Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 72 of 72

Thread: Crizal Rock

  1. #51
    OptiBoard Apprentice OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Ashland, OR
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    18
    It is very important to NOTE that Essilor has changed the way in which they are going to evaluate scratch resistance. They have traditionally relied upon Bayer Abrasion testing to quantify this. Now they have introduced their own "proprietary" method claiming that the Bayer test is conveniently outdated. I am not sure how they can assert these claims when they have changed the evaluation method. I have no doubt that the new stack and hard coating will produce a more scratch resistance product but shouldn't we all get a look at that data once it has been put through the same testing protocols as past recipes?

    It is important to also be aware that Essilor didn't change the superhydrophobic/oleophobic topcoat at all. They just swizzled some marketing words around to make it sound new and improved. It is the same material they have used for many years now. I can honestly attest that it has always outperformed just about every other available product on the market but there are several of us manufacturers that are using it in our comparable products.
    Last edited by Aceso Optics; 05-25-2021 at 08:54 PM.

  2. #52
    OptiBoard Professional
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    California
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    156
    Do you know anything about this new test. The abrasion agent (alundum) is no longer available for the Bayer test. Did they just introduce a new abrasion medium , if that is the case then the whole industry has to be on the same page or any comparisons are invalid.

  3. #53
    OptiBoard Apprentice OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Ashland, OR
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Lensman11 View Post
    Do you know anything about this new test. The abrasion agent (alundum) is no longer available for the Bayer test. Did they just introduce a new abrasion medium , if that is the case then the whole industry has to be on the same page or any comparisons are invalid.

    I do not know how they are evaluating it. I just know that they have made bold claims that Bayer is outdated. I was not aware that alundum is no longer available. We use Brown Aluminum Oxide in our test lab and it provides very stable results. Colts uses Kryptonite B and I know that there are companies that have stood by Alundum. Brown Aluminum Oxide is an abrasive medium that has provided consistent results to market expectations.

  4. #54
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Mitten State
    Occupation
    Ophthalmic Technician
    Posts
    708
    Quote Originally Posted by Lensman11 View Post
    Do you know anything about this new test. The abrasion agent (alundum) is no longer available for the Bayer test. Did they just introduce a new abrasion medium , if that is the case then the whole industry has to be on the same page or any comparisons are invalid.
    I would be really surprised if for some reason Alundum ZF-12 was no longer available. Maybe there is a shortage related to COVID? (Seems like some of the oddest things are in short supply due to COVID...)

    Quote Originally Posted by Aceso Optics View Post
    I do not know how they are evaluating it. I just know that they have made bold claims that Bayer is outdated. I was not aware that alundum is no longer available. We use Brown Aluminum Oxide in our test lab and it provides very stable results. Colts uses Kryptonite B and I know that there are companies that have stood by Alundum. Brown Aluminum Oxide is an abrasive medium that has provided consistent results to market expectations.
    BFA is an interesting choice. I wouldn't consider it a substitute for Alundum ZF. BFA is only Aluminum Oxide, whereas Alundum ZF is a fused alumina-zirconia, with a minimum of 25% zirconia by weight. The properties of the two are fairly different.
    Last edited by Lelarep; 05-25-2021 at 11:23 PM.

  5. #55
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Mitten State
    Occupation
    Ophthalmic Technician
    Posts
    708
    Double Post

  6. #56
    Master OptiBoarder AngeHamm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Occupation
    Optical Retail
    Posts
    2,209
    Quote Originally Posted by Aceso Optics View Post
    Colts uses Kryptonite B and I know that there are companies that have stood by Alundum.
    Fun fact: they had to close their Metropolis facility because their Kryptonite B testing was harmful to Superman. Had to move it all the way to Gotham.
    Last edited by AngeHamm; 05-26-2021 at 08:27 AM.
    I'm Andrew Hamm and I approve this message.

  7. #57
    sub specie aeternitatis Pete Hanlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Hickory Creek, TX
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    4,964
    (Disclaimer Essilor Employee) The specific type of alumdum used in the original Bayer Test is no longer available. For some time there was a single provider of the particular type of alumdum that was used in the test, and the industry was informed by this supplier long ago that the medium would no longer be manufactured. Long story short, the industry has known for a long time that the specific type of alumdum used in the Bayer Test was not going to be available indefinitely. One of my previous roles at Essilor was in market quality, and I have attended numerous (and rather boring) meetings discussing this very topic.

    Not surprisingly, the industry has been searching for an alumdum replacement for some time. The hope was another substance could be found which would provide the same results on the same scale as the original medium (because then all we have to do is substitute mediums and keep the same test and same scale). Realistically, there does not seem to be a reliable and openly available direct substitute for the original type of alumdum. Therefore, you have to find a new medium which can be standardized. Sand is very attractive in that respect. It is readily available, can be controlled to the point that batches of material can be validated for testing purposes, and the test provides consistent (but on a different grading scale than alumdum) results. The idea is to create a new standard around a new testing medium- one that is readily available to everyone. Essilor played a role in establishing the original Bayer Test as an ISTM, and I would imagine will play a role in developing a new standardized test. Understandably, it takes some time to gain acceptance of a test across an industry.

    End of day, Crizal Rock is quite abrasion resistant- more so than previous versions of Crizal (which were already pretty abrasion resistant), and it remains very easy to clean over the life of the lens. No change to the top coat has been made- or claimed (although in fact the hydrophobic property of Crizal Rock does last longer than other lenses). Essilor has a patented process that allows more of the top coat material to be placed on the lens surface. Therefore, the top coat holds up better over time, making the lens easier to clear over its lifetime.
    Pete Hanlin, ABOM
    Vice President Professional Services
    Essilor of America

    http://linkedin.com/in/pete-hanlin-72a3a74

  8. #58
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Mitten State
    Occupation
    Ophthalmic Technician
    Posts
    708
    You're talking about ZF Alundum, Grit Size 12 (technically the correct way to format it, compared to how I wrote it before) from Saint-Gobain Abrasive Grains, a wholly owned subsidiary of Saint-Gobain Ceramic Materials, which used to be Norton Company in Massachusetts, but they merged with Saint-Gobain in France back in 1990, right?

    Man, I must be really out of the loop. I hadn't heard anything about it being discontinued. But, my attachment to the material science world is much more tenuous than it used to be.

    I can see why the industry wants to create a new standard that is based on a non-proprietary material. Having a single company as the sole source of material for a rather important standardized test is just not in anyone's best interest (well, except for the company that makes the proprietary material).

    I'm sure some must still be out there somewhere, but I would imagine the price is not friendly given there is currently no substitute and a diminishing supply. I know it used to be reasonable in price, mid 2010's it was something like $5.50 for 2 lbs ( I guess that shows how old my knowledge is on the subject).

  9. #59
    sub specie aeternitatis Pete Hanlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Hickory Creek, TX
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    4,964
    (Disclaimer- Essilor Employee) You are 100% correct on the source. Saint-Gobain supplied the alumdum. For some reason I thought it was 14 instead of 12, but my mind tended to wander during those meetings, so you are almost certainly correct regarding the specific alumdum used... I'm thinking 14 might have been one of the substitutes that were examined. Apparently, they made different types and sizes of alumdum and there was simply no longer a need for the exact type our industry used for the Bayer Test (something about how the material is crushed determines the grade of alumdum). It became more and more challenging to find batches that could be validated, and finally there was just no more to be had. There was some hope that a ceramic material would provide the same characteristics as alumdum, but it is actually rather amazing how many material properties have to fall in line (e.g., how quickly do the edges on the particles wear during the testing cycle, etc.).

    To clarify, I am no longer heavily involved in MQ operations, but my understanding is sand has a lot of attractive properties (the downside being it will require a complete recalibration of scoring). Apparently, sand is even more aggressive than alumdum. One of the challenges with alumdum towards the end of its use was how good scratch coatings had become- the top end of the scale became almost meaningless because newer scratch coatings became indistinguishable from mineral (glass) lenses when tested with alumdum- although in real life glass is more robust than resin lenses even when they have the best hard coatings. Sand as a medium still demonstrates a gap between a glass surface and a hard coated resin surface.

    I'm certain different entities have cases to make for various mediums (again, there is a bewildering number of characteristics to consider), but hopefully the industry can settle on a particular medium that meets everyone's needs and results in an accepted standardized measure of scratch resistance.
    Pete Hanlin, ABOM
    Vice President Professional Services
    Essilor of America

    http://linkedin.com/in/pete-hanlin-72a3a74

  10. #60
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Mitten State
    Occupation
    Ophthalmic Technician
    Posts
    708
    Very interesting that sand still shows the gap between materials. I will be interested when they finally come to a new ISTM standard based on open sources material.

  11. #61
    Master OptiBoarder DanLiv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    550
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin View Post
    One of the challenges with alumdum towards the end of its use was how good scratch coatings had become- the top end of the scale became almost meaningless because newer scratch coatings became indistinguishable from mineral (glass) lenses when tested with alumdum- although in real life glass is more robust than resin lenses even when they have the best hard coatings.
    Aha, so that's the excuse for the dubious and experientially false claim of certain AR makers that their product was "as scratch resistant as glass." Bring on the sand!

  12. #62
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter Barry Santini's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Seaford, NY USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    5,872
    I believe that Colts Lab had a proprietary system involving tumbling media that correlated well with the real-world experience of eyeglass wearers. But it didnít match the marketing claims of the AR biggies.

    B

  13. #63
    OptiBoard Professional
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    California
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    156
    It has been many years since alundum has become unavailable. It seems there is no desire to have a uniform standard to rate scratch resistance. This way each manufacturer can claim whatever they want to. Let the buyer beware.

  14. #64
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Mitten State
    Occupation
    Ophthalmic Technician
    Posts
    708
    Quote Originally Posted by Lensman11 View Post
    It has been many years since alundum has become unavailable. It seems there is no desire to have a uniform standard to rate scratch resistance. This way each manufacturer can claim whatever they want to. Let the buyer beware.
    Ugh. The death of standards is always bad.

  15. #65
    OptiBoard Professional KrystleClear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2021
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    104
    Curious to see how many people have sold it and had any patient feedback? I may have to have a set of lenses made for myself to test run.
    Krystle

  16. #66
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    UK
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    902
    This is why I love optiboard. We all knew the toughest ar coated plastic lenses didn't quite match up to glass, and yet the claims were right there in writing.

    The limitation of the Bayer test due to the material used explains everything.

  17. #67
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter ak47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Southwest US
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    527
    I am NOT impressed with the real world scratch resistance after dispensing a few dozen pairs. Already have warranties going....best thing since sliced bread my %^$&! EX3 and probably Quantum/Sentinel Plus still better.

  18. #68
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Mitten State
    Occupation
    Ophthalmic Technician
    Posts
    708
    Quote Originally Posted by ak47 View Post
    I am NOT impressed with the real world scratch resistance after dispensing a few dozen pairs. Already have warranties going....best thing since sliced bread my %^$&! EX3 and probably Quantum/Sentinel Plus still better.
    Not encouraging, at all.

  19. #69
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    UK
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    902
    Wow essilor products don't live up to the marketing and I am stunned

  20. #70
    OptiBoard Professional KrystleClear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2021
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by ak47 View Post
    I am NOT impressed with the real world scratch resistance after dispensing a few dozen pairs. Already have warranties going....best thing since sliced bread my %^$&! EX3 and probably Quantum/Sentinel Plus still better.
    Well... that's disappointing. The biggest patient criticisms of AR that we hear are that it scratches easily and is difficult to keep perfectly clean and smudge free. We use Crizal EZ most of the time. I was very interested to see how Rock actually stood up with real patients because real people will put their glasses through torture. I will just keep saying "Nothing is scratch proof."
    Krystle

  21. #71
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    UK
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    902
    More people are bothered about cleaning than scratch resistance anyway

  22. #72
    OptiBoard Professional Mauro.Airoldi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bologna Italy
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin View Post
    (Disclaimer- Essilor Employee) You are 100% correct on the source. Saint-Gobain supplied the alumdum. For some reason I thought it was 14 instead of 12, but my mind tended to wander during those meetings, so you are almost certainly correct regarding the specific alumdum used... I'm thinking 14 might have been one of the substitutes that were examined. Apparently, they made different types and sizes of alumdum and there was simply no longer a need for the exact type our industry used for the Bayer Test (something about how the material is crushed determines the grade of alumdum). It became more and more challenging to find batches that could be validated, and finally there was just no more to be had. There was some hope that a ceramic material would provide the same characteristics as alumdum, but it is actually rather amazing how many material properties have to fall in line (e.g., how quickly do the edges on the particles wear during the testing cycle, etc.).

    To clarify, I am no longer heavily involved in MQ operations, but my understanding is sand has a lot of attractive properties (the downside being it will require a complete recalibration of scoring). Apparently, sand is even more aggressive than alumdum. One of the challenges with alumdum towards the end of its use was how good scratch coatings had become- the top end of the scale became almost meaningless because newer scratch coatings became indistinguishable from mineral (glass) lenses when tested with alumdum- although in real life glass is more robust than resin lenses even when they have the best hard coatings. Sand as a medium still demonstrates a gap between a glass surface and a hard coated resin surface.

    I'm certain different entities have cases to make for various mediums (again, there is a bewildering number of characteristics to consider), but hopefully the industry can settle on a particular medium that meets everyone's needs and results in an accepted standardized measure of scratch resistance.
    in my continuous laboratory with the traditional Bayer test (I am well stocked with Alundum) I would like to know the specifics of the sand used for the Essilor test
    quartz microspheres 150-300micron?
    I agree on the difficulty of analyzing AR with hardnesses between 9 and 14, with AR based on Ta3O5 the results were really excellent but the results were not so linear (a Bayer 7 lens was not half softer than a 14)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Creating A List Of AR Reflex Colors & Crizal Precencia vs. Crizal Sapphire
    By Lelarep in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02-21-2017, 03:06 PM
  2. Any Crizal reps on the board? Crizal Sun inquiry
    By OpticalSLA in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-25-2008, 12:20 PM
  3. Eye Rock.. the OffAxis Rock Concert with Friends, to Benefit Gift of Sight Foundation
    By Stephen Santinelli in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-26-2008, 04:10 PM
  4. crizal insignia by fogging/bootleg crizal
    By harry888 in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-18-2003, 10:07 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
  •