Battle of the Cyclopses

[PhilipM]

The search for the holy grail continues

[freddy333]

The condition/quality of the AR (on the cyclops) is not the problem, but neither is it the solution. At least, not by itself.

I frequently (just about every time I wear them out) clean my watches with (ammoniated) Windex, so if my GMTIIC's cyclops came from the factory with an AR coating, it was removed long before I ever installed (& shot the pics of) the AR'd cyclops (which was cleaned with nothing other than air prior to the pics being taken).

Further, the prismatic effect you can see on the AR'd cyclops in the 2nd set of pics, makes it pretty clear (no pun intended) that the AR'd cyclops does, in fact, have an AR coating. I see the same rainbow effect on all but 1 set of my AR'd glasses (the singular exception being the set I mistakenly once cleaned with Windex - Windex really is the best day-to-day cleaner for a watch, unless it is AR'd).

[jot9011]

I might be totally wrong, but if the entire underside of the crystal is coated as well as the entire outer crystal surface...without removing the mag. (if that can be done) ....and then the AR was stripped from everywhere except the mag region, would that not give a good result?

Does the mag that is still cemented and the crystal, not act as a single unit? Or would you get reflections form the inner uncoated surface of the mag and uncoated outer surface of the crystal under the mag?

[freddy333]

I might be totally wrong, but if the entire underside of the crystal is coated as well as the entire outer crystal surface...without removing the mag. (if that can be done) ....and then the AR was stripped from everywhere except the mag region, would that not give a good result?

That is effectively what I suggested at the beginning, but you need only to AR the area below the cyclops (no need to coat the entire crystal & then remove the unneeded portion). But unless the lab is willing to do a test, this thread will cycle endlessly.

[HauteHippie]

I might be totally wrong, but if the entire underside of the crystal is coated as well as the entire outer crystal surface...without removing the mag. (if that can be done) ....and then the AR was stripped from everywhere except the mag region, would that not give a good result?

Does the mag that is still cemented and the crystal, not act as a single unit? Or would you get reflections form the inner uncoated surface of the mag and uncoated outer surface of the crystal under the mag?

The problem is we must remove the mag to do the coating. The sapphire glue won't hold up in the high heat of the AR chamber. So in this case, it's probably best to coat the whole thing, in which case the mag<->crystal interface is not in question.

[involt]

Does the mag that is still cemented and the crystal, not act as a single unit? Or would you get reflections form the inner uncoated surface of the mag and uncoated outer surface of the crystal under the mag?

The cyclops and the crystal can be considered, from an "optical" point of view, as a single unit only if the cement has the same refractive index as the glass; otherwise, the rays of light come across two interfaces, possible causes of reflections: the glass-cement interface , and the cement-glass interface .

I don't know about the refractive index of the sapphire glue; in the optical field (telescopes, binoculars...) a special resin is used in order to cement the single elements of an objective.

Edited December 22, 2008 by involt

[HauteHippie]

The cyclops and the crystal can be considered, from an "optical" point of view, as a single unit only if the cement has the same refractive index as the glass; otherwise, the rays of light come across two interfaces, possible causes of reflections: the glass-cement interface , and the cement-glass interface .

I don't know about the refractive index of the sapphire glue; in the optical field (telescopes, binoculars...) a special resin is used in order to cement the single elements of an objective.

Yes, exactly... And I highly doubt the refractive indexes are the same... Sapphire is quite high and also varies somewhat.

[involt]

Yes, exactly... And I highly doubt the refractive indexes are the same... Sapphire is quite high and also varies somewhat.

...so, this could be the Rolex "secret" ...

[darkhawk830]

Then, have you found the solution?

Edited August 29, 2009 by darkhawk830

[ianGP]

ok...so I followed this whole thread.... what's the answer?

[freddy333]

The answer was posed at the beginning of the thread you just read (click here for the answer)

[ianGP]

oh lord... completely missed that

thanks freddy!