Author Topic: Question regarding reading glasses  (Read 2667 times)

Offline chris1213

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Question regarding reading glasses
« on: May 19, 2014, 07:31:18 PM »
So on this website http://www.i-see.org/archive/plus I read:

Quote
You can purchase [reading glasses] at the drugstore for under US$20, and you don't need a prescription. Just walk into the drugstore and put a pair on and look at something at a comfortable reading distance. You'll probably find that the lowest available power (+1.00 or +1.25) is the best. Now you can read and look into the distance simultaneously! To find out where the "virtual moon" is, take the reciprocal of the lens power and read the result in meters. Thus, for a +1.25 lens, that's 1/1.25 m, or 0.80 m -- whenever you look at something 80 cm away in +1.25 lenses, as far as your eye is concerned, you're looking at the moon!

(Brackets and bold added by me)

I found that thought about the "visual moon" very interesting. If it's true, then when we look at something through a +1 at the distance of 1 meter, as far as our eyes are concerned we are looking at the moon. I want to know if anyone has information on this. Are people with emmetropia able to read at 1 meter through a +1?

I would only like you to reply if you are able to answer the question somehow or have any more information about this. Let's share the thoughts keeping it in context for this thread.

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Question regarding reading glasses
« Reply #1 on: May 20, 2014, 06:53:51 AM »
Chris, the statement is correct.

But it assumes you have 20/20 vision (self-checked refractive status of 0.0 diopters).  I have the information about this issue, but it is indeed technical, as I am an engineer and interested in this question.

Yes, people with emmetropia can and will read at 1 meter through a +1 diopter lens.

I would ask others reading/posting here to make their own statement and judgment about your specific question.


So on this website http://www.i-see.org/archive/plus I read:

Quote
You can purchase [reading glasses] at the drugstore for under US$20, and you don't need a prescription. Just walk into the drugstore and put a pair on and look at something at a comfortable reading distance. You'll probably find that the lowest available power (+1.00 or +1.25) is the best. Now you can read and look into the distance simultaneously! To find out where the "virtual moon" is, take the reciprocal of the lens power and read the result in meters. Thus, for a +1.25 lens, that's 1/1.25 m, or 0.80 m -- whenever you look at something 80 cm away in +1.25 lenses, as far as your eye is concerned, you're looking at the moon!

(Brackets and bold added by me)

I found that thought about the "visual moon" very interesting. If it's true, then when we look at something through a +1 at the distance of 1 meter, as far as our eyes are concerned we are looking at the moon. I want to know if anyone has information on this. Are people with emmetropia able to read at 1 meter through a +1?

I would only like you to reply if you are able to answer the question somehow or have any more information about this. Let's share the thoughts keeping it in context for this thread.

Offline chris1213

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: Question regarding reading glasses
« Reply #2 on: May 20, 2014, 10:13:34 AM »
Excellent, thank you for the answer Otis.

Anybody who wants to share anything related to the thread is welcome but stay in context. The link I shared in the first post has a very interesting conversation with good info.

Offline CapitalPrince

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 187
Re: Question regarding reading glasses
« Reply #3 on: May 20, 2014, 08:06:46 PM »
this 20/20, refractive state 0 is very confusing because difficult lighting conditions, different snellens, different conditions.

in practical terms just "define" borderline 20/20 as the minimum vision you feel comfortable going around.

most people with excellent exceed this "20/20" by +1D or +2D this is normal.

it takes a long time for your vision to deteriote to a level where you do not feel comfortable without your glasses.


Offline Myoctim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 56
Re: Question regarding reading glasses
« Reply #4 on: June 01, 2014, 03:58:56 AM »
this 20/20, refractive state 0 is very confusing because difficult lighting conditions, different snellens, different conditions.

in practical terms just "define" borderline 20/20 as the minimum vision you feel comfortable going around.

most people with excellent exceed this "20/20" by +1D or +2D this is normal.

it takes a long time for your vision to deteriote to a level where you do not feel comfortable without your glasses.


AFAIK a 1.5mm pupil provides something about 0.5D  improvement  in the depth of field.
So looking outdoors at a sunlit snellen even a -0.5D Myope should be able to exceed the 20/20 line.

Also refraction depends on the light's wavelength.

A 0.0D emmetrope for the average wavelength of green light would be a little myopic for blue light.
So, IMHO +0.5D should be the "real emmetropia."

At very dim light there is the PURKINJE SHIFT when vision switches from cones to rods which are more sensitive to blue light.
But because rod resolution is lower it may be not noticiable?
« Last Edit: June 01, 2014, 04:00:47 AM by Myoctim »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Question regarding reading glasses
« Reply #5 on: June 01, 2014, 04:29:57 PM »
Hi Chris,

Here is a site that discusses the use of the plus - for prevention, under your control.

http://www.oocities.org/dolphinhill/theorynotes.html

Here Dr. Alex makes the same point that I make.  If you want success - be prepared to make all your own measurements.  Measuring you "CM" distance is almost the same as checking a brightly-lit Snellen.  It allows you to make a reasonable judgment.

https://frauenfeldclinic.com/

I appreciate that each of us has his own "beliefs" about how to do things - including prevention.  But one issue I feel is very important, what ever method you use.  Do not say your vision "feels better", because that means very little.  Be objective, in reading your Snellen.  In the end - you will not believe your own results, unless you do systematic checking.  I think you also must measure your refractive status - yourself - for full empowerment.  This way you will know HOW a measurement is made - and be able to judge these issues yourself.  Even so - recovery is acknowledged to be slow.  There is no "rapid" recovery.  That is just, intellectual blindness.  I have seen too many advertisements selling "cure for myopia" to ever believe that kind of "hype".  Do not fall for that trap.


I hope you continue to visualize the problem, as well as the solution.




Excellent, thank you for the answer Otis.

Anybody who wants to share anything related to the thread is welcome but stay in context. The link I shared in the first post has a very interesting conversation with good info.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2014, 07:03:55 AM by OtisBrown »

Offline chris1213

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: Question regarding reading glasses
« Reply #6 on: June 02, 2014, 11:59:01 PM »
Hi Otis,

Thanks for the website, I hope to read it soon.

I do agree with you about checking the Snellen but I think using objects outdoors as reference is also a good idea. If one day you perceive that the speed limit sign on the street is more clear then that's also progress.

Anyways, I want to keep this thread only on the plus lenses so here's another link I found that might be interesting for some. It's a review for the book from David de Angelis "The Secret of Perfect Vision." It caught my attention that this guy is talking about something similar to what Alex Frauenfeld always emphasizes for the improvement of vision: active focus.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2KQRVR52CK4AJ/ref=cm_cr_pr_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1556436777&linkCode&nodeID&tag

Here's the interesting part:

Quote
At about the middle of the book, which is just about the next day, I had my first "flash of clearance". I would give this analogy as "made in the basket." You'll need to really remember this moment, and start working on how to get this flash moment as many times as possible. You'll see double vision sometimes, don’t be afraid. That's because you're ciliary muscles start to get you were demanding the focusing but somehow couldn't control but to get lazy to its usual form. But' it’s fine, double vision is just a better version of the complete blur. I'll give you my personal tip. I realized when the flash of clearance reappeared; the object/text looked actually BIGGER than it was when in a blur. If you noticed that, you could start adjust it mentally. I would imagine as the text/object was coming closer and closer toward me as I blink, so I told my brain to look this thing closer to me. With enough practice, I got to extend my flash of clearance.

I've been able to gain a lot of centimeters with the plus by doing that which I marked in bold above. I think of it as "active focus" even though I'm not completely sure if that's what it is yet.

Also, I think that besides the eyes adjusting to the plus it's also the brain, which processes the visual information given by the eyes, that needs to adjust.

Quote
That's why I believe the author gave that cheesy life-lesson thing. Might be a bit cliche to some people, I agree. But you really need to get out of the myopic mind (the older habit your eyes get used to) to get this improvement.

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Question regarding reading glasses
« Reply #7 on: June 03, 2014, 05:53:44 AM »
Hi Chris,

To the extent that "exercise" opens your mind up to the alternative (plus and exercise), then that is a good thing.  But selling a "throw away all glasses", is a tragic mistake.  I agree "throw away your minus lens AFTER you have confirmed 20/40 on your own Snellen. 

Yes, I watch and read speed-limit signs, outside.  But the final judgment, by me, is to read the 20/20 line. Even more important, I measure my refractive state - myself.  I highly recommend a person do this - to be in complete control of  his vision, and visual future.

There is mention of "clear flash"  - and I agree with it.  But only to the extent that you are checking your AVERAGE vision on your own Snellen.  To me, that is final objective verification of success.

But again, I look at the truly, "big picture", and suggest that a person truly interested in this topic - also do that.  The "big picture" shows the eye of a person, entering a four year college, will go down by -1/2 diopter per year.  The eye that wears the plus - DOES NOT GO DOWN.  That is the big-picture, and very important.  That means, to me, that there can be no "cure", nor any short-term effort that will be successful.

I stress self-checking the 20/40 line, not as a "perfect" situation.  Far from it.  It is a "red-line", that if you continue to do nothing, you will not be able to read the 20/100 line after four years in college. 

No one who is "medical" will tell you that.  I am an engineer, and I WANT TO BE TOLD THAT.  Then, as an engineer, I would check that statement, in many ways.

I wish serious people, would actually check this statement.  Because it is critical for your visual future.

I personally do not "sell" anything - it is as i would want it.  It is all free.  I do not "con" a person into doing anything - that I would not do.  But I certainly recognition plus-prevention as extremely difficult - because of the necessary long-term commentment needed for "just prevention".

For me, the issue is that the person understand all of the above, to include getting two "test" minus lenses, to confirm not only his visual acuity, but his refractive status also.



Hi Otis,

Thanks for the website, I hope to read it soon.

I do agree with you about checking the Snellen but I think using objects outdoors as reference is also a good idea. If one day you perceive that the speed limit sign on the street is more clear then that's also progress.

Anyways, I want to keep this thread only on the plus lenses so here's another link I found that might be interesting for some. It's a review for the book from David de Angelis "The Secret of Perfect Vision." It caught my attention that this guy is talking about something similar to what Alex Frauenfeld always emphasizes for the improvement of vision: active focus.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2KQRVR52CK4AJ/ref=cm_cr_pr_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1556436777&linkCode&nodeID&tag

Here's the interesting part:

Quote
At about the middle of the book, which is just about the next day, I had my first "flash of clearance". I would give this analogy as "made in the basket." You'll need to really remember this moment, and start working on how to get this flash moment as many times as possible. You'll see double vision sometimes, don’t be afraid. That's because you're ciliary muscles start to get you were demanding the focusing but somehow couldn't control but to get lazy to its usual form. But' it’s fine, double vision is just a better version of the complete blur. I'll give you my personal tip. I realized when the flash of clearance reappeared; the object/text looked actually BIGGER than it was when in a blur. If you noticed that, you could start adjust it mentally. I would imagine as the text/object was coming closer and closer toward me as I blink, so I told my brain to look this thing closer to me. With enough practice, I got to extend my flash of clearance.

I've been able to gain a lot of centimeters with the plus by doing that which I marked in bold above. I think of it as "active focus" even though I'm not completely sure if that's what it is yet.

Also, I think that besides the eyes adjusting to the plus it's also the brain, which processes the visual information given by the eyes, that needs to adjust.

Quote
That's why I believe the author gave that cheesy life-lesson thing. Might be a bit cliche to some people, I agree. But you really need to get out of the myopic mind (the older habit your eyes get used to) to get this improvement.

Offline chris1213

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: Question regarding reading glasses
« Reply #8 on: June 03, 2014, 08:11:30 AM »
Yes sir but here we're not talking about wearing the plus, anybody visiting this forum already knows how important the plus is. Let's keep this thread on the topic of WHAT to do WHEN wearing the plus.

Quote
I stress self-checking the 20/40 line, not as a "perfect" situation.  Far from it.  It is a "red-line", that if you continue to do nothing, you will not be able to read the 20/100 line after four years in college. 

No one who is "medical" will tell you that.  I am an engineer, and I WANT TO BE TOLD THAT.  Then, as an engineer, I would check that statement, in many ways.

I wish serious people, would actually check this statement.  Because it is critical for your visual future.

I personally do not "sell" anything - it is as i would want it.  It is all free.  I do not "con" a person into doing anything - that I would not do.  But I certainly recognition plus-prevention as extremely difficult - because of the necessary long-term commentment needed for "just prevention".

For me, the issue is that the person understand all of the above, to include getting two "test" minus lenses, to confirm not only his visual acuity, but his refractive status also.

Offline chris1213

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: Question regarding reading glasses
« Reply #9 on: June 03, 2014, 10:00:03 PM »
Hi Tom,

I think that there's a difference between the clear flash one can get from moist eyes which I would also call "watery vision" like you say and the double vision one can resolve in the brain.

See, what interested me the most is that if you stare at the text outside the blur and try to bring it closer "in your mind" it actually resolves faster in my case. The guy on the review explained it liked this

Quote
you could start adjust it mentally. I would imagine as the text/object was coming closer and closer toward me as I blink, so I told my brain to look this thing closer to me.

I don't know if you reviewed the Frauenfeld method but on one of his "installments" he explains double vision and how that is resolved in the brain more than in the eyes so one should give time for the brain to resolve the image and adapt to it. I'm writing this here to prevent a confusion between "watery vision" or "clear flashes because of moist in the eyes" and double image or the neurological part of vision I guess.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2014, 10:09:46 PM by chris1213 »

Offline chris1213

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: Question regarding reading glasses
« Reply #10 on: June 05, 2014, 01:28:50 AM »
I think I see what you mean and understand your point now, but I just don't get what do you mean by watery images? I guess I haven't seen anything like that. How do you perceive those watery images?