glasses

an

ye

e two eyes, and that each eye rotates in it's socket - I've got continuous grid multifocal lenses in my spectacles, which depend on the idea that I'll tilt my gaze up look through the bit of the lens that will focus each eye at infinity, and tilt it down to look through the bit of the lens that will focus the eye on a book in my hand.

ks fine. A binocular microscope works better, if it is handy.

lined up right. If you can get that with a contact lens, nobody has bothere d to tell me about it. The newest pair of spectacles (and the lenses to go in them) were justified on the basis the axis of astigmatism in my astigmat ic eye had rotated a bit - the new lens gives me appreciably sharper vision with that eye than it had with the last set, and both eyes are now equally sharp again.

They'll also make the modifications for bifocals or reading glasses.

I've been luck and find that I can use the cheap junk reading glasses from the dollar store. The result is a box with about 20 pairs of glasses in my office and another similar box at home. Quantity is a good replacement for quality, especially when the proper glasses are hiding under the mess.

I do use some prescription glasses:

- (-2.00) The big picture

- (+1.75) Computah, phone, and tablet

- (+2.00) Laptop and reading

- (+3.25) Really close work

I also have some special purpose glasses:

- Mirrors on frame so I can see behind me.

- Photos of my eyes behind lenses, so I appear to be awake.

- Various 3D anaglyph viewers (mostly red/blue).

- Clip on magnifier for really fine work.

- A few expensive laser safety glasses.

- Dental magnifiers (failed - replacement planned)

- Binocular microscope.

- Various safety glasses, some with ground in +2.00 magnifier.

- Welding glasses with +1.50 magnifier.

Psoriasis isn't an allergy. Presumably eczema (which can be) can mimic it c losely enough to fool John Larkin. The fact that he can't get the name righ t suggests that it's his lack of expertise which is the problem here.

The diagnostic process is one of forming hypotheses and testing them. John Larkin isn't fond of complicated procedures and presumably can lose patienc e early in the process.

An expert has been defied as somebody who knows the limitations of their ow n knowledge.

The expectation that an expert will always get it right on first attempt at a diagnosis isn't entirely realistic, particularly when you've got a patie nt like John Larkin who will have made his own diagnosis and slanted his sy mptom-reporting to fit that.

John Larkin's opinion of climate change experts is well known. The fact tha t his opinion have been adjusted by propaganda experts hired by the deniali st propaganda machine is a tribute to the expertise of a particular class o f expert, who can play gullible idiots like a violin.

On Mar 12, 2018, John Larkin wrote (in article):

That big machine is symmetric. While they usually do one eye at a time, that?s a convenience not a necessity. The sides are independent and identical, except for the mirror-image.

It wasn?t. Right eye is next.

Joe Gwinn

My interpupillary distance is about 69 mm, whereas men's reading glasses at the drugstore are nominally 66. The difference doesn't sound too large, but it's enough to make my head ache in about 10 minutes.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

That's pretty much my experience, except my "special purpose equipment" is

- the $10/$20 head mounted visor with multiple plastic lenses, that I use in addition to my glasses. Very useful when I need to look sideways/upwards into equipment

- LED light on a gooseneck, so I pull it to where I want and at the angle to avoid annoying reflections

- a "film magnifier" with a built in 0.2mm scale, for measuring PCB dimensions

- a couple of ex-school stereo microscopes (I estimate *12/*24 magnification) I picked up cheaply, for occasional PCB inspection

Despite having taken stereoscopic photos for 35 years, I find that I just can't use most stereo microscopes. Either I can't fuse the images and/or the image window (or whatever it is called) is too awkward to use

Mine is ~59mm, and I have no problem with cheap glasses.

The standard inter-pupillary distance for stereo slide viewers is 63mm.

Conclusion: it is highly personal, recommendations are fraught, so a good strategy is to try the cheap alternatives first.

It does take practise, your eyes/the eyepieces need to be positioned just right. Once you've got the hang of it, it becomes second nature. It took a lot of trying before my wife could see through both eyes using binoculars for the same reason.

Cheers

Probably, but I've usually failed to find the right positions. I've had a *lot* of experience with other stereoscopic apparatus, plus two stereo microscopes.

I had a cheap 20x stereo microscope where it seemed your eyes needed to be precisely in the right place, but I learned to use it as I didn't know any better. Since then I have acquired a much better used scope - still 20x - and the difference in ease of use is, to me, quite remarkable.

I'm sure there's a Good Reason for this.

Cheers

Any time I find a frame I like they discontinue it a few months later, so it's a hassle when it comes time to re-order.

--sp

My do-it-myself prescription is 62mm for driving (distance) and 59mm for reading (close in work). My nose isn't quite centered, but the offset doesn't seem to cause any problems.

The $1.00 glasses from the dollar store are marked: PD 62 +/-2mm which is exactly what I need. This is fairly new as previous shipments did not include the PD marking. I didn't try look very carefully, but it seemed that every pair of glasses was PD 62mm.

I also discovered that when Zenni fills a bifocal prescription, they simply subtract 3mm for the lower part of the lens.

I wanted to see if it made a difference for reading, so I broke the nose bridge on a pair, filed off some plastic, and glued the frame back together. I would say it worked better, but not enough to justify the effort.

I don't know what to suggest as I've never tried stretching the PD on any frames. I also couldn't find a way to extract the PD from a pair of random glasses. Maybe some minor adjustments will help:

Apparently you can treat your own heart attack, (but not recommended)

Mikek

If they're positive lenses, use them in sunlight to burn two holes in paper. It's a bit harder with negative lenses.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

I've had the same problem over the last 20 or so years which was caused by a change in blood pressure. The blood vessels are not equally distributed inside the eye. Change the blood pressure and the eye will distort depending on how the blood vessels are arranged. About 8 years ago, the changes moved my eyeballs shape so that there was almost no astigmatism. I could drive, but not read, without any glasses. I was elated but it didn't last. Now, I'm seeing double (vertically) in both eyes as my eyeballs begin to take the shape of footballs. Sigh.

I was thinking of buying a trial frame and lens set. They're quite reasonable (under $200) on eBay: Do-it-myself medicine at it's best.

There are also vendors of mechanically and electrically adjustable focus glasses. Superfocus is gone: DeepOptics Eyejusters (adjust with a hidden dial) Pixeloptics is dead: Glycerin lenses and electrical focus: etc...

I got a nice lens set for about $80, no frame. I just hold them up.

I also use a laser pointer, the speckle trick, to precisely measure my focal lengths, with and without glasses or trial lenses.

It's fun, and results in better glasses than you get from some impatient guy yelling "better or worse" at high speed.

Ok, I lied. I dug through my box of assorted glasses in my platial office and found a pair marked PD-58.5 +/-1mm etc.. I'll drop into the dollar store in the next few days and see if they have any other PD sizes.

I've been having dizzy spells (not really spinning-room dizzy but that's the only way I can describe them). I had one that lasted several minutes before it cleared so off we went to the ER. I had been in A-flutter, again, for a few weeks (still am, technically, I guess), but that wasn't the problem. I was hospitalized for a few days while they ran tests (nothing found) and they sent me home with an event monitor. A couple of days later, I got a call about 3:00AM telling me that I'd better think about heading to the ER. I had an appointment with my electrophysiologist in a few hours anyway, so skipped the ER. My heart had stopped for 8-seconds. At least they figured out what was happening. A day or two later, I felt it stop. "*Now* what do I do?"

BTW, my heart stopped for 5-seconds when I was in the hospital, too, but the idiots chalked it up to my sleeping on the monitor leads.