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 / September 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Accurately measuring dioptre of specs

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
winke - 07 Sep 2007 13:48 GMT
I have a dozen pairs of ready-made reading glasses.  

Most of them no longer have the strength of the lenses marked on them.  
I do recall that they were originally marked to within 0.25 dioptre.  

How can I work out the dioptre value of each pair using home equipment?
Mas Plak - 07 Sep 2007 15:04 GMT
>I have a dozen pairs of ready-made reading glasses.
>
> Most of them no longer have the strength of the lenses marked on them.
> I do recall that they were originally marked to within 0.25 dioptre.
>
> How can I work out the dioptre value of each pair using home equipment?

dont need any.

just hold the lens close and move it slowly away from you till you get a
blur circle, take that distance and devide it by one meter.
1 dioptre is one meter.  2 dioptre is at 1/2 meter
Blur circle is when the image in the lense has blured to a constant value
across the lens, no image remains.
Uncle Al - 07 Sep 2007 16:10 GMT
> I have a dozen pairs of ready-made reading glasses.
>
> Most of them no longer have the strength of the lenses marked on them.
> I do recall that they were originally marked to within 0.25 dioptre.
>
> How can I work out the dioptre value of each pair using home equipment?

By what mechanism do you propose the lenses changed their curvatures
or refractive indices?  Short of cooking in an oven even plastic
lenses will remain constant over centuries of time.  Do you open your
cupboard to find cheap plastic film drinking cups have deformed?
Plastic lenses are thicker and stiffer.

Signature

Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Androcles - 07 Sep 2007 16:15 GMT
[snip drool]

--

'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif

'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.' --
Heretic Jan Bielawski, assistant light-bulb changer.

Ref: news:1188363019.673281.67710@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com

"SR is GR with G=0." -- Uncle Stooopid.

The Uncle Stooopid doctrine:
 http://sound.westhost.com/counterfeit.jpg

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without
evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid.

"Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense.
If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then
relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete
replacement." -- Humpty Roberts.

Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would
have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer
at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich
(couldn't even pass the SATs).

According to Phuckwit Duck it was geography and history that Einstein
failed on, as if  Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule would give a
damn. That tells you the lengths these lying bastards will go to to
protect their tin god, but its always a laugh when they slip up.
Trolls, the lot of them.

"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts.
Winke - 08 Sep 2007 23:38 GMT
>> I have a dozen pairs of ready-made reading glasses.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> open your cupboard to find cheap plastic film drinking cups have
> deformed? Plastic lenses are thicker and stiffer.

The lenses have not changed their dioptre value! Apologies if I did
not make this clear ....

Originally there was a some writing on the reading glasses which
stated the dioptre value of the lenses.  This has has been rubbed
off.

I want to establish what is the dipotre value of any particular pair
of reading glasses.
lena102938 - 09 Sep 2007 06:48 GMT
> >> I have a dozen pairs of ready-made reading glasses.
>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> I want to establish what is the dipotre value of any particular pair
> of reading glasses.

Well, ODs can do it just looking on glasses or putting
them on with rather good precision.
Benj - 09 Sep 2007 10:19 GMT
> > By what mechanism do you propose the lenses changed their
> > curvatures or refractive indices?  Short of cooking in an oven even
> > plastic lenses will remain constant over centuries of time.  Do you
> > open your cupboard to find cheap plastic film drinking cups have
> > deformed? Plastic lenses are thicker and stiffer.

> The lenses have not changed their dioptre value! Apologies if I did
> not make this clear ....
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> I want to establish what is the dipotre value of any particular pair
> of reading glasses.

CRIPES! Do NOT apologize to Uncle Al.  The guy really knows how to
write and lie with words, but unfortunately hasn't learned how to read
them yet! The rest of us knew exactly what you were saying. It was
completely clear.

By the way if you want an accurate measurement of Diopter values take
your box of glasses to any place that sells glasses (prescription
glasses not a drugstore) and they will have a machine to do it. It
sort of looks like an overgrown microscope. You put the glasses in the
bottom and there is this large wheel on the side you turn graduated in
diopters.  Works like a champ.

By the way, in trying to use the "focusing the sun on a piece of
paper" method, be informed that the paper will likely catch fire!
Neil Brooks - 09 Sep 2007 16:58 GMT
> CRIPES! Do NOT apologize to Uncle Al.  The guy really knows how to
> write and lie with words, but unfortunately hasn't learned how to read
> them yet! The rest of us knew exactly what you were saying. It was
> completely clear.

Every NG has its own Otis Brown, eh?

Sorry....
Dan Abel - 12 Sep 2007 22:36 GMT
> By the way, in trying to use the "focusing the sun on a piece of
> paper" method, be informed that the paper will likely catch fire!

I watched my father do this.  It seemed to work.  There was little
chance of a fire.  The circles were quite large.  I doubt that an OTC
reading glass could cause a fire.
lena102938 - 12 Sep 2007 23:23 GMT
> In article <1189329571.509620.220...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> chance of a fire.  The circles were quite large.  I doubt that an OTC
> reading glass

To be precise " reading PLASTIC"
Regards,
Mike Tyner - 13 Sep 2007 00:30 GMT
> To be precise " reading PLASTIC"

I don't think it matters plastic or glass. All that matters is flux, and
flux goes up with diameter and down with warpage and so forth.

If it's a contest, I'm pretty sure you could find OTC glasses big enough to
gather flux and focus it to something resembling a point.

-MT
lena102938 - 13 Sep 2007 06:02 GMT
> > To be precise " reading PLASTIC"
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> -MT

Well. ok
Lena.
otisbrown@pa.net - 13 Sep 2007 13:21 GMT
Dear Lena,

Subject:  Using a reading glasses to ignite paper.

In the prosses of determining focal length, I testes quite
a few reading-glasses.

I could not get the paper to ignite.

Using a 4 inch magnifying glass (with a 20 inch focal length)
concentrated enough flux on a point to ignite the paper.

Best,

Otis

> > > To be precise " reading PLASTIC"
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Well. ok
> Lena.
Neil Brooks - 13 Sep 2007 15:22 GMT
On Sep 13, 5:21 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
> Dear Lena,
>
> Subject:  Using a reading glasses to ignite paper.
>
> In the prosses of determining focal length, I testes quite
> a few reading-glasses.

1) Your spelling sucks.  Too many meds?  Too few meds?

2) If you spent LESS TIME playing with your testes, you might have
better vision now.  OTOH, if you spent MORE TIME playing with your
testes, you might not hurt people on s.m.v. anymore.

Either way, talking about this with a woman online makes you an
unabashed pervert (in addition to your default status as a
pathological liar and a f.cking idiot).
otisbrown@pa.net - 07 Sep 2007 16:31 GMT
Dear Winke,

Subject:  The physics of a plus lens -- optical power

The power of a lens is given in diopters.

The relationship is:

Diopters = 1 / Focal-length

For instance, a focal length of 0.5 meters
will have a power of 2 diotpers.

The easy way, is to just take the lens outdoors,
and hold it above a paper.

If the lens forms an image of the sun at
0.5 meters -- the power is 2 diopters.

If at 1 meter, the power is 1 diopter.

Simple as PI.

Best,

Otis

> I have a dozen pairs of ready-made reading glasses.  
>
> Most of them no longer have the strength of the lenses marked on them.  
> I do recall that they were originally marked to within 0.25 dioptre.  
>
> How can I work out the dioptre value of each pair using home equipment?
p.clarkii@gmail.com - 09 Sep 2007 17:26 GMT
> How can I work out the dioptre value of each pair using home equipment?

the only reasonable way using home equipment is exactly as described
by Otis' reply to your message a couple of days ago.  go outside, hold
the lens up at the height that results in a sharp point focus of the
sun, measure that distance in meters, and then calculate the dioptric
power.  dioptric power = reciprocal of the focal distance measured in
meters.

opticians and eye doctors use an apparatus called a lensometer to
precisely measure lens power.

there are other ways as well, such as trial lens neutralization, etc.
but these require a little more than "home equipment".
Androcles - 09 Sep 2007 17:45 GMT
: > How can I work out the dioptre value of each pair using home equipment?
:
: the only reasonable way using home equipment is exactly as described
: by Otis' reply to your message a couple of days ago.  go outside, hold
: the lens up at the height that results in a sharp point focus of the
: sun,

Doesn't work for concave lenses.
Nicolaas Hawkins - 09 Sep 2007 21:28 GMT
>:> How can I work out the dioptre value of each pair using home equipment?
>:
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Doesn't work for concave lenses.

Reading glasses - which the OP was talking about - are not concave.  
So what is your point?

Signature

Nicolaas.

... Some people post not because they have something to say, but because
the have to say something .... anything.

Androcles - 09 Sep 2007 21:48 GMT
: >:> How can I work out the dioptre value of each pair using home equipment?
: >:
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
: Reading glasses - which the OP was talking about - are not concave.
: So what is your point?

Mine are, although I read without them in bed, book 6" from my nose.
For the computer monitor, concave.
So what is your point, idiot?
Androcles - 09 Sep 2007 21:50 GMT
: >:> How can I work out the dioptre value of each pair using home equipment?
: >:
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
: Reading glasses - which the OP was talking about - are not concave.
: So what is your point?

Mine are, although I read without them when in bed, book 6"- 9" from
my nose. For the computer monitor I wear concave lenses, for driving
I have varifocals. Doesn't work for concave lenses, imbecile.
So what is your point, fuckhead?
otisbrown@pa.net - 10 Sep 2007 01:26 GMT
Subject: PClar is correct.

The original poster asked only about plus lenses.

Not a minus lens.

If you are curious, just hold a minus lens above a sheet
of paper.

Now slowly lift the minus lens off the paper.  The
light will "spread" -- and no image can be formed.

It would be possible to obtain some low-cost
minus lenses from Zennioptical.com
for about $5 for each one.

What Pclar was referring to was the fact that
a +2 diopter lens can be neutralized by a -2 lens.

For thin lenses the powers "add" when they are close
together.

Just basic science and optical physics.

Otis

On Sep 9, 12:26 pm, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote:

> > How can I work out the dioptre value of each pair using home equipment?
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> there are other ways as well, such as trial lens neutralization, etc.
> but these require a little more than "home equipment".
Benj - 10 Sep 2007 05:47 GMT
> For thin lenses the powers "add" when they are close
> together.
>
> Just basic science and optical physics.

And also why people working with lenses use "diopters"

Note that if you have a positive lens with a known diopter value that
is stronger than the negative lens, if you put the two together it
will form an image that focuses and you can measure the diopters of
the combo. Hence by the above rule you can find the diopters of the
negative lens.
lena102938 - 10 Sep 2007 05:54 GMT
> otisbr...@pa.net wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> the combo. Hence by the above rule you can find the diopters of the
> negative lens.

Yes, certainly ,it is the rule how Mystery of minus lens was
resolved.
 
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



©2008 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.