Katharine Burr Blodgett: Inventor of non-reflective coatings for glass?

Jun 29, 2017
314
142
4,723
She invented the technology that makes your glasses, cameras, and phone screens work. Her name was deliberately left out of history—until now.
In 1917, Katharine Burr Blodgett walked into the General Electric research laboratory in Schenectady, New York, and became the first woman ever hired there.
She was 18 years old.
The men in the lab didn't know what to make of her. Women weren't supposed to be in physics. They certainly weren't supposed to be brilliant at it.
Katharine was both.
But to understand how an 18-year-old woman ended up in one of America's most prestigious research labs, you need to understand what came before.
Katharine was born in 1898, just weeks after her father was murdered. George Blodgett, a patent attorney, was shot and killed in a home invasion robbery in Schenectady before his daughter was born.
Her mother, Katherine Burr Blodgett, refused to let tragedy define their lives. She was determined that her daughter would have every educational opportunity—even in a world that told women their only career was marriage.
Young Katharine was brilliant. Frighteningly brilliant. She excelled in math and science when girls were told those subjects would damage their delicate brains.
At 15, she graduated from high school. At 17, she finished Bryn Mawr College—one of the few colleges that would even admit women. She graduated with a degree in physics when most physics departments wouldn't allow women through the door.
Then she did something audacious. She applied for a job at General Electric's research laboratory.
The lab director was Irving Langmuir, who would later win the Nobel Prize for his work on surface chemistry. When he met Katharine, he saw something the rest of the world was trained to miss: genius has no gender.
He hired her on the spot.
She was the first woman ever employed in GE's research lab. The first woman to work alongside the men who were inventing the modern world.
But Langmuir knew she needed more than a job. She needed credentials that would make it impossible for the scientific community to dismiss her.
He told her to go to Cambridge University in England and get a Ph.D. in physics.
In 1926, Katharine Burr Blodgett became the first woman ever to earn a doctorate in physics from Cambridge University.
She was 28 years old. And she was just getting started.
She returned to GE and began working on a problem that had frustrated scientists for decades: reflection.
Every surface that interacts with light—glass, lenses, mirrors—reflects some of that light back. This creates glare. Distortion. Lost clarity.
For telescopes, it meant dimmer images. For cameras, it meant hazy photographs. For eyeglasses, it meant distracting reflections. For cinema projectors, it meant less vibrant films.
Katharine wondered: what if you could eliminate reflection entirely?
Working with Langmuir, she developed a revolutionary technique. She discovered that by depositing ultra-thin molecular layers onto glass—layers so thin they were only a few molecules thick—she could manipulate how light behaved on the surface.
If you layered these films precisely, the reflected light waves would cancel each other out through destructive interference.
The result? Glass that didn't reflect. Glass that appeared almost invisible.
She called it "non-reflective coating."
The world had never seen anything like it.
In 1938, when she perfected the technique, she held up a piece of coated glass and photographers couldn't capture it on film—it was so non-reflective that cameras couldn't see it properly. The images showed what looked like empty space where the glass should be.
She'd made glass invisible.
The applications were immediate and revolutionary. Eyeglasses with her coating eliminated glare, making vision clearer. Microscope lenses could magnify with unprecedented clarity. Telescope lenses could capture fainter stars. Camera lenses produced sharper photographs.
Cinema projection improved dramatically—audiences watching movies in the 1940s and 50s were seeing Katharine's invention, though almost none of them knew her name.
During World War II, her work became critical to the military. She developed improved methods for detecting submarines. She created better de-icing techniques for aircraft wings. She improved smoke screens that saved lives.
By the end of her career, she held eight patents. Her techniques became foundational to modern materials science. The Langmuir-Blodgett film deposition method—named partially for her—is still used today in nanotechnology and advanced materials research.
Your smartphone screen uses her technology. Your anti-glare glasses use her invention. Every precision optical instrument from microscopes to space telescopes builds on her work.
She revolutionized optics. And history almost forgot her name.
Because she was a woman in science, her achievements were consistently attributed to her male colleagues. Langmuir received the Nobel Prize—deservedly, for his own work—but Katharine's contributions were minimized or ignored.
When she was recognized, it was often with surprise. As if brilliance in a woman was an anomaly rather than evidence that women had always been brilliant—just systematically denied the opportunity to prove it.
Katharine never demanded the spotlight. She wasn't interested in fame. She was interested in clarity—in glass, in science, in understanding how the world worked at its most fundamental level.
She worked at GE for 44 years until her retirement in 1963. She never married, dedicating her life to research.
She died in 1979 at age 81. Her obituaries were brief. The world moved on quickly, forgetting the woman who'd made the world clearer.
But every time you put on glasses without glare, you're using her invention.
Every time you take a photograph with a clear lens, that's her legacy.
Every time you watch a movie projected crisply on a screen, you're seeing her work.
Every woman who walks into a physics lab and is told "you don't belong here" is walking through a door Katharine Burr Blodgett already opened.
She was 18 years old when she became the first woman hired at General Electric's research laboratory in a building full of men who didn't think women could do physics.
She invented technology that changed how humanity sees the world.
And for decades, history couldn't see her.
But now we do.
Now we remember that every barrier broken makes the next one easier to break.
That every woman told "you don't belong" who succeeds anyway creates possibility for the next generation.
Katharine Burr Blodgett made glass invisible.
History tried to make her invisible too.
We're bringing her back into focus.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 4 users
I do not know where you got the information from, but it is not consistent with her entry on Wikipedia. For example:

Your text has: “Katharine's contributions were minimized or ignored”

Wikipedia has an Awards section which has: “Blodgett received numerous awards during her lifetime. She received a star in the seventh edition of American Men of Science (1943), recognizing her as one of the 1,000 most distinguished scientists in the United States. In 1945, the American Association of University Women honored her with its Annual Achievement Award” and “Blodgett's accomplishments were widely recognized, earning her several prestigious awards”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
Following on Pieter's post, she is honoured also by awards in her name: Institute of Physics https://www.iop.org/about/awards/gold-medals/katharine-burr-blodgett-medal-and-prize-recipients; the Society for Chemistry and Industry https://www.soci.org/awards/honours/katharine-burr-blodgett-award, and I learned about the Langmuir-Blodgett trough as a student 60 years ago. And she hasn't been ignored in photography, being awarded the 1972 achievement prize from the Photographic Society of America.

We are all sitting in front of the most comprehensive search engines and it takes just seconds to check facts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
Following on Pieter's post, she is honoured also by awards in her name: Institute of Physics https://www.iop.org/about/awards/gold-medals/katharine-burr-blodgett-medal-and-prize-recipients

First on that page is 2008, 27 years after she died.


Established in 2020, 39 years after she died.

and I learned about the Langmuir-Blodgett trough as a student 60 years ago. And she hasn't been ignored in photography, being awarded the 1972 achievement prize from the Photographic Society of America.

In 1972, she was how old?

How long did she have to wait for such recognition?

We are all sitting in front of the most comprehensive search engines and it takes just seconds to check facts.

What can I say? I was lazy and cut-n-pasted from something on facebook.

But what's abundantly clear from the links that you shared is that she wasn't very well recognised during her lifetime.
 
  • Wow
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
First on that page is 2008, 27 years after she died.

Established in 2020, 39 years after she died.

In 1972, she was how old?

How long did she have to wait for such recognition?

What can I say? I was lazy and cut-n-pasted from something on facebook.

But what's abundantly clear from the links that you shared is that she wasn't very well recognised during her lifetime.
Not only were you too lazy to check the facts in a Facebook post - that well-known source of misinformation and disinformation, you were too lazy to read @P-visie 's post, immediately before mine, where he gave you a link to the wikipedia article which listed her awards. Here is cut and paste of the wikipedia section that you can't now miss. (She died in 1979).

"Blodgett received numerous awards during her lifetime. She received a star in the seventh edition of American Men of Science (1943), recognizing her as one of the 1,000 most distinguished scientists in the United States."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Burr_Blodgett#cite_note-siegel-19" In 1945, the American Association of University Women honored her with its Annual Achievement Award. "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Burr_Blodgett#cite_note-siegel-19"

In 1951 she received the prestigious Francis Garvan Medal from the American Chemical Society for her work on thin films. That same year, she was chosen by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as one of 15 "women of achievement." Also in 1951, she was honored in Boston's First Assembly of American Women in Achievement (the only scientist in the group),"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Burr_Blodgett#cite_note-proffitt-6 and the mayor of Schenectady honored her with Katharine Blodgett Day on June 13, 1951, because of all the honor she had brought to her community.

In 1972, the Photographic Society of America presented her with its Annual Achievement Award<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Burr_Blodgett#cite_note-ogilvie-7"and in 2007 she was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Burr_Blodgett#cite_note-20" In 2008, an elementary school in Schenectady bearing her name was opened.

She received honorary doctorates from Elmira College (1939), Western College (1942), Brown University (1942), and Russell Sage College (1944)."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Burr_Blodgett#cite_note-ogilvie-7"




That is one helluva lot of recognition within her lifetime. My links were, as I specifically wrote, to follow on from @P-visie 's for subsequent recognition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
Science is just another opinion. Facts, data and evidence are superfluous. Sigh.
Science has to conform to political opinions, best seen in a former colony...
Isn't it nice? No longer climate warming, co2 issues, or cancer causing windmills, pandemics etc...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Science has to conform to political opinions, best seen in a former colony...
Isn't it nice? No longer climate warming, co2 issues, or cancer causing windmills, pandemics etc...
Is it only in a former colony where if science can support their political agenda, suddenly they will believe it, but the opposition will dismiss it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Not only were you too lazy to check the facts in a Facebook post - that well-known source of misinformation and disinformation,

It's at least as good as anything else on the Internet. Cite Wikipedia on X and you're accused of being a libtard because of its political bias. Denigrating a source of information achieves nothing. I'm tired of and over such childish comments.

And I read the other post too, but it didn't require a reply or anything further - it was enough of an addition by itself - because its goall was to share information rather than argue.

...


That is one helluva lot of recognition within her lifetime. My links were, as I specifically wrote, to follow on from @P-visie 's for subsequent recognition.

Yet how many people here have ever heard of her before? How many photographers would know what she achieved/did? I wonder how many times her name is mentioned in Canon's patents... this is grok's answer:

Katharine Burr Blodgett, a physicist at General Electric, held eight U.S. patents related to surface chemistry, thin films, and non-reflective coatings (such as US 2,220,860 for "Film Structure and Method of Preparation"). None were assigned to Canon or mention her in that context. Extensive searches on patent databases and for licensing to Canon found no connections, as her work was tied to GE.

It is the same story for Nikon & Zeis. Despite disovering the technology that makes photography worthwhile, she gets no credit.
In my opinion her contribution to photography and everything else that involves lenses can't be understated. Never, in any lens announcement or story on lenses/their coatings, have I ever heard about her before. Don't you think that it's a shame she isn't more widely recognized?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
It's at least as good as anything else on the Internet. Cite Wikipedia on X and you're accused of being a libtard because of its political bias. Denigrating a source of information achieves nothing. I'm tired of and over such childish comments.
You're missing something important. There are sources more reliable/trustworthy than Facebook. As well as less bias than or at least opposing bias to Wikipedia. Simply put, neither is as good as ANYTHING else on the internet. Not wanting to admit you're wrong might be more childish, but virtually nobody is tired or over it when about themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
I'm tired of and over such childish comments.
Many of us are, and yet you keep posting.

Yet how many people here have ever heard of her before?
There are many great scientists who have made significant contributions to their fields and have impacted society as a whole, yet about whom relatively few people have heard.

I personally knew, and my wife worked for, a scientist who was on the Manhattan project. Robert Oppenheimer is a household name thanks to the eponymous film, in which the scientist to whom I’m referring wasn’t featured. He was certainly honored in his lifetime, not only with a Nobel prize but also by having an element named after him (in fact, he was the first of only two people having that honor). I wonder how many people have ever heard of him?

Speaking for myself, I knew of Blodgett before the platform from which you lazily copied and pasted your post even existed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
It's at least as good as anything else on the Internet. Cite Wikipedia on X and you're accused of being a libtard because of its political bias.
You must be joking when you call Facebook and X good sources.

In addition to the other comments: it is good practice, and polite to the author of then original, to include a reference or link to the source that you quote.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
You must be joking when you call Facebook and X good sources.

In addition to the other comments: it is good practice, and polite to the author of then original, to include a reference or link to the source that you quote.
I must contradict you here. X is an excellent source for white supremacists, Adolf lovers etc... :p
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
You must be joking when you call Facebook and X good sources.
They're a source of information, whether or not they're good or bad depends on what you're consuming. I hate both of them equally but sometimes algorithms decide to let you see interesting nuggets.
In addition to the other comments: it is good practice, and polite to the author of then original, to include a reference or link to the source that you quote.
I hear you - and if it was a regular website (ie not facebook/X), I would but I don't trust facebook URLs because of inbuilt tracking mechanisms to monetize every click. X is similar but not as bad (but I could be wrong.)
 
Upvote 0
You're missing something important. There are sources more reliable/trustworthy than Facebook. As well as less bias than or at least opposing bias to Wikipedia. Simply put, neither is as good as ANYTHING else on the internet. Not wanting to admit you're wrong might be more childish, but virtually nobody is tired or over it when about themselves.

I actually wasn't that concerned about being correct/right and more concerned with sharing something that I thought others might find interesting - which is how a lot of social media works. I think there have been enough others that found it informative to have been worthwhile. If someone wants to argue about whether something is right/wrong, fill your boots while I get a beer, sit back and watch some tiktok.
 
Upvote 0