Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Glasses foe reading
42 views
Skip to first unread message
Szczepan Bialek
Apr 22, 2013, 12:09:18 PM4/22/13
to
S.R. wrote: "A mild amount of "astigmatism", (i.e.., -1 diopters or less),
you can
request that only a "spherical" lens be provided."
and: "I got headaches from wearing an "astigmatic" lens all the time".
But what is recommended for me.
I have -3.5 sph and -2.25 cyl.
For glasses to read the lens should be weaker.
Is the general rule for such case?
S*
you can
request that only a "spherical" lens be provided."
and: "I got headaches from wearing an "astigmatic" lens all the time".
But what is recommended for me.
I have -3.5 sph and -2.25 cyl.
For glasses to read the lens should be weaker.
Is the general rule for such case?
S*
Science_Research
Apr 22, 2013, 1:33:11 PM4/22/13
to
Hi Sz,
Subject: What I *personally" do.
I might have a bit of astigmatism. But that would not 'bother" me at
all. What I do is set up a Snellen and read it at 20 feet - at
20/20. There are some ODs who would probably PRESCRIBE some cylinder
for me - but I have no interest in it. I need to be legal, so if
"astigmatism" gave me 20/15 or even 20/10 vision - I would have no
interest.
You are correct - an un-necessary "cylinder" gave me migraine
headaches (the worst) - so I always insisted on "Spherical
Equivalent" - to avoid those un-necessary headaches.
If you have this problem tell the OD that you want a minus lens that
clears your Snellen (so you always pass that DMV requirement). You
"Spherical equivalent" is about -4.25 diopters, but the best way, is
to just read your Snellen, and try that strength minus lens, and see
if you pass the required DMV line through that strength minus lens.
You might find it "works" for you. I use my own minus to do my own
checking - when necessary.
If you wish "reading" glasses (spherical equivlant) then just subtract
2 diopters from that value. (The so called "ADD" part).
Subject: What I *personally" do.
I might have a bit of astigmatism. But that would not 'bother" me at
all. What I do is set up a Snellen and read it at 20 feet - at
20/20. There are some ODs who would probably PRESCRIBE some cylinder
for me - but I have no interest in it. I need to be legal, so if
"astigmatism" gave me 20/15 or even 20/10 vision - I would have no
interest.
You are correct - an un-necessary "cylinder" gave me migraine
headaches (the worst) - so I always insisted on "Spherical
Equivalent" - to avoid those un-necessary headaches.
If you have this problem tell the OD that you want a minus lens that
clears your Snellen (so you always pass that DMV requirement). You
"Spherical equivalent" is about -4.25 diopters, but the best way, is
to just read your Snellen, and try that strength minus lens, and see
if you pass the required DMV line through that strength minus lens.
You might find it "works" for you. I use my own minus to do my own
checking - when necessary.
If you wish "reading" glasses (spherical equivlant) then just subtract
2 diopters from that value. (The so called "ADD" part).
Mike Tyner
Apr 22, 2013, 10:26:17 PM4/22/13
to
"Science_Research" <otis...@embarqmail.com> wrote
> Subject: What I *personally" do.
Science_Research
Apr 23, 2013, 12:38:33 AM4/23/13
to
Hi Mike,
Probably true - but then I doubt that the measurement made by you - is
very accurate. I would NEVER trust you to make a measurement - ever
again.
Enjoy,
On Apr 22, 10:26 pm, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> "Science_Research" <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> wrote
Probably true - but then I doubt that the measurement made by you - is
very accurate. I would NEVER trust you to make a measurement - ever
again.
Enjoy,
On Apr 22, 10:26 pm, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> "Science_Research" <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> wrote
Szczepan Bialek
Apr 23, 2013, 4:27:50 AM4/23/13
to
"Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> napisa� w wiadomo�ci
news:8I6dnb3ulYTWbOjM...@giganews.com...
>
> "Science_Research" <otis...@embarqmail.com> wrote
>
>> Subject: What I *personally" do.
>
>
> You don't have -2.25 diopters of astigmatism.
S.R. Wrote: "If you wish "reading" glasses (spherical equivlant) then just
> "Science_Research" <otis...@embarqmail.com> wrote
>
>> Subject: What I *personally" do.
>
>
> You don't have -2.25 diopters of astigmatism.
subtract
2 diopters from that value".
Assume that I am Your patient.
2 diopters from that value".
How many dioptres should I subtract from the sphere and from the cylinder.
I am going to my OD on April 25.
The -3.5 and -2.25 are on the computer print out.
What is recommended for glasses for far seeing.
S*
Science_Research
Apr 23, 2013, 7:37:56 AM4/23/13
to
Hi Sz,
Subject: Pleased do not assume that I am a "patient", or that you are
- either.
I only described what *I* would do - I truly do not know what you will
do. I have my own Snellen and test lenses. I certainly go to an
ophthalmologist to check or verify all MEDICAL issues. (I do not
consider my measurements of *my* refractive status, whether slightly
positive or slightly negative - to be an interest of medicine at this
time.) They simply have no interest in successful prevention, or
anyone who has the interest and motivation to protect their distant
vision - for life.
If you wish - you could negotiate with your OD, and state that you
wish to have your distant vision checked with ONLY a spherical minus
lens. He will have you read your Snellen, and then will use ONLY a
spherical minus lens to find out if he can get your distant vision to
20/40 or better - and perhaps 20/20. If you drive a car, you need to
pass the 20/40 line.
Once you have that reading, let us say -4.0 diopters spherical, then
the typical "ADD" could be to reduce it for reading at 20 inches, or
50 cm. Thus, your "near" glasses would be -2.0 diopters, spherical.
(All plus glasses sold over-the-counter are "spherical plus" - for
reading.)
You would then wear the -2.0 for all your computer work. This is the
same if you had a refractive state of zero diopters. You would then
get a +2.0 diopter "reading" glass.
I think you should have a pleasant discussion with the person who will
sell you glasses - about this issue.
Enjoy,
On Apr 23, 4:27 am, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> napisa w wiadomo cinews:8I6dnb3ulYTWbOjM...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
> > "Science_Research" <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> wrote
Subject: Pleased do not assume that I am a "patient", or that you are
- either.
I only described what *I* would do - I truly do not know what you will
do. I have my own Snellen and test lenses. I certainly go to an
ophthalmologist to check or verify all MEDICAL issues. (I do not
consider my measurements of *my* refractive status, whether slightly
positive or slightly negative - to be an interest of medicine at this
time.) They simply have no interest in successful prevention, or
anyone who has the interest and motivation to protect their distant
vision - for life.
If you wish - you could negotiate with your OD, and state that you
wish to have your distant vision checked with ONLY a spherical minus
lens. He will have you read your Snellen, and then will use ONLY a
spherical minus lens to find out if he can get your distant vision to
20/40 or better - and perhaps 20/20. If you drive a car, you need to
pass the 20/40 line.
Once you have that reading, let us say -4.0 diopters spherical, then
the typical "ADD" could be to reduce it for reading at 20 inches, or
50 cm. Thus, your "near" glasses would be -2.0 diopters, spherical.
(All plus glasses sold over-the-counter are "spherical plus" - for
reading.)
You would then wear the -2.0 for all your computer work. This is the
same if you had a refractive state of zero diopters. You would then
get a +2.0 diopter "reading" glass.
I think you should have a pleasant discussion with the person who will
sell you glasses - about this issue.
Enjoy,
On Apr 23, 4:27 am, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> napisa w wiadomo cinews:8I6dnb3ulYTWbOjM...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
> > "Science_Research" <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> wrote
Science_Research
Apr 23, 2013, 8:14:57 AM4/23/13
to
Hi Sz,
Subject: Medical opinion on reduced complexity of prescription - and
astigmatism.
See:
http://frauenfeldclinic.com/what-is-astigmatism-adding-to-harmful-prescription-complexity/
And:
http://frauenfeldclinic.com/the-relative-correlation-of-astigmatism/
In general, "astigmatism" is not "prescribed" for "near glasses".
You can discuss this issue with the person who will sell you lenses
also.
> "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> napisa w wiadomo cinews:8I6dnb3ulYTWbOjM...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
> > "Science_Research" <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> wrote
Subject: Medical opinion on reduced complexity of prescription - and
astigmatism.
See:
http://frauenfeldclinic.com/what-is-astigmatism-adding-to-harmful-prescription-complexity/
And:
http://frauenfeldclinic.com/the-relative-correlation-of-astigmatism/
In general, "astigmatism" is not "prescribed" for "near glasses".
You can discuss this issue with the person who will sell you lenses
also.
> "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> napisa w wiadomo cinews:8I6dnb3ulYTWbOjM...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
> > "Science_Research" <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> wrote
Mark A
Apr 23, 2013, 8:15:17 AM4/23/13
to
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:27:50 +0200, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
> S.R. Wrote: "If you wish "reading" glasses (spherical equivlant) then
> just subtract
> 2 diopters from that value".
>
> Assume that I am Your patient.
> How many dioptres should I subtract from the sphere and from the
> cylinder. I am going to my OD on April 25.
>
> The -3.5 and -2.25 are on the computer print out. What is recommended
> for glasses for far seeing. S*
If you want reading glasses only, then measure the typical distance from your eyes to the reading
> S.R. Wrote: "If you wish "reading" glasses (spherical equivlant) then
> just subtract
> 2 diopters from that value".
>
> Assume that I am Your patient.
> How many dioptres should I subtract from the sphere and from the
> cylinder. I am going to my OD on April 25.
>
> The -3.5 and -2.25 are on the computer print out. What is recommended
> for glasses for far seeing. S*
material, and tell your OD, who will come up with an accurate reading Rx.
Szczepan Bialek
Apr 23, 2013, 12:50:25 PM4/23/13
to
"Science_Research" <otis...@embarqmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:17ad6685-e205-4172...@t5g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>Hi Sz,
>Subject: Pleased do not assume that I am a "patient", or that you are
- either.
>I only described what *I* would do - I truly do not know what you will
do. I have my own Snellen and test lenses. I certainly go to an
ophthalmologist to check or verify all MEDICAL issues. (I do not
consider my measurements of *my* refractive status, whether slightly
positive or slightly negative - to be an interest of medicine at this
time.) They simply have no interest in successful prevention, or
anyone who has the interest and motivation to protect their distant
vision - for life.
>If you wish - you could negotiate with your OD, and state that you
wish to have your distant vision checked with ONLY a spherical minus
lens. He will have you read your Snellen, and then will use ONLY a
spherical minus lens to find out if he can get your distant vision to
20/40 or better - and perhaps 20/20. If you drive a car, you need to
pass the 20/40 line.
It will be possible. So we check only spherical minus and a few combinations
>Subject: Pleased do not assume that I am a "patient", or that you are
- either.
>I only described what *I* would do - I truly do not know what you will
do. I have my own Snellen and test lenses. I certainly go to an
ophthalmologist to check or verify all MEDICAL issues. (I do not
consider my measurements of *my* refractive status, whether slightly
positive or slightly negative - to be an interest of medicine at this
time.) They simply have no interest in successful prevention, or
anyone who has the interest and motivation to protect their distant
vision - for life.
>If you wish - you could negotiate with your OD, and state that you
wish to have your distant vision checked with ONLY a spherical minus
lens. He will have you read your Snellen, and then will use ONLY a
spherical minus lens to find out if he can get your distant vision to
20/40 or better - and perhaps 20/20. If you drive a car, you need to
pass the 20/40 line.
sphere and cylinders.
>Once you have that reading, let us say -4.0 diopters spherical, then
the typical "ADD" could be to reduce it for reading at 20 inches, or
50 cm. Thus, your "near" glasses would be -2.0 diopters, spherical.
(All plus glasses sold over-the-counter are "spherical plus" - for
reading.)
It seems to me that the -2, -1.5 is more comfortable than the first.
We try also -2 without cylinder.
>You would then wear the -2.0 for all your computer work. This is the
same if you had a refractive state of zero diopters. You would then
get a +2.0 diopter "reading" glass.
>I think you should have a pleasant discussion with the person who will
sell you glasses - about this issue.
with the doctor I do not know now.
Up to now I was told that the cylinder should be the same in the both
glasses (for distance and for reading).
Message has been deleted
Science_Research
Apr 23, 2013, 1:28:00 PM4/23/13
to
Hi Sz,
If you wish a pleasant discussion, call the doctor in advance and tell
him what you want. Tell him you want only a "spherical lens" used to
determine your refractive status. (The minimum minus needed to clear
the 20/20 line for you.) If he "gives you an argument", then find
another doctor who will do as you request.
SZ> The discussion with the glasses maker will be pleasent. But what
'distance' - but never for "close work". But you will have to be the
judge of that issue.
Otis> You seem to have a source of -2.0 diopters (spherical) lenses,
so you can check this yourself. Here is a FREE Snellen chart, you can
check your distant vision with.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgUkoSSgVOs
That is what I have set up - for continued checking. Here is the
chart:
http://www.i-see.org/block_letter_eye_chart.pdf
Enjoy,
On Apr 23, 12:50 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> "Science_Research" <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> napisal w wiadomoscinews:17ad6685-e205-4172...@t5g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
If you wish a pleasant discussion, call the doctor in advance and tell
him what you want. Tell him you want only a "spherical lens" used to
determine your refractive status. (The minimum minus needed to clear
the 20/20 line for you.) If he "gives you an argument", then find
another doctor who will do as you request.
SZ> The discussion with the glasses maker will be pleasent. But what
will be
with the doctor I do not know now.
Up to now I was told that the cylinder should be the same in the
both
glasses (for distance and for reading).
Otis> For my self, I reject "cylinder" for reading. Perhaps for
with the doctor I do not know now.
Up to now I was told that the cylinder should be the same in the
both
glasses (for distance and for reading).
'distance' - but never for "close work". But you will have to be the
judge of that issue.
Otis> You seem to have a source of -2.0 diopters (spherical) lenses,
so you can check this yourself. Here is a FREE Snellen chart, you can
check your distant vision with.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgUkoSSgVOs
That is what I have set up - for continued checking. Here is the
chart:
http://www.i-see.org/block_letter_eye_chart.pdf
Enjoy,
On Apr 23, 12:50 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> "Science_Research" <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> napisal w wiadomoscinews:17ad6685-e205-4172...@t5g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
Mike Tyner
Apr 23, 2013, 9:01:26 PM4/23/13
to
> What is recommended for glasses for far seeing.
It is not recommended to ask a stranger on the internet. I don't know where
the "computer printout" is from, I don't know your age, and I don't know the
distance to your reading material.
With those, I could make an educated guess but then what?
-MT
\"Szczepan Bialek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:51764608$0$1225$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
>
> "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> napisał w wiadomości
Mike Tyner
Apr 23, 2013, 9:04:03 PM4/23/13
to
"Science_Research" <otis...@embarqmail.com> wrote i
> I do not
> consider my measurements of *my* refractive status, ...
> to be an interest of medicine at this
> time.) They simply have no interest in
> successful prevention, or
As a 70+ year old pseudophake you're going to prevent what?
> time.) They simply have no interest in
> successful prevention, or
You have no experience and no training and you have no business giving
advice.
-MT
Mike Tyner
Apr 23, 2013, 9:04:31 PM4/23/13
to
"Science_Research" <otis...@embarqmail.com> wrote
> In general, "astigmatism" is not "prescribed" for "near glasses".
Mike Tyner
Apr 23, 2013, 9:05:16 PM4/23/13
to
"Science_Research" <otis...@embarqmail.com> wrote
> Here is how I check my refractive STATE - and avoid any
> "astigmatic" correction.
Idiot.
Mike Tyner
Apr 23, 2013, 9:05:52 PM4/23/13
to
"Science_Research" <otis...@embarqmail.com> wrote
> If you wish a pleasant discussion, call the doctor in advance
> and tell him what you want. Tell him you want only a "spherical lens"
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Science_Research
Apr 23, 2013, 11:59:25 PM4/23/13
to
Subject: Arrogant ODs who will NEVER help you.
Sz> The discussion with the glasses maker will be pleasent. But what
full of their own total bull sh*t.
Otis> Rather than attempt an HONEST discussion (because they are not
honest and fair), you will just have to call in advance, and ask them
to measure your refractive state - using their Phoropter. If they
start to argue with you, and call you an "idiot", then call another
honest one who will do what you ask them to do. There is NO REASON for
them to refuses. Personally, I measure my refractive status myself -
for the simple reason they are not honest about this measurement.
> "Science_Research" <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> napisal w wiadomoscinews:17ad6685-e205-4172...@t5g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
Sz> The discussion with the glasses maker will be pleasent. But what
will be
with the doctor I do not know now.
Sz> Up to now I was told that the cylinder should be the same in the
with the doctor I do not know now.
both
glasses (for distance and for reading).
Otis> Tragically there are some OD (like the one posting here) who are
glasses (for distance and for reading).
full of their own total bull sh*t.
Otis> Rather than attempt an HONEST discussion (because they are not
honest and fair), you will just have to call in advance, and ask them
to measure your refractive state - using their Phoropter. If they
start to argue with you, and call you an "idiot", then call another
honest one who will do what you ask them to do. There is NO REASON for
them to refuses. Personally, I measure my refractive status myself -
for the simple reason they are not honest about this measurement.
> "Science_Research" <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> napisal w wiadomoscinews:17ad6685-e205-4172...@t5g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
Mike Tyner
Apr 24, 2013, 2:20:18 AM4/24/13
to
"Science_Research" <otis...@embarqmail.com> wrote
> The over-prescribed minus basically destroys a child's
> distant vision - for life.
Your beliefs are based on myth and a hundred years out of date. You have not
been to college, you have no physics or statistics training so you don't
recognize bullshit when you preach it. You have no business giving advice.
Mike Tyner
Apr 24, 2013, 2:22:59 AM4/24/13
to
"Science_Research" <otis...@embarqmail.com> wrote
> This is why you call in advance - and ask HONEST QUESTION.
> When you get arrogant answers from some OD-idiots - the find
> an honest OD.
You don't know what you're talking about. This man may not want blurry
glasses. Most people wouldn't. You have no business telling people that good
vision is harmful.
-MT
Mike Tyner
Apr 24, 2013, 2:25:59 AM4/24/13
to
"Science_Research" <otis...@embarqmail.com> wrote
> Personally, I measure my refractive status myself -
> for the simple reason they are not honest about this measurement.
You have no idea what you're talking about. You have no training in any
field that qualifies you to give other people advice.
You have no business telling people to leave their vision blurry.
Szczepan Bialek
Apr 24, 2013, 4:02:35 AM4/24/13
to
news:lfOdna_bKfzZ5-rM...@giganews.com...
I prefer reading without glasses, I prefer walking without glasses.
But it means only that glasses with the full strenght (good vision) are not
comfortable for me.
I am looking for the general rule for glasses for reading.
In my area the rule was: "Cylinder is the same for the both glasses.
Is the same in Your area?
Is a publication on this subject?
S*
But it means only that glasses with the full strenght (good vision) are not
comfortable for me.
I am looking for the general rule for glasses for reading.
In my area the rule was: "Cylinder is the same for the both glasses.
Is the same in Your area?
Is a publication on this subject?
S*
Szczepan Bialek
Apr 24, 2013, 4:18:32 AM4/24/13
to
news:ZfydndT1Brp1s-rM...@giganews.com...
The "computer printout" is probably the same like from Yours apparatus.
I am able to read papers without glasses. So my " reading material" is a
computer.
I am asking about "educated" general rules for the cases like my.
S*
>> What is recommended for glasses for far seeing.
>
> It is not recommended to ask a stranger on the internet. I don't know
> where the "computer printout" is from, I don't know your age, and I don't
> know the distance to your reading material.
I am 70+ and after the cataract surgery.
>
> It is not recommended to ask a stranger on the internet. I don't know
> where the "computer printout" is from, I don't know your age, and I don't
> know the distance to your reading material.
The "computer printout" is probably the same like from Yours apparatus.
I am able to read papers without glasses. So my " reading material" is a
computer.
>
> With those, I could make an educated guess but then what?
Lenses are chip. I can make and try the three version of glasses.
> With those, I could make an educated guess but then what?
I am asking about "educated" general rules for the cases like my.
S*
Mike Tyner
Apr 24, 2013, 7:59:09 AM4/24/13
to
I'm sorry, Sz, that I was so focused on our newsgroup idiot.
Are the numbers -3.25 for the right eye and -2.25 for the left eye?
If so, the discussion of astigmatism isn't relevant for that prescription.
If so, your left eye is pretty well tuned for 44 cm working distance and
most people would just take their glasses off and ignore the right eye.
If you need to see further away, say, 50 cm, equal correction in each eye
would require a prescription of R -1.25 and L -0.25.
Tell me if this is not the case: right -325, left -225. If I understand
correctly, that's what is already recommended for "far seeing."
news:51779558$0$26686$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
Are the numbers -3.25 for the right eye and -2.25 for the left eye?
If so, the discussion of astigmatism isn't relevant for that prescription.
If so, your left eye is pretty well tuned for 44 cm working distance and
most people would just take their glasses off and ignore the right eye.
If you need to see further away, say, 50 cm, equal correction in each eye
would require a prescription of R -1.25 and L -0.25.
Tell me if this is not the case: right -325, left -225. If I understand
correctly, that's what is already recommended for "far seeing."
news:51779558$0$26686$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
> news:ZfydndT1Brp1s-rM...@giganews.com...
>>> What is recommended for glasses for far seeing.
>>
>> It is not recommended to ask a stranger on the internet. I don't know
>> where the "computer printout" is from, I don't know your age, and I don't
>> know the distance to your reading material.
>
> I am 70+ and after the cataract surgery.
> The "computer printout" is probably the same like from Yours apparatus.
>
> I am able to read papers without glasses. So my " reading material" is a
> computer.
>>
>> With those, I could make an educated guess but then what?
>
> Lenses are chip. I can make and try the three version of glasses.
>
> I am asking about "educated" general rules for the cases like my.
> S*
>>
>> -MT
>>
>>
>> \"Szczepan Bialek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> news:51764608$0$1225$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
>>>
>>> "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> napisa� w wiadomo�ci
>>> What is recommended for glasses for far seeing.
>>
>> It is not recommended to ask a stranger on the internet. I don't know
>> where the "computer printout" is from, I don't know your age, and I don't
>> know the distance to your reading material.
>
> I am 70+ and after the cataract surgery.
> The "computer printout" is probably the same like from Yours apparatus.
>
> I am able to read papers without glasses. So my " reading material" is a
> computer.
>>
>> With those, I could make an educated guess but then what?
>
> Lenses are chip. I can make and try the three version of glasses.
>
> I am asking about "educated" general rules for the cases like my.
> S*
>>
>> -MT
>>
>>
>> \"Szczepan Bialek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> news:51764608$0$1225$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
>>>
Mike Tyner
Apr 24, 2013, 8:26:51 AM4/24/13
to
"Szczepan Bialek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote
> I am looking for the general rule for glasses for reading.
prescription.
In the US and elsewhere are sold simple glasses of +1.25, +2.00 etc for
people with "normal" distance vision. (We say their "distance prescription"
is zero.) For those people, simple lenses make things clear at predictable
distances (1/power) so that +2.00 lenses are clear at 50 cm, +3.00 = 33cm,
+1.50 = 67cm. etc.
If your distance prescription is R -3.25, L -2.25, you simply add the
reading values to that number, so that to see at 50 cm you would require
R -2.00, L -0.25. To see at 67 cm, you need R -1.75, L-0.75.
> In my area the rule was: "Cylinder is the same for the both glasses.
> Is the same in Your area?
your face grows perfectly symmetrical, mirror image left and right.
Sometimes that's true..
The test for cylinder power is very sensitive. Engineers are notorious for
"trying too hard" on this test. They sometimes end up with glasses that have
wildly wrong prescriptions or glasses that cause headaches. It's the fault
of the doctor and his instructions. Otis had problems, so now he says nobody
else needs to see clearly.
> Is a publication on this subject?
the internet troll who calls himself "Science Research".
The classic is _Refraction_ by a man named Irving Borish.
But your question can be answered by simple optics. Look up "spectacle add
power".
Mike Tyner
Apr 24, 2013, 8:30:27 AM4/24/13
to
And if you understood that, you figured out that I misread your right eye
as -3.25 when you said -3.50,
So for the right eye, -3.50 is your "distance prescription".
Add +1.50 for 67 cm, = -2.00.
Add +2.00 for 50 cm, = -1.50.
Remove all correction and your right eye is clear at 1/3.50=29 cm.
news:51779558$0$26686$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
as -3.25 when you said -3.50,
So for the right eye, -3.50 is your "distance prescription".
Add +1.50 for 67 cm, = -2.00.
Add +2.00 for 50 cm, = -1.50.
Remove all correction and your right eye is clear at 1/3.50=29 cm.
news:51779558$0$26686$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
> news:ZfydndT1Brp1s-rM...@giganews.com...
>>> What is recommended for glasses for far seeing.
>>
>> It is not recommended to ask a stranger on the internet. I don't know
>> where the "computer printout" is from, I don't know your age, and I don't
>> know the distance to your reading material.
>
> I am 70+ and after the cataract surgery.
> The "computer printout" is probably the same like from Yours apparatus.
>
> I am able to read papers without glasses. So my " reading material" is a
> computer.
>>
>> With those, I could make an educated guess but then what?
>
> Lenses are chip. I can make and try the three version of glasses.
>
> I am asking about "educated" general rules for the cases like my.
> S*
>>
>> -MT
>>
>>
>> \"Szczepan Bialek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> news:51764608$0$1225$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
>>>
>>> "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> napisa� w wiadomo�ci
>>> What is recommended for glasses for far seeing.
>>
>> It is not recommended to ask a stranger on the internet. I don't know
>> where the "computer printout" is from, I don't know your age, and I don't
>> know the distance to your reading material.
>
> I am 70+ and after the cataract surgery.
> The "computer printout" is probably the same like from Yours apparatus.
>
> I am able to read papers without glasses. So my " reading material" is a
> computer.
>>
>> With those, I could make an educated guess but then what?
>
> Lenses are chip. I can make and try the three version of glasses.
>
> I am asking about "educated" general rules for the cases like my.
> S*
>>
>> -MT
>>
>>
>> \"Szczepan Bialek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> news:51764608$0$1225$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
>>>
Szczepan Bialek
Apr 24, 2013, 11:55:53 AM4/24/13
to
Użytkownik "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:KbKdndPKfvoRUurM...@giganews.com...
>
> "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote
>
>> I am looking for the general rule for glasses for reading.
>
> You should study the "add power", an offset value added to your distance
> prescription.
>
> In the US and elsewhere are sold simple glasses of +1.25, +2.00 etc for
> people with "normal" distance vision. (We say their "distance
> prescription" is zero.) For those people, simple lenses make things clear
> at predictable distances (1/power) so that +2.00 lenses are clear at 50
> cm, +3.00 = 33cm, +1.50 = 67cm. etc.
>
> If your distance prescription is R -3.25, L -2.25, you simply add the
> reading values to that number, so that to see at 50 cm you would require
> R -2.00, L -0.25. To see at 67 cm, you need R -1.75, L-0.75.
My distance prescription is -3.25 sphere, -2.25 cylinder for the one eye.
> "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote
>
>> I am looking for the general rule for glasses for reading.
>
> You should study the "add power", an offset value added to your distance
> prescription.
>
> In the US and elsewhere are sold simple glasses of +1.25, +2.00 etc for
> people with "normal" distance vision. (We say their "distance
> prescription" is zero.) For those people, simple lenses make things clear
> at predictable distances (1/power) so that +2.00 lenses are clear at 50
> cm, +3.00 = 33cm, +1.50 = 67cm. etc.
>
> If your distance prescription is R -3.25, L -2.25, you simply add the
> reading values to that number, so that to see at 50 cm you would require
> R -2.00, L -0.25. To see at 67 cm, you need R -1.75, L-0.75.
The axis of the cylinder is vertical.
>
>> In my area the rule was: "Cylinder is the same for the both glasses.
>> Is the same in Your area?
>
> In my area we make the cylinder to fit the eye. In your area they assume
> your face grows perfectly symmetrical, mirror image left and right.
> Sometimes that's true..
I am writting about one eye.
>> In my area the rule was: "Cylinder is the same for the both glasses.
>> Is the same in Your area?
>
> In my area we make the cylinder to fit the eye. In your area they assume
> your face grows perfectly symmetrical, mirror image left and right.
> Sometimes that's true..
Now I have: -3 sphere and -2.5 cylinder for distance and,
-1 sphere and -2.5 cylinder for reading.
Is it in agreement with the US rules?
S*
Szczepan Bialek
Apr 24, 2013, 12:06:59 PM4/24/13
to
news:3YWdnUTYQJKSVOrM...@giganews.com...
the cylinder.
The second eye is only a little different.
> If so, the discussion of astigmatism isn't relevant for that prescription.
But the astigmatism is the subject.
subtracted from the cylinder for the reading glasses?
What should be glasses for distance?
> news:51779558$0$26686$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
> I'm sorry, Sz, that I was so focused on our newsgroup idiot.
>
> Are the numbers -3.25 for the right eye and -2.25 for the left eye?
The both numbers are for the one eye. -3.5 is the sphere and the - 2.25 is
>
> Are the numbers -3.25 for the right eye and -2.25 for the left eye?
the cylinder.
The second eye is only a little different.
> If so, the discussion of astigmatism isn't relevant for that prescription.
>
> If so, your left eye is pretty well tuned for 44 cm working distance and
> most people would just take their glasses off and ignore the right eye.
>
> If you need to see further away, say, 50 cm, equal correction in each eye
> would require a prescription of R -1.25 and L -0.25.
>
> Tell me if this is not the case: right -325, left -225. If I understand
> correctly, that's what is already recommended for "far seeing."
What power should be subtracted from the sphere and what power should be
> If so, your left eye is pretty well tuned for 44 cm working distance and
> most people would just take their glasses off and ignore the right eye.
>
> If you need to see further away, say, 50 cm, equal correction in each eye
> would require a prescription of R -1.25 and L -0.25.
>
> Tell me if this is not the case: right -325, left -225. If I understand
> correctly, that's what is already recommended for "far seeing."
subtracted from the cylinder for the reading glasses?
What should be glasses for distance?
> news:51779558$0$26686$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
Mike Tyner
Apr 24, 2013, 11:21:53 PM4/24/13
to
"Szczepan Bialek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote
> My distance prescription is -3.25 sphere, -2.25 cylinder for the one eye.
> The axis of the cylinder is vertical.
the cylinder power and axis unchanged.
-325 -225 x 090
If you want clear vision at 50 cm, add +2.00 diopters and get
-125 -225 x 090.
> Now I have: -3 sphere and -2.5 cylinder for distance and,
> -1 sphere and -2.5 cylinder for reading.
>
> Is it in agreement with the US rules?
No rule should make you change one eye to match the other eye.
Mike Tyner
Apr 24, 2013, 11:29:58 PM4/24/13
to
"Szczepan Bialek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote
> But the astigmatism is the subject.
prescriptions with three numbers: sphere, cylinder, axis. When you
said -3.25 and -2.25 I got confused.
When you adjust for reading distance, to make reading glasses, apply the add
power to the first number (sphere) and keep the cylinder and axis unchanged.
Your astigmatism doesn't change when you read.
It would be foolish to modify your astigmatism correction just because some
person on the internet had a bad experience.
-MT
Szczepan Bialek
Apr 25, 2013, 4:07:05 AM4/25/13
to
news:-eWdnWPVIuylPuXM...@giganews.com...
But now I have the lens -2.5 and the measured value -2.25.
You wrote that the small astigmatism can be neglected.
So the astigmatism correction can be a little weaker. I now have stronger.
What is beter? Stronger or weaker?
S*
You wrote that the small astigmatism can be neglected.
So the astigmatism correction can be a little weaker. I now have stronger.
What is beter? Stronger or weaker?
S*
Szczepan Bialek
Apr 25, 2013, 4:07:35 AM4/25/13
to
"Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> napisa� w wiadomo�ci
news:orudnd9Q7KDOPOXM...@giganews.com...
>
> "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote
>
>> My distance prescription is -3.25 sphere, -2.25 cylinder for the one
>> eye. The axis of the cylinder is vertical.
>
> Then we make the reading add adjustment to the sphere value only, and keep
> the cylinder power and axis unchanged.
>
> -325 -225 x 090
>
> If you want clear vision at 50 cm, add +2.00 diopters and get
>
> -125 -225 x 090.
>
>
>> Now I have the two glasses: -3 sphere and -2.5 cylinder for distance and,
> "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote
>
>> My distance prescription is -3.25 sphere, -2.25 cylinder for the one
>> eye. The axis of the cylinder is vertical.
>
> Then we make the reading add adjustment to the sphere value only, and keep
> the cylinder power and axis unchanged.
>
> -325 -225 x 090
>
> If you want clear vision at 50 cm, add +2.00 diopters and get
>
> -125 -225 x 090.
>
>
>> -1 sphere and -2.5 cylinder for reading.
>>
>> Is it in agreement with the US rules?
>
> The optics are sensible.
The eye is two years after the cataract surgery. One week after the surgery
>>
>> Is it in agreement with the US rules?
>
> The optics are sensible.
the myopia astigmatic was -3, -3.5 x 090
After one month the cylinder becomes -2.5. And such glasses were made.
Now is -2.25.
Should I change the lens from -2.5 to - 2.25 or to -2.0 or less (-1.5)?
What will be sensible?
S*
Mike Tyner
Apr 25, 2013, 7:23:23 AM4/25/13
to
Too much or too little astigmatism correction, the blur is the same either
way, and 0.25 is not very significant because your cornea will change 0.25
from morning to evening.
In glasses, all correction causes distortion. Too much astigmatism means
unnecessary distortion, along with blur. Undercorrecting means blur too, but
less distortion.
In NEW glasses, it matters because you must adapt. In OLD glasses, you are
already adapted and it doesn't matter.
news:5178e429$0$1212$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
way, and 0.25 is not very significant because your cornea will change 0.25
from morning to evening.
In glasses, all correction causes distortion. Too much astigmatism means
unnecessary distortion, along with blur. Undercorrecting means blur too, but
less distortion.
In NEW glasses, it matters because you must adapt. In OLD glasses, you are
already adapted and it doesn't matter.
news:5178e429$0$1212$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
Mike Tyner
Apr 25, 2013, 7:35:22 AM4/25/13
to
It is sensible to make the lens to match your eye, -2.25.
You will have no issue adapting to -2.25 because you already wear -2.50.
-1.50 would be blurry, and save you nothing in return.
I might use -1.50 only if you never wore astigmatism glasses before.
news:5178e44c$0$1212$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
You will have no issue adapting to -2.25 because you already wear -2.50.
-1.50 would be blurry, and save you nothing in return.
I might use -1.50 only if you never wore astigmatism glasses before.
news:5178e44c$0$1212$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
Szczepan Bialek
Apr 25, 2013, 12:46:21 PM4/25/13
to
news:drmdnQJwaPtmieTM...@giganews.com...
In my left eye the measured cylinder was -4.25 after surgery (month ago).
Today my OD use -3.5.
But Otis is also right.
I have a large collection of glasses which I did not use.
There were the simple errors in the prescriptions (for example the angles
were wrong).
So my troubles disapeared when I started mesure my eyes in the kitchen. Thy
only apparatus was the two diodes at known distance.
Now I see if OD made errors or not.
Thanks you for your help.
But may be that some modifications would have an adventages.
My be that some OD's developed such and use it.
For me the common rule is enough.
S*
> It is sensible to make the lens to match your eye, -2.25.
>
> You will have no issue adapting to -2.25 because you already wear -2.50.
>
> -1.50 would be blurry, and save you nothing in return.
>
> I might use -1.50 only if you never wore astigmatism glasses before.
So in US and in Poland are the same rules.
>
> You will have no issue adapting to -2.25 because you already wear -2.50.
>
> -1.50 would be blurry, and save you nothing in return.
>
> I might use -1.50 only if you never wore astigmatism glasses before.
In my left eye the measured cylinder was -4.25 after surgery (month ago).
Today my OD use -3.5.
But Otis is also right.
I have a large collection of glasses which I did not use.
There were the simple errors in the prescriptions (for example the angles
were wrong).
So my troubles disapeared when I started mesure my eyes in the kitchen. Thy
only apparatus was the two diodes at known distance.
Now I see if OD made errors or not.
Thanks you for your help.
But may be that some modifications would have an adventages.
My be that some OD's developed such and use it.
For me the common rule is enough.
S*
>
> -MT
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:5178e44c$0$1212$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
>>
>> "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> napisa� w wiadomo�ci
> -MT
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:5178e44c$0$1212$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
>>
Science_Research
Apr 25, 2013, 4:47:17 PM4/25/13
to
Hi Sz,
Subject: The "plus" is sold as "spherical equivalent", in the store.
If you have a moderate "astigmatism", but 20/20 vision (at distance)
most people will buy a "plus" in the store for reading. There is no
"rule" for this - they just do not notice, or need any "astigmatism
correction."
If it were me, I would get the "spherical-equivalent" for distance -
and check my own Snellen to verify I can pass the DMV (20/40 - or
better) with that lens.
Then I would get a "plus" lens of 2.0 diopters, and put it over the
plus - and verify I can read with not problems at 50 cm.
If I had no problem reading at that distance (after personally,
objectively testing it), I would just get a "plus add" for your
glasses (as a bifocal).
Your measurement and your choice - of course. There is no "rule" -
only your intelligent measurement of what you need.
Enjoy,
On Apr 25, 12:46 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> napisa³ w wiadomo¶cinews:drmdnQJwaPtmieTM...@giganews.com...
Subject: The "plus" is sold as "spherical equivalent", in the store.
If you have a moderate "astigmatism", but 20/20 vision (at distance)
most people will buy a "plus" in the store for reading. There is no
"rule" for this - they just do not notice, or need any "astigmatism
correction."
If it were me, I would get the "spherical-equivalent" for distance -
and check my own Snellen to verify I can pass the DMV (20/40 - or
better) with that lens.
Then I would get a "plus" lens of 2.0 diopters, and put it over the
plus - and verify I can read with not problems at 50 cm.
If I had no problem reading at that distance (after personally,
objectively testing it), I would just get a "plus add" for your
glasses (as a bifocal).
Your measurement and your choice - of course. There is no "rule" -
only your intelligent measurement of what you need.
Enjoy,
On Apr 25, 12:46 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> napisa³ w wiadomo¶cinews:drmdnQJwaPtmieTM...@giganews.com...
>
> > It is sensible to make the lens to match your eye, -2.25.
>
> > You will have no issue adapting to -2.25 because you already wear -2.50.
>
> > -1.50 would be blurry, and save you nothing in return.
>
> > I might use -1.50 only if you never wore astigmatism glasses before.
>
> So in US and in Poland are the same rules.
> In my left eye the measured cylinder was -4.25 after surgery (month ago).
> Today my OD use -3.5.
>
> But Otis is also right.
> I have a large collection of glasses which I did not use.
> There were the simple errors in the prescriptions (for example the angles
> were wrong).
> So my troubles disapeared when I started mesure my eyes in the kitchen. Thy
> only apparatus was the two diodes at known distance.
> Now I see if OD made errors or not.
>
> Thanks you for your help.
>
> But may be that some modifications would have an adventages.
> My be that some OD's developed such and use it.
> For me the common rule is enough.
> S*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > -MT
>
> > "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > It is sensible to make the lens to match your eye, -2.25.
>
> > You will have no issue adapting to -2.25 because you already wear -2.50.
>
> > -1.50 would be blurry, and save you nothing in return.
>
> > I might use -1.50 only if you never wore astigmatism glasses before.
>
> So in US and in Poland are the same rules.
> In my left eye the measured cylinder was -4.25 after surgery (month ago).
> Today my OD use -3.5.
>
> But Otis is also right.
> I have a large collection of glasses which I did not use.
> There were the simple errors in the prescriptions (for example the angles
> were wrong).
> So my troubles disapeared when I started mesure my eyes in the kitchen. Thy
> only apparatus was the two diodes at known distance.
> Now I see if OD made errors or not.
>
> Thanks you for your help.
>
> But may be that some modifications would have an adventages.
> My be that some OD's developed such and use it.
> For me the common rule is enough.
> S*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > -MT
>
> >news:5178e44c$0$1212$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
>
> >> "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
> >>news:orudnd9Q7KDOPOXM...@giganews.com...
>
> >>> "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote
>
> >> "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
> >>news:orudnd9Q7KDOPOXM...@giganews.com...
>
Szczepan Bialek
Apr 26, 2013, 4:21:59 AM4/26/13
to
"Science_Research" <otis...@embarqmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:3253d6fa-9429-4b19...@r3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>Hi Sz,
>Subject: The "plus" is sold as "spherical equivalent", in the store.
>If you have a moderate "astigmatism", but 20/20 vision (at distance)
most people will buy a "plus" in the store for reading. There is no
"rule" for this - they just do not notice, or need any "astigmatism
correction."
In the left eye I have: -1.5, -4.25 x 80.
>Subject: The "plus" is sold as "spherical equivalent", in the store.
>If you have a moderate "astigmatism", but 20/20 vision (at distance)
most people will buy a "plus" in the store for reading. There is no
"rule" for this - they just do not notice, or need any "astigmatism
correction."
It is not moderate and I have not 20/20 vision.
>If it were me, I would get the "spherical-equivalent" for distance -
and check my own Snellen to verify I can pass the DMV (20/40 - or
better) with that lens.
>Then I would get a "plus" lens of 2.0 diopters, and put it over the
plus - and verify I can read with not problems at 50 cm.
modifications for the cylinder.
>If I had no problem reading at that distance (after personally,
objectively testing it), I would just get a "plus add" for your
glasses (as a bifocal).
>Your measurement and your choice - of course. There is no "rule" -
only your intelligent measurement of what you need.
Myopic astigmatism with the angles 80 and 100 was difficult for some OD's.
So I make my measurements to avoid such errors.
But I respect the "educated" rules.
S*
Science_Research
Apr 26, 2013, 8:03:07 AM4/26/13
to
Hi Sz,
I also respect people - in an OFFICE - who have no time for an
intellectual discussion. They are "too busy" for anything like that.
Their job is to satisfy you with a strong minus - impress you, and
send you on your way with 20/18, 20/15 and even 20/13 vision. They
call this process, "prescribing for best-visual-acuity".
I happen to believe that if I personally verify 20/20 vision on my
Snellen (at home), I do not required a strong minus for full time
wear.
But that is the real issue we are discussing. Yes, I go to an
ophthalmologist for all MEDICAL work - and respect the man in his
office.
But I am willing to protect my distant vision myself - because no OD
has the time to help me with prevention.
If I check my own Snellen, and verify 20/20 (and refractive state of
+1/2 diopter), then if I have -1.0 diopters "astigmatism", then there
is no law-of-physics that requires I have a lens prescribed for me,
or "OD - RULE" for that matter.
It takes time for me to do my own checking - but I have no desired to
wear an "astigmatic" lens - when I have 20/20 and none is required.
Enjoy,
On Apr 26, 4:21 am, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> "Science_Research" <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> napisal w wiadomoscinews:3253d6fa-9429-4b19...@r3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
I also respect people - in an OFFICE - who have no time for an
intellectual discussion. They are "too busy" for anything like that.
Their job is to satisfy you with a strong minus - impress you, and
send you on your way with 20/18, 20/15 and even 20/13 vision. They
call this process, "prescribing for best-visual-acuity".
I happen to believe that if I personally verify 20/20 vision on my
Snellen (at home), I do not required a strong minus for full time
wear.
But that is the real issue we are discussing. Yes, I go to an
ophthalmologist for all MEDICAL work - and respect the man in his
office.
But I am willing to protect my distant vision myself - because no OD
has the time to help me with prevention.
If I check my own Snellen, and verify 20/20 (and refractive state of
+1/2 diopter), then if I have -1.0 diopters "astigmatism", then there
is no law-of-physics that requires I have a lens prescribed for me,
or "OD - RULE" for that matter.
It takes time for me to do my own checking - but I have no desired to
wear an "astigmatic" lens - when I have 20/20 and none is required.
Enjoy,
On Apr 26, 4:21 am, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> "Science_Research" <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> napisal w wiadomoscinews:3253d6fa-9429-4b19...@r3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
Science_Research
May 6, 2013, 1:32:36 PM5/6/13
to
Hi Sz,
Here is a video that will answer your questions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd6DQ3RJ50E
On Apr 24, 11:55 am, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> U¿ytkownik "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> napisa³ w wiadomo¶cinews:KbKdndPKfvoRUurM...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote
Here is a video that will answer your questions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd6DQ3RJ50E
On Apr 24, 11:55 am, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> U¿ytkownik "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> napisa³ w wiadomo¶cinews:KbKdndPKfvoRUurM...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote
dumbstruck
May 13, 2013, 12:34:14 AM5/13/13
to
On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 2:26:51 AM UTC-10, Mike Tyner wrote:
> The test for cylinder power is very sensitive. Engineers are notorious for
> "trying too hard" on this test. They sometimes end up with glasses that have
> wildly wrong prescriptions or glasses that cause headaches. It's the fault
> of the doctor and his instructions. Otis had problems, so now he says nobody
> else needs to see clearly.
>
>
> > Is a publication on this subject?
>
>
> There are whole books on this subject, NOT ONE of which have been read by
> the internet troll who calls himself "Science Research".
>
>
> The classic is _Refraction_ by a man named Irving Borish.
>
In order to be informed enough to not fall into such "engineer" traps in my next eye exam, I looked for the above book. Google told me the name and author looked wrong, and suggested "CLINICAL refraction" by IRWIN Borish. In a search of a vast library network, up came the closest match of some book on gay muslims (honestly). The Borish book was last updated maybe in the 1970's, but I found a 1998 update of Borish by another author listed and ordered it.
> The test for cylinder power is very sensitive. Engineers are notorious for
> "trying too hard" on this test. They sometimes end up with glasses that have
> wildly wrong prescriptions or glasses that cause headaches. It's the fault
> of the doctor and his instructions. Otis had problems, so now he says nobody
> else needs to see clearly.
>
>
> > Is a publication on this subject?
>
>
> There are whole books on this subject, NOT ONE of which have been read by
> the internet troll who calls himself "Science Research".
>
>
> The classic is _Refraction_ by a man named Irving Borish.
>
Well, it not my fault that a 1949 edition of Borish came. While I try to sort that out, I thought I would mention the contradictions with Tyner that admittedly old volume has.
1) Tyner has repeatedly stated that reading glasses should have the same cyl correction as far point. That seemed to defy lense physics to this amateur, and sure enough Borish gives 6 reasons that cyl may differ near vs far (he finds 3 acceptable reasons). I haven't been that happy after spending extra for ful cyl correction on reading glasses based on Mike's advice, but not sure about it.
2) Tyner has bashed plus lens treatment for pseudo myopia, yet Borish goes on and on about the potential. Calls the phenomenon "school myopia" or college myopia or functional myopia... referring to nearpoint stress causing accommodation spasm which can lock up in a tonic equilibrium... tempting towards minus correction instead of positive shift of spherical lenses.
I appreciate his engagement here, and look forward to reading more recent such textbooks. But he was in denial about my carefully documented story of myopia going into a death spiral STARTING in adulthood when natural myopia progress is normally halted. STARTING with a phase of super intense close work all around the clock. Over and over prescribed more minus, and not likely by mistake because I graphed every few months the exact cyl and sph for each eye which gave smooth curves and not jumping around. After years, this was significantly reversed by plus lense and other techniques... all plotted in detail with an intense series of exams.
Mike Tyner
May 13, 2013, 7:09:33 AM5/13/13
to
"dumbstruck" <dumb...@gmail.com> wrote
> 1) Tyner has repeatedly stated that reading glasses should have the same
> cyl correction as far point. That seemed to defy lense physics to this
> amateur, and sure enough Borish gives 6 reasons that cyl may differ near
> vs far (he finds 3 acceptable reasons).
cyl at near, nor can you find a prescription pad printed with separate boxes
for near cyl.
> I haven't been that happy after spending extra for ful cyl correction on
> reading glasses based on Mike's advice, but not sure about it.
that -2.25 diopters of cyl can be ignored. You should too.
> 2) Tyner has bashed plus lens treatment for pseudo myopia, yet Borish goes
> on and on
ALWAYS disappears if you live long enough. It's ANATOMICAL myopia where plus
lenses are generally useless. Borish never tell says "plus lens therapy" is
effective for anatomical myopia. Nor does the FDA. Nor should you, without a
significantly larger sample than 1.
> I appreciate his engagement here, and look forward to reading more recent
> such textbooks. But he was in denial about my carefully documented story
> of myopia going into a death spiral STARTING in adulthood when natural
> myopia progress is normally halted.
full correction - they're all at risk for the same problem you had?
I don't deny you got nearsighted. I don't deny you got better.
But I still doubt you got nearsighted because you made your distance vision
clear.
I also doubt you made your nearsightedness get better by making your
distance vision blurry.
-MT
dumbstruck
May 13, 2013, 5:45:16 PM5/13/13
to
On Monday, May 13, 2013 1:09:33 AM UTC-10, Mike Tyner wrote:
> So the VAST majority of adult myopes who remain stable or GET BETTER wearing
> full correction - they're all at risk for the same problem you had?
>
> I don't deny you got nearsighted. I don't deny you got better.
>
> But I still doubt you got nearsighted because you made your distance vision
> clear.
>
> I also doubt you made your nearsightedness get better by making your
> distance vision blurry.
Depends on the meaning of VAST. Granted, maybe 90% in a year round outdoor recreation paradise where near-point workaholism isn't a religion, like where I think you dwell. Maybe 80 or 85% for all of USA, which still leaves a lot of overcorrection sufferers. My episode came at an office complex that was perhaps a worst case scenario of only 70% not suffering from backsliding.
> So the VAST majority of adult myopes who remain stable or GET BETTER wearing
> full correction - they're all at risk for the same problem you had?
>
> I don't deny you got nearsighted. I don't deny you got better.
>
> But I still doubt you got nearsighted because you made your distance vision
> clear.
>
> I also doubt you made your nearsightedness get better by making your
> distance vision blurry.
The office complex was mammoth... it's population alone was second only to the largest city in the state. Ophthalmologists were available to give free vision therapy (like plus lenses) to service the casualties. The high stress hours with computer terminals were extreme... for half the year you might never see the sun and hardly ever use distant vision (driving to and from work in the dark doesn't really let you focus long properly, only on twinkling lights or a cone of blinding snow). Maybe we would glimpse the sun on a sunday at the most, because we normally worked nights and saturdays for no extra pay. I was allowed 3 vacation days one year and 5 on another... don't remember a sick day except when ordered home once due to pneumonia. We nerds all loved it and thought our "cool" mission was worth always bulging our eyes 2 inches from terminal with 1 inch thick (and growing) glasses. Yuk...
Science_Research
May 13, 2013, 8:08:02 PM5/13/13
to
Hi DumbStruck,
Subject: Correcting Mike Tyner's FALSE or Imagined information about
me.
1) I advocate true-prevention in the pseudo-myopia stage, defined as
visual acuity of from 20/30 to 20/60, and MEASURED refractive state of
-1/2 to -1.5 diopters. If you start wearing a strong minus lens, you
will CREATE "axial myopia".
2) Tyner OD insists I READ NO BOOKS. He does not know about my
engineering-scientific interests in fundamental scientific truth (not
"medical truth" - there is a deep difference).
3) Here are some references for your interest:
+++++
REFERENCES
Frances A.Young, "The Effect of Restricted Visual Space on the Primate
Eye", Am. J. Ophth., Vol. 52, No. 5, Part II, 799-806, 1961.
Kepler, J., (1571-1630) "Dioptice: Seu demonstration eorum quae visui
et visibilibus propter conspicilla non ita pridem inventa accidunt",
Augsburg, 1611
Helmholtz H., (1821-1894) "Physiological Optics", Translation by the
Optical Society of America, 1924 Note: Helmholz introduced word
hyperopia.
Donders, F. C., (1818-1889) "Accommodation and Refraction of the Eye",
London, The New Sydenham Society. 1864
Note: The words emmetropia and ametropia were introduced by
Donders. Donders took the focal states of the normal eye to be DEFECTS
of the eye. Any non-zero focal state of the eye was, by definition, a
defect (ametropia). A focal state of EXACTLY zero was defined as
"normal". Under this definition, very few, if any, animals or humans
have eyes that are normal!
Ware, J. "Observations relative to the near and distant sight of
different persons", Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., Part 1:31-50, 1813
Young,F.A., Leary, G. A., Goo, F. J., Johanson, C., Baldwin, W. R.,
West, D.C., Box, R. A., and Harris, E., "Refractive Errors, Reading
Performance, and School Achievement Among Eskimo Children", Am. J.
Optom. & Arch. Am. Acad. Optom., 47 (5), 384-390, 1970.
(A review of this study is provided by Dr. Maurice Brummer, reference
15).
The cause of myopia is further clearly indicated in a study of
1,200 Eskimos in Barrow, Alaska, published in the American Journal of
Optometry in 1970, which showed that in one generation of the Eskimo
population had moved from no myopia to approximately 65% myopia among
the off-spring, and that neither the grandparents nor parents over 40
had any myopia. Thus the first generation between grandparents and
parents was similar in that myopia was nonexistent, but in the second
generation between the parents and their children, suddenly myopia
occurs in a surprisingly high number of children. As a matter of fact,
of 53 offspring who were in their early 20's, 88% had myopia. Such a
sudden and great degree of change cannot readily be accounted for on
the basis of heredity, especially when there has been no identifiable
force which could have brought about this obviously considerable
mutation in the genetic composition of the offspring. The obvious
difference between the parents and the children is the amount of near
work which is currently being done by the children. About the time of
the second World War, the white man intruded into their lives,
requiring the development of education among a population which was
uneducated and illiterate. The Eskimo has become an avid reader
because of his environment. While he spends a great deal of time out-
of-doors in the warmer, daylight summer months, he spends relatively
little time out-of-doors in the cold, dark winter months.".
Raphaelson J., "A Preventive and Remedy for School-Myopia", Book 3,
1958, 105 pages.
Gmelin, Maj. Robert T., MSC, USA, "Myopia at West Point: Past and
Present." Military Medicine, 141 (8) 542-3, August 1976.
Reynolds Hayden, M.D., "Development and Prevention of Myopia at the
United States Naval Academy", Volume 25, (old series Volume 82),
Number 4., Copyright, 1941, The American Medical Association.
Frank Schaeffel, Adrian Glasser and Howard C. Howland, "Accommodation,
Refractive Error and Eye Growth in Chickens", VISION RES., Vol 28, No.
5 pp 639-657, 1988. Pergamon Press.
RESULTS:
All eyes treated with positive lenses became consistently more
positive (hyperopic).
Negative lenses produced more negative (myopic) refractions (focal
states) in all eyes.
In a test of plus/minus lenses on left/right eyes, the eye with the
plus lens moved in a positive direction. The eye with a minus lens
moved in a minus direction.
The control group did not change significantly in any direction.
Brown,Otis S., "How to Avoid Nearsightedness", C & O Research, pp
53-56, 1989.
Southall, J. P. C., "Introduction to Physiological Optics", Dover
Publications, Inc. 1937. [Reference: page 141, "While there is still a
strong prejudice (judgment) in some quarters AGAINST the full
correction (of a minus lens)...".]
Rehm, Donald S., "The Myopia Myth -- The Truth about Nearsightedness
and How to Prevent it", pp 103-6, 1981
Betz, J. N., "Success with Bifocals for Children", Credit to O.E.P.,
Opt J Rev Optom 86: 42, 1949
Brumer, Maurice, "Eyestrain -- Its Causes, Consequences and
Treatment", Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement
of Science (ANZAAS), New Zealand 1/26/79
++++++
If you wish to read a fairly complete history - going back to Kepler -
I would recommend, "Introduction to Physiological Optics".
Some of the descriptive words Tyner uses are badly defined, and have
imbedded errors in concept. That is indeed a problem - for Tyner when
discussing the proven dynamic behavior of the natural, or fundamental
eye (as science, not medicine).
Enjoy,
Subject: Correcting Mike Tyner's FALSE or Imagined information about
me.
1) I advocate true-prevention in the pseudo-myopia stage, defined as
visual acuity of from 20/30 to 20/60, and MEASURED refractive state of
-1/2 to -1.5 diopters. If you start wearing a strong minus lens, you
will CREATE "axial myopia".
2) Tyner OD insists I READ NO BOOKS. He does not know about my
engineering-scientific interests in fundamental scientific truth (not
"medical truth" - there is a deep difference).
3) Here are some references for your interest:
+++++
REFERENCES
Frances A.Young, "The Effect of Restricted Visual Space on the Primate
Eye", Am. J. Ophth., Vol. 52, No. 5, Part II, 799-806, 1961.
Kepler, J., (1571-1630) "Dioptice: Seu demonstration eorum quae visui
et visibilibus propter conspicilla non ita pridem inventa accidunt",
Augsburg, 1611
Helmholtz H., (1821-1894) "Physiological Optics", Translation by the
Optical Society of America, 1924 Note: Helmholz introduced word
hyperopia.
Donders, F. C., (1818-1889) "Accommodation and Refraction of the Eye",
London, The New Sydenham Society. 1864
Note: The words emmetropia and ametropia were introduced by
Donders. Donders took the focal states of the normal eye to be DEFECTS
of the eye. Any non-zero focal state of the eye was, by definition, a
defect (ametropia). A focal state of EXACTLY zero was defined as
"normal". Under this definition, very few, if any, animals or humans
have eyes that are normal!
Ware, J. "Observations relative to the near and distant sight of
different persons", Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., Part 1:31-50, 1813
Young,F.A., Leary, G. A., Goo, F. J., Johanson, C., Baldwin, W. R.,
West, D.C., Box, R. A., and Harris, E., "Refractive Errors, Reading
Performance, and School Achievement Among Eskimo Children", Am. J.
Optom. & Arch. Am. Acad. Optom., 47 (5), 384-390, 1970.
(A review of this study is provided by Dr. Maurice Brummer, reference
15).
The cause of myopia is further clearly indicated in a study of
1,200 Eskimos in Barrow, Alaska, published in the American Journal of
Optometry in 1970, which showed that in one generation of the Eskimo
population had moved from no myopia to approximately 65% myopia among
the off-spring, and that neither the grandparents nor parents over 40
had any myopia. Thus the first generation between grandparents and
parents was similar in that myopia was nonexistent, but in the second
generation between the parents and their children, suddenly myopia
occurs in a surprisingly high number of children. As a matter of fact,
of 53 offspring who were in their early 20's, 88% had myopia. Such a
sudden and great degree of change cannot readily be accounted for on
the basis of heredity, especially when there has been no identifiable
force which could have brought about this obviously considerable
mutation in the genetic composition of the offspring. The obvious
difference between the parents and the children is the amount of near
work which is currently being done by the children. About the time of
the second World War, the white man intruded into their lives,
requiring the development of education among a population which was
uneducated and illiterate. The Eskimo has become an avid reader
because of his environment. While he spends a great deal of time out-
of-doors in the warmer, daylight summer months, he spends relatively
little time out-of-doors in the cold, dark winter months.".
Raphaelson J., "A Preventive and Remedy for School-Myopia", Book 3,
1958, 105 pages.
Gmelin, Maj. Robert T., MSC, USA, "Myopia at West Point: Past and
Present." Military Medicine, 141 (8) 542-3, August 1976.
Reynolds Hayden, M.D., "Development and Prevention of Myopia at the
United States Naval Academy", Volume 25, (old series Volume 82),
Number 4., Copyright, 1941, The American Medical Association.
Frank Schaeffel, Adrian Glasser and Howard C. Howland, "Accommodation,
Refractive Error and Eye Growth in Chickens", VISION RES., Vol 28, No.
5 pp 639-657, 1988. Pergamon Press.
RESULTS:
All eyes treated with positive lenses became consistently more
positive (hyperopic).
Negative lenses produced more negative (myopic) refractions (focal
states) in all eyes.
In a test of plus/minus lenses on left/right eyes, the eye with the
plus lens moved in a positive direction. The eye with a minus lens
moved in a minus direction.
The control group did not change significantly in any direction.
Brown,Otis S., "How to Avoid Nearsightedness", C & O Research, pp
53-56, 1989.
Southall, J. P. C., "Introduction to Physiological Optics", Dover
Publications, Inc. 1937. [Reference: page 141, "While there is still a
strong prejudice (judgment) in some quarters AGAINST the full
correction (of a minus lens)...".]
Rehm, Donald S., "The Myopia Myth -- The Truth about Nearsightedness
and How to Prevent it", pp 103-6, 1981
Betz, J. N., "Success with Bifocals for Children", Credit to O.E.P.,
Opt J Rev Optom 86: 42, 1949
Brumer, Maurice, "Eyestrain -- Its Causes, Consequences and
Treatment", Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement
of Science (ANZAAS), New Zealand 1/26/79
++++++
If you wish to read a fairly complete history - going back to Kepler -
I would recommend, "Introduction to Physiological Optics".
Some of the descriptive words Tyner uses are badly defined, and have
imbedded errors in concept. That is indeed a problem - for Tyner when
discussing the proven dynamic behavior of the natural, or fundamental
eye (as science, not medicine).
Enjoy,
Szczepan Bialek
May 14, 2013, 12:42:12 PM5/14/13
to
news:5c7bb0e3-9b11-4f59...@v14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>Subject: Correcting Mike Tyner's FALSE or Imagined information about
me.
E. Josephson was a litlle different opinion:
"Emanuel M. Josephson, MD, believed that myopia was caused by a rise in
intraocular pressure. Unlike others who shared this opinion, Josephson
believed that near work had nothing to do with this rise in pressure.
Nonetheless, Dr. Josephson believed that myopia could be prevented by
maintaining aproper "salt-water balance" in the blood through proper
nutrition."
From: http://www.i-see.org/josephson.html
S*
>Subject: Correcting Mike Tyner's FALSE or Imagined information about
me.
"Emanuel M. Josephson, MD, believed that myopia was caused by a rise in
intraocular pressure. Unlike others who shared this opinion, Josephson
believed that near work had nothing to do with this rise in pressure.
Nonetheless, Dr. Josephson believed that myopia could be prevented by
maintaining aproper "salt-water balance" in the blood through proper
nutrition."
From: http://www.i-see.org/josephson.html
S*
Science_Research
May 14, 2013, 3:20:55 PM5/14/13
to
On May 14, 12:42 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> _Research" <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> napisal w wiadomoscinews:5c7bb0e3-9b11-4f59...@v14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
It is also true that Dr. Bates also believed that long-term near had
no effect on the refractive state of all natural eyes. But then, this
is what happens when you 1) place a minus lens on the natural eye:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxLv7BIxnIU
As for the natural primate eye - the same result will be obtained - if
you conduct and objective scientific study:
http://myopiafree.i-see.org/SaveEye.html
But this is indeed a study of the dynamic behavior of all natural eyes
- that have measured refractive states.
This is not about "myopia" in that sense - only how to avoid it - if
the person has the motivation for it.
Enjoy,
> _Research" <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> napisal w wiadomoscinews:5c7bb0e3-9b11-4f59...@v14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> >Subject: Correcting Mike Tyner's FALSE or Imagined information about
Hi Sz>
> >Subject: Correcting Mike Tyner's FALSE or Imagined information about
It is also true that Dr. Bates also believed that long-term near had
no effect on the refractive state of all natural eyes. But then, this
is what happens when you 1) place a minus lens on the natural eye:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxLv7BIxnIU
As for the natural primate eye - the same result will be obtained - if
you conduct and objective scientific study:
http://myopiafree.i-see.org/SaveEye.html
But this is indeed a study of the dynamic behavior of all natural eyes
- that have measured refractive states.
This is not about "myopia" in that sense - only how to avoid it - if
the person has the motivation for it.
Enjoy,
Szczepan Bialek
May 15, 2013, 3:33:54 AM5/15/13
to
"Science_Research" <otis...@embarqmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:15e95af2-af2e-43c8...@h13g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
On May 14, 12:42 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> _Research" <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> napisal w
> wiadomoscinews:5c7bb0e3-9b11-4f59...@v14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> >Subject: Correcting Mike Tyner's FALSE or Imagined information about
>Hi Sz>
>It is also true that Dr. Bates also believed that long-term near had
no effect on the refractive state of all natural eyes. But then, this
is what happens when you 1) place a minus lens on the natural eye:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxLv7BIxnIU
"Raphaelson OD -- stated that Russian with perfect vision (postive
> _Research" <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> napisal w
> wiadomoscinews:5c7bb0e3-9b11-4f59...@v14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> >Subject: Correcting Mike Tyner's FALSE or Imagined information about
>Hi Sz>
>It is also true that Dr. Bates also believed that long-term near had
no effect on the refractive state of all natural eyes. But then, this
is what happens when you 1) place a minus lens on the natural eye:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxLv7BIxnIU
refractive status) soldiers with a desire to "avoid the draft", would get a
strong minus lens, and wear it for several months prior to their exam."
>As for the natural primate eye - the same result will be obtained - if
>you conduct and objective scientific study:
http://myopiafree.i-see.org/SaveEye.html
him to use a proper-strength postive lens, then nearsightedness can be
prevented. "
>But this is indeed a study of the dynamic behavior of all natural eyes
>- that have measured refractive states.
>This is not about "myopia" in that sense - only how to avoid it - if
the person has the motivation for it.
"salt-water balance" in the blood through proper
nutrition."
"The mechanism of control of water-exchange in the body is an extremely
nutrition."
complicated problem concerning which much is not known. It is known that the
glands of internal secretion and the autonomic nervous system play a
paramount role in this mechanism. The most significant role, from the
viewpoint of near-sightedness, is played by the outer part of the adrenal
gland, the adrenal cortex.
The adrenal cortex influences the water exchange of the body by causing
retention of salt in the blood. The determining force in the exchange of
water between the blood and the organs is their relative salt content. When
the salt of the blood is reduced in quantity, water seeps, or osmoses, out
of the blood into the organs. Insufficient secretion of the adrenal cortex
causes such a disturbance and results in the increased flow of fluid into
the eye. Thus is near-sightedness caused."
What is better: to use a proper-strength postive lens or proper nutrition?
S*
Science_Research
May 15, 2013, 10:10:08 AM5/15/13
to
Hi Sz,
If you just wish for a modification to your current "distant"
prescription lenses - you can use this product.
http://optx2020.com/hydrotac.aspx
I don't know if they would modify it to include your "astigmatic"
prescription, but since the plus would be an "ADD" you would still be
looking though the astigmatic part of your prescription. Perhaps this
would solve your problem.
Enjoy,
On Apr 24, 4:18 am, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> napisa³ w wiadomo¶cinews:ZfydndT1Brp1s-rM...@giganews.com...
> >news:51764608$0$1225$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
>
>
> >>> "Science_Research" <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> wrote
If you just wish for a modification to your current "distant"
prescription lenses - you can use this product.
http://optx2020.com/hydrotac.aspx
I don't know if they would modify it to include your "astigmatic"
prescription, but since the plus would be an "ADD" you would still be
looking though the astigmatic part of your prescription. Perhaps this
would solve your problem.
Enjoy,
On Apr 24, 4:18 am, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> napisa³ w wiadomo¶cinews:ZfydndT1Brp1s-rM...@giganews.com...
>
> >> What is recommended for glasses for far seeing.
>
> > It is not recommended to ask a stranger on the internet. I don't know
> > where the "computer printout" is from, I don't know your age, and I don't
> > know the distance to your reading material.
>
> I am 70+ and after the cataract surgery.
> The "computer printout" is probably the same like from Yours apparatus.
>
> I am able to read papers without glasses. So my " reading material" is a
> computer.
>
>
>
> > With those, I could make an educated guess but then what?
>
> Lenses are chip. I can make and try the three version of glasses.
>
> I am asking about "educated" general rules for the cases like my.
> S*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > -MT
>
> > \"Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote in message
> >> What is recommended for glasses for far seeing.
>
> > It is not recommended to ask a stranger on the internet. I don't know
> > where the "computer printout" is from, I don't know your age, and I don't
> > know the distance to your reading material.
>
> I am 70+ and after the cataract surgery.
> The "computer printout" is probably the same like from Yours apparatus.
>
> I am able to read papers without glasses. So my " reading material" is a
> computer.
>
>
>
> > With those, I could make an educated guess but then what?
>
> Lenses are chip. I can make and try the three version of glasses.
>
> I am asking about "educated" general rules for the cases like my.
> S*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > -MT
>
> >news:51764608$0$1225$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
>
> >> "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
> >>news:8I6dnb3ulYTWbOjM...@giganews.com...
>
> >>> "Science_Research" <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> wrote
Szczepan Bialek
May 15, 2013, 12:20:46 PM5/15/13
to
news:0f9bea8a-727a-4e11...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
currently available. "
>I don't know if they would modify it to include your "astigmatic"
prescription, but since the plus would be an "ADD" you would still be
looking though the astigmatic part of your prescription. Perhaps this
would solve your problem.
S*
>Hi Sz,
>If you just wish for a modification to your current "distant"
prescription lenses - you can use this product.
http://optx2020.com/hydrotac.aspx
"Due to supply chain issues beyond our control, HydroTacT Lenses are not
>If you just wish for a modification to your current "distant"
prescription lenses - you can use this product.
http://optx2020.com/hydrotac.aspx
currently available. "
>I don't know if they would modify it to include your "astigmatic"
prescription, but since the plus would be an "ADD" you would still be
looking though the astigmatic part of your prescription. Perhaps this
would solve your problem.
Science_Research
May 16, 2013, 1:04:09 PM5/16/13
to
Hi Sz,
Yes, there is a delay in the delivery. This approach seems like an
excellent concept. Here is how you install them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjxlCtamVxk
If you wish to preserve you "astigmatic prescription" for near - that
this will do that for you.
Enjoy,
On May 15, 12:20 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> "Science_Research" <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> napisal w wiadomoscinews:0f9bea8a-727a-4e11...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Yes, there is a delay in the delivery. This approach seems like an
excellent concept. Here is how you install them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjxlCtamVxk
If you wish to preserve you "astigmatic prescription" for near - that
this will do that for you.
Enjoy,
On May 15, 12:20 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> "Science_Research" <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> napisal w wiadomoscinews:0f9bea8a-727a-4e11...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
0 new messages