Kim Youmans wrote:
Somehow I overlooked Joe's post way back in Oct and don't recall any other reply.
>>>Hi there, Reference: Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 22:54:24 -0400
>>> From: Kim Youmans <ksyo@pinelanddot net> <No one will ever convince me that that glasses are superior to contacts for observing. > Question: If a telescope >>>extends visual limiting magnitude, wouldn't glasses (spectacles) do the same thing and actually be beneficial in helping >>>observe fainter meteors? Regards,Joe. **
I can only speak for myself and my own experiences. Last year during the 99 Persieds, I had both my contact and glasses prescriptions updated at the same time. I performed the simple experiment of taking both contacts and glasses out to my observing site and counting the IMO fields with each. The contacts proved superior, but of course there was always the possibility of the glasses not being as well fitted to my eyes (prescription-wise) as the contacts. The glare was worse with the glasses and naturally I had complete peripheral vision with the contacts, unacheivable with the glasses.
I don't think one can compare glasses to telescopes anymore or any less than one could compare contacts and telescopes. Glasses and contacts do exactly the same thing. We do have posters here (at least one, anyway) who are experienced observers and state that they have glasses which are -if I recall correctly - a diopter stronger than necessary - yet their present *meteor* perception doesn't seem to be anything extraordinary. Their LM perception, on the other hand, does appear quite a bit better than average. Help me out here, Norm!
I have to wonder, however, about the health aspects of using glasses that are too strong over extended periods. It may be perfectly OK -- I'm no opthamalogist!
Joe Kaplonek wrote:
****************************************************