Draft
Minutes
ASC OP/TF 2, Performance Based Optical Imperfections Task Force Draft Standard Meeting
January 25, 2009
Fairmont Hotel, California Room
170 South Market Street
San Jose, CA 95113
Committee Members (16 of 20 w/2 alt.)
Representing
David Aikens
Savvy Optics Corporation
Gordon Boultbee
JDSU Corporation
Andrei Brunfeld
Xyrtex
Benjamin Catching (Alternate)
JDSU Corporation
David Corridon
Individual
Walter Czajkowski
APOMA (Edmund Optics)
Jesica DeGroote Nelson
Optimax Systems, Inc.
Frank Dombrowski (by phone)
Gage-Line Technology, Inc.
Marla Dowell
IEEE/LEOS (NIST)
Marla Dowell
NIST
Lincoln Endelman
SPIE, (Endelman Enterprises)
Charles Gaugh
Davidson Optronics, Inc.
Ulf Griesmann
OSA (NIST)
Krishna Gupta
Zygo Corporation
Hal Johnson
Harold Johnson Optical Lab
Rudolf Hartman
Retired
Alan Krisiloff
Triptar Lens Co., Inc.
Jonathan McGuire (by phone)
Northrop Grumman Laser Systems
Rick Plympton (Alternate)
Optimax Systems, Inc.
Sam Richman (Alternate)
Research Electro-Optics, Inc.
William Royall (by phone)
Eastman Kodak Company, Retired
Trey Turner
Research Electro-Optics, Inc.
Ray Williamson
Ray Williamson Consulting
Observers (4)
Gene Kohlenberg
OEOSC
John Hamilton
Northrop Grumman Defensive Systems
Donna Howland
Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems
Ashish Mistry
FLIR Precision Optics
Bruce Netherton
Lockheed Martin Coherent Technologies
Ari Siletz
CCDMETRIX
Auditor's Summary of Meeting
The Task Force reviewed a concept for updating ANSI/OEOSC OP1.002-2009. Changes to several tables and
equations were presented. The Task Force asked the author to collect suggestions from the other members and prepare a
new working draft for the members to review 30 days before the next meeting.
1. Welcome and Introductions
G. Boultbee opened the meeting at 8:32 a.m. He named each person in the room and on the phone.
2. Adoption of Agenda
G. Boultbee asked for a motion to approve the revised draft agenda. D. Aikens made the motion and A. Krisiloff
seconded it. The motion carried unanimously.
3. Approval of the Monday, August 11, 2008 ASC OP/SC 1, BSR/OEOSC-OP1.002, Optics and Electro-Optical
Instruments Optical Elements and Assemblies -- Appearance Imperfections Draft Review Minutes
G. Boultbee asked J. McGuire if he had been able to determine the origin of the image anomalies behind some of the
lens-imperfection illustrations that appear in Annex A of ANSI/OEOSC OP1.002. John said that he had to contact the
04/08/09 11:30:13 AM
1 of 3
ASC OP TF 2 Draft Minutes Imperfection, 1-25-09.odt
person who generated the images, and would report what he found. G. Boultbee then called for a motion to approve the
minutes from the San Diego meeting. A. Krisiloff moved that the draft minutes be approved as presented; R. Williamson
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
4. Status of Release of OP1.002
G. Kohlenberg reported that the ANSI public review of ANSI/OEOSC OP1.002 will end on January 26, 2009.
Assuming that no comments are received by then, the draft will then be submitted to ANSI for final approval. There is no
way to predict how quickly ANSI will grant the approval. G. Boultbee asked if the publication should be delayed until the
status of the Annex A illustrations could be determined. J. McGuire replied that he could have an answer about the
illustrations within two weeks.
5. Concept for New Work Item for Rev 3 of OP1.002
G. Boultbee introduced the subject by saying that additional ideas that could be included in this standard would be
prepared for the next revision. A. Krisiloff agreed to document proposed additions for the update. His modified OP1.002
accompanies these minutes.
Suggested changes are to clause 3.5.3, Table 1 Scratch Designation, Table 2 Dig Designation, clause 3.5.5 with
subclauses, clause 3.6 with subclauses up through 3.6.2.
F. Dombrowski found different result for 3.5.5.1 and 3.5.5.2. He interpreted 3.5.5.1 as E-D, and 3.5.5.2 as C-C.
A. Krisiloff agreed with F. Dombrowski's interpretation for 3.5.5.1. However, 3.5.5.2 is B-B because there is no 15 µ
scratch classification; therefore, the smaller classification of B would be used. Likewise, there is no 130 µ classification,
and B would be used.
D. Aikens said that this condition should be explicitly stated in the specification, not the example. A. Krisiloff made a
note of this discussion so that he could examine it further.
D. Aikens said that 3.5.3 refers to the scratch width as the widest portion of the scratch. How is that width going to be
determined?
D. Aikens suggested that in Table 1 accumulation class A2 and A should be A2.5 and A. A. Krisiloff replied that the
table has a typographical error, and A2.5 is correct.
G. Boultbee said that an optician on the floor would look at the third column in the tables and ask what he can ignore.
and then continue using the current method.
D. Aikens said that the revised equations using
i=max
min
...
are ambiguous. Change them to
i=1
n
...
and make n the number
of scratches to be considered for accumulation.
T. Turner added that S
max
needs to be defined.
A. Krisiloff wondered if there would be confusion on the shop floor if the equations were reorganized as he proposes.
D. Aikens suggested that the Task Force consider whether sleeks should be considered as scratches. His experience is
that 50% of those he has poled in his classes do consider sleeks to be scratches. The standard should reflect current
practice. So ASC OP should determine what the current practice is.
D. Aikens moved that the Task Force ask A. Krisiloff to prepare a committee draft that includes the scope of the
revision . B. Netherton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
G. Boultbee then asked that the members of the Task Force submit ideas to be included in this draft to A. Krisiloff 45
days before the next meeting so that he can prepare an update for the Task Force 30 days before the next meeting.
The Task Force recessed at 10:00 a.m. and reconvened at 10:11 a.m.
6. Review Draft of One-Hour Short Course
G. Boultbee reviewed the history of the project. A. Krisiloff then went through the presentation slide by slide. A copy
of the presentation accompanies these minutes.
M. Dowell suggested that the illustrations on slide 8 should be labeled.
R. Williamson noted that the word "crack" was used on slide 9. He said that is dangerously close to "crack edges."
D. Aikens suggested that the definition in OP1.002 be used.
G. Boultbee asked if ISO 14997:2003 should be listed on slide 18. A. Krisiloff replied that it should probably be
ISO 10110. C. Gaugh noted that the old MIL-O-13830 still appears on many documents.
M. Dowell suggested an OEOSC introduction is needed at the beginning to help motivate the reason for the
presentation.
T. Turner suggested that there needs to be an explanation as to why there are three different methodologies.
04/08/09 11:30:13 AM
2 of 3
ASC OP TF 2 Draft Minutes Imperfection, 1-25-09.odt
D. Aikens said that this presentation does not mention the OEOSC course on the subject. It also can give the listener a
false sense that he or she can now obtain the standards and begin using them without difficulty.
C. Gaugh thought that in this survey presentation there is no need to talk about process development. M. Dowell
countered that a manager listening to this presentation needs to understand that there are many problems facing a person
who is attempting to characterize scratches and digs.
B. Netherton said that scratch and dig evaluation is the biggest cost of production.
G. Boultbee asked D. Aikens if he was suggesting a modification of this presentation, or a separate presentation.
D. Aikens was not certain.
7. Report on status of scratch inspection vision system being developed by Ari Siletz and evaluated by JDSU
At the request of the Task Force Leader, A. Krisiloff moved that this topic be moved ahead of the discussion of the
Picatinny Arsenal visit. C. Gaugh seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
D. Aikens discussed the inspection system that A. Siletz and he developed. A copy of the presentation accompanies
these minutes.
G. Boultbee suggested that this technique could become example two in the ISO scratch and dig standard.
8. Visit by OEOSC representatives to Picatinny Arsenal in NJ
The purpose of this visit is to bring representatives of Picatinny up to date on revisions of OP1.002. Perhaps D. Aikens
could describe the Savvy instrument.
C. Gaugh said that John Salerno retired 2½ years ago. His replacement is not that familiar with the reference standard
and has no love for the current reference standard. The military would accept a new system that is shown to be superior.
The Military will not give up its reference standard until NIST assumes responsibility.
G. Boultbee asked who would agree to attend a Picatinny meeting. D. Aikens could go if the fact that he has a potential
product in this arena is not a conflict of interest.
W. Royall would be interested in attending the meeting, as are J. McGuire, C. Gaugh, and B. Netherton.
G. Boultbee asked D. Aikens to lead the delegation.
L. Endelman suggested that OEOSC set up a dinner meeting with an advance agenda so that Picatinny may have more
persons participate. He said that he found that Picatinny will be reluctant to any changes in their procedures.
B. Netherton talked to J. McGuire about how they could show a cost savings by implementing a new scratch and dig
evaluation system.
G. Boultbee asked that this visit be accomplished before the next meeting.
9. Time and Place of next TF 2 Meeting
J. McGuire said that OEOSC has not had a presence in the Florida conference in several years. There is a wide
spectrum of companies interested in scratch and dig. G. Boultbee asked for a show of hands for having the next meeting in
Orlando in April or Rochester in May. Three were in favor of Orlando, and nine were in favor of Rochester.
The Orlando show is for the military prime contractors. A. Krisiloff said that it is not necessary to have a Task Force
meeting in Florida, but OEOSC should have some presence. J. McGuire agreed. D. Aikens suggested a panel discussion in
Florida in 2010 where scratch and dig or standards in general could be the subject. D. Aikens suggested that a group be
formed to develop a strategy for increasing OEOSC presence at the April SPIE conference in Florida.
A. Krisiloff asked J. McGuire to set himself a reminder to weekly ping D. Aikens and A. Krisiloff about a strategy for
future Orlando participation.
W. Czajkowski moved to meet in Rochester, NY. B. Netherton seconded the motion, which carried with 15 for and 2
against. The motion carried.
10. Adjourn
A. Krisiloff moved that the meeting be adjourned; R. Williamson seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 11:56 a.m.
04/08/09 11:30:13 AM
3 of 3
ASC OP TF 2 Draft Minutes Imperfection, 1-25-09.odt