 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / June 2005Lense making
I was offered a job that I will have to learn. Has anyone made prescription lenses before? Is is difficult to learn? I think I can do it but what is the most difficult part of this. Any step by step links I can look at before tomorrow? It's a night shift which I have never done before but that won't be a problem. Thanks, James HI james, I am a Lab Manager so I make glasses...I have been doing this for 9 (almost 10) years. Feel free to email me your questions at aconn73@gmail.com I hope I can be of assistance to you!! ~Angie Hi Angie: Is your lab full service (does it surface as well as finish) and do you do all materials, including glass? Thanks w.stacy, o.d. > I am a Lab Manager so I make glasses...I have been doing this for 9 > (almost 10) years. W. Stacey, Yes, my lab is a full service lab. I surface as well as finish. We do not do glass though. We do all materials except for glass. Angie > W. Stacey, > > Yes, my lab is a full service lab. I surface as well as finish. We do > not do glass though. We do all materials except for glass. > > Angie Do any of your customers use those frame scanning devices so the frame doesn't have to be sent in? How well does it work on "unknown" frames? w.stacy, o.d. Never heard of that before.....so I guess that means we do not use it.... >> W. Stacey, >> >> Yes, my lab is a full service lab. I surface as well as finish. We do >> not do glass though. We do all materials except for glass. >> >> Angie Angie, Welcome to s.m.v. Here is a link to a discussion concerning remote tracing. http://www.visioncareproducts.com/31/equ_software.html >Do any of your customers use those frame scanning devices so the frame >doesn't have to be sent in? How well does it work on "unknown" frames? > >w.stacy, o.d. I have never used it but they should get the shape accurately as long as your careful not to bend or flex the eyewire. I can't imagine how it can size the lens properly for full metal frames. I always send the metal frames to the lab for sizing by hand. A "C-sizer" is accurate enough for rimless. Robert Martellaro ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Optician/Owner Roberts Optical robopt@execpc.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field." - Niels Bohr I have a Gerber Triumph frame tracer. It sound a little bit of the same concept. ~Angie > I have a Gerber Triumph frame tracer. It sound a little bit of the same > concept. > > ~Angie You know, with all the to-ing and fro-ing in this thread, I find it astonishing that nobody - lay or professional - has spotted and/or corrected the mis-spelling of the word "lens". Or is it that people can't be bothered correcting inaccuracies any more? Makes for a GREAT professional image ... NOT!  SignatureRegards, Nicolaas. ... Sometimes we need to laugh at ourselves so the people who are laughing at us don't feel too embarrassed. > > I have a Gerber Triumph frame tracer. It sound a little bit of the same > > concept. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > be bothered correcting inaccuracies any more? Makes for a GREAT > professional image ... NOT! It's such a common -- and stupid -- mistake that there's no more point in correcting it than there is pointing out the difference between "lose" and "loose". Some people are incapable of learning and there's no point in wasting time on them. SignatureCheers, Bev 0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010 Q. What's the difference between Batman and Bill Gates? A. When Batman fought the Penguin, he won. -- J. Levine > It's such a common -- and stupid -- mistake that there's no more point > in correcting it than there is pointing out the difference between > "lose" and "loose". Some people are incapable of learning and there's > no point in wasting time on them. It's not a mistake-- its a variant listed in Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary. It wouldn't suprise me if its use were common in some countries. Scott > You know, with all the to-ing and fro-ing in this thread, I find it > astonishing that nobody - lay or professional - has spotted and/or > corrected the mis-spelling of the word "lens". Or is it that people can't > be bothered correcting inaccuracies any more? Makes for a GREAT > professional image ... NOT! I just assumed it was an alternative spelling, maybe european. Whatever, I don't lose (loose?) and sleep over mis-spellings or upper case/lower case or punctuations on internet communictations. One of the charms of the 'net is the looseness and informality of the chatter. After all, who are we trying to impresse? w.stacy, o.d. Nicolaas Hawkins wrote: >> You know, with all the to-ing and fro-ing in this thread, I find it >> astonishing that nobody - lay or professional - has spotted and/or >> corrected the mis-spelling of the word "lens". Or is it that people can't >> be bothered correcting inaccuracies any more? Makes for a GREAT >> professional image ... NOT! >I just assumed it was an alternative spelling, maybe european. >Whatever, I don't lose (loose?) and sleep over mis-spellings or upper >case/lower case or punctuations on internet communictations. One of the >charms of the 'net is the looseness and informality of the chatter. > >After all, who are we trying to impresse? It *is* an alternate spelling (though--as I've said repeatedly--I'm not planning to use the 'lense' spelling myself). See: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=lense . . . or: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lense Personally, I'd be quicker to point out Messr. Hawkins's misspelling of "mis-spelling," but that's just me . . . . It is said, "He who lives by the sword dies by the sword." > Nicolaas Hawkins wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > It *is* an alternate spelling (though--as I've said repeatedly--I'm > not planning to use the 'lense' spelling myself). ;) > Nicolaas Hawkins wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > >I just assumed it was an alternative spelling, maybe european. French, if anything. Without it it would be pronounced something like 'loNG", which is clearly wrong even if it WASN'T a frog who said it. > >Whatever, I don't lose (loose?) and sleep over mis-spellings or upper > >case/lower case or punctuations on internet communictations. One of the > >charms of the 'net is the looseness and informality of the chatter. > > > >After all, who are we trying to impresse? Hey, *I* noticed :-) > It *is* an alternate spelling (though--as I've said repeatedly--I'm > not planning to use the 'lense' spelling myself). > > See: > > http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=lense They list it as a 'variant'. I bet the OED (anybody got a subscription?) is a bit less tolerant. > . . . or: > > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lense ...refers to the M-W entry. At least they have the decency to NOT list 'axe' as a variant of 'ask'. > Personally, I'd be quicker to point out Messr. Hawkins's misspelling > of "mis-spelling," but that's just me . . . . > > It is said, "He who lives by the sword dies by the sword." "Every spelling lame shall itself contain at least one misspelling." SignatureCheers, Bev <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the straps. >...refers to the M-W entry. At least they have the decency to NOT list 'axe' >as a variant of 'ask'. In this part of the country (central Texas) we spell that "aks", or sometimes "acks" if we're being fanatic about it. Misspellings include "axe" and "akz", though I've seen and heard both. (sic) +++++++++++++ Reply to the list as I do not publish an email address to USENET. This practice has cut my spam by more than 95%. Of course, I did have to abandon a perfectly good email account... > In this part of the country (central Texas) we spell that "aks", or > sometimes "acks" if we're being fanatic about it. Misspellings > include "axe" and "akz", though I've seen and heard both. Would that be in the nuculus of Texas? -MT >> Nicolaas Hawkins wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >They list it as a 'variant'. I bet the OED (anybody got a subscription?) is a >bit less tolerant. I do have at work.. I'll look it up when I get back there later in the week. The compact OED online doens't like lense though. Tom >> . . . or: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >"Every spelling lame shall itself contain at least one misspelling." >>> Nicolaas Hawkins wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >> >>"Every spelling lame shall itself contain at least one misspelling." Mine does not. If you believe otherwise, prove it! SignatureRegards, Nicolaas. ... You know it's going to be a bad day when the bird singing outside your window at daybreak is a buzzard. > Personally, I'd be quicker to point out Messr. Hawkins's misspelling > of "mis-spelling," but that's just me . . . . I challenge your assertion, vigorously. [put simply: bollix! :-) ] Provide, if you please, an authoritative cite supporting your contention that the insertion of a hyphen in a word amounts to incorrect (i.e., mis-) spelling, in either correct English or the American dialect. SignatureRegards, Nicolaas. ... Wrinkled is for prunes! It was NOT one of the things I wanted to be when I grew up! >> Personally, I'd be quicker to point out Messr. Hawkins's misspelling >> of "mis-spelling," but that's just me . . . . [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >that the insertion of a hyphen in a word amounts to incorrect (i.e., mis-) >spelling, in either correct English or the American dialect. Done with trolls. Next question--preferably concerning eyes or vision?? >>> Personally, I'd be quicker to point out Messr. Hawkins's misspelling >>> of "mis-spelling," but that's just me . . . . [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Next question--preferably concerning eyes or vision?? Definitely no troll here, yank. You made a statement that you cannot back up, and you got called on it. Now - if you are up to it - be man enough to admit that you were wrong. SignatureNicolaas >>>> Personally, I'd be quicker to point out Messr. Hawkins's misspelling >>>> of "mis-spelling," but that's just me . . . . [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >back up, and you got called on it. Now - if you are up to it - be man >enough to admit that you were wrong. Nowhere near man enough, Nick. You'll have to resolve this one on your own. Cheers. >>> Done with trolls. >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Cheers. There is nothing that _I_ have to resolve - there is nothing I need to prove, either to myself or to anyone else. It seems you do, but all you have managed to prove so far is that you are a typical blowhard - you make a patently unsupportable statement and then duck and run when you are called on it - the sort of behaviour one has come to expect from Gatti or Brown.. Oh ... and my name is Nicolaas, if you please. Have at least the minimal courtesy to address me correctly. SignatureRegards, Nicolaas. ... Do not try to catch a dropped cactus. > > Personally, I'd be quicker to point out Messr. Hawkins's misspelling > > of "mis-spelling," but that's just me . . . . [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that the insertion of a hyphen in a word amounts to incorrect (i.e., mis-) > spelling, in either correct English or the American dialect. Pro-vide, if you p-lease, an auth-oritative cite sup-porting your con-tention that the ran-dom in-sertion of a hyphen in a word is always cor-rect us-age. Pretty absurd, isn't it? How about if you just claim that "mis-spell" is spelled correctly? I thought that would also be pretty easy to disprove, by simply typing it into my online dictionary. Low and behold, my dictionary says that it is in fact a correct spelling! SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net > > > Personally, I'd be quicker to point out Messr. Hawkins's misspelling > > > of "mis-spelling," but that's just me . . . . > > > > I challenge your assertion, vigorously. [put simply: bollix! :-) ] Shouldn't that be 'bollocks'? > > Provide, if you please, an authoritative cite supporting your contention > > that the insertion of a hyphen in a word amounts to incorrect (i.e., mis-) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > into my online dictionary. Low and behold, my dictionary says that it is > in fact a correct spelling! In this case, you meant 'Lo', not 'Low'. Sorry, just couldn't resist. SignatureCheers, Bev If you're ever about to be mugged by a couple of clowns, don't hesitate - go for the juggler. >>> > Personally, I'd be quicker to point out Messr. Hawkins's misspelling >>> > of "mis-spelling," but that's just me . . . . >>> >>> I challenge your assertion, vigorously. [put simply: bollix! :-) ] > > Shouldn't that be 'bollocks'? Not necessarily, although the anatomical variety have been in scant evidence. >>> Provide, if you please, an authoritative cite supporting your contention >>> that the insertion of a hyphen in a word amounts to incorrect (i.e., mis-) [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > In this case, you meant 'Lo', not 'Low'. Sorry, just couldn't resist. A low blow indeed. :-) SignatureRegards, Nicolaas. ... We are all one - and that makes it difficult to get replacements. > >> raptor@top.net.nz wrote: > >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Not necessarily, although the anatomical variety have been in scant > evidence. Why do you think I stopped wearing short skirts? SignatureCheers, Bev ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Calling someone an a.shole for being rude to a telemarketer is like accusing someone who's shot a burglar in his home of being a poor host." -- W.S.Rowell >>>> raptor@top.net.nz wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Why do you think I stopped wearing short skirts? <cackle> Ma'am, I couldn't *possibly* speculate... <g> SignatureRegards, Nicolaas. ... Everyone seems normal - until you get to know them. > > into my online dictionary. Low and behold, my dictionary says that it is > > in fact a correct spelling! > > In this case, you meant 'Lo', not 'Low'. Sorry, just couldn't resist. I stand corrected. Better yet, I will bend low corrected. SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net > <bashley@myrealbox.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I stand corrected. Better yet, I will bend low corrected. <curtsey> :-) SignatureCheers, Bev ========================================= "Welcome to Hell, here's your accordion." Incidentally, "lense" is a variant of "lens". Personally, I don't correct spelling/grammar in such settings .. it's rather rude (and quite annoying). > Incidentally, "lense" is a variant of "lens". > > Personally, I don't correct spelling/grammar in such settings .. it's > rather rude (and quite annoying). And with about the same educational value as mud-wrestling with a pig. SignatureCheers, Bev ============================================ "People are too stupid to realize they are." --JoHn DoH KeLm >> Incidentally, "lense" is a variant of "lens". >> >> Personally, I don't correct spelling/grammar in such settings .. it's >> rather rude (and quite annoying). > > And with about the same educational value as mud-wrestling with a pig. Quite right, Bev, given some of the comments I have seen. I shall now go and have a shower ... and then stick my finger in the light socket. SignatureNicolaas > Quite right, Bev, given some of the comments I have seen. I shall now go > and have a shower ... and then stick my finger in the light socket. Now, now. We need all the intelligencia whe can get here. Anyway, getting back to the topic, I've been thinking about those computerized frame tracers that supposedly can electronically give a lab the *exact* dimensions of a frame for edging purposes, which would obviously speed up ophthalmic lens ordering. The only way I can conceive of this working perfectly would be if the scan of the frame were in 3-D so that eyewire curvature could be a part of the formula. Does anyone know if there are such scanners reasonably available, or are they just 2-D approximations? w.stacy, o.d. >You know, with all the to-ing and fro-ing in this thread, I find it >astonishing that nobody - lay or professional - has spotted and/or >corrected the mis-spelling of the word "lens". Or is it that people can't >be bothered correcting inaccuracies any more? Makes for a GREAT >professional image ... NOT! Since the OP reads as a person who is a non-native speaker of English I was willing to let it slide. More pity the fool who expects USENET to be "professional"... +++++++++++++ Reply to the list as I do not publish an email address to USENET. This practice has cut my spam by more than 95%. Of course, I did have to abandon a perfectly good email account... > >You know, with all the to-ing and fro-ing in this thread, I find it > >astonishing that nobody - lay or professional - has spotted and/or [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I was willing to let it slide. More pity the fool who expects USENET > to be "professional"... Actually, upon further reflection, the original poster (lerner@ka.net) appears to be a troll. SignatureCheers, Bev $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ "The almost universal access to higher education here in the US has ruined a lot of potentially good manual laborers." -- Bob Hunt >> >You know, with all the to-ing and fro-ing in this thread, I find it >> >astonishing that nobody - lay or professional - has spotted and/or [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Actually, upon further reflection, the original poster (lerner@ka.net) > appears to be a troll. A troll that can't spell "Nicholas", to boot! Scott > I have never used it but they should get the shape accurately as long as your > careful not to bend or flex the eyewire. I can't imagine how it can size the > lens properly for full metal frames. I always send the metal frames to the lab > for sizing by hand. A "C-sizer" is accurate enough for rimless. That's kind of my take on it. I mean I'd like not having to send in frames, but then I also do not want to have to dink around trying to insert a lens that's ever so slightly small or a teensy bit large. w.stacy, o.d. > That's kind of my take on it. I mean I'd like not having to send in > frames, but then I also do not want to have to dink around trying to > insert a lens that's ever so slightly small or a teensy bit large. One solution is to always make the lenses oversize, then freeze them before inserting into warm metal frames. Screw tight before lenses warm up, expand, and snug the frame. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.