a few month. One the employees checks every batch of dyes we make. I was not aware of the notch but I am now.
I will make a dry run on Monday.

[Dr. Bill Stacy]

Thanks for doing that. On first glance through, I think I may have mislabled that Recharge sample due to the obvious transmission below 400 for it where all the other trivexes are pretty much opaque to anything below 400 nm, while the unknown material Prevencia sample looks to me like it must be Trivex.

Those notches don't bother me, there's also a little one at about 420 nm. No big deal.

I'll have more time to study these while I'm at Vision Expo, but it's pretty strong evidence that Trivex is WAY better than Poly which is WAY better than CR-39 in the UV protection area. We knew that of course, but the 100% claims for poly are patently false, unless there's Transitions or other additives to the mix, right?

[Chris Ryser]

I'll have more time to study these while I'm at Vision Expo, but it's pretty strong evidence that Trivex is WAY better than Poly which is WAY better than CR-39 in the UV protection area. We knew that of course, but the 100% claims for poly are patently false, unless there's Transitions or other additives to the mix, right?

We made a UV solution where you could get the UV protection up to 400nm in a few minutes already in 1994 while most labs used UV solutions that stopped at 380 like Poly does. Also ANSI is wrong to say that UV has to absorb up to 350nm.

The raw material manufacturers use UV absorbers that stop at 380 because the resulting clear material would be slightly yellowish.