Lens Cleaners from Aldi Destroy Specs
Turk182
from Aldi. I didn't notice, because I had my specs off at the time,
that each time I was cleaning them, either the solution or the paper
that the solution is soaked in, was damaging my glasses. I realised
too late, that although it appear my glasses were staying dirty, in
fact what was happening, was the surface of the lens, both sides, but
particulalry inside, was beginning to look like 'crazy paving'. I
took the specs to the optician and he asked straight away what I had
been claening them with. He said, that although these lenses were not
of a type that were particulalry vulnerable to cleaning fluid, I
appear to have found something they don't like. The specs are
ruined. He suggests I only ever clean specs in a light mixture of
soap and water.
The lenses cost me a fortune about two years ago, in excess of £300.
Does anyone fancy my chances if I try taking on Aldi? Thanks.
Turk182
Graham.
"Turk182" <digital...@aol.com> wrote in message news:2174112c-1659-454a...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Turk182
>
>
It is for this very reason that I always decline tints and anti-reflective coatings.
There was an optical dispenser who used to post in uk.d-i-y, forgot his name.
--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%
Peter Parry
<digital...@aol.com> wrote:
>The lenses cost me a fortune about two years ago, in excess of �300.
>Does anyone fancy my chances if I try taking on Aldi? Thanks.
Not very good. Their cleaners (as do almost all others) use
Isopropanol, sodium laureth sulphate and water. These are harmless
to all optical plastics and most generally used plastics. You would
have to prove that they caused the damage which might be
problematical.
martin
Doubt it, were the ingredients on the tissues? Did you read the
instructions with the lenses?
While not knowing for sure, I'll bet the tissues contained IPA and it
took one of the coatings off the lens. Scratch resistant maybe? Polarizer?
New lenses should be cheap enough to replace the ones in the frames, or
keep going until you've stripped off whatever was being stripped.
Anyway, I'm suprised the optician didn't pull the "ahhh 2 years eh? Step
this way sir, you need an eye test so I can flog you more glasses"
Oh, same thing goes for LCDs and flat tellies without a glass front.
Don't use pledge.
>
> Turk182
Michael Swift
s.com>, Turk182 <digital...@aol.com> writes
I suspect you have plastic lenses, I've only had them once and I
scratched them on the first day cleaning them with a clean soft tissue.
I now demand glass lenses despite the opticians claims that in an
accident my eyes will be ripped out, I've proved this not to be true by
exiting a car via the windscreen with no damage to my eyes, my femur,
patella and head weren't so lucky.
I've only damaged glass lenses once when I was a bit worse for drink and
fell over in Leeds, they're a bit heavier but if you go for small specs
they're manageable.
Mike
--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange
Vicko Zoomba
I only use a good quality soft duster and standard window cleaner on
plastic lenses.
McKevvy
Mrcheerful
I have used those exact glasses cleaners on dozens of different pairs of
specs, tvs and monitors and laptops with out trouble, so goodness knows what
your specs had on them.
The cost of an expert witness report would be more than it would be worth
risking to pursue 300 quid.
The best way to clean glasses that I know of is to use an ultrasonic bath, a
small one is not expensive (15 - 20 quid)
Rob
"Turk182" <digital...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2174112c-1659-454a...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
The lenses cost me a fortune about two years ago, in excess of �300.
Does anyone fancy my chances if I try taking on Aldi? Thanks.
Turk182
Should have gone to specsavers. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .I'll get me coat !
Bob Ferguson
"Turk182" <digital...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2174112c-1659-454a...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
------------
Under the various Sale of Goods Act legislation, product sold must be fit
for the purpose for which they are sold. You bought spectacle lens
cleaners. Unless the box contained a warning that they were unsuitable for
the lenses in your spectacles, then you have proof conclusive that the
cleaners were unfit for the purpose for which they were sold.
Aldi owe you a new pair of glasses.
Peter Parry
<robert....@google.co.uk> wrote:
>Under the various Sale of Goods Act legislation, product sold must be fit
>for the purpose for which they are sold.
Nope, unless the OP specifically asked for them to be fit for cleaning
_his_ glasses and Aldi confirmed they were then they must be fit for
all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly
supplied. If they clean the majority of glasses without problem, and
if the ingredients used are known to be safe on all common optical
plastics and coatings (which they are) then they are "fit for
purpose".
If the OP had a particularly idiosyncratic pair of glasses which were
affected by common lens cleaning materials then any damage is his
problem.
>You bought spectacle lens
>cleaners. Unless the box contained a warning that they were unsuitable for
>the lenses in your spectacles, then you have proof conclusive that the
>cleaners were unfit for the purpose for which they were sold.
An imaginative, but futile approach. The OP would have to show how
the damage occurred and that it was indeed caused by the lens cleaner
claimed and not some other solvent at some other time. As the
Isopropanol/water mix is universally used by many manufacturers
without harm to plastics (Isopropanol alone is sold as a "safety
solvent" as it affects so few plastics) then proving the lens cleaner
caused the damage isn't going to be easy.
Cynic
wrote:
>The cost of an expert witness report would be more than it would be worth
>risking to pursue 300 quid.
It would not need an expert witness. Simply get hold of a lens that
is of the same type as the ones damaged, with a letter from the
optition testifying to that fact, and use a new box of wipes to
demonstrate how they damage such lenses.
The question would then be whether it is the wipes that are unfit for
purpose or the lenses. ISTM that a pair of glasses should be capable
of being cleaned with all normal lens cleaning preparations. Or carry
a warning - which the OPs glasses may well have done, but he did not
read or has forgotton what it stated on the bumph that came with them
when he bought them.
--
Cynic
Vicko Zoomba
> "Turk182" <digitalradi...@aol.com> wrote in message
Well cmon Turk - its Aldi - If you're able to read the badly
translated German on the box the you should at least use some common
sense. It's a cheap store so you take your pick.
McKevvy
oack
I once paid extra for a non-reflective coating from D&A. I cleaned them
as normal using my cotton tea shirt or a tissue (as I always have and
continue to do). The lenses became very scratched in about two weeks and
the optician blamed a faulty coating and replaced them (but without
the anti reflective layer). So if you had an anti-reflective layer the
cleaner from Aldi may only be a contributory cause of the disaster.
I buy my specs online now from www.glasses4eyes.co.uk
They are less than �20 inc postage, arrive very quickly and the frames
are stronger than �100 I bought for my daughter locally. I won't be
buying online again from www.selectspecs.com who accepted the expensive
D&A titanium frames for reglazing and then claimed they had been broken
in the post and failed to return the "damaged" packaging to me.
Jim
Yeah for cheapo bog standard ones which you will get at a High Street
shop for about the same. My bi-focal photchromatic glasses are the same
price on that site as Specavers want.
oack
If that includes lenses I'm surprised.
Turk182
> D&A titanium frames for reglazing and then claimed they had been broken
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thank you, I shall give them a go. My eye prescription is quite
complicated so I will be interested to see if they can cope with it!
Turk182
Turk182
I have just located the packaging they came in :
On the sachets, all it says is:
Brillenputztuch
Alles klar
Lingette nettoyante
Tout brilliant!
Fazzoletti per la pulizia degli occhiali
But on the box the 100 sachets came in it says:
"The ideal wipes for spectacles made of both glass & plastic,
mirrors,car mirrors,visors, phot lenses.
"Please note, clean very dirty glasses with water first, do not rub
glasses dry"
And here we may have a problem, because the paper the liquid is soaked
in feels very hard.
When you 'clean; glasses' you usually want to put them straight on
again - ie: not wet!
So I wonder what they mean by "dry".
The ingredients of the solution are:
Aqua, Ethanol denat., Citric Acid, Parfume, Sodium Laureth Sulfate,
Sodium Dodecylbenzol Sulfonate, Coco Betaine, Glutaral, Socium
Chloride, Citral, Butylphenylmethylpropional, Linalool, Limonene
Also on the box it says.
"Cleaning Wipes are gentle"
"Grease disolving"
"Streak free"
I will NEVER use them again to clean my specs or my camera lens.
As a notem I did find I also got a skin rashon my nose after using
them, but only slight.
Turk182
Cynic
<digital...@aol.com> wrote:
>> The question would then be whether it is the wipes that are unfit for
>> purpose or the lenses. �ISTM that a pair of glasses should be capable
>> of being cleaned with all normal lens cleaning preparations. �Or carry
>> a warning - which the OPs glasses may well have done, but he did not
>> read or has forgotton what it stated on the bumph that came with them
>> when he bought them.
>I have just located the packaging they came in :
>On the sachets, all it says is:
<snip>
I'm not talking about the wipes. Did your *glasses* come with any
instructions as to how to clean them? If the instructions for your
glasses stated, "Clean using soap and water only," then you would not
be able to blame the wipes.
--
Cynic
Turk182
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:05:10 -0800 (PST), Turk182
>
No they didn't come with any treatment advice, notes, conditions, or
advice. I don't think I have EVER had specs that did! Have you?
Turk182
Cynic
<digital...@aol.com> wrote:
>> I'm not talking about the wipes. � Did your *glasses* come with any
>> instructions as to how to clean them? �If the instructions for your
>> glasses stated, "Clean using soap and water only," then you would not
>> be able to blame the wipes.
>No they didn't come with any treatment advice, notes, conditions, or
>advice. I don't think I have EVER had specs that did! Have you?
I don't use the things except a cheap pair of off-the-shelf reading
glasses, and I do not recall if they came with any cleaning
instructions. Just about every other optical device that I have ever
owned (cameras, scanners, projector etc.) came with a pamphlet that
included cleaning instructions. Some say IPA is OK, others state mild
detergent and water only.
--
Cynic
Turk182
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:39:30 -0800 (PST), Turk182
>
My new pair will be ready in 2-3 weeks, I'll see if the offer any
advice. In the meantime my typing is being done for me by the woman
at No. 27.
Turk182
Bob Ferguson
"Peter Parry" <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
news:saeqf55p511svu5ia...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:39:36 -0000, "Bob Ferguson"
> <robert....@google.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Under the various Sale of Goods Act legislation, product sold must be fit
>>for the purpose for which they are sold.
>
> Nope, unless the OP specifically asked for them to be fit for cleaning
> _his_ glasses and Aldi confirmed they were then they must be fit for
> all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly
> supplied. If they clean the majority of glasses without problem, and
> if the ingredients used are known to be safe on all common optical
> plastics and coatings (which they are) then they are "fit for
> purpose".
>
> If the OP had a particularly idiosyncratic pair of glasses which were
> affected by common lens cleaning materials then any damage is his
> problem.
>
I would think that unlikely. In any even in the absence of a statement to
the contrary, the lens cleaner is sold as a universal cleaner and must do
precisely that.
>>You bought spectacle lens
>>cleaners. Unless the box contained a warning that they were unsuitable
>>for
>>the lenses in your spectacles, then you have proof conclusive that the
>>cleaners were unfit for the purpose for which they were sold.
>
> An imaginative, but futile approach. The OP would have to show how
> the damage occurred and that it was indeed caused by the lens cleaner
> claimed and not some other solvent at some other time. As the
> Isopropanol/water mix is universally used by many manufacturers
> without harm to plastics (Isopropanol alone is sold as a "safety
> solvent" as it affects so few plastics) then proving the lens cleaner
> caused the damage isn't going to be easy.
Lens cleaners haven't used isoproyl alcohol for some years now but not
because of any issue with particular lenses, but because of toxicity and
flammability. It also falls under the COSH legislation.
It would only be necessary for the OP to insist that he has not used any
nother lens cleaner. He only has to prove the point on the balance of
probabilities.
Peter Parry
<robert....@google.co.uk> wrote:
>"Peter Parry" <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote
>> An imaginative, but futile approach. The OP would have to show how
>> the damage occurred and that it was indeed caused by the lens cleaner
>> claimed and not some other solvent at some other time. As the
>> Isopropanol/water mix is universally used by many manufacturers
>> without harm to plastics (Isopropanol alone is sold as a "safety
>> solvent" as it affects so few plastics) then proving the lens cleaner
>> caused the damage isn't going to be easy.
>Lens cleaners haven't used isoproyl alcohol for some years now
That's odd, I've got two different manufacturers ones bought in the
last few weeks both of which contain Isopropanol and water. As do
Bausch & Lomb tissues and many others.
>but not
>because of any issue with particular lenses, but because of toxicity
Isopropanol is essentially non-toxic in the small quantities found in
cleaning wipes.
>and flammability.
Mixed with water it doesn't burn. A lens cleaning tissue held in a
flame will not burn until dry.
>It also falls under the COSH legislation.
Almost everything does. It is also found in a number of food products
and soft drinks as well as on sterilizing wipes in medical use.
>It would only be necessary for the OP to insist that he has not used any
>nother lens cleaner. He only has to prove the point on the balance of
>probabilities.
Which he will find difficult bearing in mind that Isopropanol is used
so widely in this role. It is a secondary alcohol so its chemical
structure makes it essentially harmless to optical plastics and
coatings. Any statement he may make is fairly meaningless if it can
easily be shown, in the absence of objective supporting evidence, to
be highly improbable.
S
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:39:30 -0800 (PST), Turk182
>
I have never tried beer on my glasses. :)
johannes
Turk182 wrote:
>
> I purchased a box of invividual lens cleaners, about 50 in sachet's
> from Aldi. I didn't notice, because I had my specs off at the time,
> that each time I was cleaning them, either the solution or the paper
> that the solution is soaked in, was damaging my glasses. I realised
> too late, that although it appear my glasses were staying dirty, in
> fact what was happening, was the surface of the lens, both sides, but
> particulalry inside, was beginning to look like 'crazy paving'. I
> took the specs to the optician and he asked straight away what I had
> been claening them with. He said, that although these lenses were not
> of a type that were particulalry vulnerable to cleaning fluid, I
> appear to have found something they don't like. The specs are
> ruined. He suggests I only ever clean specs in a light mixture of
> soap and water.
>
> The lenses cost me a fortune about two years ago, in excess of �300.
> Does anyone fancy my chances if I try taking on Aldi? Thanks.
>
> Turk182
The opticians are equally to blame. I was flogged a pair of glasses
with anti-refelctive coating, although I didn't opt for that. But
a clever charming sales person managed to wiggle in the 'extra' that
I didn't wanted. Two years later, the coating had predictable
crackled and the glasses were useless. When I aired my dissatisfaction,
the optician, they said that you should have new glasses every two
years anyway... Well well well, nice little earner at today's prices.
Bob Ferguson
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:33:00 -0000, "Bob Ferguson"
> <robert....@google.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>"Peter Parry" <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote
>
>>> An imaginative, but futile approach. The OP would have to show how
>>> the damage occurred and that it was indeed caused by the lens cleaner
>>> claimed and not some other solvent at some other time. As the
>>> Isopropanol/water mix is universally used by many manufacturers
>>> without harm to plastics (Isopropanol alone is sold as a "safety
>>> solvent" as it affects so few plastics) then proving the lens cleaner
>>> caused the damage isn't going to be easy.
>
>>Lens cleaners haven't used isoproyl alcohol for some years now
>
> That's odd, I've got two different manufacturers ones bought in the
> last few weeks both of which contain Isopropanol and water. As do
> Bausch & Lomb tissues and many others.
>
Do they say that, or is that they just smell as though they do? There is
more than one substance that smells like IPA. There used to be a commonly
used antiseptic that smells very similar to IPA (carbonyl something or
other?), which is why many older people say that the smell of IPA reminds
them of a hospital. Younger people won't make the connection because:
a. This particular antiseptic is no longer used because of the smell
b. NHS hospitals no longer clean floors and walls using antiseptic (hence
the infections).
Cynic
wrote:
>> <digitalradi...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> I'm not talking about the wipes. � Did your *glasses* come with any
>> >> instructions as to how to clean them? �If the instructions for your
>> >> glasses stated, "Clean using soap and water only," then you would not
>> >> be able to blame the wipes.
>> >No they didn't come with any treatment advice, notes, conditions, or
>> >advice. �I don't think I have EVER had specs that did! Have you?
>>
>> I don't use the things except a cheap pair of off-the-shelf reading
>> glasses, and I do not recall if they came with any cleaning
>> instructions. �Just about every other optical device that I have ever
>> owned (cameras, scanners, projector etc.) came with a pamphlet that
>> included cleaning instructions. �Some say IPA is OK, others state mild
>> detergent and water only.
>
>I have never tried beer on my glasses. :)
Vodka is an excellent substance for cleaning all sorts of things.
--
Cynic
AlanG
wrote:
I use meths and a tissue but surgical spirit from the chemist at a
pound a bottle is better. Doesn't leave a powdery residue
Cynic
>>Vodka is an excellent substance for cleaning all sorts of things.
>
>I use meths and a tissue but surgical spirit from the chemist at a
>pound a bottle is better. Doesn't leave a powdery residue
Nor does vodka IME - and it's cheaper than surgical spirit.
--
Cynic
AlanG
Cynic
>>>>Vodka is an excellent substance for cleaning all sorts of things.
>>>
>>>I use meths and a tissue but surgical spirit from the chemist at a
>>>pound a bottle is better. Doesn't leave a powdery residue
>>
>>Nor does vodka IME - and it's cheaper than surgical spirit.
>
>But vodka gets drunk.
No no no. It's the *person* who gets drunk after drinking the vodka.
--
Cynic
AlanG
wrote:
I was working in Poland in the 70s and asked for a vodka and orange.
It came in a glass a little under half a litre. I never noticed the
barman had mostly filled the glass with vodka then added a dash of
orange. Never again
I think I'll stick to Tempranillo
Peter Parry
<robert....@google.co.uk> wrote:
>"Peter Parry" <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
>news:sjm2g5du54n0pihr5...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:33:00 -0000, "Bob Ferguson"
>> <robert....@google.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Lens cleaners haven't used isoproyl alcohol for some years now
>>
>> That's odd, I've got two different manufacturers ones bought in the
>> last few weeks both of which contain Isopropanol and water. As do
>> Bausch & Lomb tissues and many others.
>Do they say that,
They list Isopropanol as a constituent together with water and
detergents.
>or is that they just smell as though they do? There is
>more than one substance that smells like IPA.
Isopropanol is an alcohol and has relatively little smell, certainly
not a "distinctive" one. Are you sure you are not mixing it up with
something else?
>There used to be a commonly
>used antiseptic that smells very similar to IPA (carbonyl something or
>other?), which is why many older people say that the smell of IPA reminds
>them of a hospital. Younger people won't make the connection because:
It certainly doesn't smell of disinfectant. Probably the most
memorable (by smell) disinfectants are the Phenolics. Dettol
(Chloroxylenol) is the most common of these in household use. Phenol
(Carbolic Acid) was common in hospital use decades ago.
However, their smell is nothing like Isopropanol. Probably the
nearest solvent with a smell vaguely similar smell to Phenolic
disinfectants would be Carbon Tetrachloride which has not been in
common use for some years, it is also non-flammable.
I think you must be confusing Isopropanol with something else.
Norman Wells
Isopropanol is the usual major ingredient of screenwash for cars, and is
what gives it its smell, so that could be easily checked.
Bob Ferguson
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 09:44:09 -0000, "Bob Ferguson"
> <robert....@google.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>"Peter Parry" <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
>>news:sjm2g5du54n0pihr5...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:33:00 -0000, "Bob Ferguson"
>>> <robert....@google.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>Lens cleaners haven't used isoproyl alcohol for some years now
>>>
>>> That's odd, I've got two different manufacturers ones bought in the
>>> last few weeks both of which contain Isopropanol and water. As do
>>> Bausch & Lomb tissues and many others.
>
>>Do they say that,
>
> They list Isopropanol as a constituent together with water and
> detergents.
>
>>or is that they just smell as though they do? There is
>>more than one substance that smells like IPA.
>
> Isopropanol is an alcohol and has relatively little smell, certainly
> not a "distinctive" one. Are you sure you are not mixing it up with
> something else?
>
Rubbish. Isopropyl Alcohol has a very distinctive smell. I use it almost
every day.
>>There used to be a commonly
>>used antiseptic that smells very similar to IPA (carbonyl something or
>>other?), which is why many older people say that the smell of IPA reminds
>>them of a hospital. Younger people won't make the connection because:
>
> It certainly doesn't smell of disinfectant. Probably the most
> memorable (by smell) disinfectants are the Phenolics. Dettol
> (Chloroxylenol) is the most common of these in household use. Phenol
> (Carbolic Acid) was common in hospital use decades ago.
>
> However, their smell is nothing like Isopropanol. Probably the
> nearest solvent with a smell vaguely similar smell to Phenolic
> disinfectants would be Carbon Tetrachloride which has not been in
> common use for some years, it is also non-flammable.
>
No. This was an antiseptic used in the 1950's and possibly the early 60's.
I wish I could remeber its name but it wan't anything like those. I smells
very similar to IPA.
> I think you must be confusing Isopropanol with something else.
Unlikely.
Bob Ferguson
"Norman Wells" <cm...@dibblers-pies.co.am> wrote in message
news:FxPMm.161457$F%2.13...@newsfe19.ams2...
It is used in some screenwash mixtures, but by no means all of them. If
your screen wash freezes in winter then it probvably doesn't contain IPA as
it also acts as an anti-freeze. In fact it is the active ingredient in many
screen anti ice sprays, the problem with these being that the IPA rapidly
evaporates off leaving the water base to freeze.
Cynic
wrote:
>Isopropanol is an alcohol and has relatively little smell, certainly
>not a "distinctive" one. Are you sure you are not mixing it up with
>something else?
I beg to differ. IPA has a very distinctive smell, but is similar to
the smell of other alcohols. To me the smell of IPA is "sharper" than
that of methylated spirits.
--
Cynic
Bob Ferguson
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:33:00 -0000, "Bob Ferguson"
> <robert....@google.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>"Peter Parry" <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote
>
>>> An imaginative, but futile approach. The OP would have to show how
>>> the damage occurred and that it was indeed caused by the lens cleaner
>>> claimed and not some other solvent at some other time. As the
>>> Isopropanol/water mix is universally used by many manufacturers
>>> without harm to plastics (Isopropanol alone is sold as a "safety
>>> solvent" as it affects so few plastics) then proving the lens cleaner
>>> caused the damage isn't going to be easy.
>
>>Lens cleaners haven't used isoproyl alcohol for some years now
>
> That's odd, I've got two different manufacturers ones bought in the
> last few weeks both of which contain Isopropanol and water. As do
> Bausch & Lomb tissues and many others.
>
Just checked lens cleaner from my optician, and lens cleaner in boots. Both
say 'alcohol free'.
Bob Ferguson
"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dgo7g55jite0tmi5h...@4ax.com...
I wouldn't describe the smell of IPA as similar to other alcohols. To me,
it is very distinctive and certainly different to either ethanol or
methanol. I don't have any butanol or any heavier alcohols to compare it
against.
AndyW
news:4b0a6...@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
> I wouldn't describe the smell of IPA as similar to other alcohols. To me,
> it is very distinctive and certainly different to either ethanol or
> methanol. I don't have any butanol or any heavier alcohols to compare it
> against.
I find that India Pale Ale has a very distinctive hoppy/malty scent.
Andy
Peter Parry
wrote:
I should have said very little compared with many other non-alcohol
solvents such as trichlorethylene and nowhere near as strong or
distinctive as say acetone, ether or the citrus terpenes. I certainly
can't think of any widely used hospital disinfectant cleaner whose
smell is similar to IPA. I suspect Bob is getting confused with
another solvent.
Peter Parry
>> last few weeks both of which contain Isopropanol and water. As do
>> Bausch & Lomb tissues and many others.
>
>Just checked lens cleaner from my optician, and lens cleaner in boots. Both
>say 'alcohol free'.
As they were probably in bottles or sprays they would, those mostly do
not usually contain alcohols as they evaporate too quickly when
sprayed. If you look at lens tissues, which are the subject of this
discussion, you will find most contain Isopropanol, water and
detergent or ethanol water and detergent. As well as being an
effective degreaser the alcohol evaporates quite quickly leaving the
spectacles wearable immediately after cleaning.
The idea that Isopropanol has not been used in lens cleaning tissues
for years is risible.
Bob Ferguson
"AndyW" <Andrew....@noJunqMailbaesystems.com> wrote in message
news:4b0a7923$1...@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
IPA = IsoPropyl Alcohol (a.k.a. Iso-Propanol, Propan-2-ol).
Bob Ferguson
If correct - not for much longer. Iso Propyl Alcohol is about to banned
from all products and from use in indusrty (another EU directive).
Bob Ferguson
"johannes" <jo...@siz774327242efitter.com> wrote in message
news:4B01B52B...@siz774327242efitter.com...
An interesting statement given that my glasses from my optician come with a
*5 year* guarantee on both frames and lenses. And since my prescription
hadn't changed from 2 years ago, they will certainly have to survive at
least 4 year's use.
AndyW
I know I used to use it to clean tape heads all the time. I was trying to be
a smartarse which, I'm sure, you knew and annoyingly carried on regardless.
It's no fun trolling when people don't bite *sob*
Andy
Ian Jackson
<robert....@google.co.uk> writes
--
Ian
Norman Wells
> "Peter Parry" <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
> news:uoskg59du9p8vpj85...@4ax.com...
>> The idea that Isopropanol has not been used in lens cleaning tissues
>> for years is risible.
>
> If correct - not for much longer. Iso Propyl Alcohol is about to
> banned from all products and from use in indusrty (another EU
> directive).
Oh yeah?
Cite?
Bob Ferguson
"AndyW" <Andrew....@noJunqMailbaesystems.com> wrote in message
[mode=mutley]
<sniggers>
[/mode]
Bob Ferguson
This apparently is coming about because of the high flammability of iso
propyl alcohol. The standard spill and fire fighting procedure is to flood
the spill with water which quickly absorbs the alcohol to a non flammable
mixture. The problem is that it is very easy for a contaminant to the
mixture to reverse the solubility and the iso propyl alcohol is thrown out
of solution to form a flammable layer floating on top of the water.
Apparently (it says here) you can try this for yourself if you mix isopropyl
alcohol and water. You don't need to add very much common salt to cause the
iso propyl alcohol to float on the water. The majority of soluble salts can
do this apparently.
Isopropyl alcohol is being replaced with a non flammable and far less
volatile derived compound. ISTR seeing recently that it was being replaced
with isopropyl nitrate, but a google on 'isopropyl nitrate' suggests that I
have definitely got the name wrong.
colinw...@googlemail.com
jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew aliash)
wrote:
>I've found these to be the best solution I've come across for cleaning specs in all my years of wearing glasses. I in fact have only come across this forum because I wanted to find where I can stack up on more!
--
The Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus admits he got
no life AT ALL outside stalking on THE Usenet!
"Frankly, if he were gone, I wouldn't know what to do here."
Message-ID: <FCOQt.107901$hp7....@fx13.fr7>
The Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus, defending his fellow
Grik sodomite the Grikboxer® and under the delusion that he's
been able to grow a pair: "You'd have to get past me first,"
Message-ID: <LOOQt.337647$Qr2....@fx08.fr7>
Yet more proof that the Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus
thinks he got a pair: "Just to let you know: ANYONE who "befriends"
the subnormal swine will have to deal with me! Get ready, bitch!"
Message-ID: <FHg6t.166438$Nl5....@newsfe07.iad>
The Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus STILL seems to think
he got a pair: "Which will NEVER happen! You'd have to get past
me first, poor psycho! LOL"
Message-ID: <MCSIu.1$c5...@fx32.fr7>
Best of all! From the Foreskin Peeler's doctoral dissertation in divinity,
'University' of Salonica (1992): "The jew g-d is your g-d's dad."
Graham.
If you must reply to a 2009 post, please quote some context, and don't
edit out the Re: in the subject line.
--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%