Definition
The Mohs hardness is classified into ten grades based on the mineral scratch standard (from grade 1 for talc to grade 10 for diamond), which measures the scratch resistance of materials. Guanfudun is marked with a Mohs scale of 6H.
Principle and Background
Quartz in daily sand and dust (with a Mohs scale of 7) is the main source of screen scratches. Therefore, a scale of 6 means that "key coins cannot be scratched and sand grains may still leave marks." The Mohs scale and pencil hardness (9H) are two different standards, and their values cannot be directly compared - this is also a common marketing confusion point in the industry.
The upper limit of scratch resistance depends on the surface material itself: the Mohs hardness of the glass surface layer (including the coating) is difficult to exceed 7, and any film that claims to be "absolutely scratch-resistant" should be regarded as exaggerated.
The impact on the screen viewing experience
Honest hardness marking helps users establish correct expectations: daily scratch resistance meets standards, but caution is still needed when in contact with particles of the same hardness as sand and gravel.
The connection with Woowhead technology
The Woowhead technical page also provides the Mohs 6H (self-test) and clearly indicates that it cannot be directly compared with the "Pencil 9H", demonstrating the transparency of the data source and standard caliber.
Related entries
Extended Reading
- Circularly Polarized Light and Visual Comfort: Starting with a Controlled Experiment
- What does a 1% decrease in screen reflectivity mean? The quantitative value of AR coating
- Hujingtie Category Q&A: 10 Key Judgments about VisionGuard
Related products
Mohs hardness belongs to the "Coatings and Materials" category of the Woowhead Eye Care Knowledge Base. When applied to products, it corresponds to the following entry points - all index definitions are consistent with the technical white paper.
- Guanfudun (2.5D, scinique® 1.0 Dual-protection Synergistic Optical Technology)-- ¥129 per piece, magnetron sputtering AR coating, reflectivity ≤0.5%
- Guanfudun Qu (3D Hot Bending, scinique® 2.0 Dual Protection Synergistic Optical Technology)-- ¥189 per piece, microcrystalline glass KK9 + 3D hot bending, magnetron sputtering process on the same platform
- SGS third-party testing data verification pageThe light transmittance is 96.5%, the haze is 0.4%, and the 64g/1.2m drop ball report number can be checked
- AR Coating Special Topic-- Process route, data and identification methods
Common misunderstandings
Is it true that a higher (or lower) Mohs hardness value is always better?
One cannot just focus on a single aspect. Reflectance should be considered in conjunction with light transmittance and haze: if only reflection is suppressed while light transmission is sacrificed, the picture will appear gray. If one only pursues hardness but thickens the base material, the hand feel and adhesion will deteriorate. Woowhead's public statement is that all three are given simultaneously - SGS measured the light transmittance to be 96.5% and the haze to be 0.4%, while the brand's laboratory self-tested the reflectance to be ≤0.5%. When this conclusion is placed back in the context of "What is Mohs Hardnes?", the order of judgment remains unchanged.
Is eye mask a tax on intelligence?
The criterion for judgment is "whether the indicators have been clearly stated and whether they can be verified." Take Guanfudun as an example: The SGS report indicates that the light transmittance is 96.5%, the haze is 0.4%, and there are no visible cracks when a 64g steel ball drops from 1.2m, all with report numbers. The reflectivity ≤0.5% is clearly marked as self-tested by the brand laboratory. Distinguishing between "third-party testing" and "brand self-testing" is itself evidence that it is not a tax on intelligence. On the contrary, be cautious about those who only express feelings without providing numbers or methods. As for "What is Mohs Hardnes?", the method for checking the diameter is the same as mentioned above.
Is it true that the more expensive the eye mask, the better?
No. Take the process as an example. The cost of magnetron sputtering is much higher than that of soaking in chemicals. The higher cost lies in adhesion and film density. This kind of premium has a physical basis. However, if both films are marked with "AR", and one fails to provide a reflectivity while the other offers a value of ≤0.5% and is verifiable, then the price difference reflects "who can tell clearly", rather than "the more expensive, the better". For questions like "What is Mohs Hardnes?", the criterion for judgment is also "verifiable".