
Signature
- Mike
Ignore the Python in me to send e-mail.
> >Years ago I noticed that while wearing my 2.75 reading glasses I can see the
> >world clearly but could not focus on the numbers of my blue led alarm clock.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> with different levels of dispersion (it'd look like a couple of miniature
> telescopes mounted in front of your eyes)
I was wondering about this. Camera lenses can be heavy and expensive,
but that's because you want perfect sharpness from edge to edge of the
film, and those lenses that are expensive usually are capable of very
low light use. Camera lenses that are small are really quite cheap.
Since only the macula requires sharpness, I don't see why glasses with
multiple elements would be that expensive and stick out a long ways.
Perhaps I just haven't thought it through or maybe I don't understand
the issues.
> I don't know off hand what's available for eyeglass use (likely not fluorite,
> which would require coatings just to stay intact in the air), but aside from
> forcing your OD to look up the best materials for a new pair, the more
> practical solution would be to avoid alarm clocks with blue digits.
I agree that you have the practical solution for that small problem. I
bought an LED clock with 2" red digits when I couldn't see at night. It
still works well even though I can see OK now.
However, there are a whole lot of blue things in this world, and
sometimes they include numbers and letters, and not always very big.

Signature
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
dabel@sonic.net
Salmon Egg - 20 Oct 2008 01:18 GMT
In article
<dabel-398FA5.15181219102008@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
> > >Years ago I noticed that while wearing my 2.75 reading glasses I can see
> > >the
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> Perhaps I just haven't thought it through or maybe I don't understand
> the issues.
In no way are camera lenses "perfect." The design is always a compromise
among conflicting desires. Optical performance of an eye can be
relatively lax because you turn your eye toward the object being used to
obtain best acuity. Off-axis performance is relatively poor. As you turn
your eye but not your head, you look through a different region of the
spectacle lens. This increases aberration.
>
> > I don't know off hand what's available for eyeglass use (likely not
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> However, there are a whole lot of blue things in this world, and
> sometimes they include numbers and letters, and not always very big.
There never was a guarantee that optometry would get you back to where
you were before glasses. In principle, lasik should be able to give you
close to theoretical performance considering the fundamental limitation
of eye anatomy. That performance, however, will be on-axis only. With
glass lenses, the process akin to lasik is called figuring.
I am not a vision or health professional. I know little about the nuts
and bolts of lasik.
Bill

Signature
Private Profit; Public Poop! Avoid collateral windfall!