polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 10 Jun 2007 10:41:53
From: Mike
Subject: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

Hi, I'm checking around for new sunglasses, maybe Oakley M Frames.
Wondering if it is worth the extra bucks to go polarized or not. Any
comments?

Thanks
Mike

Date: 15 Jun 2007 21:05:16
From: landotter
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

On Jun 15, 3:17 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net > wrote:

> I'm a tad late replying but I have just blown 2 days getting Ubuntu
> Linux installed.

It goes a *lot* faster if you don't wear polarized glasses with an LCD
monitor. Last time I installed it, it only took a couple of hours--
including personalizing. Last few upgrades have been overnight with
little input from me. Love it.

Date: 15 Jun 2007 21:31:43
From: Bill
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

landotter wrote:
> On Jun 15, 3:17 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm a tad late replying but I have just blown 2 days getting Ubuntu
>> Linux installed.
>
> It goes a *lot* faster if you don't wear polarized glasses with an LCD
> monitor. Last time I installed it, it only took a couple of hours--
> including personalizing. Last few upgrades have been overnight with
> little input from me. Love it.
>
I love it too, but I had to make it work with a system that has 4 hard
drives and a DVD burner. 3 IDE, 1 IDE burner, 1 (so far) SATA drive.
Windows won't even see the Linux, but the Ubuntu does see the XP.
Forget Vista.
At least I can use Firefox and Thunderbird and even OpenOffice on both.
Back to bikes.
Bill Baka

Date: 16 Jun 2007 10:57:12
From: R Brickston
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 21:31:43 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote:

>Back to bikes.
>Bill Baka

Thanks for the warning.

Date: 14 Jun 2007 12:25:48
From: Bruce Jackson
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

On Jun 11, 1:40 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net > wrote:
> Bruce Jackson wrote:
> > I don't like or need dark sunglasses so polarized lenses have always
> > been too dark for me. Even on the brightest days I'm comfortable with
> > 40% tint. For cycling I like 40% brown and for driving I like 20%
> > brown and 20% gray gradient.

> Really? I have mine at 90% tint and everything is still bright. That
> probably comes from being an inside office engineer, but my night vision
> is great.

Different strokes. My wife needs dark sunglasses to be comfortable in
the Sun. My daughter seems to have gotten my wife's eyes because she
won't go outside without Sunglasses. My eyes are comfortable without
sunglasses on all but the brightest Texas Summer days and even on
these I only need a slight tint. Since my sunglasses are perscription
I can get any tint I want.

> > The first time I got polarized lenses I was amazed at how so many
> > things looked metalic through them. I knew something was wrong so I
> > pulled out the polarizing filter form my camera bag and discovered
> > that the angle of the polarization was different on the two lenses. I
> > had them remade and they weren't bad though they were too dark.

> Different angles? Must have been really cheap or a name brand rip-off.

They were perscription sunglasses so obviously the lab screwed up.
The metalic effect was actually pretty cool looking but it was too
distracting so I had the sunglasses remade.

Date: 15 Jun 2007 20:17:28
From: Bill
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

Bruce Jackson wrote:
> On Jun 11, 1:40 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Bruce Jackson wrote:
>>> I don't like or need dark sunglasses so polarized lenses have always
>>> been too dark for me. Even on the brightest days I'm comfortable with
>>> 40% tint. For cycling I like 40% brown and for driving I like 20%
>>> brown and 20% gray gradient.
>
>> Really? I have mine at 90% tint and everything is still bright. That
>> probably comes from being an inside office engineer, but my night vision
>> is great.
>
> Different strokes. My wife needs dark sunglasses to be comfortable in
> the Sun. My daughter seems to have gotten my wife's eyes because she
> won't go outside without Sunglasses. My eyes are comfortable without
> sunglasses on all but the brightest Texas Summer days and even on
> these I only need a slight tint. Since my sunglasses are perscription
> I can get any tint I want.

I'm a tad late replying but I have just blown 2 days getting Ubuntu
Linux installed and playing with XP. I am actually one of those who has
gotten so used to indoor work that the sun does hurt my eyes. Good luck
with getting the tint and polarization right. I got burned on that since
the place went out of business after I got my glasses.
>
>>> The first time I got polarized lenses I was amazed at how so many
>>> things looked metalic through them. I knew something was wrong so I
>>> pulled out the polarizing filter form my camera bag and discovered
>>> that the angle of the polarization was different on the two lenses. I
>>> had them remade and they weren't bad though they were too dark.
>
>> Different angles? Must have been really cheap or a name brand rip-off.
>
> They were perscription sunglasses so obviously the lab screwed up.
> The metalic effect was actually pretty cool looking but it was too
> distracting so I had the sunglasses remade.
>
Sounds like you did all right. I need to do it over again too.
Bill Baka

Date: 14 Jun 2007 20:11:23
From: R Brickston
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:25:48 -0700, Bruce Jackson
<b.a.jackson@ieee.org > wrote:

>Different strokes. My wife needs dark sunglasses to be comfortable in
>the Sun. My daughter seems to have gotten my wife's eyes because she
>won't go outside without Sunglasses. My eyes are comfortable without
>sunglasses on all but the brightest Texas Summer days and even on
>these I only need a slight tint. Since my sunglasses are perscription
>I can get any tint I want.

<snip >

Women care about UV rays, I'm sure. But the main reason (supposedly)
they wear sunglasses is to prevent squint lines from forming around
the eyes.

Date: 14 Jun 2007 18:48:29
From: Carl Sundquist
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

"R Brickston" <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@ > wrote in message
news:r38373dlbqbtkh2db2maes7jpi66pe6j8q@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:25:48 -0700, Bruce Jackson
> <b.a.jackson@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>>Different strokes. My wife needs dark sunglasses to be comfortable in
>>the Sun. My daughter seems to have gotten my wife's eyes because she
>>won't go outside without Sunglasses. My eyes are comfortable without
>>sunglasses on all but the brightest Texas Summer days and even on
>>these I only need a slight tint. Since my sunglasses are perscription
>>I can get any tint I want.
>
> <snip>
>
> Women care about UV rays, I'm sure. But the main reason (supposedly)
> they wear sunglasses is to prevent squint lines from forming around
> the eyes.

And indoors to hide the squint lines they already have.

Date: 15 Jun 2007 04:23:54
From: Bill
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

Carl Sundquist wrote:
>
> "R Brickston" <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote in message
> news:r38373dlbqbtkh2db2maes7jpi66pe6j8q@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:25:48 -0700, Bruce Jackson
>> <b.a.jackson@ieee.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Different strokes. My wife needs dark sunglasses to be comfortable in
>>> the Sun. My daughter seems to have gotten my wife's eyes because she
>>> won't go outside without Sunglasses. My eyes are comfortable without
>>> sunglasses on all but the brightest Texas Summer days and even on
>>> these I only need a slight tint. Since my sunglasses are perscription
>>> I can get any tint I want.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Women care about UV rays, I'm sure. But the main reason (supposedly)
>> they wear sunglasses is to prevent squint lines from forming around
>> the eyes.
>
> And indoors to hide the squint lines they already have.

You missed the whole point of dark, polarized, UV/blue blockers.
Dark lenses mean that when the sun goes down you can take off the shades
and have a 10X improvement in vision, like light.
The polarized keeps the glare from cars down.
And most important if you plan on making 60+ years you won't get
cataracts like my dad, the macho no sissy sunglasses type got at 65.
That's why old dogs have fogged out eyes, they don't even think about it.
My cats have gone 15 years with good eyes, maybe because they sleep
during the day and stay out of the sun.
Just something for you to think about.
This post means nothing more than I am on (finally) Ubuntu Linux.
2 days to ge it to install all the junk I use and not mess up my windoze
disks. The Windoze will kill themselves for me.
Bill Baka

Date: 15 Jun 2007 10:27:30
From: R Brickston
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 04:23:54 GMT, Bill <bill@sbcglobal.net > wrote:

>This post means nothing more than I am on (finally) Ubuntu Linux.
>2 days to ge it to install all the junk I use and not mess up my windoze
>disks. The Windoze will kill themselves for me.
>Bill Baka

Talk about a "Me Generation" narcissist. Sheesh.

Date: 15 Jun 2007 04:22:39
From: Bill
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

Date: 15 Jun 2007 10:25:04
From: R Brickston
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 04:22:39 GMT, Bill <bill@sbcglobal.net > wrote:

>Carl Sundquist wrote:
>>
>> "R Brickston" <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote in message
>> news:r38373dlbqbtkh2db2maes7jpi66pe6j8q@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:25:48 -0700, Bruce Jackson
>>> <b.a.jackson@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Different strokes. My wife needs dark sunglasses to be comfortable in
>>>> the Sun. My daughter seems to have gotten my wife's eyes because she
>>>> won't go outside without Sunglasses. My eyes are comfortable without
>>>> sunglasses on all but the brightest Texas Summer days and even on
>>>> these I only need a slight tint. Since my sunglasses are perscription
>>>> I can get any tint I want.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Women care about UV rays, I'm sure. But the main reason (supposedly)
>>> they wear sunglasses is to prevent squint lines from forming around
>>> the eyes.
>>
>> And indoors to hide the squint lines they already have.
>
>The UV is what will cause you trouble if your biking keeps you healthy
>until 60+. Cataracts.
>My dad found out the hard way.
>Look it up.
>Bill Baka

Thank you for the breaking news on UV rays.

Date: 13 Jun 2007 03:13:30
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

no dude here dude
but
pyhsics is A
manufacturing is B
and product is C
religion is H
read Dolan/Bata that's H-
well, Mike wanted an opinion!
Oh look below - Ozark Bicycle blasphemes!
wit'll his nabs read that

Date: 13 Jun 2007 02:57:17
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

On Jun 12, 9:30 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote:
> datakoll wrote:
> > On Jun 12, 8:51 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> >> datakoll wrote:
> >>> On Jun 11, 11:39 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> >>>> datakoll wrote:
> >>>>>> polarizing does not mean more than the mildest tint. look at the lcd of
> >>>>>> your bike computer - it's almost clear but a very strong polarizer.
> >>>>>> again, tint and polarizing are different things.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>> the photochromatic is the problem, polarization is a minor effect or
> >>>>> possibly when the photochromatic is out of synch the polarization
> >>>>> makes it worse?
> >>>>> speed, shorter reaction times suggest no photochromatics in a varying
> >>>>> shade/sunlight environment
> >>>>> but the Hudson River effect! worth every penny.
> >>>> photochromatism is completely unrelated to polarization.
> >>>http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:jftUDOY5ePoJ:www.matheson-optome...
> >> photochromatism is still completely unrelated to polarization. most
> >> eyeglass polarized lenses are tinted because that's what people want,
> >> but the two are completely unrelated.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > I'm at a loss to state the problem over your metaphorically dead body!
> > lenses made photochromatic may be also made polarized.
> > the photochromatic problem, at high speeds, is more significant than
> > the polarization problem BUTBUTBUT when combined the polarization
> > problem which is usually a curiosity except for the ice and
> > condensation happening.
> > The physics is irrelevant at the perceptual receiving end:
>
> no dude. without the physics, you'd simply be having a religious
> experience.
>

He thought he saw Gawd.......but it was only Baron Munchhausen. It was
still a polarizing moment.

Date: 12 Jun 2007 23:04:18
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

On Jun 12, 8:51 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote:
> datakoll wrote:
> > On Jun 11, 11:39 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> >> datakoll wrote:
> >>>> polarizing does not mean more than the mildest tint. look at the lcd of
> >>>> your bike computer - it's almost clear but a very strong polarizer.
> >>>> again, tint and polarizing are different things.- Hide quoted text -
> >>> the photochromatic is the problem, polarization is a minor effect or
> >>> possibly when the photochromatic is out of synch the polarization
> >>> makes it worse?
> >>> speed, shorter reaction times suggest no photochromatics in a varying
> >>> shade/sunlight environment
> >>> but the Hudson River effect! worth every penny.
> >> photochromatism is completely unrelated to polarization.
>
> >http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:jftUDOY5ePoJ:www.matheson-optome...
>
> photochromatism is still completely unrelated to polarization. most
> eyeglass polarized lenses are tinted because that's what people want,
> but the two are completely unrelated.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I'm at a loss to state the problem over your metaphorically dead body!
lenses made photochromatic may be also made polarized.
the photochromatic problem, at high speeds, is more significant than
the polarization problem BUTBUTBUT when combined the polarization
problem which is usually a curiosity except for the ice and
condensation happening.
The physics is irrelevant at the perceptual receiving end: seperate
formula and sensation for a moment.

Date: 12 Jun 2007 19:30:36
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

datakoll wrote:
> On Jun 12, 8:51 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> datakoll wrote:
>>> On Jun 11, 11:39 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>> datakoll wrote:
>>>>>> polarizing does not mean more than the mildest tint. look at the lcd of
>>>>>> your bike computer - it's almost clear but a very strong polarizer.
>>>>>> again, tint and polarizing are different things.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>> the photochromatic is the problem, polarization is a minor effect or
>>>>> possibly when the photochromatic is out of synch the polarization
>>>>> makes it worse?
>>>>> speed, shorter reaction times suggest no photochromatics in a varying
>>>>> shade/sunlight environment
>>>>> but the Hudson River effect! worth every penny.
>>>> photochromatism is completely unrelated to polarization.
>>> http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:jftUDOY5ePoJ:www.matheson-optome...
>> photochromatism is still completely unrelated to polarization. most
>> eyeglass polarized lenses are tinted because that's what people want,
>> but the two are completely unrelated.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I'm at a loss to state the problem over your metaphorically dead body!
> lenses made photochromatic may be also made polarized.
> the photochromatic problem, at high speeds, is more significant than
> the polarization problem BUTBUTBUT when combined the polarization
> problem which is usually a curiosity except for the ice and
> condensation happening.
> The physics is irrelevant at the perceptual receiving end:

no dude. without the physics, you'd simply be having a religious
experience.

> seperate
> formula and sensation for a moment.
>

Date: 12 Jun 2007 12:39:07
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

On Jun 11, 11:39 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote:
> datakoll wrote:
> >> polarizing does not mean more than the mildest tint. look at the lcd of
> >> your bike computer - it's almost clear but a very strong polarizer.
> >> again, tint and polarizing are different things.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > the photochromatic is the problem, polarization is a minor effect or
> > possibly when the photochromatic is out of synch the polarization
> > makes it worse?
> > speed, shorter reaction times suggest no photochromatics in a varying
> > shade/sunlight environment
> > but the Hudson River effect! worth every penny.
>
> photochromatism is completely unrelated to polarization.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:jftUDOY5ePoJ:www.matheson-optometrists.com/Latest-News/latest-news.htm+photochromatic+polarized+lenses&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us

Date: 12 Jun 2007 05:51:58
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

datakoll wrote:
> On Jun 11, 11:39 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> datakoll wrote:
>>>> polarizing does not mean more than the mildest tint. look at the lcd of
>>>> your bike computer - it's almost clear but a very strong polarizer.
>>>> again, tint and polarizing are different things.- Hide quoted text -
>>> the photochromatic is the problem, polarization is a minor effect or
>>> possibly when the photochromatic is out of synch the polarization
>>> makes it worse?
>>> speed, shorter reaction times suggest no photochromatics in a varying
>>> shade/sunlight environment
>>> but the Hudson River effect! worth every penny.
>> photochromatism is completely unrelated to polarization.
>
> http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:jftUDOY5ePoJ:www.matheson-optometrists.com/Latest-News/latest-news.htm+photochromatic+polarized+lenses&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us
>

photochromatism is still completely unrelated to polarization. most
eyeglass polarized lenses are tinted because that's what people want,
but the two are completely unrelated.

Date: 12 Jun 2007 08:20:03
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

In article <nIqdnQ_ViOFzC_PbnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@speakeasy.net >,
jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote:

> datakoll wrote:
> > On Jun 11, 11:39 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> >> datakoll wrote:
> >>>> polarizing does not mean more than the mildest tint. look at
> >>>> the lcd of your bike computer - it's almost clear but a very
> >>>> strong polarizer. again, tint and polarizing are different
> >>>> things.- Hide quoted text -
> >>> the photochromatic is the problem, polarization is a minor effect
> >>> or possibly when the photochromatic is out of synch the
> >>> polarization makes it worse? speed, shorter reaction times
> >>> suggest no photochromatics in a varying shade/sunlight
> >>> environment but the Hudson River effect! worth every penny.
> >>
> >> photochromatism is completely unrelated to polarization.
> >

<snip long URL >

> >
>
> photochromatism is still completely unrelated to polarization. most
> eyeglass polarized lenses are tinted because that's what people want,
> but the two are completely unrelated.

As a glance at a polarizing photographic filter will show.

Date: 12 Jun 2007 02:42:08
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

>
> polarizing does not mean more than the mildest tint. look at the lcd of
> your bike computer - it's almost clear but a very strong polarizer.
> again, tint and polarizing are different things.- Hide quoted text -

the photochromatic is the problem, polarization is a minor effect or
possibly when the photochromatic is out of synch the polarization
makes it worse?
speed, shorter reaction times suggest no photochromatics in a varying
shade/sunlight environment
but the Hudson River effect! worth every penny.

Date: 11 Jun 2007 20:39:50
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

datakoll wrote:
>> polarizing does not mean more than the mildest tint. look at the lcd of
>> your bike computer - it's almost clear but a very strong polarizer.
>> again, tint and polarizing are different things.- Hide quoted text -
>
> the photochromatic is the problem, polarization is a minor effect or
> possibly when the photochromatic is out of synch the polarization
> makes it worse?
> speed, shorter reaction times suggest no photochromatics in a varying
> shade/sunlight environment
> but the Hudson River effect! worth every penny.
>
>
>
photochromatism is completely unrelated to polarization.

Date: 11 Jun 2007 23:53:22
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

On Jun 11, 7:51 pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> right! major problema.
>
> but what you perceive may
>
> >>> be quite different, at times causing things to be darker than you might
> >>> like (with your eyes not adjusting quickly enough).
>
> Riding (motorcycle) or driving in the mountains with polarized glass,
> into the shade, into the sun, produces blindnesses with or without the
> polarization: not often but! polarization polarizes the experience.
> 3-4 times is enough especially with a canyon on one side, a road crew
> standing in the road with noooooo signs up, rocks from a rock
> slide...bad news. Yes, and I experienced the road "disappearing" also
> as a dark black characterless surface which is fleeting unless the
> road washed away there...

photochromatic polarization!

Date: 11 Jun 2007 23:51:51
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

right! major problema.

but what you perceive may
>>> be quite different, at times causing things to be darker than you might
>>> like (with your eyes not adjusting quickly enough).

Riding (motorcycle) or driving in the mountains with polarized glass,
into the shade, into the sun, produces blindnesses with or without the
polarization: not often but! polarization polarizes the experience.
3-4 times is enough especially with a canyon on one side, a road crew
standing in the road with noooooo signs up, rocks from a rock
slide...bad news. Yes, and I experienced the road "disappearing" also
as a dark black characterless surface which is fleeting unless the
road washed away there...

Date: 12 Jun 2007 01:26:42
From:
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

Gene Daniels writes:

> right! major problema. but what you perceive may

>>> I'm not a fan of eyewear that essentially changes transparency as
>>> you change your angle to the sun... in other words, as you go
>>> through a corner, the actual light may remain constant, but what
>>> you perceive may be quite different, at times causing things to be
>>> darker than you might like (with your eyes not adjusting quickly
>>> enough).

>> That is not what happens with polarized lenses.

> Riding (motorcycle) or driving in the mountains with polarized
> glass, into the shade, into the sun, produces blindnesses with or
> without the polarization: not often but! polarization polarizes the
> experience. 3-4 times is enough especially with a canyon on one
> side, a road crew standing in the road with noooooo signs up, rocks
> from a rock slide...bad news. Yes, and I experienced the road
> "disappearing" also as a dark black characterless surface which is
> fleeting unless the road washed away there...

From all these hypothetical drawbacks, it seems few contributors have
tried Polaroid glasses on a road that demands knowing what the surface
is doing. My first and only experiment with such glasses was on a
mountain pass (Giovo, (I)) that climbs and descends in a forest. It
had rained during the night and the road had just begun to dry in some
sunny sections.

I didn't notice the problem until I began descending and discovered I
could not tell what part of the road was wet or dry, the glare from
wet road varying with direction of traverse on the mountain. When I
realized the problem I tried to compensate for it by what I knew about
the road before the hairpin turns, but this made no difference.

The loss of information is critical to safe descending unless done a
creeping speed. That LCD displays of wrist watches are affected seems
to have made Polaroid glasses fade into history from what I can find
in local stores. Of course this affects any LCD device like bicycle
speedometers.

As mat O'Toole already said.

Jobst Brandt

Date: 12 Jun 2007 13:23:05
From: Bob in CT
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:26:42 -0400, <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org >
wrote:

> Gene Daniels writes:
>
>> right! major problema. but what you perceive may
>
>>>> I'm not a fan of eyewear that essentially changes transparency as
>>>> you change your angle to the sun... in other words, as you go
>>>> through a corner, the actual light may remain constant, but what
>>>> you perceive may be quite different, at times causing things to be
>>>> darker than you might like (with your eyes not adjusting quickly
>>>> enough).
>
>>> That is not what happens with polarized lenses.
>
>> Riding (motorcycle) or driving in the mountains with polarized
>> glass, into the shade, into the sun, produces blindnesses with or
>> without the polarization: not often but! polarization polarizes the
>> experience. 3-4 times is enough especially with a canyon on one
>> side, a road crew standing in the road with noooooo signs up, rocks
>> from a rock slide...bad news. Yes, and I experienced the road
>> "disappearing" also as a dark black characterless surface which is
>> fleeting unless the road washed away there...
>
> From all these hypothetical drawbacks, it seems few contributors have
> tried Polaroid glasses on a road that demands knowing what the surface
> is doing. My first and only experiment with such glasses was on a
> mountain pass (Giovo, (I)) that climbs and descends in a forest. It
> had rained during the night and the road had just begun to dry in some
> sunny sections.

And if you don't ride in those areas? I've ridden thousands of miles in
AZ and CT with polarized lenses and have never had a problem. This
includes riding in hilly (though not mountainous) areas
before/during/after rain and in areas where the trees overhung the road
and where the sun may or may not be out. I prefer polarized, as I'd
rather have less glare than worry about some puddles in the road, given my
conditions.

--
Bob in CT

Date: 11 Jun 2007 19:26:13
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Gene Daniels writes:
>
>> right! major problema. but what you perceive may
>
>>>> I'm not a fan of eyewear that essentially changes transparency as
>>>> you change your angle to the sun... in other words, as you go
>>>> through a corner, the actual light may remain constant, but what
>>>> you perceive may be quite different, at times causing things to be
>>>> darker than you might like (with your eyes not adjusting quickly
>>>> enough).
>
>>> That is not what happens with polarized lenses.
>
>> Riding (motorcycle) or driving in the mountains with polarized
>> glass, into the shade, into the sun, produces blindnesses with or
>> without the polarization: not often but! polarization polarizes the
>> experience. 3-4 times is enough especially with a canyon on one
>> side, a road crew standing in the road with noooooo signs up, rocks
>> from a rock slide...bad news. Yes, and I experienced the road
>> "disappearing" also as a dark black characterless surface which is
>> fleeting unless the road washed away there...
>
> From all these hypothetical drawbacks, it seems few contributors have
> tried Polaroid glasses on a road that demands knowing what the surface
> is doing. My first and only experiment with such glasses was on a
> mountain pass (Giovo, (I)) that climbs and descends in a forest. It
> had rained during the night and the road had just begun to dry in some
> sunny sections.
>
> I didn't notice the problem until I began descending and discovered I
> could not tell what part of the road was wet or dry, the glare from
> wet road varying with direction of traverse on the mountain. When I
> realized the problem I tried to compensate for it by what I knew about
> the road before the hairpin turns, but this made no difference.
>
> The loss of information is critical to safe descending unless done a
> creeping speed. That LCD displays of wrist watches are affected seems
> to have made Polaroid glasses fade into history from what I can find
> in local stores. Of course this affects any LCD device like bicycle
> speedometers.
>
> As mat O'Toole already said.
>

until this post, i must say i was having a lot of problem understanding
where the irrational fear of the naysayers was coming from. jobstian
fud! whoda thunk it.

you need to learn about polarizing effects of reflective surfaces,
contrast and problems of the retina in dealing therewith.

Date: 11 Jun 2007 20:42:08
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

jim beam wrote:
> jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>> Gene Daniels writes:
>>
>>> right! major problema. but what you perceive may
>>
>>>>> I'm not a fan of eyewear that essentially changes transparency as
>>>>> you change your angle to the sun... in other words, as you go
>>>>> through a corner, the actual light may remain constant, but what
>>>>> you perceive may be quite different, at times causing things to be
>>>>> darker than you might like (with your eyes not adjusting quickly
>>>>> enough).
>>
>>>> That is not what happens with polarized lenses.
>>
>>> Riding (motorcycle) or driving in the mountains with polarized
>>> glass, into the shade, into the sun, produces blindnesses with or
>>> without the polarization: not often but! polarization polarizes the
>>> experience. 3-4 times is enough especially with a canyon on one
>>> side, a road crew standing in the road with noooooo signs up, rocks
>>> from a rock slide...bad news. Yes, and I experienced the road
>>> "disappearing" also as a dark black characterless surface which is
>>> fleeting unless the road washed away there...
>>
>> From all these hypothetical drawbacks, it seems few contributors have
>> tried Polaroid glasses on a road that demands knowing what the surface
>> is doing. My first and only experiment with such glasses was on a
>> mountain pass (Giovo, (I)) that climbs and descends in a forest. It
>> had rained during the night and the road had just begun to dry in some
>> sunny sections.
>>
>> I didn't notice the problem until I began descending and discovered I
>> could not tell what part of the road was wet or dry, the glare from
>> wet road varying with direction of traverse on the mountain. When I
>> realized the problem I tried to compensate for it by what I knew about
>> the road before the hairpin turns, but this made no difference.
>>
>> The loss of information is critical to safe descending unless done a
>> creeping speed. That LCD displays of wrist watches are affected seems
>> to have made Polaroid glasses fade into history from what I can find
>> in local stores. Of course this affects any LCD device like bicycle
>> speedometers.
>>
>> As mat O'Toole already said.
>>
>
> until this post, i must say i was having a lot of problem understanding
> where the irrational fear of the naysayers was coming from. jobstian
> fud! whoda thunk it.
>
> you need to learn about polarizing effects of reflective surfaces,
> contrast and problems of the retina in dealing therewith.

that doesn't read right. make it:
" you need to learn about polarizing effects of reflective surfaces.
and learn about light contrast and the problems of the retina in dealing
therewith."

Date: 11 Jun 2007 23:26:18
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

In article <sbCdnWaxh8iNi_PbnZ2dnUVZ_uzinZ2d@speakeasy.net >,
jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote:

> that doesn't read right. make it: " you need to learn about
> polarizing effects of reflective surfaces. and learn about light
> contrast and the problems of the retina in dealing therewith."

You mean this?

http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/optics/plane.htm

Date: 12 Jun 2007 04:05:52
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

>>> The loss of information is critical to safe descending unless done a
>>> creeping speed. That LCD displays of wrist watches are affected seems
>>> to have made Polaroid glasses fade into history from what I can find
>>> in local stores. Of course this affects any LCD device like bicycle
>>> speedometers.
>>>
>>> As mat O'Toole already said.
>>>
>>
>> until this post, i must say i was having a lot of problem understanding
>> where the irrational fear of the naysayers was coming from. jobstian
>> fud! whoda thunk it.
>>
>> you need to learn about polarizing effects of reflective surfaces,
>> contrast and problems of the retina in dealing therewith.
>
> that doesn't read right. make it:
> " you need to learn about polarizing effects of reflective surfaces. and
> learn about light contrast and the problems of the retina in dealing
> therewith."

Why? Why not just get something else that doesn't have such issues? There
are specific situations in which a polarized lens makes a lot of sense, but
for cycling in general? I'm not convinced.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Date: 12 Jun 2007 09:19:28
From:
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

In article <AYobi.40168$5j1.21061@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net >, mikej1
@ix.netcom.com says...

> Why? Why not just get something else that doesn't have such issues? There
> are specific situations in which a polarized lens makes a lot of sense, but
> for cycling in general? I'm not convinced.

In my case, I don't want to own a dozen sets of glasses for different
tasks, so my cycling sunglasses are my driving sunglasses, my fishing
sunglasses, my boating sunglasses, etc.

Polarizing sunglasses have never given me any trouble cycling, they
don't interfere with my preferred cyclocomputer, and they reduce glare
which makes my eyes feel better at the end of a long day of riding,
rowing, fishing, etc.

Since I use un-tinted polarized clip-on sunglasses, they even make a
handy polarizer for my compact digital camera which doesn't take
threaded filters.

--
josh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/ >
Updated Infrared Photography Gallery:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/ir.html >

Date: 12 Jun 2007 08:24:02
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

In article <AYobi.40168$5j1.21061@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net >,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com > wrote:

> >>> The loss of information is critical to safe descending unless
> >>> done a creeping speed. That LCD displays of wrist watches are
> >>> affected seems to have made Polaroid glasses fade into history
> >>> from what I can find in local stores. Of course this affects any
> >>> LCD device like bicycle speedometers.
> >>>
> >>> As mat O'Toole already said.
> >>>
> >>
> >> until this post, i must say i was having a lot of problem
> >> understanding where the irrational fear of the naysayers was
> >> coming from. jobstian fud! whoda thunk it.
> >>
> >> you need to learn about polarizing effects of reflective surfaces,
> >> contrast and problems of the retina in dealing therewith.
> >
> > that doesn't read right. make it: " you need to learn about
> > polarizing effects of reflective surfaces. and learn about light
> > contrast and the problems of the retina in dealing therewith."
>
> Why? Why not just get something else that doesn't have such issues?
> There are specific situations in which a polarized lens makes a lot
> of sense, but for cycling in general? I'm not convinced.

The purpose of polarized lenses is generally to reduce specular
reflection off smooth surfaces like water, metal surfaces, etc. Useful
for people out boating or fishing, for example, but less useful for
cyclists who generally aren't dealing with that sort of thing. I've not
ever had any of the problems that others have reported, but that may
just mean that I haven't been in the right lighting situations.

Date: 11 Jun 2007 21:26:40
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>>> The loss of information is critical to safe descending unless done a
>>>> creeping speed. That LCD displays of wrist watches are affected seems
>>>> to have made Polaroid glasses fade into history from what I can find
>>>> in local stores. Of course this affects any LCD device like bicycle
>>>> speedometers.
>>>>
>>>> As mat O'Toole already said.
>>>>
>>> until this post, i must say i was having a lot of problem understanding
>>> where the irrational fear of the naysayers was coming from. jobstian
>>> fud! whoda thunk it.
>>>
>>> you need to learn about polarizing effects of reflective surfaces,
>>> contrast and problems of the retina in dealing therewith.
>> that doesn't read right. make it:
>> " you need to learn about polarizing effects of reflective surfaces. and
>> learn about light contrast and the problems of the retina in dealing
>> therewith."
>
> Why? Why not just get something else that doesn't have such issues? There
> are specific situations in which a polarized lens makes a lot of sense, but
> for cycling in general? I'm not convinced.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
>
all the reasons cited as "problems" are those of contrast and are
present with any dark tinting, not just polarized lenses that happen to
be tinted. all polarizing lenses do is react with the polarizing effect
of light reflecting at a low incidence angle. all other ambient light
is unpolarized and a polarized lens will not react with it. admittedly,
a lot of polarized sunglasses are darker tints, but not all. look for
that if you care to try them again.

Date: 11 Jun 2007 09:08:53
From: Bruce Jackson
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

On Jun 10, 10:39 pm, "David L. Johnson" <david.john...@lehigh.edu >
wrote:

> The idea is that it's easier to see water on the road if you can see the
> surface glare. But I can see it fine with my polarized glasses, it's
> just not as annoying.

With polarized lenses I've had trouble a few times seeing slick spots
on the road when driving or cycling. I think polarized lenses are
more suited to water sports.

I don't like or need dark sunglasses so polarized lenses have always
been too dark for me. Even on the brightest days I'm comfortable with
40% tint. For cycling I like 40% brown and for driving I like 20%
brown and 20% gray gradient.

The first time I got polarized lenses I was amazed at how so many
things looked metalic through them. I knew something was wrong so I
pulled out the polarizing filter form my camera bag and discovered
that the angle of the polarization was different on the two lenses. I
had them remade and they weren't bad though they were too dark.

The other bad pair of sunglasses I tried was made with transitions
lenses. While they were supposed to be neutral gray they had a strong
purple cast to them that reduced contrast so badly that it was
sometimes hard to see. I understand transitions are now available in
brown which might be better though as others pointed out, they don't
darken when driving.

Date: 11 Jun 2007 19:27:55
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

Bruce Jackson wrote:
> On Jun 10, 10:39 pm, "David L. Johnson" <david.john...@lehigh.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> The idea is that it's easier to see water on the road if you can see the
>> surface glare. But I can see it fine with my polarized glasses, it's
>> just not as annoying.
>
> With polarized lenses I've had trouble a few times seeing slick spots
> on the road when driving or cycling. I think polarized lenses are
> more suited to water sports.
>
> I don't like or need dark sunglasses so polarized lenses have always
> been too dark for me. Even on the brightest days I'm comfortable with
> 40% tint. For cycling I like 40% brown and for driving I like 20%
> brown and 20% gray gradient.
>
> The first time I got polarized lenses I was amazed at how so many
> things looked metalic through them. I knew something was wrong so I
> pulled out the polarizing filter form my camera bag and discovered
> that the angle of the polarization was different on the two lenses. I
> had them remade and they weren't bad though they were too dark.
>
> The other bad pair of sunglasses I tried was made with transitions
> lenses. While they were supposed to be neutral gray they had a strong
> purple cast to them that reduced contrast so badly that it was
> sometimes hard to see. I understand transitions are now available in
> brown which might be better though as others pointed out, they don't
> darken when driving.
>
>
polarizing does not mean more than the mildest tint. look at the lcd of
your bike computer - it's almost clear but a very strong polarizer.
again, tint and polarizing are different things.

Date: 11 Jun 2007 18:40:54
From: Bill
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

Bruce Jackson wrote:
> On Jun 10, 10:39 pm, "David L. Johnson" <david.john...@lehigh.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> The idea is that it's easier to see water on the road if you can see the
>> surface glare. But I can see it fine with my polarized glasses, it's
>> just not as annoying.
>
> With polarized lenses I've had trouble a few times seeing slick spots
> on the road when driving or cycling. I think polarized lenses are
> more suited to water sports.
>
> I don't like or need dark sunglasses so polarized lenses have always
> been too dark for me. Even on the brightest days I'm comfortable with
> 40% tint. For cycling I like 40% brown and for driving I like 20%
> brown and 20% gray gradient.

Really? I have mine at 90% tint and everything is still bright. That
probably comes from being an inside office engineer, but my night vision
is great.
>
> The first time I got polarized lenses I was amazed at how so many
> things looked metalic through them. I knew something was wrong so I
> pulled out the polarizing filter form my camera bag and discovered
> that the angle of the polarization was different on the two lenses. I
> had them remade and they weren't bad though they were too dark.

Different angles? Must have been really cheap or a name brand rip-off.
>
> The other bad pair of sunglasses I tried was made with transitions
> lenses. While they were supposed to be neutral gray they had a strong
> purple cast to them that reduced contrast so badly that it was
> sometimes hard to see. I understand transitions are now available in
> brown which might be better though as others pointed out, they don't
> darken when driving.
>
>
I tried transitions 20 years ago (old technology) and when the glass
darkened the glare coming in around the edges was quite distracting.
I now have the ski goggle type that fits skin tight to the point of
keeping even a stray breeze out of my eyes. They look kind of odd, but
they sure do the job.
Bill Baka

Date: 11 Jun 2007 13:00:51
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

right. the optomitryst will tell you: glass (lenses) and carbonate
lenses are UV deflective but not plastic. the carbonate may be
reflective of itself without coating?
Who rides bicycles on glaze-black ice- ice? sounds tricky with
polarization: skiers off to Pocono?
The shade-shade-shade/sunlight travel with photochromatic lenses is a
real death trip over 10 mph. takem off.
there's a spectrum of sunlight falling on the country: what's good for
the Gulf of Mexico may be not enough for the Atlantic and off course
too much for Seattle.

Date: 11 Jun 2007 10:40:01
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

"datakoll" <datakoll@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1181566851.423127.80240@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> right. the optomitryst will tell you: glass (lenses) and carbonate
> lenses are UV deflective but not plastic. the carbonate may be
> reflective of itself without coating?
> Who rides bicycles on glaze-black ice- ice? sounds tricky with
> polarization: skiers off to Pocono?
> The shade-shade-shade/sunlight travel with photochromatic lenses is a
> real death trip over 10 mph. takem off.
> there's a spectrum of sunlight falling on the country: what's good for
> the Gulf of Mexico may be not enough for the Atlantic and off course
> too much for Seattle.
>

Yellow lenses for Seattle.... ;-)

Date: 11 Jun 2007 13:23:09
From: Callistus Valerius
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

> right. the optomitryst will tell you: glass (lenses) and carbonate
> lenses are UV deflective but not plastic. the carbonate may be
> reflective of itself without coating?
> Who rides bicycles on glaze-black ice- ice? sounds tricky with
> polarization: skiers off to Pocono?
> The shade-shade-shade/sunlight travel with photochromatic lenses is a
> real death trip over 10 mph. takem off.
> there's a spectrum of sunlight falling on the country: what's good for
> the Gulf of Mexico may be not enough for the Atlantic and off course
> too much for Seattle.
---------
If I'm in Pine country, I usually use my red lenses, they work ok in those
conditions. You have to wear something, I don't want some big bug to knock
my eyeball out. You should hear some of the wacks my helmet has taken from
those big bugs on descents.

Date: 11 Jun 2007 10:47:47
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

"Callistus Valerius" <jazzyboss@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:11cbi.3232$tb6.2136@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > right. the optomitryst will tell you: glass (lenses) and carbonate
> > lenses are UV deflective but not plastic. the carbonate may be
> > reflective of itself without coating?
> > Who rides bicycles on glaze-black ice- ice? sounds tricky with
> > polarization: skiers off to Pocono?
> > The shade-shade-shade/sunlight travel with photochromatic lenses is a
> > real death trip over 10 mph. takem off.
> > there's a spectrum of sunlight falling on the country: what's good for
> > the Gulf of Mexico may be not enough for the Atlantic and off course
> > too much for Seattle.
> ---------
> If I'm in Pine country, I usually use my red lenses, they work ok in
those
> conditions. You have to wear something, I don't want some big bug to
knock
> my eyeball out. You should hear some of the wacks my helmet has taken
from
> those big bugs on descents.
>
>

About 40 years ago I got hit in the middle of the forehead by a large
bumblebee at about 70 mph riding a motorcycle without a helmet. It almost
knocked me out.

I started riding MC with a full bubble face mask and helmet after that.

I used to get headaches from squinting caused by glare. Once I discovered
and started using polarized sunglasses the problem went away. I now get
prescription sunglasses with polarized lenses.

Chas.

Date: 11 Jun 2007 18:35:35
From: Bill
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

* * Chas wrote:
> "Callistus Valerius" <jazzyboss@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:11cbi.3232$tb6.2136@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>> right. the optomitryst will tell you: glass (lenses) and carbonate
>>> lenses are UV deflective but not plastic. the carbonate may be
>>> reflective of itself without coating?
>>> Who rides bicycles on glaze-black ice- ice? sounds tricky with
>>> polarization: skiers off to Pocono?
>>> The shade-shade-shade/sunlight travel with photochromatic lenses is a
>>> real death trip over 10 mph. takem off.
>>> there's a spectrum of sunlight falling on the country: what's good for
>>> the Gulf of Mexico may be not enough for the Atlantic and off course
>>> too much for Seattle.
>> ---------
>> If I'm in Pine country, I usually use my red lenses, they work ok in
> those
>> conditions. You have to wear something, I don't want some big bug to
> knock
>> my eyeball out. You should hear some of the wacks my helmet has taken
> from
>> those big bugs on descents.
>>
>>
>
> About 40 years ago I got hit in the middle of the forehead by a large
> bumblebee at about 70 mph riding a motorcycle without a helmet. It almost
> knocked me out.
>
> I started riding MC with a full bubble face mask and helmet after that.
>
> I used to get headaches from squinting caused by glare. Once I discovered
> and started using polarized sunglasses the problem went away. I now get
> prescription sunglasses with polarized lenses.
>
> Chas.
>
>
One other good reason is that trying to tough it out without sunglasses
and UV block will give you cataracts at about 65 or so. My dad was one
of those macho hard cases and had to have double cataract surgery
because of it. Look at an old outdoor dog sometime and you will see
their eyes are kind of cloudy. Too much sun.
Also, nice bug and rain protectors.
Bill Baka

Date: 11 Jun 2007 12:51:14
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

On Jun 11, 7:08 am, Ozark Bicycle
<bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote:
> On Jun 10, 11:31 pm, Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cycle_pat...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 10, 4:01 pm, "Callistus Valerius" <jazzyb...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > They're good for cutting glare on the water for boaters and fishermen, but
> > > > even then I'm not sold on them -- they make my eyes tired compared to
> > > > regular lenses. I have no idea why. Most other sailors I know have this
> > > > same complaint.
>
> > > > On the road they cut glare too but this is not always a good thing. It
> > > > can make it hard to distinguish between damp, wet, and slippery surfaces.
>
> > > > Matt O.
>
> > > ---------
> > > Everyone's different, but I love polarized when I kayak. It's the only way,
> > > to see what's under the surface. They do not tire me at all. On a bike,
> > > they put me to sleep, what gives? I see no advantages, on a bike, but see
> > > lots of disadvantages.
>
> > > You know they're selling those "transition lenses" that darken with the sun.
> > > Someone told me they don't work when driving a car because the windshield
> > > has a uv blocker, and without the UV, hitting the lens they don't darken.
> > > So much for transitions.
>
> > Hi there.
>
> > A warning about transition lenses. In some riding conditions, ie when
> > going from brightly lit to heavily shadowed areas and back to brightly
> > lit again transition lenses may not change quickly enough and you may
> > find they are too dark in the shadows and too bright in the bright
> > area.
>
> But that can be the case with any tinted lenses, 'transition' or not.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Date: 11 Jun 2007 11:08:11
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

On Jun 10, 11:31 pm, Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cycle_pat...@yahoo.ca > wrote:
> On Jun 10, 4:01 pm, "Callistus Valerius" <jazzyb...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > They're good for cutting glare on the water for boaters and fishermen, but
> > > even then I'm not sold on them -- they make my eyes tired compared to
> > > regular lenses. I have no idea why. Most other sailors I know have this
> > > same complaint.
>
> > > On the road they cut glare too but this is not always a good thing. It
> > > can make it hard to distinguish between damp, wet, and slippery surfaces.
>
> > > Matt O.
>
> > ---------
> > Everyone's different, but I love polarized when I kayak. It's the only way,
> > to see what's under the surface. They do not tire me at all. On a bike,
> > they put me to sleep, what gives? I see no advantages, on a bike, but see
> > lots of disadvantages.
>
> > You know they're selling those "transition lenses" that darken with the sun.
> > Someone told me they don't work when driving a car because the windshield
> > has a uv blocker, and without the UV, hitting the lens they don't darken.
> > So much for transitions.
>
> Hi there.
>
> A warning about transition lenses. In some riding conditions, ie when
> going from brightly lit to heavily shadowed areas and back to brightly
> lit again transition lenses may not change quickly enough and you may
> find they are too dark in the shadows and too bright in the bright
> area.
>

But that can be the case with any tinted lenses, 'transition' or not.

Date: 10 Jun 2007 21:31:55
From: Sir Ridesalot
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

On Jun 10, 4:01 pm, "Callistus Valerius" <jazzyb...@hotmail.com >
wrote:
> > They're good for cutting glare on the water for boaters and fishermen, but
> > even then I'm not sold on them -- they make my eyes tired compared to
> > regular lenses. I have no idea why. Most other sailors I know have this
> > same complaint.
>
> > On the road they cut glare too but this is not always a good thing. It
> > can make it hard to distinguish between damp, wet, and slippery surfaces.
>
> > Matt O.
>
> ---------
> Everyone's different, but I love polarized when I kayak. It's the only way,
> to see what's under the surface. They do not tire me at all. On a bike,
> they put me to sleep, what gives? I see no advantages, on a bike, but see
> lots of disadvantages.
>
> You know they're selling those "transition lenses" that darken with the sun.
> Someone told me they don't work when driving a car because the windshield
> has a uv blocker, and without the UV, hitting the lens they don't darken.
> So much for transitions.

Hi there.

A warning about transition lenses. In some riding conditions, ie when
going from brightly lit to heavily shadowed areas and back to brightly
lit again transition lenses may not change quickly enough and you may
find they are too dark in the shadows and too bright in the bright
area.

Cheers from Peter

Date: 11 Jun 2007 11:00:05
From: Callistus Valerius
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

>
> Hi there.
>
> A warning about transition lenses. In some riding conditions, ie when
> going from brightly lit to heavily shadowed areas and back to brightly
> lit again transition lenses may not change quickly enough and you may
> find they are too dark in the shadows and too bright in the bright
> area.
>
> Cheers from Peter
-----------
You mean like when you are descending any forested area.........great.

Date: 10 Jun 2007 20:44:30
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

"Mike" <molson@stellarnet.com > wrote in message
news:136o6u1chb0km70@corp.supernews.com...
> Hi, I'm checking around for new sunglasses, maybe Oakley M Frames.
> Wondering if it is worth the extra bucks to go polarized or not. Any
> comments?
>
> Thanks
> Mike
>

I've used polarized sunglasses for many years. They cut down on glare. I
have prescription polarized sunglasses now.

Chas.

Date: 11 Jun 2007 01:26:31
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

On Jun 10, 4:53 pm, Ron Hardin <rhhar...@mindspring.com > wrote:
> The advantage of polarized on the road is that it cuts out sun glare
> off car windows and polished bodies. It also cuts out sun glare from
> the road surface, but that's a matter of taste.
>

And, having the ol' cyclocomputer be a bit hard to read hardly
outweighs benefits the glare reduction.

Date: 11 Jun 2007 00:38:45
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

On Jun 10, 8:36 pm, "David L. Johnson" <david.john...@lehigh.edu >
wrote:
> landotter wrote:
> > On Jun 10, 10:41 am, "Mike" <mol...@stellarnet.com> wrote:
> >> Hi, I'm checking around for new sunglasses, maybe Oakley M Frames.
> >> Wondering if it is worth the extra bucks to go polarized or not. Any
> >> comments?
>
> > It's definitely easier to see motorists flip you off through the
> > window glare with polarized lenses.
>
> No, actually it can be harder to see them, depending on the car. Some
> GM minivan windshields are nearly opaque to me with polarized lenses.
> Glass that is stressed while being made tends to develop some odd
> polarization that can interfere with the polarized glasses. From the
> inside the effect is less noticable, so driving with the m on is not a
> problem.
>
> BTW, I really like my polarized lenses for riding. It can even be an
> advantage to not see that guy flip you off, but the big thing is the
> general reduction in glare.
>
> Others (like Jobst) disagree, saying that it is harder to see water or
> ice (which?) on the road, but I have not experienced that, and have been
> using polarized sunglasses for several years.
>
> The only downside is the occasional window or cyclocomputer screen that
> is accidentally polarized. Well, actually all lcd screens are
> polarized, but good ones are still visible with polarized glasses, since
> the polarization is on the same axis. Turn your head sideways and the
> screen is unreadable. I buy cyclocomputers while wearing my glasses
> just to be sure.
>
> --
>
> David L. Johnson
>
> Let's not escape into mathematics. Let's stay with reality.
> -- Michael Crichton

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/uv-protection/AN00832

Date: 10 Jun 2007 17:29:26
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

> Hi, I'm checking around for new sunglasses, maybe Oakley M Frames.
> Wondering if it is worth the extra bucks to go polarized or not. Any
> comments?

I'm not a fan of eyewear that essentially changes transparency as you change
your angle to the sun... in other words, as you go through a corner, the
actual light may remain constant, but what you perceive may be quite
different, at times causing things to be darker than you might like (with
your eyes not adjusting quickly enough).

Newer generations of polarized eyewear are different though; the Oakleys
have a fairly light amount of polarization effect vs their normal tint, so
you don't get quite such a dramatic change.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Date: 10 Jun 2007 23:41:20
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> Hi, I'm checking around for new sunglasses, maybe Oakley M Frames.
>> Wondering if it is worth the extra bucks to go polarized or not. Any
>> comments?
>
> I'm not a fan of eyewear that essentially changes transparency as you change
> your angle to the sun... in other words, as you go through a corner, the
> actual light may remain constant, but what you perceive may be quite
> different, at times causing things to be darker than you might like (with
> your eyes not adjusting quickly enough).

That is not what happens with polarized lenses.

--

David L. Johnson

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by
little statesmen and philosophers and divines."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson

Date: 10 Jun 2007 23:30:19
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

>>> Hi, I'm checking around for new sunglasses, maybe Oakley M Frames.
>>> Wondering if it is worth the extra bucks to go polarized or not. Any
>>> comments?
>>
>> I'm not a fan of eyewear that essentially changes transparency as you
>> change your angle to the sun... in other words, as you go through a
>> corner, the actual light may remain constant, but what you perceive may
>> be quite different, at times causing things to be darker than you might
>> like (with your eyes not adjusting quickly enough).
>
> That is not what happens with polarized lenses.

Perhaps I'm explaining something poorly then. Polarized lenses most
certainly change in transmission characteristics as your angle changes to a
source of reflected light from, say, a road surface. When I said the actual
light may remain constant, I was talking about the light in front of, not
behind, the sunglasses. Am I missing something?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Date: 11 Jun 2007 18:51:31
From: Booker C. Bense
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

In article <%Z5bi.12306$4Y.1270@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net >,
Mike Jacoubowsky <MikeJ1@ix.netcom.com > wrote:
>>>> Hi, I'm checking around for new sunglasses, maybe Oakley M Frames.
>>>> Wondering if it is worth the extra bucks to go polarized or not. Any
>>>> comments?
>>>
>>> I'm not a fan of eyewear that essentially changes transparency as you
>>> change your angle to the sun... in other words, as you go through a
>>> corner, the actual light may remain constant, but what you perceive may
>>> be quite different, at times causing things to be darker than you might
>>> like (with your eyes not adjusting quickly enough).
>>
>> That is not what happens with polarized lenses.
>
>Perhaps I'm explaining something poorly then. Polarized lenses most
>certainly change in transmission characteristics as your angle changes to a
>source of reflected light from, say, a road surface. When I said the actual
>light may remain constant, I was talking about the light in front of, not
>behind, the sunglasses. Am I missing something?
>

_ I know what you are talking about, but I don't corner that
hard. You have to tilt your head quite a bit to get that effect
with any of the various polarized lens I've used ( in general it
gets brighter, not darker). I like them for open riding, but
mostly they are too dark for riding where there is any decent
tree cover, but that's true of most sunglasses that don't come
with changeable lenses.

_ Booker C. Bense

Date: 11 Jun 2007 03:25:30
From: Bill
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> Hi, I'm checking around for new sunglasses, maybe Oakley M Frames.
>> Wondering if it is worth the extra bucks to go polarized or not. Any
>> comments?
>
> I'm not a fan of eyewear that essentially changes transparency as you change
> your angle to the sun... in other words, as you go through a corner, the
> actual light may remain constant, but what you perceive may be quite
> different, at times causing things to be darker than you might like (with
> your eyes not adjusting quickly enough).
>
> Newer generations of polarized eyewear are different though; the Oakleys
> have a fairly light amount of polarization effect vs their normal tint, so
> you don't get quite such a dramatic change.

In that case calling them polarized would be fraud.
Bill Baka
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
>

Date: 10 Jun 2007 20:46:59
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

Bill wrote:
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>> Hi, I'm checking around for new sunglasses, maybe Oakley M Frames.
>>> Wondering if it is worth the extra bucks to go polarized or not. Any
>>> comments?
>>
>> I'm not a fan of eyewear that essentially changes transparency as you
>> change your angle to the sun... in other words, as you go through a
>> corner, the actual light may remain constant, but what you perceive
>> may be quite different, at times causing things to be darker than you
>> might like (with your eyes not adjusting quickly enough).
>>
>> Newer generations of polarized eyewear are different though; the
>> Oakleys have a fairly light amount of polarization effect vs their
>> normal tint, so you don't get quite such a dramatic change.
>
> In that case calling them polarized would be fraud.

no, polarizing effects vary in extent. the small molecules in toughened
glass polarizes light to some extent, but not as strongly as the long
molecules in strained plastics. that's why strong polarizers like
plastics are used in polarizing lenses - for maximum effect.

Date: 11 Jun 2007 04:35:10
From: Bill
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

jim beam wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>>> Hi, I'm checking around for new sunglasses, maybe Oakley M Frames.
>>>> Wondering if it is worth the extra bucks to go polarized or not. Any
>>>> comments?
>>>
>>> I'm not a fan of eyewear that essentially changes transparency as you
>>> change your angle to the sun... in other words, as you go through a
>>> corner, the actual light may remain constant, but what you perceive
>>> may be quite different, at times causing things to be darker than you
>>> might like (with your eyes not adjusting quickly enough).
>>>
>>> Newer generations of polarized eyewear are different though; the
>>> Oakleys have a fairly light amount of polarization effect vs their
>>> normal tint, so you don't get quite such a dramatic change.
>>
>> In that case calling them polarized would be fraud.
>
> no, polarizing effects vary in extent. the small molecules in toughened
> glass polarizes light to some extent, but not as strongly as the long
> molecules in strained plastics. that's why strong polarizers like
> plastics are used in polarizing lenses - for maximum effect.
>
I know that but the point I was trying to make was that true polarized
glass or plastic passes 49.9% to 50% of the light. Edmund scientific
sells polarized glass for optics use and has a guarantee that when two
pieces are at 90 degrees from each other only 0.04% of the light gets
through. Sounds pretty polarized to me. As for cheap sunglasses, if you
do the rotate test with 2 pair you can see if they are polarized enough
for your personal tastes. I have also seen blue blockers that turn
Windows "Blue Screen of Death" into a black screen. You don't really
need a full blown optics lab to do some basic checking of the specs.
That's all I was trying to say.
Bill Baka

Date: 10 Jun 2007 21:43:17
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

Bill wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>>>> Hi, I'm checking around for new sunglasses, maybe Oakley M Frames.
>>>>> Wondering if it is worth the extra bucks to go polarized or not.
>>>>> Any comments?
>>>>
>>>> I'm not a fan of eyewear that essentially changes transparency as
>>>> you change your angle to the sun... in other words, as you go
>>>> through a corner, the actual light may remain constant, but what you
>>>> perceive may be quite different, at times causing things to be
>>>> darker than you might like (with your eyes not adjusting quickly
>>>> enough).
>>>>
>>>> Newer generations of polarized eyewear are different though; the
>>>> Oakleys have a fairly light amount of polarization effect vs their
>>>> normal tint, so you don't get quite such a dramatic change.
>>>
>>> In that case calling them polarized would be fraud.
>>
>> no, polarizing effects vary in extent. the small molecules in
>> toughened glass polarizes light to some extent, but not as strongly as
>> the long molecules in strained plastics. that's why strong polarizers
>> like plastics are used in polarizing lenses - for maximum effect.
>>
> I know that but the point I was trying to make was that true polarized
> glass or plastic passes 49.9% to 50% of the light. Edmund scientific
> sells polarized glass for optics use and has a guarantee that when two
> pieces are at 90 degrees from each other only 0.04% of the light gets
> through. Sounds pretty polarized to me. As for cheap sunglasses, if you
> do the rotate test with 2 pair you can see if they are polarized enough
> for your personal tastes. I have also seen blue blockers that turn
> Windows "Blue Screen of Death" into a black screen. You don't really
> need a full blown optics lab to do some basic checking of the specs.
> That's all I was trying to say.
> Bill Baka

you're bullshitting.

Date: 11 Jun 2007 01:13:14
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

jim beam wrote (of Iron Bill "Ernest T." Baka):

> you're bullshitting.

The HELL you say! LOL

Date: 11 Jun 2007 10:07:00
From: R Brickston
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 01:13:14 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me >
wrote:

>jim beam wrote (of Iron Bill "Ernest T." Baka):
>
>> you're bullshitting.
>
>The HELL you say! LOL
>

Don't be knocking Cousineau's chat buddy.

Date: 11 Jun 2007 02:43:23
From: Bill
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

Bill Sornson wrote:
> jim beam wrote (of Iron Bill "Ernest T." Baka):
>
>> you're bullshitting.
>
> The HELL you say! LOL
>
>
Another asshole for the group.

Date: 11 Jun 2007 05:24:14
From: Bill
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

jim beam wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> I know that but the point I was trying to make was that true polarized
>> glass or plastic passes 49.9% to 50% of the light. Edmund scientific
>> sells polarized glass for optics use and has a guarantee that when two
>> pieces are at 90 degrees from each other only 0.04% of the light gets
>> through. Sounds pretty polarized to me. As for cheap sunglasses, if
>> you do the rotate test with 2 pair you can see if they are polarized
>> enough for your personal tastes. I have also seen blue blockers that
>> turn Windows "Blue Screen of Death" into a black screen. You don't
>> really need a full blown optics lab to do some basic checking of the
>> specs.
>> That's all I was trying to say.
>> Bill Baka
>
> you're bullshitting.

No I'm not. My Minolta 35mm has polarizing filters on the lenses to cut
glare and they also make me use 1 F-stop bigger. It's an X-700 top line
manual focus camera and the exposure meter doesn't lie.
If you doubt my input go find the Edmund Optics site for yourself.
I'm not bullshitting facts.
I personally experienced the blue screen showing black with some overly
aggressive blue blockers some years back.
Bye now.
Bill Baka

Date: 11 Jun 2007 00:18:43
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

well, i use polarized, cateye, and timex and have noooo idea of not
seeing the numbers.
on UV, yawl better google UV and UV protection soas to get up to speed
onit.
whithout looking, i remember glass and carbonate ('unbreakable
lenses') reflect UV?
what that means to mountain climbing glasses that claim... ?
there's a lotta snake oil in there somewhere.
try serengeti-eyewear.com for polycarbonate photochromatic if ur
looking to spend $$$

Date: 10 Jun 2007 19:11:33
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

In article
<1181521123.318007.15990@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >,
datakoll <datakoll@yahoo.com > wrote:

> well, i use polarized, cateye, and timex and have noooo idea of not
> seeing the numbers.
> on UV, yawl better google UV and UV protection soas to get up to speed
> onit.
> whithout looking, i remember glass and carbonate ('unbreakable
> lenses') reflect UV?
> what that means to mountain climbing glasses that claim... ?
> there's a lotta snake oil in there somewhere.
> try serengeti-eyewear.com for polycarbonate photochromatic if ur
> looking to spend $$$

You do not understand the physics.

--
Michael Press

Date: 11 Jun 2007 03:24:30
From: Bill
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <1181521123.318007.15990@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> datakoll <datakoll@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> well, i use polarized, cateye, and timex and have noooo idea of not
>> seeing the numbers.
>> on UV, yawl better google UV and UV protection soas to get up to speed
>> onit.
>> whithout looking, i remember glass and carbonate ('unbreakable
>> lenses') reflect UV?
>> what that means to mountain climbing glasses that claim... ?
>> there's a lotta snake oil in there somewhere.
>> try serengeti-eyewear.com for polycarbonate photochromatic if ur
>> looking to spend $$$
>
> You do not understand the physics.
>
Mike,
I don't think he understands English. I'll let you describe how Quartz
and sapphire pass UV and/or IR. My polarized UV blockers are plastic but
they are definitely polarized. Go to the store and hold up 2 pair so you
are looking through both. Rotate one pair and when they are 90 degrees
apart you get about 0.04 percent pass through. I always do this test
since I got burned with a pair that claimed to be polarized but wasn't.
Question everything, especially marketing hype.
Bill Baka

Date: 10 Jun 2007 22:47:10
From: Bill
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

Mike wrote:
> Hi, I'm checking around for new sunglasses, maybe Oakley M Frames.
> Wondering if it is worth the extra bucks to go polarized or not. Any
> comments?
>
> Thanks
> Mike
>
>
I saw that everyone else has an opinion soo....
Mine are polarized UV blockers that I put (Mickey Mouse) window tint
film on to get really dark. For your question, they tend to block mostly
the refection of light from car windows, bumpers and other blinding
events, but also mask water on the road, and make it easier to see fish
in the water.
I like them, except for the puddle problem, but I try to only bike in
dry weather, which California is good for.
In the midwest you can get hit by a 5 minute 'ambush' thunderstorm.
Maybe two sets, depending on conditions.
Bill Baka

Date: 10 Jun 2007 20:35:21
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

try http://www.yorktowneoptical.com/Instant.html
the shades carry wings at the temple sides that emilinate reflection
from the rear and above: vey comfortable.
notice the polarized shades: these are the most effective as in blue
glare guard for bright sun, copper for less sun or cloudy, the
polarization increases depth perception. Copper is spectacular with
sky blue/cloud white.
the yellow may be worn at twilight or at night to eliminate oncoming
auto headlamp glare. if polarized shades blind you to LCD then you
should see a doctor or two doctors.

Date: 10 Jun 2007 14:33:24
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

In article
<1181507721.369521.15060@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >,
datakoll <datakoll@yahoo.com > wrote:

> if polarized shades blind you to LCD then you
> should see a doctor or two doctors.

You do not understand the interaction between polarized
eye-glass lenses and a LCD display. Look up the physics
of LCD displays.

--
Michael Press

Date: 11 Jun 2007 01:36:42
From: Ted Bennett
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

Michael Press wrote:

> datakoll <datakoll@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > if polarized shades blind you to LCD then you
> > should see a doctor or two doctors.
>
> You do not understand the interaction between polarized
> eye-glass lenses and a LCD display. Look up the physics
> of LCD displays.

It's possible that datakoll is using lenses which claim to be polarized,
but are not, or only very slightly. Many of the cheaper ones make this
claim with little to no basis.

I also avoid polarized lenses because of their interference with LCD
displays, and more importantly, because they can make it harder to
assess the road surface.

--
Ted Bennett

Date: 10 Jun 2007 20:27:28
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

Ted Bennett wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
>
>> datakoll <datakoll@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> if polarized shades blind you to LCD then you
>>> should see a doctor or two doctors.
>> You do not understand the interaction between polarized
>> eye-glass lenses and a LCD display. Look up the physics
>> of LCD displays.
>
> It's possible that datakoll is using lenses which claim to be polarized,
> but are not, or only very slightly. Many of the cheaper ones make this
> claim with little to no basis.
>
> I also avoid polarized lenses because of their interference with LCD
> displays, and more importantly, because they can make it harder to
> assess the road surface.
>

removing glare makes a road surface difficult to see??? smells like
urban legend from the uninitiated to me.

Date: 10 Jun 2007 20:41:50
From:
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

In article <7eqdnQ1yzLC8XPHbnZ2dnUVZ_uKknZ2d@speakeasy.net >,
spamvortex@bad.example.net says...

> removing glare makes a road surface difficult to see??? smells like
> urban legend from the uninitiated to me.

I've heard this frequently about wet or icy roads, but I've never found
my polarized glasses make it hard to spot either. Perhaps because, at
least around here, wet roads are more common on overcast days with
little glare to begin with.

--
josh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/ >
Updated Infrared Photography Gallery:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/ir.html >

Date: 10 Jun 2007 23:39:44
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

jim beam wrote:
> Ted Bennett wrote:
>> Michael Press wrote:

>> I also avoid polarized lenses because of their interference with LCD
>> displays, and more importantly, because they can make it harder to
>> assess the road surface.
>>
>
> removing glare makes a road surface difficult to see??? smells like
> urban legend from the uninitiated to me.

The idea is that it's easier to see water on the road if you can see the
surface glare. But I can see it fine with my polarized glasses, it's
just not as annoying.

--

David L. Johnson

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by
little statesmen and philosophers and divines."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson

Date: 10 Jun 2007 20:43:33
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

David L. Johnson wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Ted Bennett wrote:
>>> Michael Press wrote:
>
>>> I also avoid polarized lenses because of their interference with LCD
>>> displays, and more importantly, because they can make it harder to
>>> assess the road surface.
>>>
>>
>> removing glare makes a road surface difficult to see??? smells like
>> urban legend from the uninitiated to me.
>
> The idea is that it's easier to see water on the road if you can see the
> surface glare. But I can see it fine with my polarized glasses, it's
> just not as annoying.

that's my point - if you've actually bothered to use them, you know it's
a total non-issue.

Date: 10 Jun 2007 22:53:31
From: Callistus Valerius
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

> > if polarized shades blind you to LCD then you
> > should see a doctor or two doctors.
>
> You do not understand the interaction between polarized
> eye-glass lenses and a LCD display. Look up the physics
> of LCD displays.
>
> --
> Michael Press
----------
some I can see, some I can't with polarized. Don't have a clue why, but I
would say polarized interferes with seeing the computer numbers.

Date: 25 Jun 2007 03:04:05
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

In article
<Lh%ai.19087$Ut6.10964@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net
>,
"Callistus Valerius" <jazzyboss@hotmail.com > wrote:

> > > if polarized shades blind you to LCD then you
> > > should see a doctor or two doctors.
> >
> > You do not understand the interaction between polarized
> > eye-glass lenses and a LCD display. Look up the physics
> > of LCD displays.
> ----------
> some I can see, some I can't with polarized. Don't have a clue why, but I
> would say polarized interferes with seeing the computer numbers.

The liquid crystal is a fluid composed of long molecules.
An imposed electric field aligns the molecules.
Impose the electric field in a pattern of letters and numerals.
Look at it and you can see no difference.
The long molecules are optically active.
A bunch of them aligned together rotate the circular polarization
of the light they transmit and reflect.
Put a polarizing filter over the LC.
The light that reaches the LC is polarized.
If the LC does not preferentially rotate the polarization of the
impinging light, the light comes back out through the filter.
If the molecules are aligned by an imposed electric field
the LC rotate the polarization axis by 90 deg, an _no_ light
is transmitted back out through the polarizing filter.
The portions where no light is transmitted back through
the display window are the portions where an electric
field in the pattern of letters and numerals is imposed.

Wearing polarizing eye glasses with their axis at 90 deg
with the polarizing filter of the liquid crystal display
means that you see no light that reflects back through
the LCD.

--
Michael Press

Date: 24 Jun 2007 23:54:13
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

Michael Press wrote:

> Wearing polarizing eye glasses with their axis at 90 deg
> with the polarizing filter of the liquid crystal display
> means that you see no light that reflects back through
> the LCD.

True enough, but this does not happen in practice. That is, both the
glasses and the liquid-crystal displays are polarized in the same
direction, as long as you are looking at the display "right side up".
If you tilt the display 90 degrees, or tilt your head, the display turns
black, plus any residual stress on the display glass shows up as random
patterns.

I have a palmtop that can rotate its display 90 degrees to be used with
its attached keyboard, or not (like a tablet computer). I wonder
whether the screen would work both ways while wearing polarized lenses.
Probably not.

--

David L. Johnson

Let's not escape into mathematics. Let's stay with reality.
-- Michael Crichton

Date: 26 Jun 2007 00:43:17
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

In article <ObWdnbRVRMzRoeLbnZ2dnUVZ_viunZ2d@ptd.net >,
"David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh.edu > wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
>
> > Wearing polarizing eye glasses with their axis at 90 deg
> > with the polarizing filter of the liquid crystal display
> > means that you see no light that reflects back through
> > the LCD.
>
> True enough, but this does not happen in practice.

Yes it does happen "in practice." Sometimes the LCD's
built in polarizing filter is oriented at 90 deg with
the polarizing eyeglasses with head in its typical
position. .

> That is, both the
> glasses and the liquid-crystal displays are polarized in the same
> direction, as long as you are looking at the display "right side up".
> If you tilt the display 90 degrees, or tilt your head, the display turns
> black, plus any residual stress on the display glass shows up as random
> patterns.
>
> I have a palmtop that can rotate its display 90 degrees to be used with
> its attached keyboard, or not (like a tablet computer). I wonder
> whether the screen would work both ways while wearing polarized lenses.
> Probably not.

--
Michael Press

Date: 25 Jun 2007 05:30:52
From: Luns Tee
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

In article <ObWdnbRVRMzRoeLbnZ2dnUVZ_viunZ2d@ptd.net >,
David L. Johnson <david.johnson@lehigh.edu > wrote:
>True enough, but this does not happen in practice. That is, both the
>glasses and the liquid-crystal displays are polarized in the same
>direction, as long as you are looking at the display "right side up".
>If you tilt the display 90 degrees, or tilt your head, the display turns
>black, plus any residual stress on the display glass shows up as random
>patterns.

Over half of the LCDs I've examined are polarized at a 45
degree angle. This allows using the same polarizer for the front and
back of the screen rather than one horizonal and one vertical. Viewing
through polarized glasses, the screen darkens if you tilt your head one
way, and brightens when you tilt the other way.

-Luns

Date: 25 Jun 2007 03:51:37
From: Luns Tee
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

In article <rubrum-89C815.20040624062007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com >,
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote:
>Wearing polarizing eye glasses with their axis at 90 deg
>with the polarizing filter of the liquid crystal display
>means that you see no light that reflects back through
>the LCD.

That is unless the LCD also incorporates a quarter-wave
retarder oriented at 45 deg to its polarizing filter. This makes the
light you see from the screen circularly polarized.

I believe the LCD of my old cell phone (Nokia 6185i, same display
as a whole generation of Nokia phones about 8 years ago) was readable
through polarized glasses regardless of orientation. The internal
screen of my current Nokia 6256i definitely is. It may be that some
bike computers have circularly polarized screens.

The movie _Chicken Little_ had some screenings in 3D, and the
glasses used for that were circularly polarized. Looking in a mirror
through those glasses was interesting - each eye could only see the
other eye, and not its own reflection. With regular polarization at
90-degrees, each eye would only see itself.

-Luns

Date: 25 Jun 2007 17:51:24
From:
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

Luns Tee writes:

>> Wearing polarizing eye glasses with their axis at 90 deg with the
>> polarizing filter of the liquid crystal display means that you see
>> no light that reflects back through the LCD.

> That is unless the LCD also incorporates a quarter-wave retarder
> oriented at 45 deg to its polarizing filter. This makes the light
> you see from the screen circularly polarized.

> I believe the LCD of my old cell phone (Nokia 6185i, same display as
> a whole generation of Nokia phones about 8 years ago) was readable
> through polarized glasses regardless of orientation. The internal
> screen of my current Nokia 6256i definitely is. It may be that some
> bike computers have circularly polarized screens.

> The movie _Chicken Little_ had some screenings in 3D, and the
> glasses used for that were circularly polarized. Looking in a
> mirror through those glasses was interesting - each eye could only
> see the other eye, and not its own reflection. With regular
> polarization at 90-degrees, each eye would only see itself.

Optics are great! Laser interferometry is full of this stuff,
however, I tested my AVO30 altimeter and my wrist watch. My analog
wrist watch had horizontal polarization in its date display and was
blacked out by Polaroid eye glasses that are vertically polarized to
cut (horizontal) reflected glare, while my AVO30 had 45=C2=B0 polarizatio=
n
and was reasonably visible.

Just the same, my experience with polarized glasses, descending a
partially wet road, convinced me that for fast curves on bicycles they
are a disadvantage. Mountain roads, having curves in all directions,
give an unpredictable appearance to whether the road is wet or dry
depending on shadows, direction of sunlight and direction of travel.

Jobst Brandt

Date: 25 Jun 2007 06:35:14
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

In article <f5ne49$1pu$1@agate.berkeley.edu >,
luns@mochi.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Luns Tee) wrote:

> In article <rubrum-89C815.20040624062007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >Wearing polarizing eye glasses with their axis at 90 deg
> >with the polarizing filter of the liquid crystal display
> >means that you see no light that reflects back through
> >the LCD.
>
> That is unless the LCD also incorporates a quarter-wave
> retarder oriented at 45 deg to its polarizing filter. This makes the
> light you see from the screen circularly polarized.
>
> I believe the LCD of my old cell phone (Nokia 6185i, same display
> as a whole generation of Nokia phones about 8 years ago) was readable
> through polarized glasses regardless of orientation. The internal
> screen of my current Nokia 6256i definitely is. It may be that some
> bike computers have circularly polarized screens.
>
> The movie _Chicken Little_ had some screenings in 3D, and the
> glasses used for that were circularly polarized. Looking in a mirror
> through those glasses was interesting - each eye could only see the
> other eye, and not its own reflection. With regular polarization at
> 90-degrees, each eye would only see itself.

This makes clear why sometimes the LCD is obscured
through polarized sunglasses and sometimes not.

--
Michael Press

Date: 10 Jun 2007 15:58:55
From: Bill
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

Callistus Valerius wrote:
>>> if polarized shades blind you to LCD then you
>>> should see a doctor or two doctors.
>> You do not understand the interaction between polarized
>> eye-glass lenses and a LCD display. Look up the physics
>> of LCD displays.
>>
>> --
>> Michael Press
> ----------
> some I can see, some I can't with polarized. Don't have a clue why, but I
> would say polarized interferes with seeing the computer numbers.
>
>
That may be true. I do have to remove my sunglasses to read the
computer, but mine is a $10 China-Schwinn.
My suspicion is just the crummy contrast on the Schwinn.
Bill Baka

Date: 10 Jun 2007 10:06:48
From: Hank Wirtz
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

On Jun 10, 9:14 am, Matt O'Toole <mattoto...@letterboxes.org > wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 10:41:53 -0500, Mike wrote:
> > Hi, I'm checking around for new sunglasses, maybe Oakley M Frames.
> > Wondering if it is worth the extra bucks to go polarized or not. Any
> > comments?
>
> They're good for cutting glare on the water for boaters and fishermen, but
> even then I'm not sold on them -- they make my eyes tired compared to
> regular lenses. I have no idea why. Most other sailors I know have this
> same complaint.
>
> On the road they cut glare too but this is not always a good thing. It
> can make it hard to distinguish between damp, wet, and slippery surfaces.
>
> Matt O.

And depending on the orientation of the LCD, they can make it
impossible to read your computer.

Date: 10 Jun 2007 15:44:01
From: Matt O'Toole
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 10:06:48 -0700, Hank Wirtz wrote:

> And depending on the orientation of the LCD, they can make it
> impossible to read your computer.

...or LCD instruments, or even your LCD watch.

Matt O.

Date: 10 Jun 2007 12:35:33
From: Phil Holman
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

"Hank Wirtz" <hank@wirtznet.net > wrote in message
news:1181495208.593175.45950@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 10, 9:14 am, Matt O'Toole <mattoto...@letterboxes.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 10:41:53 -0500, Mike wrote:
>> > Hi, I'm checking around for new sunglasses, maybe Oakley M Frames.
>> > Wondering if it is worth the extra bucks to go polarized or not.
>> > Any
>> > comments?
>>
>> They're good for cutting glare on the water for boaters and
>> fishermen, but
>> even then I'm not sold on them -- they make my eyes tired compared to
>> regular lenses. I have no idea why. Most other sailors I know have
>> this
>> same complaint.
>>
>> On the road they cut glare too but this is not always a good thing.
>> It
>> can make it hard to distinguish between damp, wet, and slippery
>> surfaces.
>>
>> Matt O.
>
> And depending on the orientation of the LCD, they can make it
> impossible to read your computer.

Exactly. LCDs comprise of two polarized layers and the orientation of
the number segments changes when current flows through them. This
results in a darkened segment as light cannot pass through a
perpendicular cross orientation. When wearing Polaroid sunglasses, the
whole screen will become darkened if the orientation is normal to the
layers in the LCD.

Phil H

Date: 10 Jun 2007 12:14:41
From: Matt O'Toole
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 10:41:53 -0500, Mike wrote:

> Hi, I'm checking around for new sunglasses, maybe Oakley M Frames.
> Wondering if it is worth the extra bucks to go polarized or not. Any
> comments?

They're good for cutting glare on the water for boaters and fishermen, but
even then I'm not sold on them -- they make my eyes tired compared to
regular lenses. I have no idea why. Most other sailors I know have this
same complaint.

On the road they cut glare too but this is not always a good thing. It
can make it hard to distinguish between damp, wet, and slippery surfaces.

Matt O.

Date: 10 Jun 2007 20:01:24
From: Callistus Valerius
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

> They're good for cutting glare on the water for boaters and fishermen, but
> even then I'm not sold on them -- they make my eyes tired compared to
> regular lenses. I have no idea why. Most other sailors I know have this
> same complaint.
>
> On the road they cut glare too but this is not always a good thing. It
> can make it hard to distinguish between damp, wet, and slippery surfaces.
>
> Matt O.
---------
Everyone's different, but I love polarized when I kayak. It's the only way,
to see what's under the surface. They do not tire me at all. On a bike,
they put me to sleep, what gives? I see no advantages, on a bike, but see
lots of disadvantages.

You know they're selling those "transition lenses" that darken with the sun.
Someone told me they don't work when driving a car because the windshield
has a uv blocker, and without the UV, hitting the lens they don't darken.
So much for transitions.

Date: 10 Jun 2007 21:53:01
From: Ron Hardin
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

The advantage of polarized on the road is that it cuts out sun glare
off car windows and polished bodies. It also cuts out sun glare from
the road surface, but that's a matter of taste.
--
Ron Hardin
rhhardin@mindspring.com

On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

Date: 10 Jun 2007 22:51:13
From: Callistus Valerius
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

> The advantage of polarized on the road is that it cuts out sun glare
> off car windows and polished bodies. It also cuts out sun glare from
> the road surface, but that's a matter of taste.
> --
> Ron Hardin
> rhhardin@mindspring.com
========
Sometimes that flash off of car window let's you see cars that are way out
there. It's like night riding, when you see the headlights way before you
hear them. But like you said, it's a matter of taste.

Date: 10 Jun 2007 21:31:11
From: still me
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:01:24 GMT, "Callistus Valerius"
<jazzyboss@hotmail.com > wrote:

>You know they're selling those "transition lenses" that darken with the sun.
>Someone told me they don't work when driving a car because the windshield
>has a uv blocker, and without the UV, hitting the lens they don't darken.
>So much for transitions.

I don't know that it's the UV blocking effect of the windshield, as
much as it is that you are sheltered from most direct sunlight.
Transistions seem to darken just fine laying on top of the dash.
Results may vary with newer windshields that have UV blocking
built-in.

But, since this is r.b.t and not r.auto.tech, I think transitions are
a plus as they allow the rider to have dark (sun) glasses and the
needed prescription effects.

Date: 10 Jun 2007 15:54:41
From: Callistus Valerius
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

> Hi, I'm checking around for new sunglasses, maybe Oakley M Frames.
> Wondering if it is worth the extra bucks to go polarized or not. Any
> comments?
>
> Thanks
> Mike
---------
No. polarized is for glare on a windshield, or for fisherman who stare at
the water all day, boaters, etc. I have worn polarized on a bike, and I
didn't like it.

Date: 10 Jun 2007 08:47:49
From: landotter
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

On Jun 10, 10:41 am, "Mike" <mol...@stellarnet.com > wrote:
> Hi, I'm checking around for new sunglasses, maybe Oakley M Frames.
> Wondering if it is worth the extra bucks to go polarized or not. Any
> comments?

It's definitely easier to see motorists flip you off through the
window glare with polarized lenses.

Date: 10 Jun 2007 20:36:23
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

landotter wrote:
> On Jun 10, 10:41 am, "Mike" <mol...@stellarnet.com> wrote:
>> Hi, I'm checking around for new sunglasses, maybe Oakley M Frames.
>> Wondering if it is worth the extra bucks to go polarized or not. Any
>> comments?
>
> It's definitely easier to see motorists flip you off through the
> window glare with polarized lenses.
>
No, actually it can be harder to see them, depending on the car. Some
GM minivan windshields are nearly opaque to me with polarized lenses.
Glass that is stressed while being made tends to develop some odd
polarization that can interfere with the polarized glasses. From the
inside the effect is less noticable, so driving with the m on is not a
problem.

BTW, I really like my polarized lenses for riding. It can even be an
advantage to not see that guy flip you off, but the big thing is the
general reduction in glare.

Others (like Jobst) disagree, saying that it is harder to see water or
ice (which?) on the road, but I have not experienced that, and have been
using polarized sunglasses for several years.

The only downside is the occasional window or cyclocomputer screen that
is accidentally polarized. Well, actually all lcd screens are
polarized, but good ones are still visible with polarized glasses, since
the polarization is on the same axis. Turn your head sideways and the
screen is unreadable. I buy cyclocomputers while wearing my glasses
just to be sure.

--

David L. Johnson

Let's not escape into mathematics. Let's stay with reality.
-- Michael Crichton

Date: 10 Jun 2007 18:01:27
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: polarized vs nonpolarized sunglasses

David L. Johnson wrote:
> landotter wrote:
>> On Jun 10, 10:41 am, "Mike" <mol...@stellarnet.com> wrote:
>>> Hi, I'm checking around for new sunglasses, maybe Oakley M Frames.
>>> Wondering if it is worth the extra bucks to go polarized or not. Any
>>> comments?
>>
>> It's definitely easier to see motorists flip you off through the
>> window glare with polarized lenses.
>>
> No, actually it can be harder to see them, depending on the car. Some
> GM minivan windshields are nearly opaque to me with polarized lenses.
> Glass that is stressed while being made tends to develop some odd
> polarization that can interfere with the polarized glasses.

all toughened glass, as all automotive non-laminated glass is, polarizes
light to some extent. it's residual stress! the patterns are due to
the different localized stress patterns ["toughening"] that are used to
break up the cracking pattern on fracture.

laminated windshields do not use toughened glass but some can polarize
to some extent [different pattern]. in that case, it's a function of
the plastic layer being stressed during manufacture, and that is a fault
since it should not polarize. or at least, not in an orientation that
enhances glare /and/ interferes with a driver's sun glasses.

> From the
> inside the effect is less noticable, so driving with the m on is not a
> problem.
>
> BTW, I really like my polarized lenses for riding. It can even be an
> advantage to not see that guy flip you off, but the big thing is the
> general reduction in glare.
>
> Others (like Jobst) disagree, saying that it is harder to see water or
> ice (which?) on the road, but I have not experienced that, and have been
> using polarized sunglasses for several years.
>
> The only downside is the occasional window or cyclocomputer screen that
> is accidentally polarized. Well, actually all lcd screens are
> polarized, but good ones are still visible with polarized glasses, since
> the polarization is on the same axis. Turn your head sideways and the
> screen is unreadable. I buy cyclocomputers while wearing my glasses
> just to be sure.
>