tekwyzrd?
if you didnt follow the math i did in my long series of “work” posts? thats OKAY. But, at least listen to the implications… and what known evidence already exists, without going off half cocked… just a suggestion. I just dont want you spending a lot of money on “cool lenses” constantly, and maybe not getting the results you are expecting or looking for.
most of my lenses? i took things apart and salvaged them… over time, you get a lot that way, and doesnt cost you much…
i have been sitting on these “engineering paper” i posted about a while now (which no one yet, anywhere, has claimed to have read? i wish someone would just red them….sigh) anyways, most of my “Early talk” about 2 lenses?? is aimed at getting people to use the IDEA that 2 lenses can be combined to make a “compound lens” you can treat as a single new lens.
creating a new compound lens? is not BY ITSELF going to instantly give you any of the results you are looking for… knowing what you want to make, and having an idea how to go about it? are two different things.
now, nothing i did technically means anything YET, without any confirmation i didnt make any algebra or trig “mistakes”… but, until someone comes forward claiming anything? i can say this…
1) i am a lot more confident in the first set… the “modeling” of a single lens setup. at least for the first set? if “peer review” doesnt come along in a timely fashion? i am going to have to assume i am “alone” in this, and that its up to me to write another paper based on that, to “boil it down”… which will explain it as best i can, and allow anyone with high school “algebra”, and “trig” to understand what it says, and some “cookbook” problems to work thru, which will allow a lot of people to USE the information it gives you.
2) i spent a long time on another site? where we use lenses a lot? and no one would look at the engineering paper, i have had them a couple years now… all i get, is people saying “it makes my head hurt”. i just got sick and tired of waiting for “the right person” to answer the questions, and even though i personally feel i am “close but not best” at answering the call? it unfortunately seems that “so far? i am all you get”.
3) the engineers at edmunds optics? wrote that paper, to explain to people how to build better illumination systems… and in my opinion, so reduce “returns” on people buying things they think will do what they want and it doesnt.
4) i have been saying, for a long time? that there is some “misinformation” going around the flashlight zoomie world. That the information isnt “wrong” as much as its “misleading”, and that its giving people slightly askew ideas. Everyone keeps repeating that same information over and over again, like its “holy writ”… and its not. It pains me to say it? But, one of the favorite “catch phrases” needs to get a “make over”. Because it doesnt “jibe” with the engineers at edmunds optics. Blame them.
5) now? until you guys find a better more qualified person, to do my work, and to check it? you are stuck with me… and i cant wait to hand it off, but… until then? i can tell you this… i am NOT the worlds best math person. I only “had to” take a lot of math to “do my field” i used to be in. I honestly dont LIKE math, lol… its just a necessary evil to me. I was surrounded by other university students EXCELLING in better math classes than i could perform well in. Problem was? they cant explain it to someone else and help them… THATS what my “gift” at university was. I seemed to be one of the best at EXPLAINING what i “can do” to anyone else coming up and having trouble.
i cant run around the top levels of the math tree? but, any branch i am on, i can explain how to get where i am… thats what people at my university had a hard time understanding why i had to job i had in the mathematics lab? i clearly wasnt the best math student there, plenty others way better, why was i doing that job? simple… i was one of the best at EXPLAINING anything i understood to anyone else.
if my light bulb goes off? i can turn on the light bulbs around me, so we can all understand it and USE IT. this is what made me good at my software engineering job…
now that i went thru the first part of that paper? i can now begin to explain it all, what it means in practical terms for us… and the second part? making dual lens illuminators that “beat” single lenses (delta trace issues aside, lol) which we all know EXIST but we have trouble making them? i either understand them or understand them a lot better now… and i am in a position to describe them much better.
does anyone want this paper written in a new post? or, is this going to be like the last couple years, no one listens and ignores it all?