The Whig standard. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1843-1844, 1843-12-23
SoUrH LrIcEsrER. Mass. Dec. 18th l843.

South LEICESTER, Mass, Dec. 18th l843.
To r. PArTEN:-Sir: correspondent has for
warded US copy of the Wing Standard, wherein
we find remarks relative to the merits Of Spec
tace lenses and your signature is attached to the
article we take the liberty to reply to it as emana
ton from your o,o, optical knowledge. You have
come out before enlightened community with
| dissertation on visual optics, in which you have
chosen to make mention OF the Perifocal or Paraboa
lenses in such MANNER that, admitting your state.
ments TO be correct, we must be imposters. We now
assert that your borrowed knowledge in optics has led
you into tissue of false assertions and untenable
symptoms Your remarks on the surfaces Of MEMS
Gus lenses, would argue that sphere can be more
sphericty,'' when the subjecmater under discussion
is Sphere is too absurd for moments investigation.
Your assertion that no Epses converge the rays
light to perfect focus" false, and must be pre-
subject you have attacked. Permit me to inform YOU
sir, that, when section Of elpsoid of reyoll-
tion whose semi-transversc axis and eccentricity
satisfy given proportions is obtained, parallel rays
,ciH be converged to perfect focus And as to your
statement that Meniscus lenses converge rays :" the
same as double convex lenses" allow us to remark
that in no case is the action of the lenses the
The proprietor of any school book optics, will
plain this to your satifaction. You quote cdr Brew
ster on the Meniscus lense." The DR.. was an Euro
pean optician, and consequently infallible. Never.
theess, we contend that Meniscus lenses whose SUI
faces bear proper proportion to each other
rectors of Chomatic and spherical alteration. Were
the eve placed in the foci Of the spectaces and
the object viewed in the other any ense Of imperfect
curvature would give distorted figure. And double
conper lenses al,cas do but the eye never the
of spectacles used in such postons the rays received
through the tense parallel those that enter the
obect-glass of telescope; and the eye, always be-
ing far within the foc of the tense, is not sensible Of
alteration hromatic or otherwise. In this view Of
the case the learned Doctors remarks have no force
You ask-"Is it not preposterous to apply piece of
bent glass '' SIC. In this queston-you assume that
our glass is bentyou dared not assert that they
bent; though you no doubt intended to have your re-
marks convey such an idea. Our glasses not bent
into their form they are 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 Silliman, DIR. Mcclellan, and host Of
scientific men, whose names have been cheerfuy
rendered us aud can be seen ut our agents Office If
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 concave lenses the best for the eye
Those forms have been worn from necessity and
European opticians have exhausted their inge-
nuty to produce the form you HAYS taken upon you
to rcpudiate, 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 eur own hands have we fashioned
according to our 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
brancy Of finish, to all competitors and when an
opfcan attacks their reputation, we will be ready to
| give the rationale Of their action.
| dec 2l-eo3t HENRY NJ. PAINE s. Co.