Contact lens design

Can anyone point me towards references regarding the design of contact
lenses? I am interested in the complete product from optical design
to materials to biology.

Are there any useful books or landmark papers?

www.richardfisher.com

why?

X-No-Archive:

Dear Helpful Person,

I regret to inform you that you will get a lot
of un-helpful remarks from Dr. (CatMan) Grant.

I would suggest using Google -- better than Catman,
and more reasonable.

Otis


On Jul 21, 10:19 pm, CatmanX <drgr...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> why?

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 07:21:49 -0700, "(E-Mail Removed)"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I regret to inform you that you will get a lot
>of un-helpful remarks from Dr. (CatMan) Grant.
>
>I would suggest using Google -- better than Catman,
>and more reasonable.

Oh, Otis. Here's one of your basic problems: you think that
unfiltered content found on the internet is more valuable than the
opinion of a gruff optometrist with multiple degrees, fellowships, and
decades of clinical experience.

Most people wouldn't.

You shouldn't either.

You're usually unfailingly polite, but insane. See what I mean?

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:59:42 -0500, "Mike Tyner"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Evidently you missed my question.
>
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>
>> I said that the natural eye simply changes its
>> refractive STATE in a negative direction if
>> you wear a full strength minus ALL THE TIME.
>
>Since they don't, you're either stubbornly ignorant, or you're lying.
>
>Which is it?
>
>-MT

Other than my previous answer: "He could be both," I have an idea
here.

Otis MAY be referring to the monkey studies in which ONE SPECIES of
macaque monkey ... that DID NOT NEED corrective lenses ... had them
SUTURED to its eyes.

Over time, THAT ONE SPECIES of macaque DID adapt to the new lens.

However, OTHER SPECIES OF MONKEY DID NOT PRODUCE THE SAME result in
the same tests, AND even short periodic BREAKS FROM THE UNNECESSARY
LENSES ELIMINATED THIS EFFECT.

The takeaway from this is simple: if you have a particular species of
macaque (a monkey), and it sees 20/20, DO NOT SUTURE LENSES TO THEIR
EYES (I actually think it's unreasonable to suture lenses to anybody
or anything's eyes, but....).

So ... maybe Otis is simply an idiot (different from "stubbornly
ignorant") and cannot understand the error of his ... um ...
"thinking."

Just another shot in the dark....

On Jul 20, 11:37 am, Helpful person <rrl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Can anyone point me towards references regarding the design of contact
> lenses? I am interested in the complete product from optical design
> to materials to biology.
>
> Are there any useful books or landmark papers?
>
> www.richardfisher.com

Rigid or soft? You haven't any received any useful replies to date,
so I thought I would take a stab at it though my knowledge here is
limited.This forum is populated by mostly by people who use the end
products, not the engineers who developed them. You might have more
success in posting to chemical engineering or industrial design
forums, if they exist.

Rigid lenses started as molded scleral lens in the 1920s, moved to
smaller intrapalpebral fit in the 1950s, material was PMMA until the
early 1970s with the first gas permable. Design and materials
exploded in the 1980s with computer assisted lathes and multiple
materials. Many are patented or "in house" industrial secrets, don't
know if details were published.

Soft lens design and materials started in the 1960s, most design and
material development was inside contact lens companies so again,
details may not be published.

If you are near an Optometry School, you could try their libraries.
Most contact lens texts have a chapter or two on design and materials
and you could then explore the references for those chapters. The
physiology of the cornea is usually well explored in contact lens
texts.

Dr Judy

X-No-Archive:

Dear Judy,

Thanks for being a helpful-person.

Tragically these other ****-heads are more interested
in attacking my advice (to check Google), than
in PROVIDING ANY HONEST ANSWER TO THE
ORIGINAL POSTER.

When I ask honest questions about the dynamic
nature of the fundamental eye -- I expect an
honest answer. I doubt that you will
get even an ATTEMPT at an honest,
well thought-out answer from these people.

Just one man's opinion.

Otis


On Jul 25, 12:12 pm, Dr Judy <mpac...@rogers.com> wrote:
> On Jul 20, 11:37 am, Helpful person <rrl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Can anyone point me towards references regarding the design of contact
> > lenses? I am interested in the complete product from optical design
> > to materials to biology.
>
> > Are there any useful books or landmark papers?
>
> >www.richardfisher.com
>
> Rigid or soft? You haven't any received any useful replies to date,
> so I thought I would take a stab at it though my knowledge here is
> limited.This forum is populated by mostly by people who use the end
> products, not the engineers who developed them. You might have more
> success in posting to chemical engineering or industrial design
> forums, if they exist.
>
> Rigid lenses started as molded scleral lens in the 1920s, moved to
> smaller intrapalpebral fit in the 1950s, material was PMMA until the
> early 1970s with the first gas permable. Design and materials
> exploded in the 1980s with computer assisted lathes and multiple
> materials. Many are patented or "in house" industrial secrets, don't
> know if details were published.
>
> Soft lens design and materials started in the 1960s, most design and
> material development was inside contact lens companies so again,
> details may not be published.
>
> If you are near an Optometry School, you could try their libraries.
> Most contact lens texts have a chapter or two on design and materials
> and you could then explore the references for those chapters. The
> physiology of the cornea is usually well explored in contact lens
> texts.
>
> Dr Judy

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 11:08:07 -0700, "(E-Mail Removed)"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Thanks for being a helpful-person.

And thank YOU for being a harmful person.

>Tragically these other ****-heads

YIKES!

I can't speak for anybody else here, but ... OUCH! That really
stings.

Wow.

> are more interested
>in attacking my advice (to check Google), than
>in PROVIDING ANY HONEST ANSWER TO THE
>ORIGINAL POSTER.

Cautioning people about the worthlessness of, or harm to be derived
from, your posts is valid and important advice.

>When I ask honest questions about the dynamic
>nature of the fundamental eye -- I expect an
>honest answer.

In theory.

In practice, however, you do NOT ask such questions and you CERTAINLY
do not ANSWER questions. These, for example:

www.nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt

Worse, you continue to lie, misquote, and scurry away to your personal
soapbox to falsify other people's statements here.

>I doubt that you will
>get even an ATTEMPT at an honest,
>well thought-out answer from these people.

No, Otis. That's only true of you. If somebody can be warned not to
listen to you, then ... preventing harm IS doing good.

You hurt people.

You don't care.

You may be mentally ill, have diminished capacity, simply be a
sociopath, or any and all of the above.

But you hurt people.

On Jul 25, 12:12 pm, Dr Judy <mpac...@rogers.com> wrote:
> On Jul 20, 11:37 am, Helpful person <rrl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Can anyone point me towards references regarding the design of contact
> > lenses? I am interested in the complete product from optical design
> > to materials to biology.
>
> > Are there any useful books or landmark papers?
>
> >www.richardfisher.com
>
> Rigid or soft? You haven't any received any useful replies to date,
> so I thought I would take a stab at it though my knowledge here is
> limited.This forum is populated by mostly by people who use the end
> products, not the engineers who developed them. You might have more
> success in posting to chemical engineering or industrial design
> forums, if they exist.
>
> Rigid lenses started as molded scleral lens in the 1920s, moved to
> smaller intrapalpebral fit in the 1950s, material was PMMA until the
> early 1970s with the first gas permable. Design and materials
> exploded in the 1980s with computer assisted lathes and multiple
> materials. Many are patented or "in house" industrial secrets, don't
> know if details were published.
>
> Soft lens design and materials started in the 1960s, most design and
> material development was inside contact lens companies so again,
> details may not be published.
>
> If you are near an Optometry School, you could try their libraries.
> Most contact lens texts have a chapter or two on design and materials
> and you could then explore the references for those chapters. The
> physiology of the cornea is usually well explored in contact lens
> texts.
>
> Dr Judy

Judy,

Thanks for giving the only reply on topic. I am presently interested
in all forms of modern contact lens design. I have found a limited
amount of useful information on line but am looking for as much modern
detail as possible. Although not optomistic about finding it on this
forum I consider it still worth trying!

www.richardfisher.com

Why are you interested and why do you feel the need to post it on the
net?

You haven't found out much because you haven't even begun looking in
the right places.

Try reading some books. There is all the information you need. It is
really not so difficult.

dr grant