Tony M Sep 8, 2011:

Re-reading... ...it's actually gibberish!

"this is possible because of normal reflecting surfaces such as the cornea are rotationally symmetrical with all the radiant’s having same radius of curvature"

Not only is the grammar wrong, but it doesn't even make proper technical sense as it stands; the explanation is totally incomprehensible.

Tony M Sep 8, 2011:

No, but... ... they may have accidentally leafed through an optics dictionary! lol!!

SJLD Sep 8, 2011:

and you think the person who wrote this has studied optics in English? lol

Tony M Sep 8, 2011:

@ SJLD No, S., I've studied optics and we do indeed talk about a 'point focus' — it means a focus that does actually come to a point.

SJLD Sep 8, 2011:

point OF focus, Tony, or focal point

Tony M Sep 7, 2011:

Actually... SJLD, 'point focus' is OK, it's a term we use in optics; don't quite know what you don't like about a-stigma, either — except that of course 'stigma' doesn't actually mean 'focus'! (it means a dot or point)

SJLD Sep 7, 2011:

point focus is not English either. Very sloppy text.
And as for the Greek word "a-stigma" - you must be joking!

Tony M Sep 7, 2011:

Thanks, Clain! Well, that's reassuring, then! The whole thing seems pretty poorly written, this is after all a subject I know a little about, and have even done some technical writing in, and I find this not very clearly expressed. I think the first 'radiant' ought in fact to be singular (all the rays from one point converge at one point), whereas the second instance is just plain wrong, I think it ought to be something more like 'all the rays from the same radiant having the same radius'.

Claire Nolan Sep 7, 2011:

Tony, It's not correct in AE, either. It should be ''radiants''. And the second use of ''radiant's'' is faulty, too.

Well, I just tried googling variations of ''the radiants converge'', ''all the radiants converge'', ''radiants meet'', ''radiants come together'' and there are no hits related to the eye. I'm now wondering if ''radiant'' is the right word at all.

Tony M Sep 7, 2011:

Right... ...well in that case, that's fine, except for the use of 'from all' — I'd have expected them to say 'from the whole of...' with a singular noun, but I wonder if this is perhaps an AE doc.?

Alain Marsol Sep 7, 2011:

Et pourtant... L'American Heritage Dictionary dit: "n. A point from which light radiates to the eye."... J'ai cependant du mal à le formuler en français...

Tony M Sep 7, 2011:

Odd Unless this is very specific technical jargon with which I am simply unfamiliar, I'd say there is something odd about your text here, and I wonder if there isn't either some text missing ('radiant' being usually an adjective, one seems to lack a noun) — or perhaps 'radiant' is in fact a typo for some other, similar word?