The amount of light is even, but the area with no coating is dimmed and muggy on the wall (close up) turning the bazzle and relocate the defected area over oher LED shows the same thing. a small muggy spot on the wall (not sure the best word to use but muggy and dimmed is the best I can came up with)
http://www.hdssystems.com/Products/LensGlass/
“ultra-clear glass with an anti-reflective coating on both sides to maximize the amount of light transmitted”
according to this pic you gain 6% of the light transmission if you use an Ultra Clear Lens with anti-reflective coating
http://www.atomicaquatics.com/masks_subframe_ARC.html
“The term anti-reflective (AR) coating is deceiving. What it should be called is a ”transmission booster” or “light booster for a lens. What it does, in effect, is Increase Light Transmission through the lens. This is the single most important thing an AR coating does.”
What do you think happens to the light that isn’t transmitted through the lens??
It gets reflected.
80% of the reflected light gets in the spill
AR lens increases throw more than total light output
One of those variables is the non coated glass used to hold the flashlight above the tube. A non coated glass over an AR coated glass lens…How does this affect the benefit of the AR coated lens of the flashlight ?
Yeah, but there is nothing wrong with calling it “anti reflective” because that’s literally exactly what it does, it reduces the amount of photons that bounce off so that they go through instead.
Reflectivity and transmission are inverses of eachother.
Saying an “anti reflective” coating should be called a “tranmission enhancing” coating is like saying that a “resistor” should instead be called an “anti conductor”
Both are correct, but only one is what the thing is actually called by convention.