Odd problem that involves Holland

[EyeGurl]

Okay, we all know about over seas glasses and the thinnest, craziest lenses. So here is what happened today. Regular dispense with concerns to a teenage girl, moved to the states recently, va was fine but pulling/HA sensation. Told to try on in am, come back in a couple days if it keeps feeling odd. I expected this because of the thickness I figured the poly would be here, she was in poly but very thin so different refraction. We also do OC heights on every pair of single vision, as I am sensitive to that myself. So I worked through all the normal stuff nothing. But then I got a complaint from her that made some sense, the floor came up when she looked down. Hmmm. Do I just switch her over to trivex, pray for the best and call it a day? I broke out the lens clock, I had to work up a patient so the lady I work with took all the measurements of her old verses new. Yeah, her old glasses had a BC of 3.5 OD and 5 OS. Ours matched. No joke, what the heck? Is there any possible reason, we can think of none? Ideas thoughts comments. Did we solve it and she needs to adjust or what?

[EyeGurl]

RX: -2.?? -0.?? x 1??
-2.?? -0.?? x 1??
no major discrepancy between ou, rx changed by 1 click cyl and one sphere, PD within 2 mm split.

[DragonLensmanWV]

Probably used stock lenses for her first pair, maybe even different manufacturers, rather than surfaced to the same base curve.

[HarryChiling]

the floor came up when she looked down.

Try panto or retro.

[EyeGurl]

not to be rude, but pano or retro will not help with a patient that has adapted to aniso. And I checked the vertex is within 1 mm of old pair and they both have the same tilt. Maybe I should clarify, would there be any reason to do two diff BC with this rx? Any other ideas from people who really understand the physics here? I am more of a bio person, the math is really hard, I have a good grasp but the finer details are above me.

[DragonLensmanWV]

Well, with both lenses -2.??, there would be no aniso.

[braheem24]

Any other ideas from people who really understand the physics here?

Someone give Harry a valium QUICK! :D

Well, with both lenses -2.??, there would be no aniso.

I think she means Aniso BC



We need FULL

Old Rx,
New Rx,
Old BC,
New BC,
Old PD,
New PD,
Old OC,
New OC,

...and old and new Frame A and B measurements for starters.

for all we know it's an increase in the cyl.

[Mr.Goggle]

I beleive that if you have mached the BC and the VD. It won't hurt to mach tilt (just for good measure), I would do as you said and try a different material. Betcha it works!

[obxeyeguy]

not to be rude, but pano or retro will not help with a patient that has adapted to aniso.

Any other ideas from people who really understand the physics here?

Just reading...

[kcount]

Yeah, her old glasses had a BC of 3.5 OD and 5 OS. Ours matched. No joke, what the heck? Is there any possible reason, we can think of none? Ideas thoughts comments. Did we solve it and she needs to adjust or what?

Nope you didn't solve it, The discrepency of the BC in both the old lens and the new makes me wonder;
1. Who took the measurment.
2. is the lens warping in the frame?

RX: -2.?? -0.?? x 1??
-2.?? -0.?? x 1??
no major discrepancy between ou, rx changed by 1 click cyl and one sphere, PD within 2 mm split.

Click? Those are called Diopters. Not to be rude of course.

Try panto or retro.

That was my first thought too. Floor coming up is classic Panto/Retro.

Any other ideas from people who really understand the physics here?

Harry is very familiar with "..the physics here."

I am more of a bio person, the math is really hard, I have a good grasp but the finer details are above me.

Really?! Never noticed.:hammer:

You need to post a full RX, PD's, etc.
Plus the air speed velocity of an inlaiden swallow.

[EyeGurl]

Okay now that I am at work and have the chart-
Old RX
OD -2.50DS
OS -2.00-0.50 x 025

vertex was about 14
PD 30/30
OCH was center of frame
BC 3.5/5 frontside

new rx

-2.50DS
-2.25-0.50x017
PD 31.0/29
OCH 17
BC 6 ou ( I think if I remember correctly)
vertex at 15

Adjusted new frame tilt to match old when ordered, since we use an outside lab I always do it before had so we don't have probs with the lenses popping out. New lenses about 1.5 mm thicker on the edge.

New frame 50A 36B UNK D ( I am going to guess 40 somthing)
Old frame about the same size, I do not have the old frame info written down.

This is just killing me. I hate having a problem I am not sure if I solved and hate telling the patient to try adapting some more. If they are having a problem I need to address it but this is above me.

[EyeGurl]

Sorry to be crazy, it is like yeah duh I checked the tilt, it was my first thought as well. Hahaha it is like when you call the tech desk, yes I tried restarting the computer and making sure it was plugged in, can we skip to the advanced stuff. The lady who took the measurements is licensed, so I trust her. She has more experience then me and is just as baffled. And I am a refractionist (non certified) and that is why I call them clicks :)

[Johns]

Sorry to be crazy, it is like yeah duh I checked the tilt, it was my first thought as well. Hahaha it is like when you call the tech desk, yes I tried restarting the computer and making sure it was plugged in, can we skip to the advanced stuff. The lady who took the measurements is licensed, so I trust her. She has more experience then me and is just as baffled. And I am a refractionist (non certified) and that is why I call them clicks :)

When the patient is wearing the glasses, which direction are the temples pointing? If the temples are pointing away from the patient, she may have them on backwards. Often, when there is a license hanging on the wall, it is difficult to see obvious issues.

I don't know much 'bout physics, but I like Fig Newtons if that's worth anything...

[Johns]

Sorry to be crazy, it is like yeah duh I checked the tilt,

I am more of a bio person, the math is really hard, I have a good grasp but the finer details are above me.

Is today April Fool's Day, or am I missing something?

[Johns]

Any other ideas from people who really understand the physics here? \

Sorry about that Harry guy, he's pretty clueless when it comes to this stuff. Fezz and I have been working with him when we can, but he just doesn't seem to get it.
:hammer:

Send Fezz a pm and he'll straighten all this mess out for you, without interference from these other folks.
:cheers:

[EyeGurl]

Who is this Fezz?

[obxeyeguy]

Who is this Fezz?

Fezz

The Man, The Myth, The Legend

We defer to the master.

[shanbaum]

Okay now that I am at work and have the chart-
Old RX
OD -2.50DS
OS -2.00-0.50 x 025

vertex was about 14
PD 30/30
OCH was center of frame
BC 3.5/5 frontside

new rx

-2.50DS
-2.25-0.50x017
PD 31.0/29
OCH 17
BC 6 ou ( I think if I remember correctly)
vertex at 15

Adjusted new frame tilt to match old when ordered, since we use an outside lab I always do it before had so we don't have probs with the lenses popping out. New lenses about 1.5 mm thicker on the edge.

New frame 50A 36B UNK D ( I am going to guess 40 somthing)
Old frame about the same size, I do not have the old frame info written down.

This is just killing me. I hate having a problem I am not sure if I solved and hate telling the patient to try adapting some more. If they are having a problem I need to address it but this is above me.

I observe that 6 is an abnormally steep base for that Rx. 4 would have been a better choice. The original base curves were close to best form.

[Robert Martellaro]

Most frames out of the package will have insuficient panto, and on some heads no panto tilt at all. Increase the panto tilt to the 8° to 12° range. The perspective on the down gaze will be much improved. Fit the lenses as close as possible to the eyes without the lashes hitting the lens or the frame resting on the face.

[Fezz]

Sorry, sorry, sorry!

I should have gotten to this thread much earlier!

I have been busy making meatballs and gravy all day and now most of the night too! This isn't the lumpy flour mix gravy that your momma makes at Thanksgiving, this is a tomato based *sauce* that goes with meatballs and spaghetti! I had to get up very early and be at the docks at 4:37 am to get the ingredients! I have a few friends that work as longshoremen and they help unload and load boats, vans, trucks, backpacks, willow baskets and plastic grocery bags with all kinds of vegetables, meats, fruits and herbs and oils! They always help me out when gravy and meatballs are on the menu! I always reward them with a hearty meal and a robust wine for the help in getting all of the very freshest and prime ingredients.

I spent all day slicing, dicing, swirling, twirling, mixing, flipping, pinching, stirring, drinking, eating, stirring some more, mixing, more drinking, and more stirring! You have to be very vigilante when making meatballs and gravy. Here is the recipe that I use. I always multiply the recipe by 3.14. That leaves plenty of eats for everybody (even fat JJ), plus a little extra to hand out over at The Home for Wayward and Destetute Opticians. Those dear souls always appreciate the gesture! Ok, so here is what I do for the recipe:


Momma Ronsir's Meatballs and Gravy

• 1 pound sweet Italian sausage
• 2 pounds meatballs (recipe below)
• 4 or 5 lean pork chops
• 1 pound lean spareribs
• 1 pound piece beef or pork
• 1/2 cup olive oil, Extra Virgin! If you ain't paying at least $118 per fluid ounce-you ain't using good olive oil!
• 1 medium onion, chopped
• 2 garlic cloves, chopped or very thinly sliced
• Pinch of FRESH basil, red pepper flakes, oregano and mint
• 1 (6 ounce) can tomato paste
• 3 pounds FRESH peeled and crushed tomatoes
• 1 (28 ounce) can water-CLEAN water...from the tap!!
• 4 cups Cabernet Sauvignon=Don't cheap out you cheapskates! (1 for the gravy, 3 for the cook)
• Salt and pepper to taste (sometimes I will add a little sugar to cut the acidity)
• Meatballs
• 1 pound ground meat ( half beef, half pork)
• 3 medium eggs
• 3/4 cup bread crumbs, or enough to hold mixture together
• 1/4 cup chopped fresh parsley
• 1/4 cup freshly grated Parmesan or Romano cheese
• 1 large garlic clove, finely chopped, or very thinly sliced (I use a razor and shave the garlic see thru thin, ala Goodfellas)
• Salt and pepper to taste

Directions

1. The Gravy
2. Fry the meats of your choice in 1/4 cup of the oil in a large heavy saucepan. When they are browned, transfer them to a platter. Add the remaining 1/4 cup of oil to the residual juices in the pan. When the oil is hot, sauté the onion, garlic, and seasonings until transparent. Stir in the tomato paste and blend well. Add the tomatoes and stir until blended with the tomato paste and oil. Stir in an extra pinch of the seasonings. Add water, using the tomatoes. (Keep adding water until the sauce remains the thickness you desire. I use a full can.) Let the sauce come to a full boil and add salt and pepper to taste and an additional pinch of herbs. Return the meat to the pan. Then simmer over medium heat, uncovered, for at least 1 hour or until all of the meat is fully cooked. Stir gently every 15 minutes or so, using a large wooden spoon.
3. Serve the sauce over pasta, reserving some additional sauce for individual servings at the table.
4. NOTE: Pork added to the gravy will make an oily - though delicious - gravy. When you are using a significant amount of pork, skim the excess oils off the top of the sauce. Pork also tends to produce a thin sauce, so go easy when adding additional water, or add an extra can of paste at the beginning of preparations. This will help maintain the body of the sauce.
5. The Meatballs
6. Combine all the ingredients in a large bowl. Toss gently with your hands until the meat has become thoroughly blended with all the seasonings. The mixture should be fairly moist. To form the meatballs, wet your hands in a small bowl of lukewarm water and then pick up about 1/3 cup meatball mixture. Roll it in the palm of your hands to form a smooth ball about 1-inch in diameter. Drop the meatballs directly into your sauce. Or, if you prefer a crusty meatball, fry in approximately 3 tablespoons of olive oil in a skillet on medium heat for about 5 minutes, turning to brown evenly. Then drop them into gently boiling tomato sauce. Meatballs take 20 minutes to cook well. Remember to scrape the bottom of the skillet and pour any crusty meat particles into the meat sauce.
7. Yield: 15 to 18 medium-size meatballs or 40 to 45 tiny meatballs.
8. 6 cups Cabernet Sauvignon (for the parched cook)

Now you must take great care and don't overdo it!

Mangi e goda di!!!!!!

:cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers:

[Fezz]

PS. Dear OP,

Please forgive that Neanderthal Harry. He knows not of what he writes! Don't be fooled by his good looks, charm, suave attitude, fancy Man-Strut abilities, techno babble, optical term flinging, fast car driving, website developing prowess, or his ability to rally the troops for the coming REVOLUTION!

He is quite the worldly traveler, 87 year old scotch drinking maniac, and stoogie puffing genius........but his understanding of optics, physics and math only revival that of my two Labrador Retrievers on crack. Don't hold it against him. Brother Johns and I have taken him under our wings and are trying to *mentor* him!!

Hey, we all had to start somewhere, right!

:cheers::cheers::cheers:

[Fezz]

I don't know much 'bout physics, but I like Fig Newtons if that's worth anything...

Fig Newtons ARE yummy!!!

I LOVE Swedish Fish too!

:cheers::cheers::cheers:

[Strab]

I LOVE Swedish Fish too!

:cheers::cheers::cheers:

ME TOO!!! Eating some right now and it's only 8:35am.:D

As to the issue of 2 different B.C. on the OLD set of lenses...
My lab once ran a SV set of STOCK lenses and had a breakage on one lens. Went to pull another stock but we were out of that power so they had to surface the lens. At final inspection everything was great so out the door and to the pt. it went. The pt. had difficulty at the dispense and insisted something wasn't right. In the end it was the differance in the B.C. from one lens to the other. If the pt. has gotten used to that it will take time to adjust. I agree with Shanbaum that the 4 B.C. OU would be a better fit and easier for the pt. to adapt. Also, agree with adding a little more panto.

[kcount]

Sorry, sorry, sorry!

I should have gotten to this thread much earlier!

4 cups Cabernet Sauvignon=Don't cheap out you cheapskates! (1 for the gravy, 3 for the cook)

Can I forget everything else and just drink the wine instead?!

:cheers::cheers:

[drk]

I'm not sure if I can contribute, but I always love to hear the sound of my...keyboard.

Just a general concept that helps me: Spectacle Magnification = Shape factor x Power factor



For the case in point, she was indeed getting unequal image sizes (albeit miniscule) from the unequal shape factors, yet she was adapted.

In the new Rx, there should be more equal image sizes, which is more correct, and she'll now have to adapt to that.

She's young. Don't sweat it. Give her a week.



For Harry C., please review spectacle magnification formulae:
http://www.opticiansfriend.com/artic...ations.html#SM

(Unless you materially participated in the formation of this website, in which case you can ignore my recommendation. :D)


"Spectacle Magnification Formula:
Magnification (M) = (Shape Factor) * (Power Factor)
Shape Factor = 1 / (1 - ((c * D1) / n))
Power Factor = 1 / (1 - z Dv)D1 = front surface power (base curve) in diopters
c = center thickness in meters
n = index of refraction of lens
z = vertex distance in meters




Dv = back vertex power

• Flatter base curves decrease magnification
• Steeper base curves increase magnification
• Thinner lenses decrease magnification
• Thicker lenses increase magnification
• Higher vertex distances create more magnification
• Shorter vertex distances create less magnification
• Higher index yield less magnification
• Lower index yield more magnification

% Magnification = (M - 1) * 100 Difference in Magnification = % M1 - % M2 Approximate shape factor change = (X * D1) / 15
Approximate power factor change = (z * Dv) / 10X = change in center thickness in mm
D1 = change in base curve
Dv = back vertex power
z = change in vertex distance in mm"