RX Water Glasses

[Innomen]

I know that is a strange question but I've always been curious.

Assuming normal vision otherwise is it possible to calculate the RX for a set of glasses that when worn would allow a person to see normally with their eyes and the lenses submerged, that is, normal glasses, under water? Not air tight goggles.

Here is some information from wiki that might be relevant to finding an answer.

Now obviously many of you will know this stuff already, but for those that don't (I didn't) and for reference...

From: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Underwater_vision

Our eyes are adapted for viewing in air. Water, however, has approximately the same refractive index as the cornea (both about 1.33), effectively eliminating the cornea's focusing properties. When our eyes are in water, instead of their focusing images on the retina, they now focus them far behind the retina, resulting in an extremely blurred image from hypermetropia.[1][2]

From: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Hypermetropia#Treatment

larger amounts may be corrected with convex lenses in eyeglasses or contact lenses. Convex lenses have a positive dioptric value, which causes the light to focus closer than its normal range.

From: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Dioptre

In humans, the total optical power of the relaxed eye is approximately 60 dioptres. The cornea accounts for approximately two-thirds of this refractive power and the crystalline lens (in conjunction with the aqueous and vitreous humors) contributes the remaining third.[4]

over the counter reading glasses will be rated at +1.00 to +3.00 dioptres.

So, here's what I can gather form the information above, and if my logic is bogus forgive me, I'm not a doctor 🙂

Being under water cancels the cornea which accounts for two thirds of the focusing that needs doing, this makes the person effectively very far sighted, to correct for this one would need convex lenses (a rather high positive value if I've read all this correctly.)

Side note: In the movie the abyss the diver when using the fluid immersion breathing system was given contacts to allow him to focus through the fluid. This is exactly what I am trying to do (optically speaking 😛) only with glasses, not contacts.

Is this possible at all? If so is it also possible to calculate the dioptric values from known data?

Thank you for your patience 🙂

P.S. Suggestions on other places I might ask this question would also be welcome.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PBEA]

I know that is a strange question but I've always been curious.

Assuming normal vision otherwise is it possible to calculate the RX for a set of glasses that when worn would allow a person to see normally with their eyes and the lenses submerged, that is, normal glasses, under water? Not air tight goggles.

Here is some information from wiki that might be relevant to finding an answer.

Now obviously many of you will know this stuff already, but for those that don't (I didn't) and for reference...

From: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Underwater_vision



From: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Hypermetropia#Treatment



From: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Dioptre






So, here's what I can gather form the information above, and if my logic is bogus forgive me, I'm not a doctor 🙂

Being under water cancels the cornea which accounts for two thirds of the focusing that needs doing, this makes the person effectively very far sighted, to correct for this one would need convex lenses (a rather high positive value if I've read all this correctly.)

Side note: In the movie the abyss the diver when using the fluid immersion breathing system was given contacts to allow him to focus through the fluid. This is exactly what I am trying to do (optically speaking 😛) only with glasses, not contacts.

Is this possible at all? If so is it also possible to calculate the dioptric values from known data?

Thank you for your patience 🙂

P.S. Suggestions on other places I might ask this question would also be welcome.

you want to wear spectacles (not goggles) under water? Why would you do that? As for the math, sure it can be calculated. A really abbreviated calc might be to say that the absolute dioptric value of the eye is roughly 60D, so since cornea is about 2/3 then that is roughly say 40D. Assuming emmetropia, and 1.33 for the water then 40D is a good starting point. However axial length, actual index of the "water" (not always 1.33) and existing ametropia would all need to be known in order to properly determine an objective value.

 

[Innomen]

Thanks for seriously answering first of all. I do appreciate the indulgence.

Why I would want it is because I have a beard and mustache and full face goggles always fill up, secondly, my pool is salt water and is actually rather pleasant on my eyes, to the point that some mornings I stick my head in and open my eyes just because it's refreshing, like a giant tub of eye wash or something hehe. Thirdly, there is the pressure difference when you dive with goggles, glasses would naturally not have that problem as there is no air bubble involved.

I wear glasses all the time anyway and I just always thought it would be neat to be able to see under water exactly as I do in the air.

Also, I've always been curious if it was even possible, since the Abyss movie.

So I guess no "real" reason. For my purposes it would actually be more practical than a traditional mask or goggles.

Ultimately I was hoping to determine a baseline RX that would render normal vision clear under water, and then I was going to adapt it so that My vision would be clear under water, and then I was going to try and order a pair online using those values.

But it seems like the value given is somewhat outside the possible range.

39$ glasses for example has the following ranges.
SPH CYL AXIS ADD
-12 -3.75 001 +0.25
+8 +3.75 180 +3.50
DS DS
S.P.H. S.P.H.

So I guess the values in question are a touch out of bounds 🙂

 

[Tippytoe]

So basically you want someone to tell you what Rx to order on-line.

You see we have these professionals (called optometrists or ophthalmologists) that go to school for many years, studying for countless hours, doing many complicated optics equations and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to learn such information.

You could actually see one of these professionals for advice instead of trying to sucker someone to give you an Rx to order from a sleezy on-line optical company.

Just a thought.

 

[PBEA]

Thanks for seriously answering first of all. I do appreciate the indulgence.

Why I would want it is because I have a beard and mustache and full face goggles always fill up, secondly, my pool is salt water and is actually rather pleasant on my eyes, to the point that some mornings I stick my head in and open my eyes just because it's refreshing, like a giant tub of eye wash or something hehe. Thirdly, there is the pressure difference when you dive with goggles, glasses would naturally not have that problem as there is no air bubble involved.

I wear glasses all the time anyway and I just always thought it would be neat to be able to see under water exactly as I do in the air.

Also, I've always been curious if it was even possible, since the Abyss movie.

So I guess no "real" reason. For my purposes it would actually be more practical than a traditional mask or goggles.

Ultimately I was hoping to determine a baseline RX that would render normal vision clear under water, and then I was going to adapt it so that My vision would be clear under water, and then I was going to try and order a pair online using those values.

But it seems like the value given is somewhat outside the possible range.

39$ glasses for example has the following ranges.
SPH CYL AXIS ADD
-12 -3.75 001 +0.25
+8 +3.75 180 +3.50
DS DS
S.P.H. S.P.H.

So I guess the values in question are a touch out of bounds 🙂

yeah thats not gonna work, high plus lens will start to give you ring scotoma and the vision would be extremly limited and distorted. As for the Abyss movie the CL's likely weren't well corrected either (unless the liquid had an adequate index of refraction) or they ground power into the face mask to make up the difference.

 

[Innomen]

*hyperbolic ad hominem rant*

1. That's not what I asked nor what I expect. But even if I had, no one's forcing anyone to answer me.

2. My question does not require an eye surgeon.

3. (This one's my favorite.) I did ask a professional during my eye last exam.

Part of his response (that I can remember verbatim): "That's a neat idea, you could probably ask people online." Other things he said, theorizing about the possibility, but generally doubtful, I didn't really understand and thus quickly forgot. I just chalked it up to a technical "probably not" and tucked the idea away for later.

He also explained the problem of needing an actual RX, even if it were possible, which I'll explain in a moment.

If his answer had been thoroughly positive I'd have ordered a second set of glasses right then. If it had been thoroughly negative I'd have given up. But it struck me as murky, and as I said he point blank suggested I ask online.

4. The only reason I would do it online (39$ glasses isn't remotely sleazy BTW) is because in person places need an RX. I can't just plug in values (without forgery) and ask them to grind the lenses for me like I can online.

On a personal note, maybe you shouldn't be so rude and assumptive in future. "Just a thought."

yeah thats not gonna work, high plus lens will start to give you ring scotoma and the vision would be extremly limited and distorted. As for the Abyss movie the CL's likely weren't well corrected either (unless the liquid had an adequate index of refraction) or they ground power into the face mask to make up the difference.

Yeah, I didn't really have high hopes after my chat with the doc and this recent wiki spree.

Thanks for thinking about it though 🙂

Neat point about the face mask. Wouldn't it be ironic if the contact lenses were the least plausible thing about that scene?

You'd think it would be the notion of breathing fluid, but apparently not. Crazy world we live in.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Liquid_breathing (Mentions Abyss and a real liquid breathing rat.)

I consider the question pretty well answered.

Thanks for your time and attention. And for your (mostly) professional and mature responses. 🙂

 

[nc2tarheels]

1. That's not what I asked nor what I expect. But even if I had, no one's forcing anyone to answer me.

2. My question does not require an eye surgeon.

3. (This one's my favorite.) I did ask a professional during my eye last exam.

Part of his response (that I can remember verbatim): "That's a neat idea, you could probably ask people online." Other things he said, theorizing about the possibility, but generally doubtful, I didn't really understand and thus quickly forgot. I just chalked it up to a technical "probably not" and tucked the idea away for later.

He also explained the problem of needing an actual RX, even if it were possible, which I'll explain in a moment.

If his answer had been thoroughly positive I'd have ordered a second set of glasses right then. If it had been thoroughly negative I'd have given up. But it struck me as murky, and as I said he point blank suggested I ask online.

4. The only reason I would do it online (39$ glasses isn't remotely sleazy BTW) is because in person places need an RX. I can't just plug in values (without forgery) and ask them to grind the lenses for me like I can online.

On a personal note, maybe you shouldn't be so rude and assumptive in future. "Just a thought."



Yeah, I didn't really have high hopes after my chat with the doc and this recent wiki spree.

Thanks for thinking about it though 🙂

Neat point about the face mask. Wouldn't it be ironic if the contact lenses were the least plausible thing about that scene?

You'd think it would be the notion of breathing fluid, but apparently not. Crazy world we live in.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Liquid_breathing (Mentions Abyss and a real liquid breathing rat.)

I consider the question pretty well answered.

Thanks for your time and attention. And for your (mostly) professional and mature responses. 🙂

Come on, seriously? Wooooow.

 

[Innomen]

Come on, seriously? Wooooow.

Hehe, yup, on all counts 🙂

(Since I just noticed the snide bold. Seriously, does no one know how to make a partial quote?)

Assuming you understand the context of why I would have to go online to get these hypothetical custom water lenses made, if they were possible, I can then comment on the implicit scorn many seem to have for any business that undersells exploitative middle men, or otherwise fail to punish the lower incomes.

By not having a location, they eliminate tons of overhead. The two most expensive aspects to owning a brick and mortar business are location and labor.

Places that strictly sell glasses online aren't motivated to force people to pay for an unnecessary 200$ exam to the guy in the next room who pays rent and a percentage.

It is often unwise to conflate cost with quality. ("You get what you pay for." Is the cry of the salesman not the consumer. Planned obsolescence operates at every level of production, regardless of final retail.)

In the real world not inhabited by the privileged wealthy sometimes you have your old RX and just need to replace the glasses you just stepped on.

Brick and mortar locations won't do that with an old RX if it's been some arbitrary amount of time. Health is the excuse, but the motive is profit.

I suspect you either did not know that, for whatever reason. Or support such a policy because you expect to profit from it some day.

Unsubscribing from this post. I'm tired of being depressed and somewhat frightened by the immaturity of people who may some day be responsible for my health.

The moral of this story is don't get sick.

Thank you again to those who responded (or refrained from responding) in keep with a mature, professional, and respectful outlook.

To the snide and spiteful privileged children who fail to fall into that group I can only hope in time you come to posses a more compassionate and adult perspective.

In either case, unless dragged back here, I will not be responding. The last word is yours.

 

[Tippytoe]

Absolutely. Why would anyone, who makes his/her living on such advice, not freely give professional advice so someone can go to his cheap and questionable underseller?

I'd advise you to also go on an automotive technician site and ask how to build a custom hot rod with parts purchased at 1-800-crappyautoparts

Or perhaps try to go to an accountants forum and ask advice on how to do your own taxes with Turbotax. I'm sure they would be happy to provide you with helpful free advice.

Why do I HIGHLY suspect you work in a government agency (ie. no need to make a real living providing a real service or product). OR, maybe you work for $39eyeglasses and are trying to advertise.

Hmmm.......I smell a troll.
Last word?

 

[Meibomian SxN]

Absolutely. Why would anyone, who makes his/her living on such advice, not freely give professional advice so someone can go to his cheap and questionable underseller?

I'd advise you to also go on an automotive technician site and ask how to build a custom hot rod with parts purchased at 1-800-crappyautoparts

Or perhaps try to go to an accountants forum and ask advice on how to do your own taxes with Turbotax. I'm sure they would be happy to provide you with helpful free advice.

Why do I HIGHLY suspect you work in a government agency (ie. no need to make a real living providing a real service or product). OR, maybe you work for $39eyeglasses and are trying to advertise.

Hmmm.......I smell a troll.
Last word?

LMAO! He's the type patient who purposely schedules their appointment for the last time slot and then hit you with this rant of wanting precision underwater spectacles. And then after you hold his hand and answer ALL these questions, the receptionist comes back and tells you he wants his Rx script. Smh.....

 

[Shnurek]

Some people have no respect for the doctors that dedicated their lives to helping people see better and have no respect for their own visual health.