Report 2011 - Democratization of the product development process?
Nearly 120 participants from all over the world keen to find out about the future of FreeForm technology came to the 12th MAFO – The Conference in Milan, one day before the start of the MIDO. Eleven speakers from Germany, USA, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, and as far away as Australia shared their knowledge on the subject with the audience. As in previous years, Prof. Dr. Peter Baumbach chaired the conference and guided the participants through the day with charm and expertise.
On an organizational note: the venue had the right temperature and everyone received the conference documents. The schedule of the day was divided into the topics FreeForm, Coating, Production Technology and Management.
Based on the history of FreeForm
Keynote Speaker Mark Mackenzie (SWV GmbH) opened the proceedings with his good-humored presentation: ‘The way forward for FreeForm – based on its history’, which proved to be the most inspiring and exciting presentation of the day. That this was not the first time Mark Mackenzie had given a keynote speech was evident from the outset, speaking clearly and using gestures and facial expressions to the full. He started from the premise that not everyone at the Conference would remember what the situation was like in 2000, thus he gave the audience a summary of the history of FreeForm and its key facts. He started in the late 1970s with computer-controlled spot polishing of large glass surfaces in astrophysics and went on to 1986/7, when Gunter Schneider started using computer-controlled processes in precision optics. 1993 was another significant year, when Carl Zeiss suggested that Schneider Optical Machines should consider developing equipment for machining ophthalmic lenses with complex surface geometries to prescription. By the early 1990s, Rodenstock and Essilor had developed computer-controlled cutting and polishing equipment for manufacturing lens molds. The Keynote Speaker also recalled the early 1990s: This was the time when ophthalmic lenses made from non-mineral materials were enjoying a period of strong growth.Furthermore the equipment industry also realized that all you needed to generate complex progressive lens designs was ‘just a file’. In 1990, progressive lenses represented just 12% of all lenses sold in Germany; by 2000 this had increased to 19% (Source: FOCUS Magazine). 1996 saw the launch of ‘multigressives’ and in 1997 Seiko Epson developed a FreeForm production line capable of producing progressive lenses. Three years later, in January 2000, Schneider delivered their first soft-tool polishing machine. In the same month Rodenstock held a press conference to launch their new generation of lenses. And on the same day Carl Zeiss issued a press release announcing the launch of their new individualized progressive lens (Source: FOCUS Magazine archive). The use of digital surfacing allowed the optical industry to shorten product development times when creating a new design. Time-to-market was reduced and the theory was that there would be increased innovation in the industry and ophthalmic-prescription lens designs were launched. From this time onwards the term ‘FreeForm surface’ became common use in the equipment industry. Mark Mackenzie mentioned a discussion with Karen Roberts prior to the conference in which she had referred to the ‘democratization of the product development process’. This is only a brief overview of the history of FreeForm. While preparing his talk Mark Mackenzie had done a lot of detailed research which he referred to in his speech – not only into the historical aspects but also concerning the state-of-the-art of FreeForm today. He listed eight suppliers of CNC and polishing lines currently on the market as well as discussing other areas of application of FreeForm technology.
Own interest?
In his talk, ‘Individual FreeForm lenses – from the first idea to the fully integrated surfacing solution’, Gunter Schneider (Schneider GmbH & Co. KG) presented his views, unfortunately not entirely without self-promotion. For him the future will begin the day after the conference with the specially developed all-in-one digital surfacing lab.
See the difference
In her lecture, ‘FreeForm: See the difference’, Karen Roberts (Carl Zeiss Vision International) pointed out that FreeForm manufacturing is not a guarantee of quality. There is an increasing number of variable quality and low-cost FreeForm products on the market. Poor quality products have the potential to undermine the high perception in the market of FreeForm lenses, and this could inhibit the opportunity for growth in FreeForm in the future. Karen Roberts’ idea was to approach the consumer differently.
What´s coming next?
After a short break, Marc Y. Savoie (Satisloh GmbH) tackled the question of the future of FreeForm by asking another question: ‘Mainstream FreeForm is now reality – so what´s coming next?’ He illustrated the development of spectacle lens production with pictures and was able to show how technology had progressed over the centuries. But what does the future have in store for us? At this point the speaker showed a colorful drawing of a toaster with two spectacle lenses popping out of it instead of toast – bringing a smile to the faces of his audience. In his opinion, the future will bring full lab automation, more ‘intelligent’ machines & processes and in-process metrology.
Heavy metals
For Pascal Senentz (NGL Cleaning Technology SA) nothing is more important than ‘Heavy metals decontamination in ophthalmic processes’; and that’s as it should be. In the ‘Production Technology’ session he reported on environmental considerations in ophthalmic manufacturing processes including: solvents, strong alkalinity and heavy metals. It is good that alloy-free manufacturing of ophthalmic lenses is now progressing. Senentz showed a slide of deblocking waste water before treatment and discussed the amount of pollutants it contained. At this concentration it is imperative that the contaminated water is not discharged directly into the sewage system. And it does not need to be, if it is treated properly beforehand. Pascal Senentz discussed how this treatment should best be done.
Alloy blocking
Curt Brey (Coburn Technologies) joined the previous speaker in ‘Exposing the dangers of alloy blocking – Benefits of non-alloy blocking materials’ and showed a study on the growing concerns relating to alloy and its inherent hazards in the workplace. Alloy materials contain lead, cadmium and indium. Human contact with these materials occurs throughout the industry and the impact of this contact varies from material to material. Brey explained that, according to the National Institute of Environmental Health Science, the majority of adults who experience lead poisoning are exposed to it in the workplace. People may be exposed to it via dust, vapor or particles in the air, through direct and unprotected contact with lead-based or cadmium-based materials, or as a result of improper disposal and containment methods. But the surfaces of work tables, chairs, cleaning and working tools, eating areas, etc. may also be contaminated. Brey illustrated an everyday situation with the spreading of these poisonous heavy metals. It is enough for a worker to wipe an apple on his trousers with the aim of cleaning it; if his trousers are contaminated with heavy metal residues, quite the opposite will happen. The damage to health can be substantial and the speaker gave some frightening examples. The solution to the problem, he said, is to use non-alloy blocking systems.
Hard coating
We all work in an industry dedicated to good vision. And this also implies that presentation slides should be easy to read and not cluttered up with superfluous information in a tiny font. Already Karen Roberts’ presentation had so much information that it was difficult to follow. However Edward de Rojas (Quest Optical Inc.) clearly surpassed this. He packed everything onto one page, using the tiniest font size imaginable, thus making it nearly impossible for participants to decipher. ‘Spin or not to spin, that is the question’, was the title of his lecture. He compared dip- and spin-coated lenses and the procedures for both in lab and manufacturing, to promote understanding of the versatility of spin coating and its use for specialty requirements such as FreeForm lenses, high-wrap lenses and index-matching coatings.
Lone warrior
Hanspeter Eigenmann (Gfeller Consulting & Partner AG) was the only person to speak about management. He discussed the topic of ‘Recruiting and managing of qualified and experienced staff in small industries’. The main points of his presentation concerned hiring, training, career opportunities and incentives. He went into detail about factors such as recruiting & selection, motivation & incentives and training & know-how protection.
Lens cosmetics
Dr. Jeremy Marchant (SDC Technologies Inc.) talked on the subject of ‘Index-matched coatings for MR substrates – the way to superior lens cosmetics’ and discussed substrate characteristics, why an index comparison is necessary andhow to measure refractive index. Marchant’s tip here is this: Nanoparticles used in coating synthesis require enhanced filtration. This demands a high throughput rate during filtration and, where possible, changing the tank every minute. Ideally there should be two stage filtration – 5 µm and 1.0 µm or smaller – to pick up particles and ensure that there are no dead spots in the tank by achieving a uniform flow.
Modern lens production
Markus Fuhr (Leybold Optics GmbH) talked about, ‘Coating technologies for modern lens production’. His presentation on the characteristics of high-end and standard coatings was unfortunately not free of advertising.
Ophthalmic coatings
There is little to say about the last lecture by Dr. Markus Stolze (Umicore Thin Film Products AG) entitled, ‘Material developments for ophthalmic coatings’. His talk was pure advertising, leaving participants with the impression they were at a promotional event.
The conference was a success even if the quality of the talks waned towards the end. Participants used the breaks to make new contacts and refresh existing ones. The Q&A session after the presentations also produced an interesting exchange of opinions and ideas. Thus everyone had something interesting to take away with them at the end of the day.
