Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Vision / January 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

The common description of the eye's red cone sensitivity is wrong

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
David Jonsson - 15 Jan 2007 08:34 GMT
All sources I have found describe the eye's red cone sensitivity as the
one here
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/colcon.html#c1
The description is wrong.
Here it is somewhat better but the graph is cut for red and green where
violet begins
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_cell

Almost all people know that to achieve violet one needs to add blue
light with red. This means that the red cone has sensitivity in the
violet domain. Why have the medical people missed this? Computer
science and television has used this since decades.

Please update your web pages.

David
William Stacy, O.D. - 15 Jan 2007 18:54 GMT
It is true that to make vivid violet that can easily be seen by humans,
mixing in a little red with blue helps.  But it is not true that you
must do this to achieve the color violet.  There is a part of the
visible spectrum  that is monochromatic violet, around 400 nano or so.
It's not strongly visible, but it is visible to the normal human eye as
violet without any red light at all.

w.stacy, o.d.

> All sources I have found describe the eye's red cone sensitivity as the
> one here
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> David
Salmon Egg - 15 Jan 2007 20:34 GMT
On 1/15/07 12:34 AM, in article
1168850061.166511.59230@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com, "David Jonsson"
<davidjonssonsweden@gmail.com> wrote:

> All sources I have found describe the eye's red cone sensitivity as the
> one here
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> David

Even the excellent Wickipedia article leaves some things out.

Not long after diode lasers were first announced, some laser diodes were
made where I worked. While I do not remember their wavelength it was
somewhere near 860nm well past the end of the graphs presented in the
references above.

These diodes had to operated cold at liquid hydrogen temperatures. With a
dark adapted eye, we could look into the dewar to see dim flashes of light
from the laser. The laser HAD to be pulsed to reach threshold. The
impression was that of orange light. My guess is that the tails of the
responses, small as they are, extend well into the near infrared. The orange
color indicates that least two sets of cones respond.

The same extended low level response at long wavelengths is also present in
photomultiplier cathodes. Of the old line photo-surfaces, only the S-1
material had published response to neodymium radiation at 1.06µm.
Nevertheless, there were some photo-surfaces that were responding weakly to
the neodymium radiation.

Bill
-- Fermez le Bush
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.