Executive Progressive

[sandeepgoodbole]

Todays progresives consists of a seamlessly joined surfaces which have

1.Distance Rx.
2.Near Rx.

The Width of the Distance zone is unlimited i.e. equal to what ever the width of frame may be.

The width of the Near Zones remarkably poor ..may be 28 mm .Roughly, only 50% of the width of the frame.

Width of the Intemidiate zones is much sqizzed to may be 10 % of the frame width.. in most progresives.

Shall R & D people working over progresives sooner or later succed in creating a design that will have Unlimited zone width for Every Zone ?

The Product may be Named as Executive Progresive.

[Fleming]

Todays progresives consists of a seamlessly joined surfaces which have

1.Distance Rx.
2.Near Rx.

The Width of the Distance zone is unlimited i.e. equal to what ever the width of frame may be.

The width of the Near Zones remarkably poor ..may be 28 mm .Roughly, only 50% of the width of the frame.

Width of the Intemidiate zones is much sqizzed to may be 10 % of the frame width.. in most progresives.

Shall R & D people working over progresives sooner or later succed in creating a design that will have Unlimited zone width for Every Zone ?

The Product may be Named as Executive Progresive.

That might be kind of like looking through a funhouse mirror. Not as pleasing as it sounds.

[SunnyNC]

I am happy to see your post. We have a patient, previously a bifocal wearer and new to progressives who dearly loves them and is far from being a non adapt. As a matter of fact she says the progressives are a 1000 times better than her old bifocals. We put her into a Definity Short. I am not sure the Definity's read area is large enough. She is hyperopic and does a lot of speed reading. Of course with her progressives she has to move her head but with speed reading that is a big no no. We could use a separate pair of glasses for reading....but to think a little further. To experiment a little. What is the progressive with the widest read area. Any suggestions for a lens or anything else.

hmmm

[Fleming]

I am happy to see your post. We have a patient, previously a bifocal wearer and new to progressives who dearly loves them and is far from being a non adapt. As a matter of fact she says the progressives are a 1000 times better than her old bifocals. We put her into a Definity Short. I am not sure the Definity's read area is large enough. She is hyperopic and does a lot of speed reading. Of course with her progressives she has to move her head but with speed reading that is a big no no. We could use a separate pair of glasses for reading....but to think a little further. To experiment a little. What is the progressive with the widest read area. Any suggestions for a lens or anything else.

hmmm

SunnyNC
Sounds like you put her in one of the finest short progressives available The "elipse" might be wider, but it has other unwanted characterists she wouldn't appreciate. I have run into this situation numerous times. If she is a speed reader your only option (in my opinion) is to put her in single vision readers and let her scan away. I don't know of a progressive that will "really " let you do that. For progressives, my pereference is: Definity, Definity Short, Physio 360 (for refractive surgery patients as well as hi cyl) and I still use Comfort/Panamic for patients who don't like change. This Optiboard is a great forum.

[obxeyeguy]

For my hyperopes, I like the Hoya GP wide. They seem to prefer it over varilux and definity.

[Fleming]

For my hyperopes, I like the Hoya GP wide. They seem to prefer it over varilux and definity.

Yes the Hoya GP is also an excellent lens, but I still don't think the speed reader would like it. There are no progressives out there that do everything, some times patients need a second "specific purpose" pair: computer, crafts, safety, driving etc. I think I'm getting hooked on Optiboard.

[Happylady]

If she needs them to have a distance area, consider Sola Max. It has a very good near and intermediate area but still has a distance area. The distance is not as good on the sides as many other progressives but is still very useable.

[Jacqui]

Sandeep:

I agree and with the state of freeform technology it should be possible. Some "experts" will tell you it isn;t possible and others will say it isn't needed, oh well. I think it's possible and needed and should be done.

Todays progresives consists of a seamlessly joined surfaces which have

1.Distance Rx.
2.Near Rx.

The Width of the Distance zone is unlimited i.e. equal to what ever the width of frame may be.

The width of the Near Zones remarkably poor ..may be 28 mm .Roughly, only 50% of the width of the frame.

Width of the Intemidiate zones is much sqizzed to may be 10 % of the frame width.. in most progresives.

Shall R & D people working over progresives sooner or later succed in creating a design that will have Unlimited zone width for Every Zone ?

The Product may be Named as Executive Progresive.

[Uncle Fester]

Fleming said:

That might be kind of like looking through a funhouse mirror. Not as pleasing as it sounds.

I agree! I think it would create images like a parabolic mirror. It would distort by widening images. However if turned vertically I'd look quite a bit thinner:bbg:

PS Yes Fleming the board can get addictive:cheers:

[Jacqui]

Fleming said:I agree! I think it would create images like a parabolic mirror. It would distort by widening images. However if turned vertically I'd look quite a bit thinner:bbg:

Not if it's done right.

[Uncle Fester]

Not if it's done right.

But according to AWTech everything is out the window if any cyl is involved? No?

[DocInChina]

But according to AWTech everything is out the window if any cyl is involved? No?

Not if it is an atoric design or aspheric back surface.

[Fleming]

Not if it is an atoric design or aspheric back surface.

I'm sorry - but the outcome will still be the same. Mostly nausea.

[Jacqui]

I'm sorry - but the outcome will still be the same. Mostly nausea.

No more than a regular exec.

[Jacqui]

But according to AWTech everything is out the window if any cyl is involved? No?

AWTECH knows all ??

[Fleming]

No more than a regular exec.

Did you read the original post that started this thread? The discussion was not centered around an occupational bifocal - but a progressive.

[Jacqui]

Did you read the original post that started this thread? The discussion was not centered around an occupational bifocal - but a progressive.

Of course I read the opening post, and I never did say anything abut an occupational lens (although that could also be done).

[Uncle Fester]

No more than a regular exec.

Granted Jacqui I'm no lens designer but isn't this lens going to look like something I "sanded" the shelf off of and then buffed clear. And can a progressive power be achieved beyound the narrow umbilic?

Seems to me this would've been done years ago if possible.

Again I confess ignorance to this aspect of lens manufacturing:hammer:

[Jacqui]

Granted Jacqui I'm no lens designer but isn't this lens going to look like something I "sanded" the shelf off of and then buffed clear. And can a progressive power be achieved beyound the narrow umbilic?

At least not the way I visualize it.

Seems to me this would've been done years ago if possible.

Don't know why it wasn't, maybe no one's brain was working on it.

Again I confess ignorance to this aspect of lens manufacturing:hammer:

Don't feel bad, most people don't know anything about this part.

[Chris Ryser]

I'm sorry - but the outcome will still be the same. Mostly nausea.

I guess we have to invent a flexible lens material and frame that bends the lens when looking down to wards the reading area.

Maybe the aliens that buzz around in those UFOs might have a more advanced technique. Anybody has a contact ? :D

[Jacqui]

I guess we have to invent a flexible lens material and frame that bends the lens when looking down to wards the reading area.

Maybe the aliens that buzz around in those UFOs might have a more advanced technique. Anybody has a contact ? :D

Chris:

I think most of the people so far have been taught that this is impossible. It's going to take someone like me with no education in Optical Engineering or lens design to finally get it done.

[rinselberg]

re: "Executive" PAL

We've gone "there" before ... I don't know if PixelOptics has generated any "news" since this report from April 2006.

I'd have to search.

[Kyle]

I am happy to see your post. We have a patient, previously a bifocal wearer and new to progressives who dearly loves them and is far from being a non adapt. As a matter of fact she says the progressives are a 1000 times better than her old bifocals. We put her into a Definity Short. I am not sure the Definity's read area is large enough. She is hyperopic and does a lot of speed reading. Of course with her progressives she has to move her head but with speed reading that is a big no no. We could use a separate pair of glasses for reading....but to think a little further. To experiment a little. What is the progressive with the widest read area. Any suggestions for a lens or anything else.

hmmm

Not one person on this planet should expect a PAL to work well for this, though results may vary, depending on the physical size of the publication(s).

And regarding the original post, has anyone even stopped to consider the compound prism issue that would be created and especially so with dissimilar powers?

If you read so much that you require an "executive" of any kind, a single vision reader is likely the best choice and if it has to be a multifocal, you'll just have to take a hit on design and go to larger segment with a line, like a FT35 or 45 or even an Ultex.

Just my dos pesetas...

"If you hear hooves, don't look for zebras (unless you're in Africa or a zoo)."

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God, because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of a blind faith." - Thomas Jefferson

[Jacqui]

Sorry to bring this up again, but a Chinese company may already be doing this. I supposedly have samples coming (we'll see).

[AWTECH]

Sorry to bring this up again, but a Chinese company may already be doing this. I supposedly have samples coming (we'll see).

The optical properties of current lens materials combined with the ability to create almost any surface on a lens still has PAL limitations.

In concept consider you are joining two spherical shapes one large sphere for distance and a smaller sphere for near. To blend these you are limited to a surface that can manage the power differences between these two optical zones.

Even with digital surfacing physics is still physics and math is still math.