Boultbee inputs beginning with footnote 30

On August 3rd I posted my inputs from the beginning through Footnote 29. Following are the balance of my comments, as of 8/13/2012.

Footnote 30: I think you have attempted to answer the question yourself in 3.2 Fractures At The Surface, and 5.2, Fractures In The Bulk Material. What you need to consider in your wordsmithing is that an edge is also a surface. So do you need to clarify what you mean by surface in Section 3?
Footnote 31 and 32: It is not the intent that chips be allowed to intrude into the CA. If you think that is what your wording infers, you need to change your wording.
5.1 Bubbles, Inclusions and Striae: line 2, change “scratch” to “scratches.”
5.3 Area Imperfections of the Bulk Material: What is an “area imperfection” in the bulk material? I think this is a contradiction in terms and I recommend this paragraph be deleted. Area imperfections are covered in 3.3 and 6.3.
6.2 Fractures in a Coating: We usually refer to fractures in a coating as “cracks” or “crazing.” I think it would be good to include this parenthetically in the sentence.
6.1 and Footnote 33: I think coating imperfections should be evaluated as scratches and digs, not as internal inclusions. Many times drawings and specifications will say “internal inclusions shall be treated as digs” anyway, so the requirements tend to merge.
6.3 and Footnote 34: Suggest change to: No blemishes (coating and substrate) such as streaks, smears, stains, blotchiness, discoloration, etc. visible to the unaided eye shall be permitted within the clear aperture on an optical component lying in a focal plane. Unless otherwise specified on the component drawing or procurement document, blemishes on a component which lies outside the focal plane in an optical system shall be acceptable when it can be shown that these blemishes do not impair the spectral performance and durability requirements.
The above words are paraphrased from MIL-F-48616, 3.4.1.4.
7.3.1 General [Area imperfections in cemented interface]: This is WAY tighter than MIL-PRF-13830B and the current edition of OP1.002 para. 3.3.6 allow. We need to keep the current wording.
7.3.2 and Footnote 35: I think you have already covered all other areal cement imperfections in 7.1 and 7.3.1, so edge separations are all that are left to address in 7.3.2. Why not rename this paragraph “Edge Separations”? “Depth” implies “thickness” whereas as “Edge Separation” implies “in and out.”
7.3.3 Circumferential Extent and Footnote 36: I think it is correct and slightly better wording, but are you saying the “diameters” are measured from the inner edge of the chamfer, or the perimeter is calculated based on the inner edge of the chamfer, or both? I suppose it should be both although you are creating more work for someone because the perimeter is normally calculated from the outer dimensions of the component, not the outer dimensions minus 2x the chamfer dimension.
8 Methods of Inspection: Second paragraph, delete the space between Annex C and the period.
Footnote 37: You are correct. #5 and #10 digs are very, very hard to see and very hard to see, respectively, so when in doubt people want to measure.
8.2.1 Equipment: Fix the “Error! Reference source not found” warning.
8.3.2: “and / or” should be “and/or.” The font changes part way through the last sentence.
9 Glossary: Inconsistent use of periods at the end of clauses throughout the section.
9.1.1 Unaided Eye and Footnote 38: It sounds like we might have confused the definition of “unaided eye” with the provision in the standard (8.1.6) that allows for 4X magnification. That is not the same thing. “Unaided eye” means no magnification, just corrective lenses as required to achieve 20-20 vision.
9.1.3 Linear Dimension and Footnote 39: Dave Aikens (Savvy Inspector) and or Trey Turner (Annex E author) needs to weigh in on this. Note that the 90% contour is mentioned in Annex E, not Annex D.
9.3.2: Period goes inside the quote mark.
9.4.1 Aperture and Footnote 40: Are we getting too precise and convoluted for our own good? The book Practical Optics defines aperture as “an opening through which light can pass.”
9.4.2 Clear Aperture: Many sources define the clear aperture as “the minimum area over which the optical requirements apply.”
9.7.1.3 and 9.7.4 Rim: ISO 9211-1 defines rim as “any area outside the clear aperture.” Works for me!
In 9.7.4 the period goes inside the quote mark.
9.7.5 and 9.7.6 Bevel and Chamfer: We (JDSU) define a bevel as “visible to some max size and the angle is always 45°” and a chamfer is fully dimensioned with min and max and angle. Thus typically a bevel is applied to remove a sharp edge to improve resistance to chipping, whereas a chamfer has a more functional purpose, such as mating with a bezel. But many sources use them synonymously
9.8.4 Roof Edge: How about “the edge of the two reflecting surfaces of the prism that intersect at 90°”?
9.9.11 Bulk Material Imperfections: There is also a phenomenon called devitrification in which small crystals (“devit”) form in the otherwise amorphous glass. I think it would be better to delete “foreign matter” and substitute “inclusions,” which would include foreign matter and devit.
9.10.1 and 9.10.2: Periods go inside the quote marks.
9.10.4 Haze: Some coatings can exhibit haziness. There is nothing incorrect with the current definition, but I question the need for the comment about plastic optics.
9.11.2 Sleek: This definition needs to be updated per the discussion at the Monterey meeting: “A long, narrow, faint imperfection with a smooth reflecting surface that can be visualized at only one angle of observation. Typically, sleeks are less than 3 microns wide. A sleek is not a scratch and must be considered separately.”
9.12.1.3 Dig: I am trying to visualize what this definition means.
Footnote 44: I prefer “void” to “hole.” Since coatings are nanometers to microns thick you could not detect a bubble in a coating under the inspection conditions this standard is supposed to address. It is possible to section coated substrates and look at each layer of a coating, but you are talking SEM microphotographs. I can’t say I have ever seen a hole in a coating cross section except when photolithography processes are being used. I recommend the definition for pinhole say “A regular or irregular void in a coating” and let it go at that.
Footnote 45: It is certainly possible to have foreign particles be introduced into a coating during deposition, i.e., part way through the total thickness of the coating. The coating layers get disturbed and form a conical imperfection that gets larger in diameter as the coating thickness increases. If a large foreign particle or spatter gets dislodged after coating it can leave a void in the coating. From a p[practical matter we would evaluate it as a dig for inspection purposes.
9.13.1 Chip: I agree with Bill Royall that not all chips are conchoidal. I’m not sure if Allen’s definition was inferring that they were but I think some rewording is in order to make it clearer.
Annex B Footnote 48: I think we are going to delete this Annex, but if we don’t the “appropriate zone” takes into consideration a situation say, for example, where you have concentric zones on a round lens, the inner zone has a spec. for scratches and digs and the outer zone has a different callout.
Footnote 49: This is obvious; it is one of the three formulas in this annex, depending on what you are trying to calculate!
Annex C: The first “sentence” is supposed to be a heading. In the real first sentence delete the space between “3.1.3” and the closed parenthesis. That will preclude the parenthesis from being on a different line.
Footnote 50: A recommendation is Informative.
Footnote 51: Per the Army drawing the #10 scratch is at the top and the #80 is at the bottom. So my answer is “No.”
Annex D: The first “sentence” is supposed to be a heading.
Annex E: Change “um” to “µm” throughout.