Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Vision / May 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Adding +.25 sph to my RX?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Doug Herr - 19 May 2007 15:16 GMT
Ok, here is one for the you.  If you are a Batesian then please don't
reply.

As noted before, my RX is:

Sph   Cyl   Axis Add
-0.50 -0.25 165  +0.75 OD
plano -0.75 040  +0.75 OS

I have not tried bifocals yet, but do have both distance and
reading glasses made from that RX.

The distance glasses are ok for computer work and even for
reading tho the reading glasses are better for both (of course).

Since a very large percentage of my normal day involves close
vision work, I was wondering how terrible it would be if I used a
single vision pair of glasses using:

Sph   Cyl   Axis
-0.25 -0.25 165
+0.25 -0.75 040

If I am understanding the optics correctly, then this would be a
slight improvement for close work and would maybe still work well
enough for general distance work.

Is this a silly idea?

Would the be likely to be dangerous for driving?

I know I would want to ask my own O.D. before trying this, but I am
asking *you* right now (if you are not a Bates follower).  Note that I
can get a pair like that for $13 to experiment with, so if this is not
silly or dangerous then it could easily be worth the cost of trying a
pair.

Signature

Doug Herr
doug*at*wombatz*dot*com

William Stacy, O.D. - 19 May 2007 20:16 GMT
> If I am understanding the optics correctly, then this would be a
> slight improvement for close work and would maybe still work well
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Would the be likely to be dangerous for driving?

Not silly and not dangerous.
Ms.Brainy - 19 May 2007 20:28 GMT
> > If I am understanding the optics correctly, then this would be a
> > slight improvement for close work and would maybe still work well
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Not silly and not dangerous.

You can be your own judge regarding the sufficiency of your vision.
Doug Herr - 19 May 2007 20:49 GMT
>> > If I am understanding the optics correctly, then this would be a
>> > slight improvement for close work and would maybe still work well
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> You can be your own judge regarding the sufficiency of your vision.

Way cool, thank you both.

Clearly I would not want to hurt my future vision abilities; so if there
was a medical/scientific view that it could do even a little harm, then I
would not consider it (again, no Bates views needed).

With some of the online retailers being as cheap as they are, it affords
the possibility of doing some experimentation that would not seem
worthwhile otherwise.

Signature

Doug Herr
doug*at*wombatz*dot*com

michael toulch - 19 May 2007 21:42 GMT
> Ok, here is one for the you.  If you are a Batesian then please don't
> reply.
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
> Doug Herr
> doug*at*wombatz*dot*com

not a dangerous or bad thing to try, they will probably work exactly
as you expect.
 
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.