• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

A Word on Coatings (1 Viewer)

WJC said:
Now then, I don't want you to think I'm nit-picking, but can you provide a source doc. From a recent trip to Wiki, I get:

. . . After his short stay at Odessa University, Smakula returned to Germany as head of an optics laboratory in Heidelberg. From 1934 he worked at the Carl Zeiss AG company in Jena. While at Zeiss, in 1935, Smakula invented and patented optical anti-reflective coatings, a significant advance in optical technology. . .

Which is what I had already investigated and reported on. Arthur's question was about the invention of MULTI-coatings. Do you have anything on that?

So far, I've struck out.

Bill
Click to expand...


INTERFERENCE coatings are multilayer. They have to be.
Single layers transform. To generalize to multilayer is to use INTERFERENCE.
An Physicist knows this. A technician probably does not.
Inventing and patenting multilayer coatings is some years away from
mass-manufacturing.
 
Last edited:
OPTIC_NUT said:
INTERFERENCE coatings are multilayer. They have to be.
Single layers transform. To generalize to multilayer is to use INTERFERENCE.
An Physicist knows this. A technician probably does not.
Inventing and patenting multilayer coatings is some years away from
mass-manufacturing.
Click to expand...

It looks like your quest for a tussle continues. I do not find anything
at all that you have contributed to a positive post about coatings.

What is it all about? :eek!:

Edit: Optic,nut, you are now put on ignore.

Jerry
 
Last edited:
OPTIC_NUT said:
INTERFERENCE coatings are multilayer. They have to be.
Single layers transform. To generalize to multilayer is to use INTERFERENCE.
An Physicist knows this. A technician probably does not.
Inventing and patenting multilayer coatings is some years away from
mass-manufacturing.
Click to expand...

Optic_Nut:

Your original post read:

"Oh My God.
I really try. I really do.
INTERFERENCE coatings are multilayer. They have to be.”

And I have to agree; you're one of the most trying individuals I've ever run across. But for what it's worth, this "TECHNICIAN" has done optical engineering for Orion, NASA, The Navy, and the University of Chicago.

But since I don't have the degree necessary to speak on your level, I'll just put you on "IGNORE," too.

Bill
 
WJC said:
Now then, I don't want you to think I'm nit-picking, but can you provide a source doc. From a recent trip to Wiki, I get:

. . . After his short stay at Odessa University, Smakula returned to Germany as head of an optics laboratory in Heidelberg. From 1934 he worked at the Carl Zeiss AG company in Jena. While at Zeiss, in 1935, Smakula invented and patented optical anti-reflective coatings, a significant advance in optical technology. . .

Which is what I had already investigated and reported on. Arthur's question was about the invention of MULTI-coatings. Do you have anything on that?

So far, I've struck out.

Bill
Click to expand...

"An Physicist knows this," but he apparently doesn't know English grammar! ;)

Bill, I know how multicoatings were invented. One day while Smakula was applying single layer MgF2 coatings to Zeiss lenses, Heidi, a young, attractive Zeiss office girl came in to deliver a message, and Olexander became distracted and asked her, Vī odruzhenі? (are you married?) and by mistake he applied more than one layer of AR coatings to the lens, and thus modern multicoatings were born. Although it still took years before they were put into production since he didn't want to admit he had invented them by mistake. ;)

Brock
 
Bill, that's an interesting anecdote you recount regarding Mr Swift and brittle coatings. Years ago, I bought a used Leitz camera lens from the late '40s that had a noticeable haze internally. I figured that it ought to be easy to clean myself (this was before the internet), and so I disassembled the lens to access the hazy surface and attempted to wipe off the haze. Well surprise, surprise, it started to flake off. It was the MgF coating!
 
OPTIC_NUT said:
INTERFERENCE coatings are multilayer. They have to be.
Click to expand...

If you mean a single layer of coating cannot exhibit interference or exploit interference to reduce reflection you are incorrect.

Example: the iridescence produced by a drop of oil on a pool of water is caused by partial reflection of two surfaces - the upper and lower surfaces of the single layer of oil film.

Reflections off a lens surface can be reduced using the same technique.

Graham
 
For those inclined to think that it all must have happened in Germany/Japan, this Brief History of Optical Thin Films might reveal a somewhat different picture. "The Institute of Optics" is part of the University of Rochester, NY, where a course on the subject is still taught today. Apparently, the Allies kept much of this technology under wraps during WWII.

Ed
 
Last edited:
I'd like to know when multi-coatings were first used militarily or commercially on a widespread non-experimental basis. This article http://www.panix.com/~zone/photo/czlens.htm (toward the end of article under Definitions, Coatings) states they were first used on a "production lens by Leitz". The first use on handheld binoculars I know about is by Carl Zeiss Jena in 1978 and the Zeiss Oberkochen T* coatings about the same time. Any further information would be appreciated.
 
brocknroller said:
"An Physicist knows this," but he apparently doesn't know English grammar! ;)

Bill, I know how multicoatings were invented. One day while Smakula was applying single layer MgF2 coatings to Zeiss lenses, Heidi, a young, attractive Zeiss office girl came in to deliver a message, and Olexander became distracted and asked her, Vī odruzhenі? (are you married?) and by mistake he applied more than one layer of AR coatings to the lens, and thus modern multicoatings were born. Although it still took years before they were put into production since he didn't want to admit he had invented them by mistake. ;)

Brock
Click to expand...

Actually, Brock, I think you will find that her name was Christin :smoke:

Lee
 
Binastro said:
Zeiss Biogon lenses 1951 2 layer coating?
Zeiss military binocular 1945 similar?
Click to expand...

I can't comment on the Biogon other than it would be interesting to see some documentation confirming they were multi-coated.

I'm not aware of any Zeiss multi-coated WW II binoculars. In 1944-45 they manufactured some U-Boat 7X50 binoculars with dark reddish colored coatings (Hensoldt and Busch also made a few binoculars around the same time with these coatings) but I don't think these are multi-coated. I believe they are single layer but transmitting a little closer to the blue end of the spectrum - hence reflecting more red light. I have one in excellent condition and to my eye its light transmission is no different than that of another U-Boat 7X50 I have with the usual blue coatings. A few Zeiss binoculars are also found with green coatings (rare) but light transmission of these is reported to be the same as blue coated ones and again I think the color of the lenses indicates transmission at a slightly different nm than blue looking lenses not multi-coating.

My guess is that multi-coatings would have been first developed for military use on periscopes because they have so many more air/glass surfaces than binoculars.
 
Last edited:
John Russell said:
I took this step months ago and would encourage anyone interested in furthering their knowledge on Birdforum to do likewise.

I wish he'd go away and start an American branch of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Monster_Raving_Loony_Party ;).

John
Click to expand...

I guess I'm a little slow on the uptake. It has only been with the chiming in of so many of you that the portrait has been painted for me.

PS Your signature? That's one for my collection; consider it stolen!

Cheers,

Bill|=)|
 
I would think that Bill has to be one of, if not THE premier optics experts in the world today. I have probably irritated him a time or two, but I would never question his knowledge. My dad was one of the smartest people I ever knew, but man did we argue sometimes.:-O

perterra said:
o:)

Good post,

Keep in mind this is the internet, there are probably three quarters of a million people who profess to know everything there is to know about anything there is to learn. And most conflict with other internet experts. If readers take it all at face value then what you end up with is nothing of any use. So how to determine if one is really who they say they are? (I have a friend who has 5 oil wells and a home in Lake City Colorado on the singles meet up internet forums, he's a jet engine mechanic in a trailerhouse in real life) Questions are the only way I know to get the wheat from the chaff. Those who cant or wont answer the questions leave me to speculate thay dont have the answer. So to expect to not be questioned by people trying to understand means it may be a rocky relationship on the net. Setting yourself up as an expert at anything, is putting a target on your back.
Click to expand...
 
bh46118 said:
I would think that Bill has to be one of, if not THE premier optics experts in the world today. I have probably irritated him a time or two, but I would never question his knowledge. My dad was one of the smartest people I ever knew, but man did we argue sometimes.:-O
Click to expand...

Not questioning his knowledge, just that the internet is full of people who profess to be (pick one) smart, rich, bad ass, beautiful, handsome. Just read forums and look at blogs.

It follows along with a survey I read, 90% of people think 90% of people are morons, and 90% of those people all thought they were in the 10% who werent morons.

I will say people on this forum seem to get their panties in a wad easier than about any. This aint life or death, it aint even comfort or discomfort.

Hell I couldnt really tell you what the argument started over, only that it wasnt worth it. Life is short, getting shorter every day.
 
. The Lens Vademecum author thinks that the 1951 Biogons were double coated from the start of the new design.
That is his conclusion from using and examining them.
I have no documentary confirmation of this.

Minolta were using achromatic coating, which they state to be two layers having increased transmission from at least 1966, which predates Pentax's super multilayer coating by quite a few years.
It is likely that Zeiss were earlier than Minolta.


The 1945 Zeiss binoculars I have not personally examined and was just going on owners reports, but I accept that maybe it is just the colours of the coatings that may differ.

I also think that Taylor Taylor Hobson may have produced two layer coatings early on. I will try to get a date on that. Some early speed panchros seem to be more than single coatings but I will ask.
Also their early multielement 25 times or so TV zoom lenses were probably a candidate for more than single coating. Again I will try to get a date.
 
Last edited:
Some people really struggle with binocular specifications as if with a wet blanket anticipating that the one size spec., the marketing blurb and the binotic subjective reviews are gospel for all and just don't get it when you see it different.

The arguments are just not worth it. War never determined who is right, only who is left.

Enjoy the weekend !
 
Samandag said:
Some people really struggle with binocular specifications as if with a wet blanket anticipating that the one size spec., the marketing blurb and the binotic subjective reviews are gospel for all and just don't get it when you see it different.

The arguments are just not worth it. War never determined who is right, only who is left.

Enjoy the weekend !
Click to expand...

Amen Brudder Samandag.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 10 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

T
Dielectric Coatings - Potential Drawbacks?
Replies
5
Views
1K
wllmspd
W
P
How much variation is there in the production line.
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
John A Roberts
John A Roberts
hopster
TIR, prism choice and its effect on image quality
3 4 5
Replies
82
Views
5K
Trinovid
T
T
"Better Glass"
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
Binastro
B
J
Help with interpreting Opticron tech data, please?
Replies
12
Views
859
ArchStanton
A

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top