What is the best contact lens cleaner?

Are you in reruns already?
--
Live simply so that others may simply live

A quick replacement system

Simple question, simple answer.

BTW, a few days ago you did have the same question, one of the helpfull
people here asked you if you meant for use with the ''hard'' or the ''soft''
lenses.

--
Free to  Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

In conclusion, I think that the "Otis therapy " should be destroyed

Jan (normally Dutch spoken)

My guess is there is no "best" cleaner.   Since I have Boston lenses I
use Boston cleaner.  I've tried other brands and haven't found they
were better or worse than Boston brand.  If you're having problems,
I'd look at cleaning technique or frequency before changing brands.

I've heard about ultrasonic cleaners but can't find any.   Were they a
gimmick that failed to catch on?

I use soft lens, i like complete moisture plus. I think it has the best and
most complete in chemicals

Amazon.com sells them: http://tinyurl.com/b6873

Can't vouch for them, one way or the other, but they are an intriguing
concept...

You can still find them at various places. I'd like to hear
a review from someone knowledgeable.

1) I don't expect military grade for $30 (more towards the
not-quite-junk sort of thing) but is it possible to make
an effective ultrasonic cleaner that sells for $30?

2) My almost non-existant knowledge of ultrasonic cleaners
is that they can/do generate heat (in the object being cleaned?).
Would this be an issue for RGP materials?

I'd love for these things to work -- really appeals to my wont
for gadgets.

-Quick

I'd have to figure out where I read a review, but ... yes, somebody
said that the heat *was* an issue for RGP's, and could warp them.

IIRC, though, there are ultrasonic cleaners that have a "regular" and
a "strong" setting, with heat being the difference.  ISTR reading that
the 'regular' setting was ok for lenses.

Might be worth a little Googling....

Agreed :-)
--
Live simply so that others may simply live

Ultrasonic cleaners can be pretty simple. The prices have always been
inflated by ingenuity and demand, rather than just a function of materials
and labor. As such, over the past 30 years the cost has come down
dramatically.

All that's really necessary is a circuit that generates alternating current
around 20 kHz or more, and a piezoelectric transducer made of lead zirconate
between two layers of tin. The transducer is usually bonded to a resonating
metal container. Better units use multiple transducers, welded instead of
glued, and circuits that generate frequency sweeps to avoid standing waves.
For $30 you probably won't get those features, nor will you get the more
durable "magnetostrictive" transducers. Piezo crystals wear out after a
while.

The cleaning action occurs because the vibration creates tiny cavitation
bubbles. When the bubbles collapse, they generate a tiny "squirt" which
travels about 400 km/hr over a microscopic distance.

Of course the transducers generate heat, but you'd have to place the lens
directly on the transducer without a surrounding bath, and that wouldn't
clean anything.

They work ok, but not that much better than the "gadget" attached to your
hand. Your fingers don't cost any extra and you usually carry them with you.

-MT