A thin gold layer could be the secret to glasses that don't fog
gizmodo.com
gizmodo.com
Since it's dependent on an external source of (I guess infrared radiation) heat, it will not work in e.g. winter in the Nordics when there's not a lot of sunshine around.
My conclusion: it's designed for fancy skiing folks in Switzerland's sunny alps, not tired parents trying to see where the fsck the kids went when coming home after picking them up in the afternoon. Time for sunset in Stockholm today: 2:56 pm.
On a more serious note this really sounds promising, all development that improve aspects of wearing glasses is of course awesome since not all can/want to use contacts etc.
I am a co-author of the mentioned work and very surprised (but pleased) to see it here.
I think that this is a good overview!
On the material part the sweet spot is the transition from assemblies of particles to forming a continuous path (film).
For the application you indeed need sunlight. The sun is a strong radiation source!
Putting your face under a light bulb might cause other issues.
Glasses is here the most accessible example to illustrate the work from the research to the application. I think we can get creative about other use cases.
Moreover, Ford dealerships (in the U.K. at least) would boast that they owned the patent.
Looking online, I can see lots of references on car enthusiast sites talking about Ford owning the patent but any documents on the patent I find states it’s owned by an independent window manufacturer (like you suggested it would be).
So that leaves me wondering if either Ford had the patent but then sold it (unlikely in my opinion), or if they simply bought exclusively rights?
The patent would have long since expired — never mind any deals between patent holders.
Actually that patent looks different to what I'm describing.
Radiate it from the inside, at some invisible wave legth that doesn't reflect too much?
Sunset? Time for sunrise here is around mid-day, January 21st :)
Yeah I got that at "gold layer".
Maybe glass for glasses is at its zenith, but it's sort of hard to believe that when you look at something like smartphone screen changes over the past 10-15 years.
"Monopoly" is not the correct word. At least in a global sense - they are more dominant in some places.
I recently got new glasses after 5 years, I almost never wet them before wiping them, and I usually wipe them with my t-shirt. Zero scratches on old glasses, it was actually the finish on my frame that started failing and prompted getting a replacement (turned out my eyes also degraded slightly, so I got new lenses anyway)
It's luckily in Paperless ;) I could buy a modern GPU for that price, paid 262 € per lens.
You can use the edges of a lens cloth to brush first. Grip it in the middle so all the edges bunch together to form a sort of brush. Or a dedicated product that separates the two steps: this is the best glasses cleaner I’ve ever used:
> Our technology will clean your lenses 500 times!
I know that you're supposed to get the dust off first, and I wash my glasses daily with dish soap, but I want to be able to use any clean paper tissue or cloth to clean my glasses, without having to worry about having an emergency lens cloth on my at all times.
Laser eye surgery is a well practiced surgery what are you talking about..?
I just for PRK and while the recovery is way worse than LASIK, the results are already great 2 months in.
I saw in another comment you were asking about side effects. There definitely are, and tbh if you're happy w/ glasses and they work for your lifestyle then more power to you. LASIK side effects from what I've read are most commonly really dry eyes and star burst effects from light sources at night. Seems a lot of people after going through PRK have bad night vision (which I'm experiencing), and moderate to severe light sensitivity, which I personally have none of. So yea, there are side effects that can be really bad, but for the most part people seem very happy with both LASIK and PRK.
I can certainly say PRK was one of my best life decisions, it's definitely been worth it to me because I hated wearing glasses and I do a lot of outdoor activities as well as Jiu jitsu, so I was basically the ideal candidate
I find I need different glasses for different things but I'm very very long-sighted - I can see more than well enough to drive, and indeed can see the guy wires on radio towers a few miles either side of the road I drive on most days to get to work, and can see what the dude in front is watching on his phone instead of the road, but can't really see the instrument panel except as a big green blob with a vague suggestion of pointers in it. No matter, as long as nothing is lit up red.
I wear different glasses for reading to using the computer or watching TV, basically to pull the range of focus I have in to about half a metre to a metre, or a metre to a couple of metres, and I have a couple of pairs of prescription safety glasses which fit under the visor of my climbing helmet, which is handy for work.
For welding and such, I just keep some cheap shitty "pound shop" reading glasses that are "close enough" and that I don't care if they get wrecked in the workshop, which again fit under my welding mask or grinder shield.
I do kind of wonder how well people who have had LASIK can deal with a very very wide range of focal lengths.
there's a body of proof that it does, both theoretically and practically, and it's been around long enough now that we know about the long term effects.
Fabrication tools for thin films have improved a lot over the past decades though. We can now fabricate exotic structured matter at the nanoscale that doesn't respond as the bulk counterpart.
Not surviving is probably more reasonable reason.
This is basically how licking your lenses or spitting on them works, or stuff like Cat Crap. The difference here is that the coating was baked on; it could not be rinsed off.
The downside was that the coating was very soft when wet and easy to damage. So it’s not really commercially viable. I bought a pair directly from the inventor, with trust between us that long-term performance was up to my discipline in protecting the lens coating.
They also had to be hand-washed regularly as contaminants in the river water would impair the anti-fog coating as well.
They worked great until I left them on top of my car and drove home one day…
Is it usually false, or an exaggeration meant to motivate further funding for something non-profitable?
We took great care to show real-world applicability of our work.