The Whig standard. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1843-1844, 1843-12-21
SourH LEICESTER, Mass, Dec. 18th ls43

SouTH LEICESTER, Mass. Dec 18th l843
To r. PATTEN:-Sir: A correspondent has for
warded us copy OF the Wing Standard, wherein
we find some remarks relative to the merits of Spec
tacie lenses and as your signature is attached to the
article, we take the liberty to reply to it as an emana
ton from your ocn optical knowledge. You have
come out before an enlightened community with
a dissertation on visual OPTICS in which Won have
chosen to make mention of the Perifocal or Parabola
lenses, in such manner, that admitting your state
ments to be correct we must be imposters. We now
that your borrowed knowledge in optics has led
you into tissue OF false assertions and untenable as
symptoms Your remarks on the surfaces Of MEMS
Gus lenses, would argue that sphere can be more
spherical. The mention of a"greater degree Of
sphercity," when the subect-mater under discussion
is sphere, is too absurd for moments investigation
Your assertion that no Elpses converge the rays
of light to perfect focus"is false and must be pre
Dictated through your lamentable ignorance Of the
SUBJECT you have attacked. Permit me to inform YOU,
sir, that, when section Of an epsoid of reyol,l-
ton, whose semi-transyerse axis and eccentricity
satisfy given proportion is obtained parallel rays
tcsH De co'avegcd TO perfect focus And as to uour
statement that Meniscus lenses converge rays the
same as double convex lensesn allow us to remark
that in is the action of the lenses the same
The proprietor Of any school book on OPTICS will ex
PLAIN this to your satfaction. You quote Cdr. Brew
ster on the Meniscus lense.n The Dr. was an Euro
pean optician, and consequently infallibe Never.
theless, we contend that Menscus lenses whose SUI,
faces bear proper proportion to each other are cor
rectors OF Chomatc and spherical alteration. Were
the eye placed in the foci of the spectaces and
the object viewed in the other any tense of imperfect
| curvature would give distorted figure And double
conper lenses acay do; but eye is never in the use
Of pectacles used in such POSITIONS the received
through the tense parallel those that enter the
object-glass of telescopes and the eye, always be-
ing far within the oc Of the ense is not sensible of
aberration--Chromatic or otherwise In this view of
the case the learned Doctors remarks have no force
You ask" Is not preposterous to apply piece of
bent glass?" &c. In this qnestion-you assume that
glass is bentyou dared not assert that they cere
bent; though you doubt intended to have your re-
marks convey such an idea Our glasses are not bent
into their form they ground into the form in
which they are sold and, in reply to your comment
on their evil tendency in long use, would refer you
to Professor Slman Dr. Mcclellan, and host Of
scientific men, whose names have been cheerfulIy
rendered us and can be seen ut agents Office II
you had been at all conversant in optics, you would
never have made the assertion at the close of your
article, that 'the general conviction is that double
convex and lenses are the best for the eye
Those forms have been worn from necessity and
even European opticians have exhausted their inge.
nuity to produce the form you hays taken upon you
to repudiate Years of toll has been consumed By
us to produce the parabola curve. We are Ameri-
cans, who acknowledge no superior in art in the
old world; nor have we CLEANED our knowledge from
its masters. With own hands have we fashioned
according to minds, and the result is before
the public, We have produced an article that the
genius of Europe attempted in vain. Our lenses Of
all kinds bid defiance, in density Of material and
brilliancy Of finish, TO all competitors and when an
optcian attacks their reputation, we will be ready 10
give the rationale of their action.
dec 2l-eo3t HENRY M. PAINE& Co.
.