> OK but... the new frames which I'm happy with are Silhouette rimless
> drilled through the lens. My understanding is that CR39 will break
> w/that.
> BTW - eyeglasses.com shows lenses and their prices
> (http://www.eyeglasses.com/informatio...ses_price.page).
> Trivex is not so pricey in comparison to poly, 160, and 1.67 lenses.
> They don't seem to offer AR for the Trivex.

> Through this whole discussion, can no one simply go back and say CR-39
> plastic is superior to many of these newer materials? At -250 his
> lenses would look just fine in CR39 at minimal center thickness. There
> are patients that can wear a pair of glasses that are 10mm off on PD
> and they feel fine, and there are those that get vertigo from a PD off
> by 1 mm. These people need CR-39. End of story.
> Repeat after me. It sounds like a duck. It walks like a duck. It
> smells like a duck. I think its a.....CR-39 patient!!
> William Stacy wrote:
> > Your mileage may vary. I can measure with a mm rule to within 1 mm
> > accuracy, but I'm good at it, and am very careful about parallactic
> > error in my technique. More accuracy can be had with a pupillometer,
> > but those are subject to other errors (mostly patient looking in the
> > wrong direction). Pupillometers are necessary when monocular p.d.s are
> > needed for progressive lenses (like no-line multifocals). The idea is
> > to get the distance between the two optical axes, or more crudely the
> > distance between the centers of the pupils. For monocular p.d.s, it's
> > from the optcal axis to the center of the nose, one for each eye.
> > > w.stacy, o.d.
> > > Steve Y wrote:
> > > > The PD measurement taken of me was done with the little scale across my
> > > nose. It would seem that there's room for error with that. Is there a
> > > better way? And PD is measured from what to what?
> > > > > > >

> Through this whole discussion, can no one simply go back and say CR-39
> plastic is superior to many of these newer materials? At -250 his
> lenses would look just fine in CR39 at minimal center thickness. There
> are patients that can wear a pair of glasses that are 10mm off on PD
> and they feel fine, and there are those that get vertigo from a PD off
> by 1 mm. These people need CR-39. End of story.
> Repeat after me. It sounds like a duck. It walks like a duck. It
> smells like a duck. I think its a.....CR-39 patient!!

> Your mileage may vary. I can measure with a mm rule to within 1 mm
> accuracy, but I'm good at it, and am very careful about parallactic
> error in my technique. More accuracy can be had with a pupillometer,
> but those are subject to other errors (mostly patient looking in the
> wrong direction). Pupillometers are necessary when monocular p.d.s are
> needed for progressive lenses (like no-line multifocals). The idea is
> to get the distance between the two optical axes, or more crudely the
> distance between the centers of the pupils. For monocular p.d.s, it's
> from the optcal axis to the center of the nose, one for each eye.
> w.stacy, o.d.
> Steve Y wrote:
> > The PD measurement taken of me was done with the little scale across my
> > nose. It would seem that there's room for error with that. Is there a
> > better way? And PD is measured from what to what?
> > >

> The PD measurement taken of me was done with the little scale across my
> nose. It would seem that there's room for error with that. Is there a
> better way? And PD is measured from what to what?

> First, no issues wearing my old lenses so I would rule out my eyes
> being an Asthenopia cause.
> I saw the the opthomologist's optician. First and foremost she
> measured my PD AND that of my old glasses. Both 61. New "1.60 high
> index" glasses 58!
> When I originally went back to the store w/the "Trivex", they measured
> them and said they were correct (???) based on on-file measurements
> from 5 years ago. They then ordered these "1.60 high index" lenses.
> Don't know what PD the Trivex really were...
> The optician today said that with a -2.50 Rx Trivex and high index are
> a waste of money and a significant jump up in price. She said that the
> lenses I presented are NOT high index but regular poly. I asked how she
> knew that and she said by the sound when she tapped them - that poly
> has a distinct thud sound. She said weighing them would be the only
> other method. Does the thud test make sense? Additionally her opinion
> was that Hoya and Younger make "very expensive (Trivex) lenses" and
> that I don't need that - just poly. (???) And if I'm downgraded
> from Trivex, shouldn't I get a small refund?
> Additionally, the optician today said that the mistake in the PD would
> cause the eye discomfort exactly where I feel it (towards the nose
> sides of the sclera) because my eyes are trying to find the (wrong
> 58PD) optical center.
> I realize that this is only one second opinion of the actual glasses,
> but it falls VERY MUCH in line with the underlying opinions given here,
> particularly by Mark A and Robert Martellaro. That there are often
> lense manufacture problems and that it sounds like that is my issue.
> Do I need another exam of the lenses to verify today's findings or is
> this evidence enough that they are screwed up? At this point I don't
> want to deal w/the store I bought them from and will have to battle
> their "no refund" policy with my "no scew-up" policy.
> Any comments on today's results and the optician's opinions and
> what lenses I should ultimately get would be appreciated!
> Thank you very much!
> Neil Brooks wrote:
> > Steve Y wrote:
> > > It was hard to get a useful definition of Asthenopia until I found the
> > > one at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_strain
> > > > > Yes! Yes! That's a broad definition of what I'm experiencing -
> > > particularly to what I believe is the ciliary muscle.
> > > > > I'm headed off to the opthomologist's optician later to see what she
> > > can determine from the glasses. I'll update here later...
> > > > > Thank you all again!
> > > I don't know anything about anything, but ... I'd get a good cyclopegic
> > exam (to figure out whether your -2.50 is right, and to have your Rx
> > checked AT NEAR) AND have them take a CLOSE look at your eye alignment,
> > both at distance AND at near.
> > > Some of what you describe could even be accommodative esotropia or a
> > near-point esophoria. In other words, if your eyes aren't working
> > together properly, then -- with minus lenses on -- you could have
> > additional symptoms, especially at near.
> > > When you pinpoint the ciliaries in your description, then you MAY be
> > describing an accommodative dysfunction which could be organic OR could
> > be a problem with the prescription. You may need something as simple
> > as bifocals with a slight modification to the Rx.
> > > Do let us know what you learn at today's appointment, huh?
> > > Good luck!
> > > Neil

> First, no issues wearing my old lenses so I would rule out my eyes
> being an Asthenopia cause.
> I saw the the opthomologist's optician. First and foremost she
> measured my PD AND that of my old glasses. Both 61. New "1.60 high
> index" glasses 58!
> When I originally went back to the store w/the "Trivex", they measured
> them and said they were correct (???) based on on-file measurements
> from 5 years ago. They then ordered these "1.60 high index" lenses.
> Don't know what PD the Trivex really were...
> The optician today said that with a -2.50 Rx Trivex and high index are
> a waste of money and a significant jump up in price. She said that the
> lenses I presented are NOT high index but regular poly. I asked how she
> knew that and she said by the sound when she tapped them - that poly
> has a distinct thud sound. She said weighing them would be the only
> other method. Does the thud test make sense? Additionally her opinion
> was that Hoya and Younger make "very expensive (Trivex) lenses" and
> that I don't need that - just poly. (???) And if I'm downgraded
> from Trivex, shouldn't I get a small refund?
> Additionally, the optician today said that the mistake in the PD would
> cause the eye discomfort exactly where I feel it (towards the nose
> sides of the sclera) because my eyes are trying to find the (wrong
> 58PD) optical center.
> I realize that this is only one second opinion of the actual glasses,
> but it falls VERY MUCH in line with the underlying opinions given here,
> particularly by Mark A and Robert Martellaro. That there are often
> lense manufacture problems and that it sounds like that is my issue.
> Do I need another exam of the lenses to verify today's findings or is
> this evidence enough that they are screwed up? At this point I don't
> want to deal w/the store I bought them from and will have to battle
> their "no refund" policy with my "no scew-up" policy.
> Any comments on today's results and the optician's opinions and
> what lenses I should ultimately get would be appreciated!
> Thank you very much!

> First, no issues wearing my old lenses so I would rule out my eyes
> being an Asthenopia cause.
> I saw the the opthomologist's optician. First and foremost she
> measured my PD AND that of my old glasses. Both 61. New "1.60 high
> index" glasses 58!
> When I originally went back to the store w/the "Trivex", they measured
> them and said they were correct (???) based on on-file measurements
> from 5 years ago. They then ordered these "1.60 high index" lenses.
> Don't know what PD the Trivex really were...
> The optician today said that with a -2.50 Rx Trivex and high index are
> a waste of money and a significant jump up in price. She said that the
> lenses I presented are NOT high index but regular poly. I asked how she
> knew that and she said by the sound when she tapped them - that poly
> has a distinct thud sound. She said weighing them would be the only
> other method. Does the thud test make sense? Additionally her opinion
> was that Hoya and Younger make "very expensive (Trivex) lenses" and
> that I don't need that - just poly. (???) And if I'm downgraded
> from Trivex, shouldn't I get a small refund?
> Additionally, the optician today said that the mistake in the PD would
> cause the eye discomfort exactly where I feel it (towards the nose
> sides of the sclera) because my eyes are trying to find the (wrong
> 58PD) optical center.
> I realize that this is only one second opinion of the actual glasses,
> but it falls VERY MUCH in line with the underlying opinions given here,
> particularly by Mark A and Robert Martellaro. That there are often
> lense manufacture problems and that it sounds like that is my issue.
> Do I need another exam of the lenses to verify today's findings or is
> this evidence enough that they are screwed up? At this point I don't
> want to deal w/the store I bought them from and will have to battle
> their "no refund" policy with my "no scew-up" policy.
> Any comments on today's results and the optician's opinions and
> what lenses I should ultimately get would be appreciated!
> Thank you very much!
> Neil Brooks wrote:
> > Steve Y wrote:
> > > > > It was hard to get a useful definition of Asthenopia until I found the
> > > one at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_strain
> > > > > Yes! Yes! That's a broad definition of what I'm experiencing -
> > > particularly to what I believe is the ciliary muscle.
> > > > > I'm headed off to the opthomologist's optician later to see what she
> > > can determine from the glasses. I'll update here later...
> > > > > Thank you all again!
> > > > > > I don't know anything about anything, but ... I'd get a good cyclopegic
> > exam (to figure out whether your -2.50 is right, and to have your Rx
> > checked AT NEAR) AND have them take a CLOSE look at your eye alignment,
> > both at distance AND at near.
> > > Some of what you describe could even be accommodative esotropia or a
> > near-point esophoria. In other words, if your eyes aren't working
> > together properly, then -- with minus lenses on -- you could have
> > additional symptoms, especially at near.
> > > When you pinpoint the ciliaries in your description, then you MAY be
> > describing an accommodative dysfunction which could be organic OR could
> > be a problem with the prescription. You may need something as simple
> > as bifocals with a slight modification to the Rx.
> > > Do let us know what you learn at today's appointment, huh?
> > > Good luck!
> > > Neil
> >

> Every polycarb that I have seen has an abbe value of 30. Where did you see
> 35?

> From my limited experience (n=1, and that was enough!), I would have to
agree with those who feel that polycarb has lousy optics. The first

> Steve Y wrote:
> > It was hard to get a useful definition of Asthenopia until I found the
> > one at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_strain
> > > Yes! Yes! That's a broad definition of what I'm experiencing -
> > particularly to what I believe is the ciliary muscle.
> > > I'm headed off to the opthomologist's optician later to see what she
> > can determine from the glasses. I'll update here later...
> > > Thank you all again!
> I don't know anything about anything, but ... I'd get a good cyclopegic
> exam (to figure out whether your -2.50 is right, and to have your Rx
> checked AT NEAR) AND have them take a CLOSE look at your eye alignment,
> both at distance AND at near.
> Some of what you describe could even be accommodative esotropia or a
> near-point esophoria. In other words, if your eyes aren't working
> together properly, then -- with minus lenses on -- you could have
> additional symptoms, especially at near.
> When you pinpoint the ciliaries in your description, then you MAY be
> describing an accommodative dysfunction which could be organic OR could
> be a problem with the prescription. You may need something as simple
> as bifocals with a slight modification to the Rx.
> Do let us know what you learn at today's appointment, huh?
> Good luck!
> Neil