I can see perfectly clearly with a magnifying glass.

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by youidiota, May 28, 2005.

  1. youidiota

    youidiota Guest

    I am wearing my third to strongest pair of glasses, that means I have
    to pairs of glasses that are stronger than the ones I am wearing. If I
    hold the magnifying glass a certain distance away from my face, making
    the image upsidedown, the image comes into perfect focus. Can someone
    explain this phenomenon? I can see the eye chart without my glasses,
    and my glasses are 10- diopters, that is if i put the magnifying glass
    at the correct distance.
    youidiota, May 28, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. youidiota

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Friend,

    You have created a telescope.

    This is of course basic optics.


    otisbrown, May 28, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. youidiota

    youidiota Guest

    is it bad for my eyes?
    youidiota, May 28, 2005
  4. youidiota

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Friend,

    If a person has a refractive state of zero diopters, and
    looks through:

    1. A +10 diopter lens and a

    2. +1 diopter lens -- he has created
    a "telescope".

    Why should looking through a telescope "hurt"
    the eyes?


    otisbrown, May 28, 2005
  5. youidiota

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear You Idiot,

    Subject: Telescope creation and analysis.

    If you take a large (say 2 inch) maginfing glass (with 0.5 meter) focal
    length (i.e., 20 inches), you will find that it will form an image
    (from infinity) at about 20 inches.

    With your eyes at -10 diopters,
    it is as though you have are
    wearing a +10 diopter plus lens.

    This means that you can see clearly
    at 4 inches.

    Now if you hold the 2 diopter lens up
    and move it back and forth, you
    will find that at about
    20 inches + 4 inches, you
    can create an "inverted" image
    on the retina -- in clear focus.

    Very basic indeed.


    otisbrown, May 28, 2005
  6. youidiota

    youidiota Guest

    But I've read something in a pinhole arguement that improvement is
    impossible if the image is clear. While I do not understand what you
    have said about the magnifying glass, I guess I can conclude that it is
    youidiota, May 29, 2005
  7. youidiota

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Friends,

    It depends on what you mean by "improvement".

    A "pin-hole" reduces the size of a aperture. That has
    the effect of making an image sharper (on a box-camera)
    eye. If "sharper image" means "improvement" then
    an small aperture "improves" the acuity on the retina.

    But a pin-hole does not create a change of refractive
    state for the natural eye.

    Only a minus lens can do that.

    Tested on a scientific (not medical) level, where
    you measure the refracitve state of a population
    of natural eye.


    otisbrown, May 29, 2005
  8. youidiota

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Friend,

    It is my personal opinion that you could have avoided the
    "nearsighedness" you now have -- if you had been
    offered the use of a strong plus lens -- when you
    were at 20/30 or 20/40.

    The problem? The "public" REJECTS effective
    use of the plus -- at that point -- and DEMANDS
    the minus lens.

    The result is, of course, that you develop
    stair-case myopia.

    Some of this "responsibility" must rest with
    us -- that we learn to us the plus at
    that critical point -- or else.

    This is clearly the thesis of Steve Leung OD,
    and we should begin to learn from him
    and other prevention-minded ODs.


    Read for enjoyment and knoweldge -- and understanding.

    The suggests "shared responsibility" where the parent
    and child learn of the necessity of using the plus -- even
    when the child has 20/20 -- but a refractive state of zero.





    Re: Why the plublic rejects true-prevention.

    With this type of scientific understanding of the eye's behavior, you
    would think that the insightful and motivated optometrist or
    ophthalmologist could introduce a practical and effective method of
    solution. Dr. Jacob Raphaelson did exactly that in the following
    example -- with the following result:


    "It was the year 1904 that I met a mother at a social lodge meeting.
    She told me about her son's trouble with his eyes in school. I gave her
    my card and told her to bring him to my office and I would fit him with
    a pair of spectacles.

    "She said that she had no money at the time and that her husband was a
    printer working in another city. She did not expect him home for the
    next six weeks. I told her all this would not matter, that she should
    bring the boy over and I would fit him with a pair of spectacles. I
    told her that she could pay for them when her husband returned home.

    "She brought the boy in and I examined his eyes. I found that his
    vision for distance was poor. It was less than 20/40. I made him a pair
    of plus 1.00 diopter spectacles. She was to pay me when her husband
    came back home.

    "In about six weeks she came back and returned the glasses to me. She
    stated that her husband was provoked with her for getting the glasses.
    He had tried the boy's eyes with different prints, far and near, and
    had found him to have perfect vision with his naked eyes. In fact, she
    said, the boy could see even better without the glasses than with them.

    "I was surprised that the plus lens could produce recovery that
    quickly. I could hardly believe this story. I persuaded the mother to
    bring the boy back to let me check to see if he could really see well
    with his naked eyes. She again brought the boy in and I checked his
    vision. I found that the father was indeed right. The boy had good
    eyes, with 20/20 vision and better.

    "I was in a dilemma. I did not have the nerve to say anything to the
    mother. I just let her go. How was I to prove that the boy had poor
    vision before he received his glasses? And who would believe that
    vision could be restored by just wearing a pair of plus 1.00 glasses
    for a few weeks?

    "My experience with the printer's son aroused my inborn tendency for
    exploration. It gave me an incentive to try to do special work on
    children's eyes and on vision restoration. It also enticed me to
    investigate myopic (nearsighted) eyes because I was myself nearsighted.

    "On the other hand, this experience was a warning to be cautious in
    doing such work. For selling spectacles to persons who, supposedly, did
    not need them was almost a crime. And the fitting of glasses without
    the advice or consent of a medical doctor to unhealthy or diseased
    eyes, or even to an unhealthy person who might need or be under medical
    attention, was, and is now, and encroachment on the medical profession.

    "To shield myself against possible enmity and involvement, I took the
    following precautions: First, I quit using the title 'doctor' in any
    form, in print or verbally. I was to be known as a spectacle fitter and
    nothing more. Second, I charged a reasonable price for the spectacles I
    sold but nothing extra for any special work or relief I gave. I did not
    advertise about this special work. I just did it as a matter of routine
    whenever or wherever I was given the opportunity.

    "Thus in 1904 I became an independent researcher on the relationship of
    the eye's behavior to spectacles, vision, and health. I have kept it
    up, and will continue to do this work as long as I continue to have the
    incentive and capability.

    "Who would believe it? Who would believe that by just wearing a pair of
    plus one (+1.00) glasses for a few weeks, that normal vision to the
    naked eye could be restored to children whose eyes have a negative
    focal state? This was true in 1904, and it is also true now, in this
    decade of 1950." (It continues to be true in this decade of 2000 --
    Otis Brown)


    With such strong recognition that a negative lens has such a profound
    and adverse effect, you would think that it should be possible to
    develop scientific verification for this characteristic of the normal
    eye. You would be correct. The testing and verification is impeccable
    -- if we restrict our attention to the normal eye's behavior.
    otisbrown, May 29, 2005
  9. youidiota

    A Lieberman Guest

    Umm, Otis,

    What makes you think this dude was ever 20/40 or less? After all, extreme
    myopia is hereditary. Do you have this persons medical history?

    Giving medical advice again Otis, when you are not qualified?????

    Your opinion means nothing since you are not in the medical profession.

    A Lieberman, May 29, 2005
  10. youidiota

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear You Idiot,

    There is no doubt that prevention with the plus is "difficult".

    In MY OPINION, you and your parents should have been
    offered this option AS A SCIENTIFIC SECOND-OPINION.

    Who knows -- maybe you would have turned it down.

    But at least your intelligence and right-of-choice would
    have been respected.

    For anyone who THINKS, it is cear that prevention
    is both possible -- and successful. But
    if you even start with the minus -- then
    that decision is yours.

    You are not paranoid -- just 50 years ahead of your

    Just read the inane commentary by Allen to get
    that idea.


    otisbrown, May 29, 2005
  11. youidiota

    A Lieberman Guest

    Hmmm, Otis,

    Maybe you need reading lessons? I will again for your convenience post my
    questions for you to answer.
    Please read it slowly Otis. They are not complicated questions.

    There are two questions in the above paragraph. Just in case you can't
    differentiate, they end with a ?

    Please give me direct answers. I bet you won't.

    A Lieberman, May 29, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.