Let's beat this AR dead horse some more because hey- why not!
I recently took an online CE from Jobson "Everything Old is New Again- Lens Treatments".
I can't locate the paper copy I made of article but I do have the answer sheet and it brought up a question that I remember was on my mind from the thread below, as well as a couple others.
From the test was an answer that AR improved 91% transmittance about 8% (leaving 1% blocked) with AR on cr39 than without.
Another was the thickness of an AR coat. Concerning thickness I remembered 10 or more years ago reading that the coat was angstroms thick and brought that up in the linked thread below only to be shot down by Mike Aurelius and MakeOptics. Two Titans I respect (even if Make does diss me;) saying it's .2 to .3 microns not angstroms (2,000 to 3,000). I distinctly remember the article used for the test saying it was angstroms thick so am I correct that the author, like me, got it wrong?
Here's the thread and I think the mag fluoride discussion is today's special sauce for the Crizal Rock. No?
https://www.optiboard.com/forums/sho...ick+coating%3F
please excuse my ignorance hanging out for the world to see....again!
Bookmarks