Dear readers at sci.med.vision,
We are group of scientists at Lviv Medical University (Ukraine), which
plans to conduct new research in pediatrics, but can not plan it
properly, because of the great lack in English medium papers in our
libraries. Currently there are approximately 20 papers which we are in
great need of, and which we have been desperately trying to obtain for
nearly a year of time. There is now nothing to do but to request you to
help us in getting photocopies of those papers from your country, since
we think that your libraries are more complete.
If you ever experienced and suffered from the lack of information, you
might understand us, if we would venture to ask you to send us
photocopies of those articles through the post. Of cause, we are aware
that this would require to make photocopies, travel to the post office,
mailing expenses, which at face of on-going pressure of the time makes
our request almost unfeasible. So the only we may rely on is your
understanding and believe that we would also help to somebody if such a
request was sent to us.
If you are kind enough to offer your assistance we would be happy to
send you a list of papers in question.
Please, contact us through this email address since we are only
temporary users of your newsgroup.
Sincerely,
Sergei V. Gerasimov, M.D., Ph.D.
on behalf of the group of scientists
On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 17:34:12 +0200, "Sergei V. Gerasimov, MD"
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
<serge…@mail.lviv.ua> wrote:
>Dear readers at sci.med.vision,
>We are group of scientists at Lviv Medical University (Ukraine), which
>plans to conduct new research in pediatrics, but can not plan it
>properly, because of the great lack in English medium papers in our
>libraries. Currently there are approximately 20 papers which we are in
>great need of, and which we have been desperately trying to obtain for
>nearly a year of time. There is now nothing to do but to request you to
>help us in getting photocopies of those papers from your country, since
>we think that your libraries are more complete.
>If you ever experienced and suffered from the lack of information, you
>might understand us, if we would venture to ask you to send us
>photocopies of those articles through the post. Of cause, we are aware
>that this would require to make photocopies, travel to the post office,
>mailing expenses, which at face of on-going pressure of the time makes
>our request almost unfeasible. So the only we may rely on is your
>understanding and believe that we would also help to somebody if such a
>request was sent to us.
>If you are kind enough to offer your assistance we would be happy to
>send you a list of papers in question.
>Please, contact us through this email address since we are only
>temporary users of your newsgroup.
>Sincerely,
>Sergei V. Gerasimov, M.D., Ph.D.
>on behalf of the group of scientists
Dzrasvuitia Sergei!
I am the Executive Director of an patient advocacy organization in the
US and I just happen to be married to a woman from Kiev. I would be
delighted to assist you with gathering of the information you sseek.
Please contact me directly at glenn.hag…@usaeyes.org
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
http://www.usaeyes.org
glenn.hag…@usaeyes.org
I am not a doctor.
On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 12:26:42 GMT, m…@charter.net wrote:
There was a similar query a few months ago
view the whole thread here:-
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2Q4j9.7410%240i4.872802%40ursa-n…>
to which I gave the following reply –
There are people clearly vastly more technically competent than I am
answering your questions from that point of view, however here is my
experience of varifocals/progressives…. FWIW
Maybe 10 years ago I got my first varifocals .. I don’t know what
"seg height" is, but they had roundish lenses probably about 40mm
height and they were great.
Then around 4 years ago I got talked into a pair of "trendy" glasses
that were really shallow, around 22mm I guess, and they were *pants*.
Exactly as you describe .. when I glanced down, I was looking under
the frame … I had to tilt my head to make the damned things work.
I went back a few times, but in the end I got these new frames ..
they’re around 35mm height .. and they’re fine, and I went to a river
bridge near here and threw those other things in the river … they
cost nearly $500 but I never felt so great as when they sank out of
sight. (Ha Ha .. accidental pun :0)
It stands to reason, that it depends not only on the lense height, but
also how far the plane of the lenses is from your eye, and I suppose
opticians take this into account … do they?? I would never never
never get talked into shallow lenses for progressives ever again.
cheers Jim
<m…@charter.net> wrote in message news:3dfc7311.737140@news.charter.net…
> I am getting a new glasses prescription. I hate PAL’s that have
> either (1) lot’s of peripheral distortion or (2) narrow reading area.
> My Rx is approx -5 with +2.25, cylinder +.75. I do moderate computer
> work but it is not my very first priority — reading and lack of
> peripheral distortion are. I am not a professional, but I wondered if
> it is harder for the newer style frames that are narrow from top to
> bottom to accomadated PAL’s without these problems? Should I stay
> away from this type frame? With the preferences I listed, would I be
> more likely to be satisfied by Rodenstock or Varalux Panamic lenses?
> Thanks for any advice
Exactly how short (top to bottom) are your frames? The important measurement
is from the central viewing point to the bottom of the frame, so accurate
fitting is important.
There are some lenses that are specifically designed to accommodate short
frames. One such lens is the Sola Solamax, but make sure you get it in
Spectralite for the best optical quality. Most other manufacturers also have
lenses that fit very short frames, but I don’t know about the Rodenstock or
the Panamic. Keep in mind that lenses designed for very short frames
typically have a smaller intermediate viewing area.
On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 12:26:42 GMT, m…@charter.net wrote:
>I am getting a new glasses prescription. I hate PAL’s that have
>either (1) lot’s of peripheral distortion or (2) narrow reading area.
>My Rx is approx -5 with +2.25, cylinder +.75. I do moderate computer
>work but it is not my very first priority — reading and lack of
>peripheral distortion are. I am not a professional, but I wondered if
>it is harder for the newer style frames that are narrow from top to
>bottom to accomadated PAL’s without these problems? Should I stay
>away from this type frame? With the preferences I listed, would I be
>more likely to be satisfied by Rodenstock or Varalux Panamic lenses?
>Thanks for any advice
>=================
>Delete "nospam*" to reply by email.
If you can get 20mm for the seg height (ask your optician) I
would choose the rodenstock if by peripheral distortion you mean
looking to the side on the distance gaze. If the seg height is
17, 18, or 19mm use a shorter corridor progressive i.e.
rodenstock xs or the kodak concise. with narrow frames the top
of the frame may be close to your distance gaze and may bother
you. The best way to increase the field vision at the near point
is to place the lens closer to the eyes. If this is done properly
any of the recent designs will provide adequate field of vision.
Separate glasses for the computer can be extremely helpful and
should be considered.
Hope this helps
Robert Martellaro
Optician/Owner
Roberts Optical
>If you can get 20mm for the seg height (ask your optician) I
>would choose the rodenstock if by peripheral distortion you mean
>looking to the side on the distance gaze. If the seg height is
>17, 18, or 19mm use a shorter corridor progressive i.e.
>rodenstock xs or the kodak concise. with narrow frames the to
One other important thing to consider is that even though they make lens that
OR hold the 
WILL work theoretically for a short fitting does not mean it will work for the
person..one of the things I did most often when dispensing, was when they tried
on the frame with just the demo’s I always asked if they could or noticed the
actual frame and was it in their line of sight..used to even go as far as
covering the bottom of the frame with a PD stick and have them hold a pc. of
paper and head they would normally and if they seen the paper more so than my
PD stick than they converged way to low for that frame design
PD stick below the frame and they keep pushing the stick down and tilting the
head forward.could be problems.. They make small frames, they make small
designs BUT not everyone can wear them comfortably or functionally …I wish I
had a penny for every non adapt that was for the reason of "oh I see the
"frame" all the time and it drives me crazy" ..or worst of all.. they converge
BELOW where the frame ends
Real bad with those long rectangular shaped frames that seem so popular
now..they have a further vertex fitting and most people end up naturally
hitting their convergence below where the frame bottoms…
They always say..well the frame was junk, or the design was junk, etc.,
etc.,. when the problem was the frame was NEVER designed to take a PAL, I do
not care how shallow the design is…
Sometimes I feel sorry for you dispensing guys ..people running through
the store picking out a frame for the "cute" factor and than blaming you when
they do not perform optically
I can wear a 54 eye (have Armani) but anything smaller than that I spend
more time picking up the "frame" and converging below the frame than getting
comfortable use out of them.. I cringe when those 48 mm eye sizes come through
the lab with a 22 mm B with a fitting of 14 mm, try them on and the vertex is
like 20 mm
IF you have a vertex of more than 10 to 14 mm, you can’t get any panto
tilt.. and a narrow PD than good luck making that person feel comfortable
wearing them..YIKES..on top of that add the drill mount craze everyone is going
through…oh what a tangled optical web we weave…
Jeff
PS..one politically incorrect note: They make a thong bikini, but I sure don’t
..same applies to optics, the make the 
want to see the circus fat lady in it
small frames the small designs, but they don’t "fit" every body
Thank you, this is extremely helpful. I will try to get >=20 mm seg
height and also get the lenses closer to the eye. I seem to look to
the side for distance more than most and am bothered when this is
distorted. The original Varilux really bothered me in this regard
(and sometimes made me vertiginous). From your answer, you seem to
feel the Rodenstock multigressive is better in this regard than the
new Varilux Panoptics. How do you feel the Zeis lenses measure up?
Again, my thanks for your knowlegable help.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>If you can get 20mm for the seg height (ask your optician) I
>would choose the rodenstock if by peripheral distortion you mean
>looking to the side on the distance gaze. If the seg height is
>17, 18, or 19mm use a shorter corridor progressive i.e.
>rodenstock xs or the kodak concise. with narrow frames the top
>of the frame may be close to your distance gaze and may bother
>you. The best way to increase the field vision at the near point
>is to place the lens closer to the eyes. If this is done properly
>any of the recent designs will provide adequate field of vision.
>Separate glasses for the computer can be extremely helpful and
>should be considered.
>Hope this helps
>Robert Martellaro
>Optician/Owner
>Roberts Optical
=================
Delete "nospam*" to reply by email.
On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 01:34:42 GMT, m…@charter.net wrote:
>Thank you, this is extremely helpful. I will try to get >=20 mm seg
>height and also get the lenses closer to the eye. I seem to look to
>the side for distance more than most and am bothered when this is
>distorted. The original Varilux really bothered me in this regard
>(and sometimes made me vertiginous). From your answer, you seem to
>feel the Rodenstock multigressive is better in this regard than the
>new Varilux Panoptics. How do you feel the Zeis lenses measure up?
Distance peripheral vision
Zeiss gradal top………………Very good
Rodenstock life 2 ……………Very good
Varilux Panamic ……………..Poor
Frequent close tasks
Zeiss gradal top………………Poor
Rodenstock life 2 ……………Good
Varilux Panamic ……………..Very Good
Keep the abbe value at or above 40 to avoid blurring off axis
(peripheral and near point) due to chromatic aberration. It seems
to me that the best lens considering your requirements and rx
would be the multigressiv ( essentially the life 2 with a back
atoric grind) in cr 39 plastic with an anti-refection coat. The
life 2 would be close in performance with reduced cost.
Hope this helps
Robert Martellaro
Optician/Owner
Roberts Optical
On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 15:44:13 -0600, Robert Martellaro
<rob…@nospam.com> wrote:
>Hope this helps
It surely does. Many thanks.
=================
Delete "nospam*" to reply by email.
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 13:10:07 GMT, m…@charter.net wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 15:44:13 -0600, Robert Martellaro
><rob…@nospam.com> wrote:
>>Hope this helps
>It surely does. Many thanks.
>=================
>Delete "nospam*" to reply by email.
One more thing
When you try on the frames, don’t just look in the mirror.
Sit at a desk, or as if you were going to do whatever reading you were going to
do, and with your head in its normal comfortable position, look at some reading
material. If you are looking *under* the frame I wouldn’t buy them.
good look,
Jim
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 14:21:37 GMT, jimlaw…@tabbytail.freeserve.co.uk (Jim
reading
>good look,
well I meant "good luck" .. but maybe …. :0)
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>Jim
1.50 plastic
1.52 plastic ColorMatic® Extra
1.60 plastic
1.60 glass
1.60 photochromic glass
These are the choices on the multigressiv 2. Which would be your
reccomendation? Thanks again.
On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 15:44:13 -0600, Robert Martellaro
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
<rob…@nospam.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 01:34:42 GMT, m…@charter.net wrote:
>>Thank you, this is extremely helpful. I will try to get >=20 mm seg
>>height and also get the lenses closer to the eye. I seem to look to
>>the side for distance more than most and am bothered when this is
>>distorted. The original Varilux really bothered me in this regard
>>(and sometimes made me vertiginous). From your answer, you seem to
>>feel the Rodenstock multigressive is better in this regard than the
>>new Varilux Panoptics. How do you feel the Zeis lenses measure up?
>Distance peripheral vision
>Zeiss gradal top………………Very good
>Rodenstock life 2 ……………Very good
>Varilux Panamic ……………..Poor
>Frequent close tasks
>Zeiss gradal top………………Poor
>Rodenstock life 2 ……………Good
>Varilux Panamic ……………..Very Good
>Keep the abbe value at or above 40 to avoid blurring off axis
>(peripheral and near point) due to chromatic aberration. It seems
>to me that the best lens considering your requirements and rx
>would be the multigressiv ( essentially the life 2 with a back
>atoric grind) in cr 39 plastic with an anti-refection coat. The
>life 2 would be close in performance with reduced cost.
>Hope this helps
>Robert Martellaro
>Optician/Owner
>Roberts Optical
=================
Delete "nospam*" to reply by email.
On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 03:35:43 GMT, m…@charter.net wrote:
>1.50 plastic
>1.52 plastic ColorMatic® Extra
>1.60 plastic
>1.60 glass
>1.60 photochromic glass
>These are the choices on the multigressiv 2. Which would be your
>reccomendation? Thanks again.
Glass is to heavy for most folks. Colormatic is a photochromic
lens. If you need sunglasses get them. Polarized are the best.
Leave your regular glasses clear, with an AR coat for the best
indoor/night vision. Choose plastic or if you prefer thinner and
lighter weight lenses select 1.6. The lower abbe of 40.5 should
not cause any vision problems in your Rx. The atoric grind on the
multigressiv will make any material lighter and thinner including
regular plastic (especially minus power and/or astigmatic Rxs).
Your choice.
Have the optician choose a frame that offers a "text book" fit
with the brow, cheek, and eyelashes almost but not touching the
lenses. The pupil should be slightly above the vertical center,
not at, below, or too far above the vertical center.
If you spend a moderate amount time in front of a desktop monitor
try computer glasses. They don’t have to be expensive (<$100) and
you most likely will never wear your regular progressives again
for comp use.
Hope this helps
Robert Martellaro
Optician/Owner
Roberts Optical
On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 12:58:56 -0600, Robert Martellaro <rob…@nospam.com>
wrote:
>If you spend a moderate amount time in front of a desktop monitor
>try computer glasses. They don’t have to be expensive (<$100) and
>you most likely will never wear your regular progressives again
>for comp use.
A co-worker of mine says he uses single-vision glasses for driving only.
At all other times, he uses progressives set up for computer use and
reading use.
Are you suggesting a different combination of glasses?
–
Bob Scheurle | "There’s nobody getting
njt…@X-optonline-X.net | rich writing software."
Remove X’s and dashes | – Bill Gates, March 1980
On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 20:52:34 GMT, Bob Scheurle
<njt…@X-optonline-X.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 12:58:56 -0600, Robert Martellaro <rob…@nospam.com>
>wrote:
>>If you spend a moderate amount time in front of a desktop monitor
>>try computer glasses. They don’t have to be expensive (<$100) and
>>you most likely will never wear your regular progressives again
>>for comp use.
>A co-worker of mine says he uses single-vision glasses for driving only.
>At all other times, he uses progressives set up for computer use and
>reading use.
>Are you suggesting a different combination of glasses?
There are many possibilities.
Computer glasses may be single vision, or multifocal. Depends on
the work distances and the degree of presbyopia.The multifocal
may be progressive or regular lined bifocals. The distance vision
will be out of focus, more so for hyperopes (farsighted) than
myopes. If there is a refractive error that affects the distance
vision a separate pair may be required and these may be single
vision, multifocal etc.
Hope this helps
Robert Martellaro
Optician/Owner
Roberts Optical
Someone locally is touting "Hoya wide" and 1.7 index of refraction
lenses. Do you have any opinions on these?
Thanks again.
On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 12:58:56 -0600, Robert Martellaro
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
<rob…@nospam.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 03:35:43 GMT, m…@charter.net wrote:
>>1.50 plastic
>>1.52 plastic ColorMatic® Extra
>>1.60 plastic
>>1.60 glass
>>1.60 photochromic glass
>>These are the choices on the multigressiv 2. Which would be your
>>reccomendation? Thanks again.
>Glass is to heavy for most folks. Colormatic is a photochromic
>lens. If you need sunglasses get them. Polarized are the best.
>Leave your regular glasses clear, with an AR coat for the best
>indoor/night vision. Choose plastic or if you prefer thinner and
>lighter weight lenses select 1.6. The lower abbe of 40.5 should
>not cause any vision problems in your Rx. The atoric grind on the
>multigressiv will make any material lighter and thinner including
>regular plastic (especially minus power and/or astigmatic Rxs).
>Your choice.
>Have the optician choose a frame that offers a "text book" fit
>with the brow, cheek, and eyelashes almost but not touching the
>lenses. The pupil should be slightly above the vertical center,
>not at, below, or too far above the vertical center.
>If you spend a moderate amount time in front of a desktop monitor
>try computer glasses. They don’t have to be expensive (<$100) and
>you most likely will never wear your regular progressives again
>for comp use.
>Hope this helps
>Robert Martellaro
>Optician/Owner
>Roberts Optical
=================
Delete "nospam*" to reply by email.
On Sun, 22 Dec 2002 23:00:31 GMT, m…@charter.net wrote:
>Someone locally is touting "Hoya wide" and 1.7 index of refraction
>lenses. Do you have any opinions on these?
>Thanks again.
I have never tried this lens. It is very expensive. The very high
index will cause some blur in the reading zone and the distance
peripheral vision, the two areas you are asking for the best
possible vision. Not recommended unless edge thickness is the
priority.
Hope this helps,
Robert Martellaro
Optician/Owner
Roberts Optical