What does decent celestial navigation freeware on Android ac

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 18:07:29 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@invalid.es> wrote:

And I hope it is well built... I have a wall clock that syncs every
night (about 3 AM) from a radio signal from Germany, I think. The rest
of the day it runs autonomously.

I'm surprised that it works. I think you're in Spain and DFC77
transmitter is in Germany. Spain is at the outer edge of the coverage
area:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DCF77#Reception_area>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DCF77#/media/Filecf_weite.jpg>

You can improve reception by moving the clock to a location where
there is less electrical interference (away from switching power
supplies, TV's, computahs, etc). Also, orienting the loopstick so
that it is horizontal and "broadside" to the direction of Germany.

>However, sometimes there is some problem and it is 15 hours off sync.

That's what happens when the clock receives garbage instead of an
update. The usual algorithm is for the clock to receive two or three
valid updates in close succession before it will accept the data. If
it hears two identical noisy updates, it will display erroneous data.
It's very unlikely that this will happen, but it's not impossible. If
your clock does NOT require two or three consecutive valid updates,
it's highly likely that you will see far more garbage updates.

Depending on the model, it can manage to sync the next day, or never. I
can not really trust it.

I don't think a DFC77 clock will work reliably at your location in
Spain. Think about using NTP updates from over the internet instead.
It can easily be done with a Raspberry Pi.
<http://www.satsignal.eu/raspberry-pi/DigitalClock.html>
An old handheld GPS receiver, mounted on the wall will also work but
watch out for the 17 sec the GPS -> UTC difference.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2016-11-29 19:30, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 18:07:29 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
robin_listas@invalid.es> wrote:

And I hope it is well built... I have a wall clock that syncs every
night (about 3 AM) from a radio signal from Germany, I think. The rest
of the day it runs autonomously.

I'm surprised that it works. I think you're in Spain and DFC77
transmitter is in Germany. Spain is at the outer edge of the coverage
area:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DCF77#Reception_area
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DCF77#/media/Filecf_weite.jpg

Yes, I am at the middle of the 1500 km circle. Ie, at something like
1700 km. Those clocks are widely sold here, but they don't work on every
room. Your graph explains it, but I already suspected it.

Pity there are no nearer transmitters. A network of transmitters, probably.

You can improve reception by moving the clock to a location where
there is less electrical interference (away from switching power
supplies, TV's, computahs, etc). Also, orienting the loopstick so
that it is horizontal and "broadside" to the direction of Germany.

My clocks (I have 4) do not have a ferrite rod, like those in the
wikipedia. Unless minimal and well hidden.

However, sometimes there is some problem and it is 15 hours off sync.

That's what happens when the clock receives garbage instead of an
update. The usual algorithm is for the clock to receive two or three
valid updates in close succession before it will accept the data. If
it hears two identical noisy updates, it will display erroneous data.
It's very unlikely that this will happen, but it's not impossible. If
your clock does NOT require two or three consecutive valid updates,
it's highly likely that you will see far more garbage updates.

I guess all use the same chip, and it is faulty. Once the clock syncs
well, it should reject an update that is more than some minutes off.
Humm... but then there is the summer saving time change. But some clocks
use 3 volts instead of 1.5 and work better.

Depending on the model, it can manage to sync the next day, or never. I
can not really trust it.

I don't think a DFC77 clock will work reliably at your location in
Spain. Think about using NTP updates from over the internet instead.

I thought about that, yes, but not how to do it cheaply. A tablet would
do, but more expensive.

It can easily be done with a Raspberry Pi.
http://www.satsignal.eu/raspberry-pi/DigitalClock.html

Interesting, but complicated.

An old handheld GPS receiver, mounted on the wall will also work but
watch out for the 17 sec the GPS -> UTC difference.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 20:51:31 -0000 (UTC), lew
<citrustwosac@google.mailer.company.invalid> wrote:

I had "atomic" wall clocks on battery as well as a bedroom clock
on ac. Worked very nice until the utility companies went with the
rf meters. Then the "atomic" clocks became drastically out of sync
& sometimes got reset to what look like an unknown timezone. Had even
tried replacement atomic wall clocks which had the same problems.

Very strange and improbable. The "atomic" clock works on VLF (very
low frequency) around 60KHz. Most electrical smartmeters run spread
spectrum around 900MHz. The gas meters tend to use VHF/UHF
frequencies in the 160 and 460Mhz bands. Chances of interference
between such widely spaced frequencies is unlikely.

However, there are plenty of noise sources that will trash VLF
reception. Plasma TV's are a common problem. Switching power
supplied found in everything from battery chargers to desk lamps are
noisy. Some PV solar panels, converters, and inverters are horribly
noisy. Same with some CCFL and LED lamps. HF (high frequency) ham
radio was almost impossible at my house until I tracked down the
culprit (cheap battery charger for my cell phone).

You can actually use a 128Kbit/sec sound card to hear (and see) the
60KHz signals. By implication, you can also see the nearby noise
sources. Buy a 128Kbit/sec sound card or dongle. Download a copy of
SDR Sharp. Go noise hunting. I'm sure you'll find something you
didn't expect.

The Casio watch was nice until I had eye surgery after which I wasn't
able to see the time well without reading glasses. Have switched
to an analog faced timepiece with large numbers now.

At least you're not at the talking clock stage. My eyesight is slowly
deteriorating, but has a long way to go before I can't see a digital
clock. Oddly, I have more problems with some colors. I can't focus
on red LED's and orange Nixie tubes. It's just a big blurr without
glasses. However, the blue fluorescent displays are easily visible.
Try different colors and see if it helps.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Michael Black]

On Tue, 29 Nov 2016, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 22:48:31 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
robin_listas@invalid.es> wrote:

My clocks (I have 4) do not have a ferrite rod, like those in the
wikipedia. Unless minimal and well hidden.

They have ferrite rods buried inside somewhere. Even the "atomic
wristwatch" has a tiny loopstick coil inside. Look for something like
these, which are a bit large for a wrist watch:
http://www.c-max.com.hk/en/technology/rct/rct_perp
http://www.c-max-time.com/products/showProduct.php?id=20
The key performance factor of a VLF receiver is the Q of the pickup
coil. Higher Q doesn't produce more signal, but does dramatically
reduce the inband noise levels. The higher the Q, the less noise is
picked up, and therefore the better the SNR (signal to noise radio).
Tiny rods are marginal, but do work. Big rods are much better for
reception. Big loops are even better, but without the ferrite core,
they tend to be huge.

That's the weird part, my Casio watch seems to be the one most likely to
sync up, so long as I orient it right when I go to bed, yet it's a
miniscule antenna.

But having opened some of the "atomic" clocks I have it's also a surprise
that the loopsticks aren't particularly long. Even the wall clock doesn't
ahve a longer loopstick than the portable.

Michael

Photos of both loops and loopsticks:
https://www.google.com/search?q=wwvb+loop+antenna&tbm=isch

It can easily be done with a Raspberry Pi.
http://www.satsignal.eu/raspberry-pi/DigitalClock.html

Interesting, but complicated.

If it were easy, it would probably not be any fun.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Stephen H. Fischer]

Ah, you did not spent the extra money ($4,400) for multiple lens in each eye
like I did.

I went from two sets of glasses to none. Watch on wrist to TV and driving.

http://www.changcataract.com/

Sorry, you have only one chance at cataract sugery.

SHF

"The Real Bev" <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote in message
news1leg5$5uq$1@dont-email.me...

On 11/29/2016 12:51 PM, lew wrote:

The Casio watch was nice until I had eye surgery after which I wasn't
able to see the time well without reading glasses. Have switched
to an analog faced timepiece with large numbers now.

Welcome to the world of the grownups!


--
Cheers, Bev
Nobody needs to speak on behalf of idiots, they manage
to speak entirely too much for themselves already.

 

[Stephen H. Fischer]

"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:v4ls3cdm5fils3p8mbqua143qkbjsf84s6@4ax.com...

On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 20:51:31 -0000 (UTC), lew
citrustwosac@google.mailer.company.invalid> wrote:

....
At least you're not at the talking clock stage. My eyesight is slowly
deteriorating, but has a long way to go before I can't see a digital
clock. Oddly, I have more problems with some colors. I can't focus
on red LED's and orange Nixie tubes. It's just a big blurr without
glasses. However, the blue fluorescent displays are easily visible.
Try different colors and see if it helps.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com

In between the two eyes I had several weeks with one new and one old.

The colors were oh so much better with the new eye and remain so for both
eyes.

One thing about cataract sugary, do not delay it. Your eyesight may get
worse at an increasing faster rate, I was almost blind even with one good
eye as the old eye was so bad.

SHF

 

[The Real Bev]

On 11/29/2016 10:22 PM, Stephen H. Fischer wrote:

Ah, you did not spent the extra money ($4,400) for multiple lens in each eye
like I did.

A friend just had those (+$3K over Medicare) done, and I envy her. My
ophthodoc said that my astigmatism would make multifocal lenses worse
than simple toric lenses (+$1K over Medicare), and I believed her. I've
always had between 2 and 3 D of astigmatism on top of 2 or 3D of
farsigntedness, and nobody in nearly 60 years of wearing glasses has
ever been able to fully correct the goddam astigmatism. It's almost all
gone now, and I thought about multi-focal contacts. Optometrist who
seemed to know what he was doing said I wouldn't be happy with those
either, and suggested monovision. That works, but not as well as I'd wish.

TMI, right?

I went from two sets of glasses to none. Watch on wrist to TV and driving.

http://www.changcataract.com/

Sorry, you have only one chance at cataract sugery.

Hubby's aunt's was botched badly -- wouldn't unfold or something. Not
only couldn't she see, but it was really painful. The operation was
redone and she's OK now. Rather different from "I'd like something
better, please."

--
Cheers, Bev
"If you put the government in charge of the desert, there would
be a sand shortage within ten years." -- M. Friedman (?)

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 09:16:51 -0800, The Real Bev
<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

I suspect that if Boulder stops sending sync signals the microsecond
accuracy of my watch will NOT be on my top-ten problem list

Nope. Between nightly updates, the watch free runs just like an
ordinary digital watch. If it updates nightly, it doesn't have enough
time to drift too far in 24 hrs. Besides, if it updated continuously,
the updates would drain the battery. So, the WWVB receiver is powered
on only after midnight, tries a few times according to some algorith,
and then turns off for the night as soon as it gets a valid update.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[The Real Bev]

On 11/29/2016 12:51 PM, lew wrote:

The Casio watch was nice until I had eye surgery after which I wasn't
able to see the time well without reading glasses. Have switched
to an analog faced timepiece with large numbers now.

Welcome to the world of the grownups!


--
Cheers, Bev
Nobody needs to speak on behalf of idiots, they manage
to speak entirely too much for themselves already.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 22:48:31 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@invalid.es> wrote:

My clocks (I have 4) do not have a ferrite rod, like those in the
wikipedia. Unless minimal and well hidden.

They have ferrite rods buried inside somewhere. Even the "atomic
wristwatch" has a tiny loopstick coil inside. Look for something like
these, which are a bit large for a wrist watch:
<http://www.c-max.com.hk/en/technology/rct/rct_perp>
<http://www.c-max-time.com/products/showProduct.php?id=20>
The key performance factor of a VLF receiver is the Q of the pickup
coil. Higher Q doesn't produce more signal, but does dramatically
reduce the inband noise levels. The higher the Q, the less noise is
picked up, and therefore the better the SNR (signal to noise radio).
Tiny rods are marginal, but do work. Big rods are much better for
reception. Big loops are even better, but without the ferrite core,
they tend to be huge.

Photos of both loops and loopsticks:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=wwvb+loop+antenna&tbm=isch>

It can easily be done with a Raspberry Pi.
http://www.satsignal.eu/raspberry-pi/DigitalClock.html

Interesting, but complicated.

If it were easy, it would probably not be any fun.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 00:04:30 -0500, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca>
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Nov 2016, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 22:48:31 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
robin_listas@invalid.es> wrote:

My clocks (I have 4) do not have a ferrite rod, like those in the
wikipedia. Unless minimal and well hidden.

They have ferrite rods buried inside somewhere. Even the "atomic
wristwatch" has a tiny loopstick coil inside. Look for something like
these, which are a bit large for a wrist watch:
http://www.c-max.com.hk/en/technology/rct/rct_perp
http://www.c-max-time.com/products/showProduct.php?id=20
The key performance factor of a VLF receiver is the Q of the pickup
coil. Higher Q doesn't produce more signal, but does dramatically
reduce the inband noise levels. The higher the Q, the less noise is
picked up, and therefore the better the SNR (signal to noise radio).
Tiny rods are marginal, but do work. Big rods are much better for
reception. Big loops are even better, but without the ferrite core,
they tend to be huge.

That's the weird part, my Casio watch seems to be the one most likely to
sync up, so long as I orient it right when I go to bed, yet it's a
miniscule antenna.

But having opened some of the "atomic" clocks I have it's also a surprise
that the loopsticks aren't particularly long. Even the wall clock doesn't
ahve a longer loopstick than the portable.

No clue who said it first, but the consensus is that RF is magic.

The object of the antenna is to produce the best possible SNR, not the
strongest signal. If you replace the tiny antenna with a bigger
antenna, the WWVB signal will increase, but so will the received
atmospheric noise level, resulting in no net improvement in SNR. What
will change is the Q (essentially the bandwidth) of the receiver front
end. A low Q wide band loopstick will pickup far more atmospheric
noise than a high Q narrow band loopstick.

Notice how the atmospheric noise (mostly from lightning) increases
dramatically as the frequency goes down:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_noise>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_noise#/media/File:Atmosphericnoise.PNG>

Of course, there's a limit to how small a practical loopstick can be
built. Mostly, the size of the wire to wind the loopstick, its
resistance, and the characteristics of the ferrite material, set the
lower limit. The loopsticks can be made smaller, if you can afford
the fine wire needed to get enough turns.

There's also an upper limit to the size of the loopstick. It's
possible to have such a high Q, that the bandwidth of the WWVB signal
(about 5Hz) will not fit within the loopstick bandwidth. Temperature
and mechanical stability will also be a problem with very high Q
loopsticks. Orientation sensitivity also becomes somewhat of a
problem.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 22:30:26 -0800, "Stephen H. Fischer"
<a_nani_mouse@mindspring.com> wrote:

In between the two eyes I had several weeks with one new and one old.
The colors were oh so much better with the new eye and remain so for both
eyes.
One thing about cataract sugary, do not delay it. Your eyesight may get
worse at an increasing faster rate, I was almost blind even with one good
eye as the old eye was so bad.

Thanks. I'm 68 solar revolutions old, so that's a real possibility.
No sign of cataracts, but I'm borderline with glaucoma. Some of my
friends have had cataract surgery and opted for strange combinations,
such as one eye optimized for close work, and the other for distant
and driving. They all say that it can be quite functional. Nobody
mentioned color, but I'll ask.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 20:34:42 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

You can actually use a 128Kbit/sec sound card to hear (and see) the
60KHz signals. By implication, you can also see the nearby noise
sources. Buy a 128Kbit/sec sound card or dongle. Download a copy of
SDR Sharp. Go noise hunting. I'm sure you'll find something you
didn't expect.

Oops. That should be a 192KHz 24 bit sound card.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[The Real Bev]

On 11/30/2016 07:45 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 22:30:26 -0800, "Stephen H. Fischer"
a_nani_mouse@mindspring.com> wrote:

In between the two eyes I had several weeks with one new and one old.
The colors were oh so much better with the new eye and remain so for both
eyes.
One thing about cataract sugary, do not delay it. Your eyesight may get
worse at an increasing faster rate, I was almost blind even with one good
eye as the old eye was so bad.

Thanks. I'm 68 solar revolutions old, so that's a real possibility.
No sign of cataracts, but I'm borderline with glaucoma.

High pressure, drops, no damage yet? Likewise. The main reason I had
my cataracts done was to get rid of the astigmatism (which glasses were
never able to fully correct and which made contacts very nearly
useless), and it worked really well!

Some of my
friends have had cataract surgery and opted for strange combinations,
such as one eye optimized for close work, and the other for distant
and driving. They all say that it can be quite functional.

I wouldn't dream of having permanent monovision (one eye for distance,
one for near), but I have contacts like that. The brain deals with it
-- mostly -- but there's a certain amount of ghosting unless the light
is really bright. My daughter doesn't even notice that with hers.

Nobody
mentioned color, but I'll ask.

Cataracts turn the lens yellow. I was really surprised to see the
difference in color between the two eyes. (I waited months to have the
second eye done -- I wanted to be SURE!) The brain makes everything
work together (my ski goggles are yellow, but within a minute or so the
snow is all white again; when I take the goggles off the snow is
slightly blue for a while), so it's not a real problem -- just interesting.

--
Cheers, Bev
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the
majority, but to be insane in such a useful way that
they can't commit you." -- Mark Edwards

 

[Stephen H. Fischer]

One problem with multiple lens in each eyes is sun glint during the sunny
days and LED lights in dark rooms. After five years my mind is only
partially reducing that effect. Any bright spot on DTV with a black
background will have a halo.

I do NOT drive at night and do not recommend any one with multiple lens in
each eye to do so.

The 4th of July Fireworks is interesting, each spot of light is a little
Saturn with rings. All of them at once.

SHF

"The Real Bev" <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote in message
news1n13u$pcr$1@dont-email.me...

On 11/30/2016 07:45 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 22:30:26 -0800, "Stephen H. Fischer"
a_nani_mouse@mindspring.com> wrote:

In between the two eyes I had several weeks with one new and one old.
The colors were oh so much better with the new eye and remain so for both
eyes.
One thing about cataract sugary, do not delay it. Your eyesight may get
worse at an increasing faster rate, I was almost blind even with one good
eye as the old eye was so bad.

Thanks. I'm 68 solar revolutions old, so that's a real possibility.
No sign of cataracts, but I'm borderline with glaucoma.

High pressure, drops, no damage yet? Likewise. The main reason I had my
cataracts done was to get rid of the astigmatism (which glasses were never
able to fully correct and which made contacts very nearly useless), and it
worked really well!

Some of my
friends have had cataract surgery and opted for strange combinations,
such as one eye optimized for close work, and the other for distant
and driving. They all say that it can be quite functional.

I wouldn't dream of having permanent monovision (one eye for distance, one
for near), but I have contacts like that. The brain deals with it --
mostly -- but there's a certain amount of ghosting unless the light is
really bright. My daughter doesn't even notice that with hers.

Nobody
mentioned color, but I'll ask.

Cataracts turn the lens yellow. I was really surprised to see the
difference in color between the two eyes. (I waited months to have the
second eye done -- I wanted to be SURE!) The brain makes everything work
together (my ski goggles are yellow, but within a minute or so the snow is
all white again; when I take the goggles off the snow is slightly blue
for a while), so it's not a real problem -- just interesting.

--
Cheers, Bev
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the
majority, but to be insane in such a useful way that
they can't commit you." -- Mark Edwards

 

[AL]

On 11/30/2016 10:51 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

On 11/30/2016 09:20 PM, AL wrote:

For those contemplating the procedure my only advice is don't wait.

Or at least wait until insurance covers it.

For sure. Mine cost me 50 bucks an eye.

 

[The Real Bev]

On 11/30/2016 09:20 PM, AL wrote:

On 11/30/2016 10:10 AM, The Real Bev wrote:

I wouldn't dream of having permanent monovision (one eye for distance,
one for near), but I have contacts like that. The brain deals with it
-- mostly -- but there's a certain amount of ghosting unless the light
is really bright. My daughter doesn't even notice that with hers.

Don't you lose your binocular (3D) vision with that setup? I was offered
that for my implants but declined. I never really minded wearing glasses
all that much anyway. I have my implants set for indoor distances so
only really need glasses for reading and driving.

Not that I've noticed. The out-of-focusness isn't that bad, especially
when my pupils are stopped down. I would never have selected monovision
IOLs, but I was surprised at how good the contacts are.

I had my IOLs set for distance. I spend most of my time doing close
stuff, but I want to be able to see without glasses outside, which seems
much more urgent. Besides, the 99-Cents-Only Store reading glasses work
just fine, but you have to pay to get prescription distance glasses!

When my mom had her cataracts done her ophthoquack decided she should
have near vision, which meant that she wore trifocals and hated them.
She was really angry when I found out and told her that she could have
chosen distance if that's what she wanted. The quack was a quack in
other ways too, and another ophthalmologist spent half an hour on the
phone trying to convince me not to report the bastard to the medical
board. He won -- I knew I wouldn't be able to get a doctor to testify
against the quack, but I was seriously thinking of picketing his office.
Mom didn't want me to, so I didn't. "Ask me how Dr. Schiff blinded my
mom..."

Cataracts turn the lens yellow. I was really surprised to see the
difference in color between the two eyes.

My color improvement was amazing. I had no idea I was that bad. When
they deteriorate slowly over the years you don't notice.

(I waited months to have the second eye done --

3 months for me. Between eyes I went to a Savers store and found some
used glasses that had a lenses that worked for the new eye and knocked
out the other lens for the old eye. Worked surprisingly well for that
time I had unbalanced eyes. Looked a little weird though.

I just had one lens in my regular glasses replaced. Did the other one
after the other eye was done. Glasses still improve my vision, but it's
just SOOO much better than it was that I'm not about to complain. Well,
maybe a little...

I've had the implants in ten years now with no problems. My eyeglass
prescription never changes anymore which is nice. For some reason my
pupils now give a green reflection which gives my grandkids a charge.

Slick.

> For those contemplating the procedure my only advice is don't wait.

Or at least wait until insurance covers it.


--
Cheers, Bev
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the
majority, but to be insane in such a useful way that
they can't commit you." -- Mark Edwards

 

[AL]

On 11/30/2016 10:10 AM, The Real Bev wrote:

I wouldn't dream of having permanent monovision (one eye for distance,
one for near), but I have contacts like that. The brain deals with it
-- mostly -- but there's a certain amount of ghosting unless the light
is really bright. My daughter doesn't even notice that with hers.

Don't you lose your binocular (3D) vision with that setup? I was offered
that for my implants but declined. I never really minded wearing glasses
all that much anyway. I have my implants set for indoor distances so
only really need glasses for reading and driving.

Cataracts turn the lens yellow. I was really surprised to see the
difference in color between the two eyes.

My color improvement was amazing. I had no idea I was that bad. When
they deteriorate slowly over the years you don't notice.

> (I waited months to have the second eye done --

3 months for me. Between eyes I went to a Savers store and found some
used glasses that had a lenses that worked for the new eye and knocked
out the other lens for the old eye. Worked surprisingly well for that
time I had unbalanced eyes. Looked a little weird though.

I've had the implants in ten years now with no problems. My eyeglass
prescription never changes anymore which is nice. For some reason my
pupils now give a green reflection which gives my grandkids a charge.

For those contemplating the procedure my only advice is don't wait.

 

[The Real Bev]

On 11/30/2016 11:15 PM, AL wrote:

On 11/30/2016 10:51 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
On 11/30/2016 09:20 PM, AL wrote:

For those contemplating the procedure my only advice is don't wait.

Or at least wait until insurance covers it.

For sure. Mine cost me 50 bucks an eye.

Was that for 'normal' lenses or toric/multifocals? Medicare pays for
ordinary lenses, but the user has to pay the difference for the fancy
lenses. $1K each for torics and $3K each for toric multifocals.

--
Cheers, Bev
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"The language of victimization is infinitely extensible." -- Me

 

[AL]

On 12/2/2016 1:01 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

On 11/30/2016 11:15 PM, AL wrote:
On 11/30/2016 10:51 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
On 11/30/2016 09:20 PM, AL wrote:

For those contemplating the procedure my only advice is don't
wait.

Or at least wait until insurance covers it.

For sure. Mine cost me 50 bucks an eye.

Was that for 'normal' lenses or toric/multifocals?

Normal lenses with UV and blue light filter.

Medicare pays for ordinary lenses, but the user has to pay the
difference for the fancy lenses. $1K each for torics and $3K each
for toric multifocals.

I'm on a Medicare Advantage (independent insurance company's) HMO plan
and the $50 was an outpatient co-pay per procedure. I was offered other
types of lenses at the time but it's been ten years and I don't remember
what they were or any added costs.