Problem with No-Line Bifocals

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by powrwrap, Aug 18, 2007.

  1. powrwrap

    powrwrap Guest

    I'm unhappy with my no-line bifocals. This is only my second
    prescription for glasses and I didn't have this problem with the first
    set. I'm going to get new glasses and I want to avoid this problem in
    the future.

    The problem is when I'm reading the edges of my vision aren't quite in
    focus. It's quite annoying. For example if I view a group of words in
    the middle of a page they are clearly seen but the words along the
    margins of a page aren't quite clear.

    My prescripition is as follows:

    Spherical: OD -0.75 OS -1.00
    Cylinderical: Sph Sph
    Add: OD +1.75 OS +1.75

    My lens size is 54 mm width and 38 mm height. Nothing special about
    the lenses, just the usual thickness CR 39.

    When I first got the glasses I complained about this. I had my
    eyeglasses checked for accuracy against the prescription and they
    matched up. I had my eyes re-examined and my doctor recommended that
    the store re-measure my PD, which they did, and found that it was the
    same as they had measured the first time.

    What causes the problem I am encountering? How can I avoid it with my
    new prescription?

    Also, what determines the height of the near-vision portion of the
    lens? For example, my lens is 38 mm high, so where does the reading
    portion of the lens start? Is it at the halfway point? Can I specify
    this to be smaller or larger if I desire?

    Thanks for your help.
     
    powrwrap, Aug 18, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. powrwrap

    Father Mike Guest

    On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 10:01:54 -0700, powrwrap wrote:

    > I'm unhappy with my no-line bifocals. This is only my second
    > prescription for glasses and I didn't have this problem with the first
    > set. I'm going to get new glasses and I want to avoid this problem in
    > the future.


    I think I'm on my third pair of no-lines.

    >
    >
    > What causes the problem I am encountering? How can I avoid it with my
    > new prescription?


    I'm not a professional, but as a wearer I think you can't avoid it. It's
    the nature of the beast. These glasses are the typical jack of all trades,
    master of none. I find the reading/distance problem gets worse as my eyes
    ages.

    I had to get single vision glasses to use with my desktop computer because
    no-lines were utterly, totally useless for that task. I'm considering
    reading glasses for the times I want to do some serious reading. For the
    transitory every day tasks no-lines are OK.

    >
    > Also, what determines the height of the near-vision portion of the
    > lens? For example, my lens is 38 mm high, so where does the reading
    > portion of the lens start? Is it at the halfway point? Can I specify
    > this to be smaller or larger if I desire?
    >


    They had a very scientific method in my case. I wore a pair of dummy
    glasses and looked at a distant object in the mall. They marked the
    position on the lens with a black marker!

    I'm sure they can vary the position... but how many experiments can one
    afford? The only way to check is to make a pair, and as we know they're not
    cheap.
     
    Father Mike, Aug 19, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. powrwrap

    David Combs Guest

    In article <>,
    Father Mike <> wrote:
    >On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 10:01:54 -0700, powrwrap wrote:
    >
    >> I'm unhappy with my no-line bifocals. This is only my second
    >> prescription for glasses and I didn't have this problem with the first
    >> set. I'm going to get new glasses and I want to avoid this problem in
    >> the future.

    >
    >I think I'm on my third pair of no-lines.
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> What causes the problem I am encountering? How can I avoid it with my
    >> new prescription?

    >
    >I'm not a professional, but as a wearer I think you can't avoid it. It's
    >the nature of the beast. These glasses are the typical jack of all trades,
    >master of none. I find the reading/distance problem gets worse as my eyes
    >ages.
    >
    >I had to get single vision glasses to use with my desktop computer because
    >no-lines were utterly, totally useless for that task. I'm considering
    >reading glasses for the times I want to do some serious reading. For the
    >transitory every day tasks no-lines are OK.
    >


    How about "executive" bifocals -- line straight across the middle.

    Have the top be for computer distance, and bottom for reading --
    thus you work on the screen, then switch to your notes at desk
    level in front of you.

    Works for me!

    David
     
    David Combs, Sep 17, 2007
    #3
  4. powrwrap

    lena102938 Guest

    On Aug 18, 12:01 pm, powrwrap <> wrote:
    > I'm unhappy with my no-line bifocals. This is only my second
    > prescription for glasses and I didn't have this problem with the first
    > set. I'm going to get new glasses and I want to avoid this problem in
    > the future.
    >
    > The problem is when I'm reading the edges of my vision aren't quite in
    > focus. It's quite annoying. For example if I view a group of words in
    > the middle of a page they are clearly seen but the words along the
    > margins of a page aren't quite clear.
    >
    > My prescripition is as follows:
    >
    > Spherical: OD -0.75 OS -1.00
    > Cylinderical: Sph Sph
    > Add: OD +1.75 OS +1.75
    >
    > My lens size is 54 mm width and 38 mm height. Nothing special about
    > the lenses, just the usual thickness CR 39.
    >
    > When I first got the glasses I complained about this. I had my
    > eyeglasses checked for accuracy against the prescription and they
    > matched up. I had my eyes re-examined and my doctor recommended that
    > the store re-measure my PD, which they did, and found that it was the
    > same as they had measured the first time.
    >
    > What causes the problem I am encountering? How can I avoid it with my
    > new prescription?
    >
    >

    Hello,

    problem is no-line.

    Lena
     
    lena102938, Sep 17, 2007
    #4
  5. powrwrap

    lena102938 Guest

    On Aug 20, 5:07 pm, Robert Martellaro <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 10:01:54 -0700, powrwrap <> wrote:
    > >I'm unhappy with my no-line bifocals. This is only my second
    > >prescription for glasses and I didn't have this problem with the first
    > >set. I'm going to get new glasses and I want to avoid this problem in
    > >the future.

    >
    > >The problem is when I'm reading the edges of my vision aren't quite in
    > >focus. It's quite annoying. For example if I view a group of words in
    > >the middle of a page they are clearly seen but the words along the
    > >margins of a page aren't quite clear.

    >
    > The best you can hope for is about two newspaper columns wide of clear vision.
    >
    >
    >
    > >My prescripition is as follows:

    >
    > >Spherical: OD -0.75 OS -1.00
    > >Cylinderical: Sph Sph
    > >Add: OD +1.75 OS +1.75

    >
    > >My lens size is 54 mm width and 38 mm height. Nothing special about
    > >the lenses, just the usual thickness CR 39.

    >
    > >When I first got the glasses I complained about this. I had my
    > >eyeglasses checked for accuracy against the prescription and they
    > >matched up. I had my eyes re-examined and my doctor recommended that
    > >the store re-measure my PD, which they did, and found that it was the
    > >same as they had measured the first time.

    >
    > >What causes the problem I am encountering? How can I avoid it with my
    > >new prescription?

    >
    > As Father Mike says, you really can't avoid it in a progressive power lens (aka
    > no-line multifocal). However, your awareness of the near zone boundaries will
    > diminish with time, given a few weeks. To be sure, some of the problem with the
    > new glasses (I assume) is the increase in the Add power, the situation can be
    > substantially aggravated by poor lens positioning and improper lens design.
    >
    > FYI, your lenses can be ground exactly to the prescribed Rx and still experience
    > blurred and/or uncomfortable vision. The same is true for the PD.
    >
    > >Also, what determines the height of the near-vision portion of the
    > >lens? For example, my lens is 38 mm high, so where does the reading
    > >portion of the lens start? Is it at the halfway point? Can I specify
    > >this to be smaller or larger if I desire?

    >
    > It's primarily dependant on lens design. Some types change quickly into the near
    > zone, sometimes with a linear change, although most change in a non-linear
    > fashion. There are visual consequences with each type. Consult with your
    > optician to determine the best lens for your Rx and vision requirements.
    >

    All designs is bad, they are is full of astigmatic distortion

    For optician the best to sell no-line
    The cost of production of no-lines maximum 50 $ sell prise 400$
    Cost of singles almost the same sell price 140$

    Regards
     
    lena102938, Sep 17, 2007
    #5
  6. powrwrap

    lena102938 Guest

    On Sep 16, 8:26 pm, (David Combs) wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Father Mike <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > >On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 10:01:54 -0700, powrwrap wrote:

    >
    > >> I'm unhappy with my no-line bifocals. This is only my second
    > >> prescription for glasses and I didn't have this problem with the first
    > >> set. I'm going to get new glasses and I want to avoid this problem in
    > >> the future.

    >
    > >I think I'm on my third pair of no-lines.

    >
    > >> What causes the problem I am encountering? How can I avoid it with my
    > >> new prescription?

    >
    > >I'm not a professional, but as a wearer I think you can't avoid it. It's
    > >the nature of the beast. These glasses are the typical jack of all trades,
    > >master of none. I find the reading/distance problem gets worse as my eyes
    > >ages.

    >
    > >I had to get single vision glasses to use with my desktop computer because
    > >no-lines were utterly, totally useless for that task. I'm considering
    > >reading glasses for the times I want to do some serious reading. For the
    > >transitory every day tasks no-lines are OK.

    >
    > How about "executive" bifocals -- line straight across the middle.
    >
    > Have the top be for computer distance, and bottom for reading --
    > thus you work on the screen, then switch to your notes at desk
    > level in front of you.
    >
    > Works for me!
    >
    > David


    David, I agree
    In spite of some distortions at the line
    The exec are much healthy for eyes.

    No-line (progressives) shut -off accommodation at all.

    Lena
     
    lena102938, Sep 17, 2007
    #6
  7. powrwrap

    Neil Brooks Guest

    On Sep 16, 7:04 pm, lena102938 <> wrote:

    > David, I agree
    > In spite of some distortions at the line
    > The exec are much healthy for eyes.
    >
    > No-line (progressives) shut -off accommodation at all.
    >
    > Lena


    They do?

    So ... can you tell me where you get your data showing that presbyopes
    have perfectly accurate accommodative responses?

    Thanks.
     
    Neil Brooks, Sep 17, 2007
    #7
  8. powrwrap

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Sorry. Rishi Giovanni Gatti (Zetsu) and Otis Brown are
    long-time trolls who haunt s.m.v.

    Lena102938 aspires to troll status based primarily upon her
    constant use of anti-eye doctor rhetoric as a
    substitute for any actual information.

    You'd do well to ignore them and wait for
    responses from the caring, compassionate eye doctors who
    DO also participate in this site.
     
    Neil Brooks, Sep 17, 2007
    #8
  9. powrwrap

    lena102938 Guest

    On Sep 16, 9:36 pm, Neil Brooks <> wrote:
    > On Sep 16, 7:04 pm, lena102938 <> wrote:
    >
    > > David, I agree
    > > In spite of some distortions at the line
    > > The exec are much healthy for eyes.

    >
    > > No-line (progressives) shut -off accommodation at all.

    >
    > > Lena

    >
    > They do?
    >
    > So ... can you tell me where you get your data showing that presbyopes
    > have perfectly accurate accommodative responses?
    >
    > Thanks.


    Presbyopes do not have accurate accommodative response, as you know .
    Moreover , this knowledge is in perfect correlation with the opinion
    of her majesty ,science.

    But what is left from accommodation progressives switch off.
     
    lena102938, Sep 17, 2007
    #9
  10. powrwrap

    Neil Brooks Guest

    On Sep 16, 8:24 pm, lena102938 <> wrote:
    > On Sep 16, 9:36 pm, Neil Brooks <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Sep 16, 7:04 pm, lena102938 <> wrote:

    >
    > > > David, I agree
    > > > In spite of some distortions at the line
    > > > The exec are much healthy for eyes.

    >
    > > > No-line (progressives) shut -off accommodation at all.

    >
    > > > Lena

    >
    > > They do?

    >
    > > So ... can you tell me where you get your data showing that presbyopes
    > > have perfectly accurate accommodative responses?

    >
    > > Thanks.

    >
    > Presbyopes do not have accurate accommodative response, as you know .


    [snip]

    > But what is left from accommodation progressives switch off.


    I guess you know the meaning of a non-sequitur, huh?

    >From your first statement, your second statement does not follow.
     
    Neil Brooks, Sep 17, 2007
    #10
  11. On Sep 16, 8:26 pm, Neil Brooks <> wrote:
    > On Sep 16, 8:24 pm, lena102938 <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Sep 16, 9:36 pm, Neil Brooks <> wrote:

    >
    > > > On Sep 16, 7:04 pm, lena102938 <> wrote:

    >
    > > > > David, I agree
    > > > > In spite of some distortions at the line
    > > > > The exec are much healthy for eyes.

    >
    > > > > No-line (progressives) shut -off accommodation at all.

    >
    > > > > Lena

    >
    > > > They do?

    >
    > > > So ... can you tell me where you get your data showing that presbyopes
    > > > have perfectly accurate accommodative responses?

    >
    > > > Thanks.

    >
    > > Presbyopes do not have accurate accommodative response, as you know .

    >
    > [snip]
    >
    > > But what is left from accommodation progressives switch off.

    >
    > I guess you know the meaning of a non-sequitur, huh?
    >
    >
    >
    > >From your first statement, your second statement does not follow.-


    Her mind works in mysterious ways.
     
    Shiri G. Taggi, Sep 17, 2007
    #11
  12. powrwrap

    Guest

    On Sep 16, 10:01 pm, lena102938 <> wrote:
    >
    > All designs is bad,


    this is your personal opinion. you can either choose a progressive or
    a lined bifocal so simply choose the one that you prefer and quit
    stating your personal opinions to everyone else as if they are facts.
    they are not!

    > they are full of astigmatic distortion


    this is true if you look off-center. it is not true if you look
    straight ahead.
    once again your knowledge and understanding is limited yet you act as
    though you are an expert on the subject.

    > For optician the best to sell no-line
    > The cost of production of no-lines maximum 50 $ sell prise 400$
    > Cost of singles almost the same sell price 140$


    where ever you are buying your glasses, I would look elsewhere.
    sometimes there is a slightly higher price for no-lines versus lines
    but not at all like what you are saying.

    do you think you exaggerate sometimes?
     
    , Sep 17, 2007
    #12
  13. lena102938 wrote:
    > No-line (progressives) shut -off accommodation at all.


    lena102938 is a typical USENET troll/kook who espouses typical
    troll/kook conspiracy theories (i.e. all peer reviewed research on the
    subject is incorrect because of a conspiracy amongst university research
    professors to increase profits in the optometry business). Peer-reviewed
    research says that accomodation changes occur because of aging, not
    because of the type of glasses that you wear. Please ignore.

    - Elron
     
    L. Ron Waddle, Sep 17, 2007
    #13
  14. lena102938 <> wrote in news:1189994698.689330.14720
    @k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

    > No-line (progressives) shut -off accommodation at all.



    Why would you say this? It simply isn't true.


    --
    Scott
    Reverse name to reply
     
    Scott Seidman, Sep 17, 2007
    #14
  15. powrwrap wrote:
    > I'm unhappy with my no-line bifocals. This is only my second
    > prescription for glasses and I didn't have this problem with the first
    > set. I'm going to get new glasses and I want to avoid this problem in
    > the future.
    >
    > The problem is when I'm reading the edges of my vision aren't quite in
    > focus. It's quite annoying. For example if I view a group of words in


    As others have noted, by and large this is the nature of the beast.
    Unfortunately many dispensing optometrists are not aware of the
    limitations of what they're selling their customers and do not provide
    proper warning. Progressives are good for tasks that require focusing
    upon a single point, such as working on an automobile or sewing a
    garment, but are not good for tasks that require a field of vision such
    as working on a computer, and some people simply can't tolerate them
    because of the blur at the edges of vision causing nausea and/or
    headaches. The other option is the lined type of bifocal, which has a
    slight blur at the transition but otherwise provides a clear field of
    vision in the top part or bottom part of the lens. If your optometrist
    and optician cannot find a progressive lens that will work for you, that
    is the most likely solution that you'll end up with.

    -Elron
     
    L. Ron Waddle, Sep 17, 2007
    #15
  16. powrwrap

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    On Sep 17, 12:35 pm, "L. Ron Waddle" <>
    wrote:
    > powrwrap wrote:
    > > I'm unhappy with my no-line bifocals. This is only my second
    > > prescription for glasses and I didn't have this problem with the first
    > > set. I'm going to get new glasses and I want to avoid this problem in
    > > the future.

    >
    > > The problem is when I'm reading the edges of my vision aren't quite in
    > > focus. It's quite annoying. For example if I view a group of words in

    >
    > As others have noted, by and large this is the nature of the beast.
    > Unfortunately many dispensing optometrists are not aware of the
    > limitations of what they're selling their customers and do not provide
    > proper warning. Progressives are good for tasks that require focusing
    > upon a single point, such as working on an automobile or sewing a
    > garment, but are not good for tasks that require a field of vision such
    > as working on a computer, and some people simply can't tolerate them
    > because of the blur at the edges of vision causing nausea and/or
    > headaches. The other option is the lined type of bifocal, which has a
    > slight blur at the transition but otherwise provides a clear field of
    > vision in the top part or bottom part of the lens. If your optometrist
    > and optician cannot find a progressive lens that will work for you, that
    > is the most likely solution that you'll end up with.
    >
    > -Elron


    The off-axis blur is common to all of the progressives, but some
    designs are able to minimize it. I use mine for the computer and have
    no issues. The field of view is adequate for all except the most
    demanding of occupations involving a wide field at near.
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Sep 17, 2007
    #16
  17. powrwrap

    lena102938 Guest

    On Sep 17, 1:34 pm, "Mike Tyner" <> wrote:
    > "Mike Tyner" <> wrote
    >
    > > Progressives are great when the add is only +100 or +150. The peripheral
    > > astigmatism is pretty negligible.

    >
    > I meant to add -
    >
    > So the trick for us 50+ wearers is to use them for limited ranges, like one
    > pair for indoors, and one pair for outdoors, with low adds, fine-tuned for
    > two different environments.
    >
    > It's true that my driving glasses really suck at the computer.
    >
    > -MT


    Mike,accommodation , close to 0, am i right ?

    But if at least 2D left, why not make the eyes to perform some job,
    just a little ?
     
    lena102938, Sep 17, 2007
    #17
  18. powrwrap

    Zetsu Guest

    Hi,

    >It's true that my driving glasses really suck at the computer.


    Actually, that is not the only truth.

    The truth is, all glasses 'suck', anywhere you are at the time.
    How can you be so stupid as to continue wearing them, when you know of
    their uselessness? Begin the rest methods and see what you have been
    missing for all these years.
     
    Zetsu, Sep 17, 2007
    #18
  19. powrwrap

    lena102938 Guest

    On Sep 17, 12:28 pm, Scott Seidman <>
    wrote:
    > lena102938 <> wrote in news:1189994698.689330.14720
    > @k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
    >
    > > No-line (progressives) shut -off accommodation at all.

    >
    > Why would you say this? It simply isn't true.
    >
    > --
    > Scott
    > Reverse name to reply


    If you make anything not to work it is
    not going to work.
    Restrict hand movement. Weak mascule will be weaker.

    At 55 + please -progressives.

    At 40 ? It is a lot of accommodation left.

    It is like that : who been with OD has progressives,
    who have not been perfectly wears Reading glasses only for Reading.

    Show me at lest a few who visited OD at 40 and did not got
    progressives ?

    PS: I know theory that lens grows , becomes less elastic, etc.
    And ciliary muscle in vitro contracts under pilocarpine, which leads
    to conclusion that it is in perfect shape.
     
    lena102938, Sep 17, 2007
    #19
  20. powrwrap

    lena102938 Guest

    On Sep 17, 2:06 pm, "Mike Tyner" <> wrote:
    > "lena102938" <> wrote
    >
    > > But if at least 2D left, why not make the eyes to perform some job,
    > > just a little ?

    >
    > Because the ciliary muscle is an autonomic sphincter.
    >
    > Like other autonomic sphincters, it doesn't benefit from "exercising" and it
    > gets "tired" when forced to overwork.
    >
    > In presbyopia, the lens won't flex. But the muscle continues, working harder
    > to try to make up the difference.
    >
    > It's like pushing a brick wall. What good is pushing if the wall won't move?
    >
    > It's just good exercise?
    >
    > -MT


    if even 2D left and add +1 it is not a brick wall

    autonomic sphincter.does not make it any better.
    It only means that it shuts off accommodation on
    neurological level .

    Is it any other examples of mass disfunction of any other autonomic
    sphincters at 40 ?
     
    lena102938, Sep 17, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Similar Threads
  1. Vladimir Makarov

    WANTED: Volunteers to test an on-line glaucoma screening software

    Vladimir Makarov, Aug 9, 2004, in forum: Optometry Archives
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    504
    The Real Bev
    Aug 9, 2004
  2. twigz
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    3,317
    Rishi Giovanni Gatti
    Oct 12, 2004
  3. cal

    bifocal line distortion

    cal, Dec 21, 2005, in forum: Optometry Archives
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    530
    William Stacy
    Dec 22, 2005
  4. Moonchime
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,791
    Quick
    Feb 20, 2006
  5. PFC

    jagged line blocking vision

    PFC, Mar 16, 2006, in forum: Eye-Care
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,453
  6. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    385
  7. CGeorge

    A "Faint Line" in Vision

    CGeorge, Jul 15, 2006, in forum: Eye-Care
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    657
    The Real Bev
    Jul 31, 2006
Loading...