| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Who has done more damage to R.C.M, Cliff or TMT?
Subject said it all.
Wes |
Who has done more damage to R.C.M, Cliff, TMT or Wes?
On Jan 16, 4:49*pm, Wes wrote:
Subject said it all. Wes Now the subject says it all. TMT |
Who has done more damage to R.C.M, Cliff or TMT?
Wes wrote:
Subject said it all. Wes Nevermind. Recognizing their destructive efforts would give them pleasure. Please don't respond. Wes |
Who has done more damage to R.C.M, Cliff or TMT?
On Jan 16, 4:49*pm, Wes wrote:
Subject said it all. Wes And Wes...I note that you forgot to add the "OT - " prefix to your posting. How about adding it for the consideration of members who don't want to read off topic postings? Thanks TMT |
Who has done more damage to R.C.M, Cliff, TMT or Wes?
On Jan 16, 5:42*pm, Wes wrote:
Wes wrote: Subject said it all. Wes Nevermind. *Recognizing their destructive efforts would give them pleasure. *Please don't respond. Wes What was that Wes? Trying to get the playground kids to gang up on someone? That is what bullies do. I hate bullies...more than I hate hypocrites. TMT |
Who has done more damage to R.C.M, Cliff, TMT or Wes?
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Jan 16, 4:49*pm, Wes wrote: Subject said it all. Wes Now the subject says it all. TMT I'm impressed, you didn't cross post this for a change. It is pretty damn pathetic that you have to troll your garbage across many newsgroups to get much notice. Are you proud of yourself? When you get a hit do you rub yourself in that special way? How many web forums have you been banned from? I run into mentions of you from time to time and none of it is good. If you think your continuous ranting advances your positions then you have a reality check coming. It doesn't take long to get on the idiot list. I've likely got myself filtered by a few over the years when I rose to the bait. You just keep ranting on bud. Outside of your fellow nut jobs, I'm fairly sure most have you stuck firmly in the ignore column aka bozo bin. I've read a few posts where it seems you might actually have some knowledge worth sharing but that isn't on your agenda. You could be a respected contributor but you choose not. There are some people on this list that may be somewhat aligned with your positions. They offer content and we can have an agreement to disagree without causing disruption. That isn't your style though. You are a flame thrower. Some one that likes to pour gas on the fire, not someone that tries to find a middle way. You are the Hamas of R.C.M. Serious discussion seems to be very on topic since this group tends to ramble around a bit, most of us like each other no mater what way we lean. Why do you have to **** in the soup? You have been marked read for a while just to keep me from taking the bait. When I came home tonight and saw the last 3 threads being your garbage, I decided to tell you what I think. It won't matter to you because you don't care. You are a sick man filled with hatred I'm torn between scorn and pity, something is obviously defective in your mental state. Get some treatment, you will have a happier life, don't blame your failures on GWB, you know it is inside yourself. That is the first step of recovery. Wes |
Who has done more damage to R.C.M, Cliff or TMT?
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:49:25 -0500, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following: Subject said it all. C. Both of the above. First Cliffy, now TooManyTrolls. But the real damage is being done by all the dopey people constantly replying to them on a daily basis. A pox on all their houses. -- If we all did the things we are capable of doing, we would literally astound ourselves. -- Thomas A. Edison |
Who has done more damage to R.C.M, Cliff, TMT or Wes?
"Wes" wrote in message ... Too_Many_Tools wrote: On Jan 16, 4:49 pm, Wes wrote: Subject said it all. Wes Now the subject says it all. TMT I'm impressed, you didn't cross post this for a change. It is pretty damn pathetic that you have to troll your garbage across many newsgroups to get much notice. Are you proud of yourself? When you get a hit do you rub yourself in that special way? How many web forums have you been banned from? I run into mentions of you from time to time and none of it is good. If you think your continuous ranting advances your positions then you have a reality check coming. It doesn't take long to get on the idiot list. I've likely got myself filtered by a few over the years when I rose to the bait. You just keep ranting on bud. Outside of your fellow nut jobs, I'm fairly sure most have you stuck firmly in the ignore column aka bozo bin. I've read a few posts where it seems you might actually have some knowledge worth sharing but that isn't on your agenda. You could be a respected contributor but you choose not. There are some people on this list that may be somewhat aligned with your positions. They offer content and we can have an agreement to disagree without causing disruption. That isn't your style though. You are a flame thrower. Some one that likes to pour gas on the fire, not someone that tries to find a middle way. You are the Hamas of R.C.M. Serious discussion seems to be very on topic since this group tends to ramble around a bit, most of us like each other no mater what way we lean. Why do you have to **** in the soup? You have been marked read for a while just to keep me from taking the bait. When I came home tonight and saw the last 3 threads being your garbage, I decided to tell you what I think. It won't matter to you because you don't care. You are a sick man filled with hatred I'm torn between scorn and pity, something is obviously defective in your mental state. Get some treatment, you will have a happier life, don't blame your failures on GWB, you know it is inside yourself. That is the first step of recovery. Wes Hey Wes, does this mean that we can count on you to keep your mouth shut from now on about Obama and the Democrats? Or will you just be the republican version of TMT? My bet is that it won't be long until you are starting off topic threads about Obama and how he's such a lousy president and he's ruining the country. But if and when you start doing that you need to know that you will be exactly the same as TMT. Except for one thing. TMT was right in his criticisms of Bush and the republicans, who you defended, and you will be wrong about criticizing Obama. That's because you will only be doing it because he's a Democrat. Not because he's done anything wrong. Hawke |
Who has done more damage to R.C.M, Cliff, TMT or Wes?
Hawke sez:
" . . .you will be wrong about criticizing Obama. That's because you will only be doing it because he's a Democrat. Not because he's done anything wrong." HHmmnnn! Obama a Democrat? How out of touch with reality can one get? Bob Swinney |
Who has done more damage to R.C.M, Cliff or TMT?
"Wes" wrote in message ... Subject said it all. Wes Just plonk 'em, Wes. It's amazing how they disappear. d8-) -- Ed Huntress |
Who has done more damage to R.C.M, Cliff or TMT?
"Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message ... Subject said it all. Wes Just plonk 'em, Wes. It's amazing how they disappear. d8-) Sadly there is always the backscatter. I'll put it in effect after I press send. Oh, btw, I am half way done with your book, I've been taking my time with it, so far I've enjoyed it and I haven't been too surprised. It has been a good read so far. I'm getting used to these bifocals too. :) Wes |
Who has done more damage to R.C.M, Cliff or TMT?
"Wes" wrote in message ... "Ed Huntress" wrote: "Wes" wrote in message ... Subject said it all. Wes Just plonk 'em, Wes. It's amazing how they disappear. d8-) Sadly there is always the backscatter. I'm cleaning out some of the backscatterers, too. The NG is getting a little thin, but my mood has improved noticeably. d8-) I'll put it in effect after I press send. Oh, btw, I am half way done with your book, I've been taking my time with it, so far I've enjoyed it and I haven't been too surprised. No hurry. It has been a good read so far. I'm getting used to these bifocals too. :) I get mine sometime this week. I went for some fancy-schmancy progressives, since my insurance covered them. The optician said to try them for two weeks, and he'll change them if I fall down the stairs, like my dad did. -- Ed Huntress |
Who has done more damage to R.C.M, Cliff or TMT?
"Ed Huntress" wrote:
It has been a good read so far. I'm getting used to these bifocals too. :) I get mine sometime this week. I went for some fancy-schmancy progressives, since my insurance covered them. The optician said to try them for two weeks, and he'll change them if I fall down the stairs, like my dad did. It took at least two weeks before I noticed I wasn't noticing them. Use the handrail in the meantime. Wes |
Who has done more damage to R.C.M, Cliff or TMT?
"Wes" wrote in message ... "Ed Huntress" wrote: It has been a good read so far. I'm getting used to these bifocals too. :) I get mine sometime this week. I went for some fancy-schmancy progressives, since my insurance covered them. The optician said to try them for two weeks, and he'll change them if I fall down the stairs, like my dad did. It took at least two weeks before I noticed I wasn't noticing them. Use the handrail in the meantime. Wes Thanks. I'll keep that in mind. g -- Ed Huntress |
Who has done more damage to R.C.M, Cliff or TMT?
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 01:02:22 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following: "Wes" wrote in message ... "Ed Huntress" wrote: It has been a good read so far. I'm getting used to these bifocals too. :) I get mine sometime this week. I went for some fancy-schmancy progressives, since my insurance covered them. The optician said to try them for two weeks, and he'll change them if I fall down the stairs, like my dad did. It took at least two weeks before I noticed I wasn't noticing them. Use the handrail in the meantime. Wes Thanks. I'll keep that in mind. g Wait until you drive in them. You can't see your rear view mirror without turning your head to look straight at it. Notice the sore neck muscles? FTS! [in non-French: Screw That Crap!] -- Even with the best of maps and instruments, we can never fully chart our journeys. -- Gail Pool |
Who has done more damage to R.C.M, Cliff or TMT?
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message ... On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 01:02:22 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress" scrawled the following: "Wes" wrote in message ... "Ed Huntress" wrote: It has been a good read so far. I'm getting used to these bifocals too. :) I get mine sometime this week. I went for some fancy-schmancy progressives, since my insurance covered them. The optician said to try them for two weeks, and he'll change them if I fall down the stairs, like my dad did. It took at least two weeks before I noticed I wasn't noticing them. Use the handrail in the meantime. Wes Thanks. I'll keep that in mind. g Wait until you drive in them. You can't see your rear view mirror without turning your head to look straight at it. Notice the sore neck muscles? FTS! [in non-French: Screw That Crap!] OK, we'll see. Apparently there is quite a wide range of reactions to these things. I'm hoping I get lucky. -- Ed Huntress |
Who has done more damage to R.C.M, Cliff, TMT or Wes?
On Jan 16, 6:33*pm, Wes wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote: On Jan 16, 4:49*pm, Wes wrote: Subject said it all. Wes Now the subject says it all. TMT I'm impressed, you didn't cross post this for a change. *It is pretty damn pathetic that you have to troll your garbage across many newsgroups to get much notice. *Are you proud of yourself? * When you get a hit do you rub yourself in that special way? *How many web forums have you been banned from? *I run into mentions of you from time to time and none of it is good. If you think your continuous ranting advances your positions then you have a reality check coming. *It doesn't take long to get on the idiot list. *I've likely got myself filtered by a few over the years when I rose to the bait. * You just keep ranting on bud. *Outside of your fellow nut jobs, I'm fairly sure most have you stuck firmly in the ignore column aka bozo bin. *I've read a few posts where it seems you might actually have some knowledge worth sharing but that isn't on your agenda. *You could be a respected contributor but you choose not. There are some people on this list that may be somewhat aligned with your positions. *They offer content and we can have an agreement to disagree without causing disruption. *That isn't your style though. *You are a flame thrower. *Some one that likes to pour gas on the fire, not someone that tries to find a middle way. *You are the Hamas of R.C.M. Serious discussion seems to be very on topic since this group tends to ramble around a bit, most of us like each other no mater what way we lean. *Why do you have to **** in the soup? *You have been marked read for a while just to keep me from taking the bait. *When I came home tonight and saw the last 3 threads being your garbage, I decided to tell you what I think. *It won't matter to you because you don't care. *You are a sick man filled with hatred I'm torn between scorn and pity, something is obviously defective in your mental state. *Get some treatment, you will have a happier life, don't blame your failures on GWB, you know it is inside yourself. *That is the first step of recovery. Wes So how was your posting metal working related Wes? Please stay on topic Wes...and learn how to recognize and use the "OT -" prefix. No one holds a gun (metal related content) ;) to your head to click on a discussion with "OT -" in the heading. Unless I forget..I always add the "OT - " that was agreed on earlier in this group out of respect for this group...check the archives for the discussion. I also note that it is the wingers of the group who whine about this stuff...I don't see you complaining about the endless rivers of conservative crap that Gunner and his winger followers spew...did you forget to include his name in the title or are you a conservative sympathizer? If you want what you consider to be off topic subjects to cease, then it starts with the conservatives among here...and I will follow. Meanwhile...have a really nice liberal day. See you at the Obama inauguration..I'll be the guy with the really BIG smile. TMT |
Who has done more damage to R.C.M, Cliff, TMT or Wes?
On Jan 16, 10:29*pm, "Hawke" wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message ... Too_Many_Tools wrote: On Jan 16, 4:49 pm, Wes wrote: Subject said it all. Wes Now the subject says it all. TMT I'm impressed, you didn't cross post this for a change. *It is pretty damn pathetic that you have to troll your garbage across many newsgroups to get much notice. Are you proud of yourself? When you get a hit do you rub yourself in that special way? *How many web forums have you been banned from? *I run into mentions of you from time to time and none of it is good. If you think your continuous ranting advances your positions then you have a reality check coming. *It doesn't take long to get on the idiot list. *I've likely got myself filtered by a few over the years when I rose to the bait. You just keep ranting on bud. *Outside of your fellow nut jobs, I'm fairly sure most have you stuck firmly in the ignore column aka bozo bin. *I've read a few posts where it seems you might actually have some knowledge worth sharing but that isn't on your agenda. *You could be a respected contributor but you choose not. There are some people on this list that may be somewhat aligned with your positions. *They offer content and we can have an agreement to disagree without causing disruption. *That isn't your style though. *You are a flame thrower. *Some one that likes to pour gas on the fire, not someone that tries to find a middle way. *You are the Hamas of R.C.M. Serious discussion seems to be very on topic since this group tends to ramble around a bit, most of us like each other no mater what way we lean. *Why do you have to **** in the soup? *You have been marked read for a while just to keep me from taking the bait. *When I came home tonight and saw the last 3 threads being your garbage, I decided to tell you what I think. *It won't matter to you because you don't care. *You are a sick man filled with hatred I'm torn between scorn and pity, something is obviously defective in your mental state. *Get some treatment, you will have a happier life, don't blame your failures on GWB, you know it is inside yourself. *That is the first step of recovery. Wes Hey Wes, does this mean that we can count on you to keep your mouth shut from now on about Obama and the Democrats? Or will you just be the republican version of TMT? My bet is that it won't be long until you are starting off topic threads about Obama and how he's such a lousy president and he's ruining the country. But if and when you start doing that you need to know that you will be exactly the same as TMT. Except for one thing. TMT was right in his criticisms of Bush and the republicans, who you defended, and you will be wrong about criticizing Obama. That's because you will only be doing it because he's a Democrat. Not because he's done anything wrong.. Hawke- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Hawke makes a good point Wes. Walk the talk winger. Any posting from you will show that you are not a man of principle. We will be watching...and judging. TMT |
Eyeglasses (was Who has done more damage to RCM)
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message ... On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 01:02:22 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress" scrawled the following: "Wes" wrote in message ... "Ed Huntress" wrote: It has been a good read so far. I'm getting used to these bifocals too. :) I get mine sometime this week. I went for some fancy-schmancy progressives, since my insurance covered them. The optician said to try them for two weeks, and he'll change them if I fall down the stairs, like my dad did. It took at least two weeks before I noticed I wasn't noticing them. Use the handrail in the meantime. Wes Thanks. I'll keep that in mind. g Wait until you drive in them. You can't see your rear view mirror without turning your head to look straight at it. Notice the sore neck muscles? FTS! [in non-French: Screw That Crap!] OK, we'll see. Apparently there is quite a wide range of reactions to these things. I'm hoping I get lucky. My eye doctor recommended against progressives, because about one half of his patients that got them could not get used to them. So I stuck with bifocals (distance plus reading) for ordinary use, and large and gawky reading glasses (14" focus) for close work in the shop, the large being so the glasses also will deflect stuff flying out of the work. I'm considering getting a second set of bifocals, being computer (~20" focus) above and reading below for the office. What I also find worth the money is combined anti-scratch and anti-reflection coatings. As for material, most people use plastic these days. The original plastic eyeglass material is "CR39", later followed by polycarbonate and some high-index (of refraction) materials. I went through the whole what-to-get exercise, and chose CR39 because it is physically strong, impervious to ordinary solvents (like acetone and cutting fluids) and is hard enough to be a good substrate for the anti-scratch and anti-reflection coatings. Polycarbonate is very soft, cannot really be coated (the coating soon come off), and dissolves in just about every solvent known. The high-index materials are also soft and vulnerable to solvents, and expensive to boot. Nor are the lenses made of high-index material all that much thinner than CR39 - the difference is ~20%. Joe Gwinn |
Eyeglasses (was Who has done more damage to RCM)
"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message ... In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message ... On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 01:02:22 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress" scrawled the following: "Wes" wrote in message ... "Ed Huntress" wrote: It has been a good read so far. I'm getting used to these bifocals too. :) I get mine sometime this week. I went for some fancy-schmancy progressives, since my insurance covered them. The optician said to try them for two weeks, and he'll change them if I fall down the stairs, like my dad did. It took at least two weeks before I noticed I wasn't noticing them. Use the handrail in the meantime. Wes Thanks. I'll keep that in mind. g Wait until you drive in them. You can't see your rear view mirror without turning your head to look straight at it. Notice the sore neck muscles? FTS! [in non-French: Screw That Crap!] OK, we'll see. Apparently there is quite a wide range of reactions to these things. I'm hoping I get lucky. My eye doctor recommended against progressives, because about one half of his patients that got them could not get used to them. So I stuck with bifocals (distance plus reading) for ordinary use, and large and gawky reading glasses (14" focus) for close work in the shop, the large being so the glasses also will deflect stuff flying out of the work. I'm considering getting a second set of bifocals, being computer (~20" focus) above and reading below for the office. What I also find worth the money is combined anti-scratch and anti-reflection coatings. As for material, most people use plastic these days. The original plastic eyeglass material is "CR39", later followed by polycarbonate and some high-index (of refraction) materials. I went through the whole what-to-get exercise, and chose CR39 because it is physically strong, impervious to ordinary solvents (like acetone and cutting fluids) and is hard enough to be a good substrate for the anti-scratch and anti-reflection coatings. Polycarbonate is very soft, cannot really be coated (the coating soon come off), and dissolves in just about every solvent known. The high-index materials are also soft and vulnerable to solvents, and expensive to boot. Nor are the lenses made of high-index material all that much thinner than CR39 - the difference is ~20%. Joe Gwinn Thanks for the info, Joe. I thought about researching this thing beforehand, but I gave up on it when I found out that my primary insurance would not cover the discount places, and I was going to have to go to the high-priced spread to get my money back. So I went to the one that my ophthalmologist recommended and put myself in his hands. I'm not even sure what I bought, except that they cost my two insurance companies a hell of a lot of money. g I should get them mid-week and I'll report back. -- Ed Huntress |
Who has done more damage to R.C.M, Cliff or TMT?
On Jan 17, 6:19*pm, Wes wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote: "Wes" wrote in message ... Subject said it all. Wes Just plonk 'em, Wes. It's amazing how they disappear. d8-) Sadly there is always the backscatter. I'll put it in effect after I press send. *Oh, btw, I am half way done with your book, I've been taking my time with it, so far I've enjoyed it and I haven't been too surprised. It has been a good read so far. *I'm getting used to these bifocals too.. :) Wes There is an entire world beyond your nose. ;) I am glad that you found an liberal optometrist to fit your glasses (metal content). TMT |
Eyeglasses (was Who has done more damage to RCM)
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:12:26 -0500, the infamous Joseph Gwinn
scrawled the following: In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message ... On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 01:02:22 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress" scrawled the following: "Wes" wrote in message ... "Ed Huntress" wrote: It has been a good read so far. I'm getting used to these bifocals too. :) I get mine sometime this week. I went for some fancy-schmancy progressives, since my insurance covered them. The optician said to try them for two weeks, and he'll change them if I fall down the stairs, like my dad did. It took at least two weeks before I noticed I wasn't noticing them. Use the handrail in the meantime. Wes Thanks. I'll keep that in mind. g Wait until you drive in them. You can't see your rear view mirror without turning your head to look straight at it. Notice the sore neck muscles? FTS! [in non-French: Screw That Crap!] OK, we'll see. Apparently there is quite a wide range of reactions to these things. I'm hoping I get lucky. My eye doctor recommended against progressives, because about one half of his patients that got them could not get used to them. So I stuck I was one. sigh with bifocals (distance plus reading) for ordinary use, Ditto. and large and gawky reading glasses (14" focus) for close work in the shop, the large being so the glasses also will deflect stuff flying out of the work. I prefer the large lenses on my reading glasses (single-vision) so I can hold my book at almost angle in bed while I read and still be able to read through them. I'm considering getting a second set of bifocals, being computer (~20" focus) above and reading below for the office. I have those and they're indispensible. What I also find worth the money is combined anti-scratch and anti-reflection coatings. I love the anti-scratch coating, but I fiddle with my durned shedding eyelashes so often that I would get too many fingerprints on the anti-reflection coating and wear it off cleaning my glasses 50 times a day as I do now. I STRONGLY recommend against them if you're in dusty, oily, or finger-prone situations. As for material, most people use plastic these days. The original plastic eyeglass material is "CR39", later followed by polycarbonate and some high-index (of refraction) materials. I went through the whole what-to-get exercise, and chose CR39 because it is physically strong, impervious to ordinary solvents (like acetone and cutting fluids) and is hard enough to be a good substrate for the anti-scratch and anti-reflection coatings. Polycarbonate is very soft, cannot really be coated (the coating soon come off), and dissolves in just about every solvent known. The high-index materials are also soft and vulnerable to solvents, and expensive to boot. Nor are the lenses made of high-index material all that much thinner than CR39 - the difference is ~20%. I prefer the standard plastic lenses, too. Polycarbonate is awfully distortion-prone (2-3 times that of regular plastic), and with my conflicting astigmatisms, it would be unusable for me. http://www.allaboutvision.com/lenses/coatings.htm says that most plastic lenses have built-in anti-scratch coatings now. That was echoed by my next-to-last optometrist, too. -- Even with the best of maps and instruments, we can never fully chart our journeys. -- Gail Pool |
Who has done more damage to R.C.M, Cliff, TMT or Wes?
Wes Now the subject says it all. TMT I'm impressed, you didn't cross post this for a change. It is pretty damn pathetic that you have to troll your garbage across many newsgroups to get much notice. Are you proud of yourself? When you get a hit do you rub yourself in that special way? How many web forums have you been banned from? I run into mentions of you from time to time and none of it is good. If you think your continuous ranting advances your positions then you have a reality check coming. It doesn't take long to get on the idiot list. I've likely got myself filtered by a few over the years when I rose to the bait. You just keep ranting on bud. Outside of your fellow nut jobs, I'm fairly sure most have you stuck firmly in the ignore column aka bozo bin. I've read a few posts where it seems you might actually have some knowledge worth sharing but that isn't on your agenda. You could be a respected contributor but you choose not. There are some people on this list that may be somewhat aligned with your positions. They offer content and we can have an agreement to disagree without causing disruption. That isn't your style though. You are a flame thrower. Some one that likes to pour gas on the fire, not someone that tries to find a middle way. You are the Hamas of R.C.M. Serious discussion seems to be very on topic since this group tends to ramble around a bit, most of us like each other no mater what way we lean. Why do you have to **** in the soup? You have been marked read for a while just to keep me from taking the bait. When I came home tonight and saw the last 3 threads being your garbage, I decided to tell you what I think. It won't matter to you because you don't care. You are a sick man filled with hatred I'm torn between scorn and pity, something is obviously defective in your mental state. Get some treatment, you will have a happier life, don't blame your failures on GWB, you know it is inside yourself. That is the first step of recovery. Wes So how was your posting metal working related Wes? Please stay on topic Wes...and learn how to recognize and use the "OT -" prefix. No one holds a gun (metal related content) ;) to your head to click on a discussion with "OT -" in the heading. Unless I forget..I always add the "OT - " that was agreed on earlier in this group out of respect for this group...check the archives for the discussion. I also note that it is the wingers of the group who whine about this stuff...I don't see you complaining about the endless rivers of conservative crap that Gunner and his winger followers spew...did you forget to include his name in the title or are you a conservative sympathizer? If you want what you consider to be off topic subjects to cease, then it starts with the conservatives among here...and I will follow. Meanwhile...have a really nice liberal day. See you at the Obama inauguration..I'll be the guy with the really BIG smile. TMT Since everybody else there will also be wearing really big smiles too how will anyone be able to single you out? In fact, as of Tuesday about 2/3 of Americans will be feeling good, good that George Bush is no longer the president of this country. Of course, there will be that lunatic fringe who will be sad and down-cast on Tuesday. We know who they are. A lot of them are members of this group. They helped us get Bush as president. They stuck by him no matter how bad a job he did and they will be attacking Obama by Tuesday night. Nevertheless, we have turned a page in history. Our long nightmare is finally over. We're now ready to start fresh with good people in place instead of the crooked, dishonest, incompetent group that goes home on Tuesday. Whoo hoo! Hawke |
Eyeglasses (was Who has done more damage to RCM)
In article ,
Larry Jaques wrote: On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:12:26 -0500, the infamous Joseph Gwinn scrawled the following: [snip] My eye doctor recommended against progressives, because about one half of his patients that got them could not get used to them. So I stuck I was one. sigh with bifocals (distance plus reading) for ordinary use, Ditto. and large and gawky reading glasses (14" focus) for close work in the shop, the large being so the glasses also will deflect stuff flying out of the work. I prefer the large lenses on my reading glasses (single-vision) so I can hold my book at almost angle in bed while I read and still be able to read through them. I've been taking my glasses off to read. Gives new meaning to "nose in a book". I'm considering getting a second set of bifocals, being computer (~20" focus) above and reading below for the office. I have those and they're indispensible. What I also find worth the money is combined anti-scratch and anti-reflection coatings. I love the anti-scratch coating, but I fiddle with my durned shedding eyelashes so often that I would get too many fingerprints on the anti-reflection coating and wear it off cleaning my glasses 50 times a day as I do now. I STRONGLY recommend against them if you're in dusty, oily, or finger-prone situations. I blow dust and eyelashes off the lenses using my breath as needed. I suppose compressed air would work, even if it carries some oil, but it has never been necessary. I have coated everything, in the shop, for many years, and no problem. What I found was essential was a very good cleaning, once per day. I've tried various approaches, but what works bets is also simplest. In the morning I take the cotton T-shirt I'm about to don (as an undershirt), breath heavily upon the lenses, and use the T-shirt to clean the lenses. The T-shirt has not yet been worn, is free of people grease, and is very absorbent. It sucks the grease right off the lenses, sharply reducing the amount of dust that sticks to the lens during the day. What also works is a clean microfiber towel. These towels can be laundered, which is soon necessary, as it doesn't take much absorbed grease to render the towel useless for cleaning lenses. My glasses actually came with little (4" by 7") microfiber towels, but the T-shirt works better, probably because it's always freshly laundered, and far larger. What does *not* work is lens cleaning tissue, as it leaves a film, which attracts dust. Tissue is also pretty abrasive, despite the disclaimers. As for material, most people use plastic these days. The original plastic eyeglass material is "CR39", later followed by polycarbonate and some high-index (of refraction) materials. I went through the whole what-to-get exercise, and chose CR39 because it is physically strong, impervious to ordinary solvents (like acetone and cutting fluids) and is hard enough to be a good substrate for the anti-scratch and anti-reflection coatings. Polycarbonate is very soft, cannot really be coated (the coating soon come off), and dissolves in just about every solvent known. The high-index materials are also soft and vulnerable to solvents, and expensive to boot. Nor are the lenses made of high-index material all that much thinner than CR39 - the difference is ~20%. I prefer the standard plastic lenses, too. Polycarbonate is awfully distortion-prone (2-3 times that of regular plastic), and with my conflicting astigmatisms, it would be unusable for me. I've heard this, but I don't know how important it is in practice. Actually, if one has a large astigmatism correction, the non-uniformity of the refractive index of the plastic is most likely swamped by the prescription. I've also heard complaints about chromatic distortion (where things get colored fringes), but the brain soon adapts (because the eye lens also has considerable chromatic distortion). http://www.allaboutvision.com/lenses/coatings.htm says that most plastic lenses have built-in anti-scratch coatings now. That was echoed by my next-to-last optometrist, too. The real purpose of the scratch-resistant coating is to prevent cumulative frosting due to the daily cleaning. If you skid the glasses across the floor, they *will* be scratched, despite the coating. CR39, being the hardest plastic used for lenses, will be least affected, but still there will be a scratch. Joe Gwinn |
Who has done more damage to R.C.M, Cliff, TMT or Wes?
TMT sez:
"See you at the Obama inauguration..I'll be the guy with the really BIG smile." Be extremely careful with that big smile of yours. Secret Service operatives might think you are mooning the new pres. Bob Swinney |
Eyeglasses (was Who has done more damage to RCM)
"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message ... In article , Hi, Joe. I promised I'd report back on my new glasses. These are Varilux Physio 360 progressives, anti-reflection coating, polycarbonate, two-year warranty. Retail price on the lenses is $619. Don't try this without good insurance. g The Physio 360 supposedly is about as good as it gets for people with typical prescriptions, which mine is. Anyway, they're pretty impressive -- they sharpen my distance vision and increase my depth of field on the short end (upper lenses) with no noticeable distortion on the sides. I can even get a sharp read on the front sights of my pistols without losing the distance sharpness. That's something I didn't expect. Reading (lower lenses) is great, but with slight distortion at the sides. It's not bothersome, however. The problem is with reading the computer screen. That distance falls right between the distance- and reading-lens ranges, in the transition range of the progression, and, vertically, it's too narrow to be comfortable for extended periods. And the side distortion there is enough to notice. Overall, the window of sharpness is a bit small and it's annoying after a while. Given all the compromises with progressives, it looks like I'd give up too much at the close and distant ends if I had a wider range in the middle. So I'm stuck with low-power readers for extended work at the computer. I think. What I've noticed is that I'm adapting to them even at the computer, and I just spent an hour typing without realizing I was wearing the progressives. So maybe it's an adjustment that I'll make naturally. All in all, I'm pleased. I'm especially pleased that I've been able to walk all around town, and up and down stairs, without falling down. d8-) -- Ed Huntress |
Eyeglasses (was Who has done more damage to RCM)
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote: "Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message ... In article , Hi, Joe. I promised I'd report back on my new glasses. These are Varilux Physio 360 progressives, anti-reflection coating, polycarbonate, two-year warranty. Retail price on the lenses is $619. Don't try this without good insurance. g The Physio 360 supposedly is about as good as it gets for people with typical prescriptions, which mine is. Anyway, they're pretty impressive -- they sharpen my distance vision and increase my depth of field on the short end (upper lenses) with no noticeable distortion on the sides. I can even get a sharp read on the front sights of my pistols without losing the distance sharpness. That's something I didn't expect. Reading (lower lenses) is great, but with slight distortion at the sides. It's not bothersome, however. Good to hear. The problem is with reading the computer screen. That distance falls right between the distance- and reading-lens ranges, in the transition range of the progression, and, vertically, it's too narrow to be comfortable for extended periods. And the side distortion there is enough to notice. Overall, the window of sharpness is a bit small and it's annoying after a while. One of my coworkers, a programmer, has progressives, and you see him at his computer for hours holding his head at an awkward angle. It would kill my neck for sure. A good combination would be computer foucus above (20" or so) and reading focus below (14"), with progress between. I'll probably get such glasses, but bifocal. Given all the compromises with progressives, it looks like I'd give up too much at the close and distant ends if I had a wider range in the middle. So I'm stuck with low-power readers for extended work at the computer. I think. What I've noticed is that I'm adapting to them even at the computer, and I just spent an hour typing without realizing I was wearing the progressives. So maybe it's an adjustment that I'll make naturally. All in all, I'm pleased. I'm especially pleased that I've been able to walk all around town, and up and down stairs, without falling down. d8-) If they aren't making you sick, you'll likely adjust. The only time I had a prescription fail was when the lenses were for very different focus distances. I could feel my eyes racking back and forth, trying to find a suitable compromise. Got a new, correct, prescription. The problem was that eyeglasses are normally fitted one eye at a time, which rarely fails. Now, I always tell them that they have to do the final adjustment with both eyes open, especially for close-work glasses prescriptions. It's amazing what people (well, sophmores) can adjust to. There were some scientific experiments where the subjects wore glasses that turned everything upsidedown. After a few days, no problem. Less drama on return to normal. Joe Gwinn |
Eyeglasses (was Who has done more damage to RCM)
"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message ... In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote: "Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message ... In article , Hi, Joe. I promised I'd report back on my new glasses. These are Varilux Physio 360 progressives, anti-reflection coating, polycarbonate, two-year warranty. Retail price on the lenses is $619. Don't try this without good insurance. g The Physio 360 supposedly is about as good as it gets for people with typical prescriptions, which mine is. Anyway, they're pretty impressive -- they sharpen my distance vision and increase my depth of field on the short end (upper lenses) with no noticeable distortion on the sides. I can even get a sharp read on the front sights of my pistols without losing the distance sharpness. That's something I didn't expect. Reading (lower lenses) is great, but with slight distortion at the sides. It's not bothersome, however. Good to hear. The problem is with reading the computer screen. That distance falls right between the distance- and reading-lens ranges, in the transition range of the progression, and, vertically, it's too narrow to be comfortable for extended periods. And the side distortion there is enough to notice. Overall, the window of sharpness is a bit small and it's annoying after a while. One of my coworkers, a programmer, has progressives, and you see him at his computer for hours holding his head at an awkward angle. It would kill my neck for sure. I don't think I'd be able to tolerate that. I'm wearing some low-power readers right now and they're better than the progressives for working at the computer. I'd hoped I wouldn't have to change glasses any more, but it looks like I'll still need the readers for working long periods at the computer. Still, I can't complain. That's a minor PITA compared to having to change glasses to read every soup-can label. I wouldn't wear these in the shop, either. My shop glasses turn me into an instant geek. g I wear low-power readers with plastic frames to hold my B&L swing-away loupe (they're lousy on wireframes), and I usually have my magnifying visor on at the same time, swung up over my head. My wife can't stop laughing when she sees me fully equipped. d8-) A good combination would be computer foucus above (20" or so) and reading focus below (14"), with progress between. I'll probably get such glasses, but bifocal. They'd be a good idea. Maybe I'll try that sometime in the future. Given all the compromises with progressives, it looks like I'd give up too much at the close and distant ends if I had a wider range in the middle. So I'm stuck with low-power readers for extended work at the computer. I think. What I've noticed is that I'm adapting to them even at the computer, and I just spent an hour typing without realizing I was wearing the progressives. So maybe it's an adjustment that I'll make naturally. All in all, I'm pleased. I'm especially pleased that I've been able to walk all around town, and up and down stairs, without falling down. d8-) If they aren't making you sick, you'll likely adjust. The only time I had a prescription fail was when the lenses were for very different focus distances. I could feel my eyes racking back and forth, trying to find a suitable compromise. Got a new, correct, prescription. The problem was that eyeglasses are normally fitted one eye at a time, which rarely fails. Now, I always tell them that they have to do the final adjustment with both eyes open, especially for close-work glasses prescriptions. I'll try to remember that. This is the first pair of prescription glasses I've needed in 30 years, because my only issue was a little farsightedness that was easy to deal with using magnifying readers. After my laser surgery late last year, I was feeling some eyestrain at longer distances as well. It's amazing what people (well, sophmores) can adjust to. There were some scientific experiments where the subjects wore glasses that turned everything upsidedown. After a few days, no problem. Less drama on return to normal. I remember that research. In fact, they had done that at Michigan State a few years before I was a student there -- probably duplicating the original research. Very interesting. BTW, I got some info on the polycarbonates from Varilux. The thing they push with their expensive lenses is their laser-controlled feedback system to map the back side of the lens in grinding, and some other technology I didn't dig into, but they also have a patented cool-grinding technique for use with polycarbonate. Apparently the material is very prone to distortion if you grind them the same way that they grind CR-39. I didn't question this and I don't know how accurate that is, but it was interesting. -- Ed Huntress |
Eyeglasses (was Who has done more damage to RCM)
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote: "Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message ... In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote: "Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message ... In article , Hi, Joe. I promised I'd report back on my new glasses. These are Varilux Physio 360 progressives, anti-reflection coating, polycarbonate, two-year warranty. Retail price on the lenses is $619. Don't try this without good insurance. g The Physio 360 supposedly is about as good as it gets for people with typical prescriptions, which mine is. Anyway, they're pretty impressive -- they sharpen my distance vision and increase my depth of field on the short end (upper lenses) with no noticeable distortion on the sides. I can even get a sharp read on the front sights of my pistols without losing the distance sharpness. That's something I didn't expect. Reading (lower lenses) is great, but with slight distortion at the sides. It's not bothersome, however. Good to hear. The problem is with reading the computer screen. That distance falls right between the distance- and reading-lens ranges, in the transition range of the progression, and, vertically, it's too narrow to be comfortable for extended periods. And the side distortion there is enough to notice. Overall, the window of sharpness is a bit small and it's annoying after a while. One of my coworkers, a programmer, has progressives, and you see him at his computer for hours holding his head at an awkward angle. It would kill my neck for sure. I don't think I'd be able to tolerate that. I'm wearing some low-power readers right now and they're better than the progressives for working at the computer. I'd hoped I wouldn't have to change glasses any more, but it looks like I'll still need the readers for working long periods at the computer. Still, I can't complain. That's a minor PITA compared to having to change glasses to read every soup-can label. I wouldn't wear these in the shop, either. My shop glasses turn me into an instant geek. g I wear low-power readers with plastic frames to hold my B&L swing-away loupe (they're lousy on wireframes), and I usually have my magnifying visor on at the same time, swung up over my head. My wife can't stop laughing when she sees me fully equipped. d8-) The only missing fashion article is a half-mask respirator to handle the oil mist. It makes me look like a preying mantis. A good combination would be computer foucus above (20" or so) and reading focus below (14"), with progress between. I'll probably get such glasses, but bifocal. They'd be a good idea. Maybe I'll try that sometime in the future. Given all the compromises with progressives, it looks like I'd give up too much at the close and distant ends if I had a wider range in the middle. So I'm stuck with low-power readers for extended work at the computer. I think. What I've noticed is that I'm adapting to them even at the computer, and I just spent an hour typing without realizing I was wearing the progressives. So maybe it's an adjustment that I'll make naturally. All in all, I'm pleased. I'm especially pleased that I've been able to walk all around town, and up and down stairs, without falling down. d8-) If they aren't making you sick, you'll likely adjust. The only time I had a prescription fail was when the lenses were for very different focus distances. I could feel my eyes racking back and forth, trying to find a suitable compromise. Got a new, correct, prescription. The problem was that eyeglasses are normally fitted one eye at a time, which rarely fails. Now, I always tell them that they have to do the final adjustment with both eyes open, especially for close-work glasses prescriptions. I'll try to remember that. This is the first pair of prescription glasses I've needed in 30 years, because my only issue was a little farsightedness that was easy to deal with using magnifying readers. After my laser surgery late last year, I was feeling some eyestrain at longer distances as well. It's amazing what people (well, sophmores) can adjust to. There were some scientific experiments where the subjects wore glasses that turned everything upsidedown. After a few days, no problem. Less drama on return to normal. I remember that research. In fact, they had done that at Michigan State a few years before I was a student there -- probably duplicating the original research. Very interesting. BTW, I got some info on the polycarbonates from Varilux. The thing they push with their expensive lenses is their laser-controlled feedback system to map the back side of the lens in grinding, and some other technology I didn't dig into, but they also have a patented cool-grinding technique for use with polycarbonate. Apparently the material is very prone to distortion if you grind them the same way that they grind CR-39. I didn't question this and I don't know how accurate that is, but it was interesting. I thought that CR39 was cast to final optical shape of the blank at the factory, and then subsequently edge-ground to fit the frames by the optician. This allows all the fancy, expensive precision optical-level grinding to be done to the steel mold, which then makes many thousands of lenses. I never looked into polycarbonate, but I really doubt that they can afford to grind each spectacle lens individually. I bet the lenses are formed (hot-pressed?) in accurate steel molds as well. Maybe the cool grinding is so the mold won't distort while being ground to shape. This is widely done when making steel items to 0.0001" (2.54 micron) accuracy, and a wavelength of red light is about 0.6 microns. Joe Gwinn |
Eyeglasses (was Who has done more damage to RCM)
"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message ... In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote: snip BTW, I got some info on the polycarbonates from Varilux. The thing they push with their expensive lenses is their laser-controlled feedback system to map the back side of the lens in grinding, and some other technology I didn't dig into, but they also have a patented cool-grinding technique for use with polycarbonate. Apparently the material is very prone to distortion if you grind them the same way that they grind CR-39. I didn't question this and I don't know how accurate that is, but it was interesting. I thought that CR39 was cast to final optical shape of the blank at the factory, and then subsequently edge-ground to fit the frames by the optician. This allows all the fancy, expensive precision optical-level grinding to be done to the steel mold, which then makes many thousands of lenses. I never looked into polycarbonate, but I really doubt that they can afford to grind each spectacle lens individually. I bet the lenses are formed (hot-pressed?) in accurate steel molds as well. Maybe the cool grinding is so the mold won't distort while being ground to shape. This is widely done when making steel items to 0.0001" (2.54 micron) accuracy, and a wavelength of red light is about 0.6 microns. Joe Gwinn 'Dunno. The guy I asked didn't have reason to believe that I would know anything about grinding or molds, and maybe he doesn't, either. I should call Varilux itself, just to satisfy my curiosity. -- Ed Huntress |
Eyeglasses (was Who has done more damage to RCM)
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message ... In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote: snip BTW, I got some info on the polycarbonates from Varilux. The thing they push with their expensive lenses is their laser-controlled feedback system to map the back side of the lens in grinding, and some other technology I didn't dig into, but they also have a patented cool-grinding technique for use with polycarbonate. Apparently the material is very prone to distortion if you grind them the same way that they grind CR-39. I didn't question this and I don't know how accurate that is, but it was interesting. I thought that CR39 was cast to final optical shape of the blank at the factory, and then subsequently edge-ground to fit the frames by the optician. This allows all the fancy, expensive precision optical-level grinding to be done to the steel mold, which then makes many thousands of lenses. I never looked into polycarbonate, but I really doubt that they can afford to grind each spectacle lens individually. I bet the lenses are formed (hot-pressed?) in accurate steel molds as well. Maybe the cool grinding is so the mold won't distort while being ground to shape. This is widely done when making steel items to 0.0001" (2.54 micron) accuracy, and a wavelength of red light is about 0.6 microns. Joe Gwinn 'Dunno. The guy I asked didn't have reason to believe that I would know anything about grinding or molds, and maybe he doesn't, either. I should call Varilux itself, just to satisfy my curiosity. http://www.nanotechsys.com/ JC |
Eyeglasses (was Who has done more damage to RCM)
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message ... "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message ... In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote: snip BTW, I got some info on the polycarbonates from Varilux. The thing they push with their expensive lenses is their laser-controlled feedback system to map the back side of the lens in grinding, and some other technology I didn't dig into, but they also have a patented cool-grinding technique for use with polycarbonate. Apparently the material is very prone to distortion if you grind them the same way that they grind CR-39. I didn't question this and I don't know how accurate that is, but it was interesting. I thought that CR39 was cast to final optical shape of the blank at the factory, and then subsequently edge-ground to fit the frames by the optician. This allows all the fancy, expensive precision optical-level grinding to be done to the steel mold, which then makes many thousands of lenses. I never looked into polycarbonate, but I really doubt that they can afford to grind each spectacle lens individually. I bet the lenses are formed (hot-pressed?) in accurate steel molds as well. Maybe the cool grinding is so the mold won't distort while being ground to shape. This is widely done when making steel items to 0.0001" (2.54 micron) accuracy, and a wavelength of red light is about 0.6 microns. Joe Gwinn 'Dunno. The guy I asked didn't have reason to believe that I would know anything about grinding or molds, and maybe he doesn't, either. I should call Varilux itself, just to satisfy my curiosity. http://www.nanotechsys.com/ Would you believe that I interviewed Wayne Moore about that in 1980, and published some of the first photos of Moore's first lens-turning machines? They started by making aspherical lenses for satellite cameras. Twenty-nine years ago. Pretty good turning finish, eh? g -- Ed Huntress |
Eyeglasses (was Who has done more damage to RCM)
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "John R. Carroll" wrote in message ... "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message ... In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote: snip I should call Varilux itself, just to satisfy my curiosity. http://www.nanotechsys.com/ Would you believe that I interviewed Wayne Moore about that in 1980, and published some of the first photos of Moore's first lens-turning machines? Ed I believe you probably interviewed Jesus G They started by making aspherical lenses for satellite cameras. Twenty-nine years ago. Pretty good turning finish, eh? g Pretty good. Black Dragon worked at a place with a couple of these. Apparently the pee cee is a weak link. JC |
Eyeglasses (was Who has done more damage to RCM)
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message ... "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "John R. Carroll" wrote in message ... "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message ... In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote: snip I should call Varilux itself, just to satisfy my curiosity. http://www.nanotechsys.com/ Would you believe that I interviewed Wayne Moore about that in 1980, and published some of the first photos of Moore's first lens-turning machines? Ed I believe you probably interviewed Jesus G HAHAhaha-hoho...wheeze... God, you can make a guy feel old, John. I had lunch a few times with Wayne's father, Dick, too. BTW, have you ever met _Modern Machine Shop's_ Mark Albert? A photo of him is on their website. Mark is about the same age as me. They call him "Dorian Gray" because he never ages. I look old enough to be his father. g They started by making aspherical lenses for satellite cameras. Twenty-nine years ago. Pretty good turning finish, eh? g Pretty good. Black Dragon worked at a place with a couple of these. Apparently the pee cee is a weak link. Hmm. I don't remember the controller. The first couple of machines were in a windowless room that few people got to see. I think they were making the lenses for spy satellites. I remember I wasn't allowed to get too close. -- Ed Huntress |
Eyeglasses (was Who has done more damage to RCM)
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "John R. Carroll" wrote in message ... "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "John R. Carroll" wrote in message ... "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message ... In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote: snip BTW, have you ever met _Modern Machine Shop's_ Mark Albert? A photo of him is on their website. Mark is about the same age as me. They call him "Dorian Gray" because he never ages. I look old enough to be his father. g I might have, I don't know. Your description doesn't bring anyone to mind. I've met Shawn and his wife a couple of times and know the guys from Gardner. A bunch of us went out for a night on the town during a trade show in 1998 and I was introduced to this great big guy who looked like he hadn't slept in a month. A real character and he was someone's international publication manager or something. They started by making aspherical lenses for satellite cameras. Twenty-nine years ago. Pretty good turning finish, eh? g Pretty good. Black Dragon worked at a place with a couple of these. Apparently the pee cee is a weak link. Hmm. I don't remember the controller. Delta Tau. PC based, open architecture. JC |
Eyeglasses (was Who has done more damage to RCM)
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 02:04:23 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: "Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message ... In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote: "Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message ... In article , Hi, Joe. I promised I'd report back on my new glasses. These are Varilux Physio 360 progressives, anti-reflection coating, polycarbonate, two-year warranty. Retail price on the lenses is $619. Don't try this without good insurance. g The Physio 360 supposedly is about as good as it gets for people with typical prescriptions, which mine is. Anyway, they're pretty impressive -- they sharpen my distance vision and increase my depth of field on the short end (upper lenses) with no noticeable distortion on the sides. I can even get a sharp read on the front sights of my pistols without losing the distance sharpness. That's something I didn't expect. Reading (lower lenses) is great, but with slight distortion at the sides. It's not bothersome, however. Good to hear. The problem is with reading the computer screen. That distance falls right between the distance- and reading-lens ranges, in the transition range of the progression, and, vertically, it's too narrow to be comfortable for extended periods. And the side distortion there is enough to notice. Overall, the window of sharpness is a bit small and it's annoying after a while. One of my coworkers, a programmer, has progressives, and you see him at his computer for hours holding his head at an awkward angle. It would kill my neck for sure. I don't think I'd be able to tolerate that. I'm wearing some low-power readers right now and they're better than the progressives for working at the computer. I'd hoped I wouldn't have to change glasses any more, but it looks like I'll still need the readers for working long periods at the computer. Still, I can't complain. That's a minor PITA compared to having to change glasses to read every soup-can label. I wouldn't wear these in the shop, either. My shop glasses turn me into an instant geek. g I wear low-power readers with plastic frames to hold my B&L swing-away loupe (they're lousy on wireframes), and I usually have my magnifying visor on at the same time, swung up over my head. My wife can't stop laughing when she sees me fully equipped. d8-) BTDT - +2.5 optivisor over +2 reading glasses and dragging my nose over the work piece A good combination would be computer foucus above (20" or so) and reading focus below (14"), with progress between. I'll probably get such glasses, but bifocal. Exactly what I have on at the moment, I also wear these to bed for my half-hour "Drop the book on my chest 14 times" relaxation period. I have another pair, only with side shields, hanging beside the shop door. Gerry :-)} London, Canada |
Eyeglasses
Something that has helped me a lot on my computer monitor has been
switching to an LCD -- not because of sharpness or anything else, but because I'm able to put it far enough away on my desk that I can still focus on it! Yeah, no doubt in another couple of years that won't be enough any more... |
Eyeglasses
"Joe Pfeiffer" wrote in message ... Something that has helped me a lot on my computer monitor has been switching to an LCD -- not because of sharpness or anything else, but because I'm able to put it far enough away on my desk that I can still focus on it! Yeah, no doubt in another couple of years that won't be enough any more... I figure I'll just stand off around 15 feet and use my binoculars. d8-) I'm getting used to these progressives at the computer. I'm using them right now, and I hardly notice the narrow window. -- Ed Huntress |
Eyeglasses (was Who has done more damage to RCM)
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:12:31 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: "Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message ... In article , Hi, Joe. I promised I'd report back on my new glasses. These are Varilux Physio 360 progressives, anti-reflection coating, polycarbonate, two-year warranty. Retail price on the lenses is $619. Don't try this without good insurance. g The Physio 360 supposedly is about as good as it gets for people with typical prescriptions, which mine is. Anyway, they're pretty impressive -- they sharpen my distance vision and increase my depth of field on the short end (upper lenses) with no noticeable distortion on the sides. I can even get a sharp read on the front sights of my pistols without losing the distance sharpness. That's something I didn't expect. Reading (lower lenses) is great, but with slight distortion at the sides. It's not bothersome, however. The problem is with reading the computer screen. That distance falls right between the distance- and reading-lens ranges, in the transition range of the progression, and, vertically, it's too narrow to be comfortable for extended periods. And the side distortion there is enough to notice. Overall, the window of sharpness is a bit small and it's annoying after a while. Given all the compromises with progressives, it looks like I'd give up too much at the close and distant ends if I had a wider range in the middle. So I'm stuck with low-power readers for extended work at the computer. I think. What I've noticed is that I'm adapting to them even at the computer, and I just spent an hour typing without realizing I was wearing the progressives. So maybe it's an adjustment that I'll make naturally. All in all, I'm pleased. I'm especially pleased that I've been able to walk all around town, and up and down stairs, without falling down. d8-) Try moving yourself or the monitor vertically. It worked well for me when I first got mine many years ago. One time I got a new pair and had severe problems with the computer screen. The transition point was way too low and I had to tilt my head up as if I was looking a foot over the monitor to focus correctly. The optician wasn't happy when he had to replace them for free 8-)) |
Eyeglasses (was Who has done more damage to RCM)
wrote in message ... On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:12:31 -0500, "Ed Huntress" wrote: "Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message ... In article , Hi, Joe. I promised I'd report back on my new glasses. These are Varilux Physio 360 progressives, anti-reflection coating, polycarbonate, two-year warranty. Retail price on the lenses is $619. Don't try this without good insurance. g The Physio 360 supposedly is about as good as it gets for people with typical prescriptions, which mine is. Anyway, they're pretty impressive -- they sharpen my distance vision and increase my depth of field on the short end (upper lenses) with no noticeable distortion on the sides. I can even get a sharp read on the front sights of my pistols without losing the distance sharpness. That's something I didn't expect. Reading (lower lenses) is great, but with slight distortion at the sides. It's not bothersome, however. The problem is with reading the computer screen. That distance falls right between the distance- and reading-lens ranges, in the transition range of the progression, and, vertically, it's too narrow to be comfortable for extended periods. And the side distortion there is enough to notice. Overall, the window of sharpness is a bit small and it's annoying after a while. Given all the compromises with progressives, it looks like I'd give up too much at the close and distant ends if I had a wider range in the middle. So I'm stuck with low-power readers for extended work at the computer. I think. What I've noticed is that I'm adapting to them even at the computer, and I just spent an hour typing without realizing I was wearing the progressives. So maybe it's an adjustment that I'll make naturally. All in all, I'm pleased. I'm especially pleased that I've been able to walk all around town, and up and down stairs, without falling down. d8-) Try moving yourself or the monitor vertically. It worked well for me when I first got mine many years ago. OK, I tried (just for the experiment) moving my chair down, so I'm viewing through the upper lenses. That's not bad, but they're focused just a bit too far. I know that the bottom lenses focus too closely. What is it that moving vertically accomplished for you? Are you looking strictly through the upper or lower lenses now? One time I got a new pair and had severe problems with the computer screen. The transition point was way too low and I had to tilt my head up as if I was looking a foot over the monitor to focus correctly. The optician wasn't happy when he had to replace them for free 8-)) I made a big point with my optician that I spend a lot of time at the computer, and want them for that purpose. But as I see what the dynamics are of this whole thing, I wonder what I would accomplish if they were better at the computer. I can see it fine with low-power (+175) magnifier reading glasses, so that may be what I have to do when I'm spending long sessions of writing. For ordinary online use, I'm not having any trouble now with the progressives. Well, they're still a little bit of a PITA, but I seem to be adapting. Thanks for the info. All tips and experience are welcome. -- Ed Huntress |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:12 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter