Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 38 of 38

Thread: CR-39 vs 1.6 weight in very low powers?

  1. #26
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    579
    Quote Originally Posted by drk View Post
    Yeah, but how much are we talking?

    One gram = one paperclip. Balance a paperclip on the front of your glasses and tell me how your nose hurts.


    Dang it, I almost poked my eye out!
    I'll be the nit picker. I have a triple beam balance scale...very, very accurate. One regular size paperclip weighs 1/2 gram. A little more if there are any eyelashes attached.

  2. #27
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    usa
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    455
    Sounds like optiboard has turned into a Monty Python sketch.


  3. #28
    OptiBoard Apprentice
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Belgium
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    49
    What is the minimum center/edge thickness for full rim frames? If it's 2mm, then 1.6 lenses in plano or low plus powers would probably not be any lighter. I have a pair with round 1.6 lenses (+0.25) which should weigh no more than 4 grams each according to the Spectacle Optics program, but they actually weigh 5 grams each. Seems pretty pointless then. If only I could order Trivex...
    Last edited by Airegin; 06-18-2020 at 07:59 PM.

  4. #29
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Maryland
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    2,068
    Quote Originally Posted by drk View Post
    Yeah, but how much are we talking?

    One gram = one paperclip. Balance a paperclip on the front of your glasses and tell me how your nose hurts.


    Dang it, I almost poked my eye out!
    Ever had a patient bring their own scale and weigh glasses on it as they are trying them on? I have.

    I wanted to smash that scale after about 20 minutes.

  5. #30
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    PA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,210
    Quote Originally Posted by Tallboy View Post
    Ever had a patient bring their own scale and weigh glasses on it as they are trying them on? I have.

    I wanted to smash that scale after about 20 minutes.
    Sick Really Sick. You can't make this stuff up! We definitely need a psych degree to do this job! I have a minor in psych... that's not enough.

  6. #31
    Master OptiBoarder lensgrinder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    483
    I had created a sample page to show the differences in weight, thickness and chromatic aberrations a while back.
    I titled it The War between Optics and Cosmetics, after Barry wrote his article in 20/20
    It breaks everything down in charts.
    You can view it here.

    https://www.mccardle.me/analysis/

  7. #32
    OptiBoard Apprentice
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Northampton UK
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    10
    Interesting thread.
    I have thought that it's time the optical industry move on and dropped Cr39 and use 1.6 as the standard lens material. Uncoated it is not too reflective if no MAR is issued.
    It would, however, need top down cost revisions from manufacturers through to labs to get the cost similar to CR39.

  8. #33
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    usa
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    455
    Quote Originally Posted by goonybird View Post
    Interesting thread.
    I have thought that it's time the optical industry move on and dropped Cr39 and use 1.6 as the standard lens material. Uncoated it is not too reflective if no MAR is issued.
    It would, however, need top down cost revisions from manufacturers through to labs to get the cost similar to CR39.
    Let's get rid of a great, inexpensive material that is suitable for many patients? What on earth for?

  9. #34
    What's up? drk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    7,881
    Brent, nice!

  10. #35
    What's up? drk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    7,881
    Quote Originally Posted by Don Gilman View Post
    I'll be the nit picker. I have a triple beam balance scale...very, very accurate. One regular size paperclip weighs 1/2 gram. A little more if there are any eyelashes attached.
    https://www.google.com/search?q=weig...hrome&ie=UTF-8

    Liar! Heretic! Psycho-killer of truth!

  11. #36
    OptiBoard Apprentice
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Northampton UK
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Kwill212 View Post
    Let's get rid of a great, inexpensive material that is suitable for many patients? What on earth for?
    UV Absorption, Toughness, Thinner on higher Rx's need I go on. Days of CR39 are numbered.

    This a old style landline telephone compared to latest iphone

  12. #37
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    usa
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    455
    Quote Originally Posted by goonybird View Post
    UV Absorption, Toughness, Thinner on higher Rx's need I go on. Days of CR39 are numbered.


    Yes, you do need to go on. You seem to be implying that I said 1.60 was no good and we shouldn't use it. I obviously didn't. You compared 1.60 to CR39. I asked why would we get rid of a great, inexpensive material that is suitable for many patients?

    Quote Originally Posted by goonybird View Post
    This a old style landline telephone compared to latest iphone
    Not even close to a comparison that makes sense.

  13. #38
    OptiBoard Apprentice
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Belgium
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by goonybird View Post
    UV Absorption, Toughness, Thinner on higher Rx's need I go on. Days of CR39 are numbered.

    This a old style landline telephone compared to latest iphone
    CR-39 remains better with no AR. Then again I don't see why AR and scratch resistance shouldn't be standard either. How much more does AR add to manufacturing cost anyway?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-06-2012, 01:58 PM
  2. Winter Weight!
    By obxeyeguy in forum Just Conversation
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-30-2009, 07:19 PM
  3. Nikon lensometer sale low low price
    By kpoptics in forum Optical Marketplace
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-07-2004, 06:40 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
OptiBoard is proudly sponsored by:
Younger Optics and Vision Equipment