yes, i have been googling, and still do not know
what the difference is between these two terms. my
guess is that "coaxial" could simply mean, "two knobs",
one on each side.

also, wrt to course/fine, does this require two seperate
"tracks"? i am guessing two knobs/gears engaging two
linear "gears", but the linear components can be integral.

i am just getting introduced, thinking of sinking some $$
into a decent used or new compound biological or industrial
unit. also, any recommendations or recent experiences
would be very welcome. thanks! --Loren

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 05:47:14 GMT, Loren A. Coe wrote:

yes, i have been googling, and still do not know
what the difference is between these two terms. my
guess is that "coaxial" could simply mean, "two knobs",
one on each side.

also, wrt to course/fine, does this require two seperate
"tracks"? i am guessing two knobs/gears engaging two
linear "gears", but the linear components can be integral.


I have used microscopes with a coarse and fine adjustment. The coarse
directly drives onto the linear track. I believe the fine focus knob drives
a gearset inside the coarse knob (planatery gearset?). So while the there is
still only one linear gear, the reduction set make for a "finer" focus. I
think this how it works because the fine knob is concentric to the coarse
knob (stacked, ...sorta). Either way, it works!

Sorry, don't know what "coaxial" is used in this context.

--
Skuke
Reverse the domain name to send email

"skuke" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 05:47:14 GMT, Loren A. Coe wrote:

yes, i have been googling, and still do not know
what the difference is between these two terms. my
guess is that "coaxial" could simply mean, "two knobs",
one on each side.

also, wrt to course/fine, does this require two seperate
"tracks"? i am guessing two knobs/gears engaging two
linear "gears", but the linear components can be integral.


I have used microscopes with a coarse and fine adjustment. The coarse
directly drives onto the linear track. I believe the fine focus knob drives
a gearset inside the coarse knob (planatery gearset?). So while the there is
still only one linear gear, the reduction set make for a "finer" focus. I
think this how it works because the fine knob is concentric to the coarse
knob (stacked, ...sorta). Either way, it works!

Sorry, don't know what "coaxial" is used in this context.

--
Skuke
Reverse the domain name to send email

In this case "coaxial" means two knobs on one axis, fine focus being a small diameter
knob on the inside, coarse focus being a large diameter knob on the outside.

Coincidentally, I just took delivery of my new binocular microscope today. Low power
(10x & 20x) for inspecting (in my case) tool bits and coins.

I put one of my lovely, pristine, proof(like) coins on the stage, focussed on it,
and...

....now I wanna take the microscope back! Sob!

;-(

Jeff

Hi Loren,

Can't help with the terminology, I'm an electronics guy, *but* I will
pass on my 2 cents worth about buying a microscope. Don't just buy one
out of a catalogue, or in any other way sight-unseen. Before you lay
down your hard-earned, use it for a while - 5 mins, 10, 15. Take
something typical with you to examine. Some microscopes are an absolute
bitch to use, others are (relatively) shear bliss. We have a couple of
stereo units in the lab, one sits on the shelf gathering dust (for
several years now), and the Olympus is in continual use. I can't
remember the make of the unused one, it's a well-known quality brand,
but terrible to use. I contemplated bringing it home to use in my shop,
tried convincing myself that for no cost I could put up with a bit of
pain and agro, so I took it down off the shelf, dusted it off, and tried
using it with a positive mental attitude. It's back sitting om the
shelf, and I'm still scanning the auction lists for an Olympus.


Roger



Loren A. Coe wrote:

yes, i have been googling, and still do not know
what the difference is between these two terms. my
guess is that "coaxial" could simply mean, "two knobs",
one on each side.

also, wrt to course/fine, does this require two seperate
"tracks"? i am guessing two knobs/gears engaging two
linear "gears", but the linear components can be integral.

i am just getting introduced, thinking of sinking some $$
into a decent used or new compound biological or industrial
unit. also, any recommendations or recent experiences
would be very welcome. thanks! --Loren

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 12:47:52 GMT, Roger Head wrote:

Don't just buy one
out of a catalogue, or in any other way sight-unseen. Before you lay
down your hard-earned, use it for a while - 5 mins, 10, 15. Take
something typical with you to examine. Some microscopes are an absolute
bitch to use, others are (relatively) shear bliss. We have a couple of
stereo units in the lab, one sits on the shelf gathering dust (for
several years now), and the Olympus is in continual use. I can't
remember the make of the unused one, it's a well-known quality brand,
but terrible to use. I contemplated bringing it home to use in my shop,
tried convincing myself that for no cost I could put up with a bit of
pain and agro, so I took it down off the shelf, dusted it off, and tried
using it with a positive mental attitude. It's back sitting om the
shelf, and I'm still scanning the auction lists for an Olympus.


I agree! Better quality optics, prisms, brightness, field of view size,
sharpness at the edges, ease of use... I've used Meiji and Bausch and Lomb
stereo 'scopes and the Meiji's were far superior. I've also used Olympus
and B&L(?) compound (biology) 'scopes and the Olympus was better. However,
having said that, if I had ONLY used B&L, I would have been ignorant and
thought everything was just fine. When I had something to compare too,
....way different story. And this wasn't one B&L vs. one Meiji. The lab
next to the machine shop had many of each (and mostly the same model) so I
could make a fair comparison.

But, as with any precision instrument, proper care and maintenance is
required. If you're spending "bank" on a new scope and it doesn't look
right, then perhaps you have a poorly ground lens, mirror... or something is
slightly misaligned. It probably can be fixed.

BTW, my favorites loupes have been a Zeiss surgical loupe. I'm not sure
how, but I think the Zeiss factory found a way to defy the laws of physics.
I was comparing them to other $1000+ loupes of the same magnification, focal
length... The image was the sharpest, brightest, true colored.... every
aspect about them was better including the price (about $100.00 cheaper than
the second best pair).

--
Skuke
Reverse the domain name to send email

A.Gent wrote:

In this case "coaxial" means two knobs on one axis, fine focus being a small diameter
knob on the inside, coarse focus being a large diameter knob on the outside.

Coincidentally, I just took delivery of my new binocular microscope today. Low power
(10x & 20x) for inspecting (in my case) tool bits and coins.

I put one of my lovely, pristine, proof(like) coins on the stage, focussed on it,
and... ...now I wanna take the microscope back! Sob! ;-( Jeff

gak! why? bad scope or dinged coins?

i would not be going thru this exercise if i could just _find_ the
stereo head i bot at work (surplus) for $10. a nice B&L unit, but
sans base. it's nice to have some stuff "in the bin", but when you
can not longer find anything, it get's to be frustrating (didn't we
just revisit this subject?). --Loren

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 05:47:14 GMT, "Loren A. Coe" wrote:
i am just getting introduced, thinking of sinking some $$
into a decent used or new compound biological or industrial
unit. also, any recommendations or recent experiences
would be very welcome. thanks! --Loren


Think first hard for a moment what you are going to use the scope for. I´m not sure what theterm biological microscope means in this case. As a biologist i´ve used
everything from 5X loupes to scanning electron microscopes. For most non science work I would get a stereo scope with a zoom. saay 10 to 40x magnification.
The Olympuses I´ve used were great. For the big spender a Leitz is the king

skuke wrote in message .. .

I agree! Better quality optics, prisms, brightness, field of view size,
sharpness at the edges, ease of use... I've used Meiji and Bausch and Lomb
stereo 'scopes and the Meiji's were far superior. I've also used Olympus
and B&L(?) compound (biology) 'scopes and the Olympus was better.

YOu've got a sorry case of "japsuperioritis". If you used one of the
last B&L scopes sold, just bear in mind that it was from the same line
that made Olympus. Optically, mechanically, the same, the only
difference, the name tag. The best one I've ever used was a B&L
Balplan, not popular because if anything happens to the objectives,
you're screwed, no other company on earth has ever marketed a flat
field scope that was of that quality and as well accepted.

But, as with any precision instrument, proper care and maintenance is
required. If you're spending "bank" on a new scope and it doesn't look
right, then perhaps you have a poorly ground lens, mirror... or something is
slightly misaligned. It probably can be fixed.

And probably by learning how to PROPERLY adjust the condenser and the
light source. A Zeiss that isn't properly adjusted is about as good
as a Tasco.

Sorry, but I've got a pretty good collection of old scopes, and I've
found nothing any better than my 1920's B&L. If you want to waste
money, you can go buy a Reichart-Jung for several thousand more than
an AO series 10 would cost, and then find that they're identical,
guess who bought the line from AO? If you want to spend the big
bucks, you might also look at their microtomes, which are cheapened
and crude versions of the old AO. Junk with a fancy name isn't as
good as "pedestrian" with an American brand on it.

Don't remember who started this thread, but if you're interested in a
used one, good quality, you might contact J&H Microscope repair
service in Madison Wisconsin, don't have Jerry's phone number right
now or I'd give it to you. He's got quite a few used ones ranging
from AO student models to Zeiss, if you really want to make him happy.
He's usually got something in the range of $200 to $1000, and he
isn't going to send any junk. I get the junk from him. (But then I
also get to dig through the drawers and pick out what I need, and I
take the best of what's there.) He gets them in lots from
universities, then takes what he needs from some of them to fix the
best ones to like new condition, or as close as he can come to it. Or
email me, I've got more than twenty, and I only use two of them. (No,
you can't have my AO Gray Lady. [10X-20X -30X stereo] I've only got
one of them.) Check with Jerry first, I'm not going to be any
cheaper.

In article , Lennie the Lurker
says...

Don't remember who started this thread, but if you're interested in a
used one, good quality, you might contact J&H Microscope repair
service in Madison Wisconsin, don't have Jerry's phone number right
now or I'd give it to you. He's got quite a few used ones ranging
from AO student models to Zeiss, if you really want to make him happy.
He's usually got something in the range of $200 to $1000, and he
isn't going to send any junk. I get the junk from him. (But then I
also get to dig through the drawers and pick out what I need, and I
take the best of what's there.) He gets them in lots from
universities, then takes what he needs from some of them to fix the
best ones to like new condition, or as close as he can come to it. Or
email me, I've got more than twenty, and I only use two of them. (No,
you can't have my AO Gray Lady. [10X-20X -30X stereo] I've only got
one of them.) Check with Jerry first, I'm not going to be any
cheaper.

Do you think he would have a surplus illuminator from a
zeiss surgical microscope?

What's a gray lady, the one with the revolving turret with
the three binocular objectives?

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Lennie the Lurker wrote:
skuke wrote in message .. .

I agree! Better quality optics, prisms, brightness, field of view size,
sharpness at the edges, ease of use... I've used Meiji and Bausch and Lomb
stereo 'scopes and the Meiji's were far superior. I've also used Olympus
and B&L(?) compound (biology) 'scopes and the Olympus was better.

YOu've got a sorry case of "japsuperioritis". If you used one of the
last B&L scopes sold, just bear in mind that it was from the same line
that made Olympus. Optically, mechanically, the same, the only
difference, the name tag. The best one I've ever used was a B&L
Balplan, not popular because if anything happens to the objectives,
you're screwed, no other company on earth has ever marketed a flat
field scope that was of that quality and as well accepted.

i don't hope to speak to higher skills and equipment, but i finally
lost patience and went to Fry's tonight and bot a Celestron "basic"
scope. full size (DIN?) optics, price 149.00. it seems quite good
mechanically and my first view w/the least power was impressive.

what i was asking is about the focus, this model 4030 is supposed to
have that. it also should have coated optics (but does not). the
focus is indeed impressive. i do not know the actual mechanics, but
about 20 turns of the fine knob = 1/8 turn of the coarse. the surprise
is that you _cannot_ feel _any_ motion on the rack when turning the
fine knob.

i am guessing this is some type of friction coupling. --Loren

On 25 Feb 2004 18:51:00 -0800, Lennie the Lurker wrote:

I've used Meiji and Bausch and Lomb
stereo 'scopes and the Meiji's were far superior. I've also used Olympus
and B&L(?) compound (biology) 'scopes and the Olympus was better.

YOu've got a sorry case of "japsuperioritis".

Hmmm?? Inflammation of my "japsuperior". I've taken quite a bit of anatomy
and physiology, where the hell is my japsuperior?? I'd guess it's above my
jap, but I'm not ever sure where *that* is.

Anyhow, I calls 'em as I sees em. The Meiji stereo microscope was FAR
SUPERIOR to the B&L. Superior in crispness, sharpness, focus at the edges
of the field of view, depth of view, color, brightness, ease of use,
smoothness of the focus gearing, and price.

In regards to the compound microscope, the Olympus was superior than the
"other" which I recall to be a B&L but I'm not positive. Hence the question
mark I used.





If you used one of the
last B&L scopes sold, just bear in mind that it was from the same line
that made Olympus. Optically, mechanically, the same, the only
difference, the name tag.

The stereo Meiji and B&L were bought new in 1997-1999. Approximately eight
Meiji and four B&L over that two year period. I don't know if B&L actually
made the stereo 'scope or just put their tag on during that time period but
they were certainly living off their past laurels.



The best one I've ever used was a B&L
Balplan,

I'm sure it is. It was probably made during a time when those laurels I
wrote of were created.

--
Skuke
Reverse the domain name to send email

"Loren A. Coe" wrote in message
news:be8%b.56598$Xp.269358@attbi_s54...
A.Gent wrote:

I put one of my lovely, pristine, proof(like) coins on the stage, focussed on it,
and... ...now I wanna take the microscope back! Sob! ;-( Jeff

gak! why? bad scope or dinged coins?

Lovely 'scope. Brilliant stereo image.
Makes the proof coins look like the surface of the moon.
sigghhhhh.

Sometimes ignorance is bliss.

The older I get, the better my coins look.

J.

henning wrote in message ...
"Loren A. Coe" wrote:

i am just getting introduced, thinking of sinking some $$
into a decent used or new compound biological or industrial
unit. also, any recommendations or recent experiences
would be very welcome. thanks! --Loren


Think first hard for a moment what you are going to use the scope for.
I´m not sure what theterm biological microscope means in this case.
As a biologist i´ve used everything from 5X loupes to scanning
electron microscopes. For most non science work I would get a stereo
scope with a zoom. saay 10 to 40x magnification. The Olympuses I´ve
used were great. For the big spender a Leitz is the king

I believe the illumination scheme from a condenser under a slide stage
is the main thing defining a "biological" scope. If the illumination
is from above I believe this is considered metalurgical. Not sure if
this is the complete story. Many low power scopes can use either
illumination mode.

A lot of good microscopes of several kinds can use either top
(reflected) or bottom (transmission) illumination.

Metallurgical microscopes now are often 'inverted', with the optics
looking UP at the bottom of the stage. You just lay the sample on the
table, over the optical port. Should the sample be transparent, you can
still place a lamp above the table.

Dan Mitchell
==========

Dave wrote:

henning wrote in message ...
"Loren A. Coe" wrote:

i am just getting introduced, thinking of sinking some $$
into a decent used or new compound biological or industrial
unit. also, any recommendations or recent experiences
would be very welcome. thanks! --Loren


Think first hard for a moment what you are going to use the scope for.
I´m not sure what theterm biological microscope means in this case.
As a biologist i´ve used everything from 5X loupes to scanning
electron microscopes. For most non science work I would get a stereo
scope with a zoom. saay 10 to 40x magnification. The Olympuses I´ve
used were great. For the big spender a Leitz is the king

I believe the illumination scheme from a condenser under a slide stage
is the main thing defining a "biological" scope. If the illumination
is from above I believe this is considered metalurgical. Not sure if
this is the complete story. Many low power scopes can use either
illumination mode.

In article , Dave says...

I believe the illumination scheme from a condenser under a slide stage
is the main thing defining a "biological" scope. If the illumination
is from above I believe this is considered metalurgical. Not sure if
this is the complete story. Many low power scopes can use either
illumination mode.

There are many biological applications where a regular
stereozoom microscope is the regular instrument, with
illumination from on top.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Lennie the Lurker wrote:
skuke wrote in message .. .

I agree! Better quality optics, prisms, brightness, field of view size,
sharpness at the edges, ease of use... I've used Meiji and Bausch and Lomb
stereo 'scopes and the Meiji's were far superior. I've also used Olympus
and B&L(?) compound (biology) 'scopes and the Olympus was better.

YOu've got a sorry case of "japsuperioritis". If you used one of the
last B&L scopes sold, just bear in mind that it was from the same line
that made Olympus. Optically, mechanically, the same, the only
difference, the name tag. The best one I've ever used was a B&L
Balplan, not popular because if anything happens to the objectives,
you're screwed, no other company on earth has ever marketed a flat
field scope that was of that quality and as well accepted.
.....
Sorry, but I've got a pretty good collection of old scopes, and I've
found nothing any better than my 1920's B&L. If you want to waste
money, you can go buy a Reichart-Jung for several thousand more than
an AO series 10 would cost, and then find that they're identical,
guess who bought the line from AO? If you want to spend the big
bucks, you might also look at their microtomes, which are cheapened
and crude versions of the old AO. Junk with a fancy name isn't as
good as "pedestrian" with an American brand on it.

Don't remember who started this thread, but if you're interested in a
used one, good quality, you might contact J&H Microscope repair

thanks for the reference, maybe we can do business in the future.

service in Madison Wisconsin, don't have Jerry's phone number right
now or I'd give it to you. He's got quite a few used ones ranging
from AO student models to Zeiss, if you really want to make him happy.

i am not sure about the AO models, but the one i bid on is a binocular
24a, price was under 150.00, complete, clean, one-owner (university).
the objective descriptions are a little criptic, but the seller called
and i am comfortable that he will be good to deal with.

email me, I've got more than twenty, and I only use two of them. (No,
you can't have my AO Gray Lady. [10X-20X -30X stereo] I've only got
one of them.) Check with Jerry first, I'm not going to be any
cheaper.

again, thanks, this is a new hobby for me. you never know where it
will take you(me) but i can see why several microscopes could be
"normal", sorta like amateur astronomers, right? Regards, --Loren

(Dave) wrote in message om...
henning wrote in message ...

I believe the illumination scheme from a condenser under a slide stage
is the main thing defining a "biological" scope. If the illumination
is from above I believe this is considered metalurgical. Not sure if
this is the complete story. Many low power scopes can use either
illumination mode.

Not always in either case. I have a 1940's vintage AO that has
illumination either from the top or the bottom, as well as polaroid
filtering. Came out of a lab at the university, botany, IIRC. I
quite often use the Eppe illumination for examining algae, and have
been known to use the polarizing filters to check out crystals growing
as the solution on the slide dries. Transmitted illumination doesn't
do a lot of good for metalurgy, that's almost always reflected, and at
one time I had a 40's vintage metalurgical that used a carbon arc lamp
for the illumination. B&L had a scheme, the lenses themselves were
mounted in a lucite sleeve, and there was a coaxial tube in the barrel
of the microscope. The outer portion contained a light, and the inner
sleeve kept this out of the light path to the eyepiece. 40X is about
the highest magnification objective I've seen with this, but most
metalurgical stuff isn't high power anyhow. (40 X would yield 400X
when using 10X eyepieces, anything stronger than that in an eyepiece
and you're pushing things beyond what they were designed to do.
Standard design eyepiece for most scopes is 5X.)

Another common confusion is between binocular and stereo scopes. Both
have two eyepieces, but the binocular only has one objective, and is
NOT stereo. I have some 30's vintage AO's that have binocular heads
on them, but stereo wasn't a consideration and is not included in
them. One that I'm glad I did pick up, came from an electron
microscope. 7X, but 9" working distance. Best "sliver finder" I've
ever had. Also very good for finding that "click" in the rack of a
dial caliper.

"Loren A. Coe" wrote in message news:xGs%b.66200$4o.87437@attbi_s52...

again, thanks, this is a new hobby for me. you never know where it
will take you(me) but i can see why several microscopes could be
"normal", sorta like amateur astronomers, right? Regards, --Loren

CHuckle It might take you to where it did me, for a while I was
accepted as qualified to do algae samples from poluted lakes by the
local DNR office. (When you see microcystis and coelosphaerium in a
sample of smelly water, you know the guy that brought the sample in is
going to be unhappy with having to replace his septic system. Used to
love that.)

Not familiar with the model number, but one owner sounds good,
university could be either way. Some take care of them, I have one
from Cornell that was in pretty bad shape, must have been stored in a
very wet location, everything was corroded to where it took me the
better part of two weeks to get the moving parts to move. That is my
20's vintage B&L, and as I had to build it back from the parts
drawers, it has the best optics of any of them. (Going through
hundreds of objectives, picking the best one isn't hard to do,
especially since I only pay $10 each.) Mechanical stage is always a
plus, and if it doesn't have one, and the stage fingers, those two
little clips, are missing, pass on it. They're made of the finest
unobtanium. (IF some enterprising person wants to do it, there's a
good market for replacements for B&L and AO, and most don't care if
they're $15 each. Without them, scopes that don't have a mechanical
stage are almost useless.) Eyepiece barrel diameter and objective
lens threads are standardized, nothing else is.

Have fun, there's a lot of the world that most people never see.

jim rozen wrote:

In article , Dave says...

I believe the illumination scheme from a condenser under a slide stage
is the main thing defining a "biological" scope. If the illumination
is from above I believe this is considered metalurgical. Not sure if
this is the complete story. Many low power scopes can use either
illumination mode.

There are many biological applications where a regular
stereozoom microscope is the regular instrument, with
illumination from on top.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Defining a microscope by it's use is not too accurate as often various
disciplines use the same type of scope but aren't really aware of what
other disciplines call them. Dissecting microscopes are usually
stereo with fairly low power and lots of work space between the lens
(like 6-8 inches or so) and top lit. Those type of microscopes are
used for mineral study also, so "dissecting" is not a very good
definition. The same goes for compound microscopes with the lens
above or below the stage. Various disciplines use both type of
microscopes. Much better to define the microscope by its build.

Lennie the Lurker wrote:
(Dave) wrote in message om...
henning wrote in message ...
I believe the illumination scheme from a condenser under a slide stage
is the main thing defining a "biological" scope. If the illumination
is from above I believe this is considered metalurgical. Not sure if
this is the complete story. Many low power scopes can use either
illumination mode.

Not always in either case. I have a 1940's vintage AO that has

does the color/type of finish date the AO products? what i bid on
appears to be an older model, with a gray (probably crackle) finish.
comparing photos of similar models (with the _same_ model#) will
show a smooth finish, and a redesigned throat/slide.

also, does anyone know what a "HOM 1-1.8mm" objective would be, or
what N.A. means (wrt to objectives)? thanks! --Loren

jim rozen wrote in message ...

Do you think he would have a surplus illuminator from a
zeiss surgical microscope?

You mean the one used in surgury? On the humongous stand? He might
have, and IIRC, his number is (608)249-6961.

What's a gray lady, the one with the revolving turret with
the three binocular objectives?

Yup. More commonly refered to as the "neck breaking SOB" because the
standard mount doesn't incline. I have the inclining mount. IIRC,
the standard mount is the "A" mount, the inclining stand for the "A"
mount is the "B" mount, and the one most often seen in industrial work
is the "C" mount. C mount is very heavy, the one with the large
column and overarm. I had mine given to me because the images in the
eyepieces didn't line up, but it's a "no brainer" to put the objective
centering back where it belongs. (I make replacement gears for a
Nikon that they no longer support, and checking the tooth form is
about the only use that one gets.) I have to make my own hobs for
that one, and it takes a while, but when I can run thirty gears in an
hours time, and get $7.50 each,,,,

henning wrote:

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 05:47:14 GMT, "Loren A. Coe" wrote:
i am just getting introduced, thinking of sinking some $$
into a decent used or new compound biological or industrial
unit. also, any recommendations or recent experiences
would be very welcome. thanks! --Loren


Think first hard for a moment what you are going to use the scope for. I´m not sure what theterm biological microscope means in this case. As a biologist i´ve used
everything from 5X loupes to scanning electron microscopes. For most non science work I would get a stereo scope with a zoom. saay 10 to 40x magnification.
The Olympuses I´ve used were great. For the big spender a Leitz is the king

I'll agree with that. I've used many brands of compound microscopes
including the AO student types which are pretty crude. The low cost
scopes just don't compare with expensive ones. I've seen some nice
Zeiss machines but the best I've every seen were Leitz. Of course one
Leitz lens may cost as much as AO microscope. And a Leica (maker of
Leitz lenses) stereo zoom microscope I saw last week end was the cat's
pajamas, but they are spendy. Here's the thing, if you are going to
be looking in a microscope for hours each day buy the best you can
afford, maybe buy one you can't afford. Your stomach and head will
thank you if you have any tendency toward getting sick looking through
microscopes.

In article , George E. Cawthon says...

I'll agree with that. I've used many brands of compound microscopes
including the AO student types which are pretty crude. The low cost
scopes just don't compare with expensive ones. I've seen some nice
Zeiss machines but the best I've every seen were Leitz. Of course one
Leitz lens may cost as much as AO microscope. And a Leica (maker of
Leitz lenses) stereo zoom microscope I saw last week end was the cat's
pajamas, but they are spendy. Here's the thing, if you are going to
be looking in a microscope for hours each day buy the best you can
afford, maybe buy one you can't afford. Your stomach and head will
thank you if you have any tendency toward getting sick looking through
microscopes.

Agree! Towards the end, B&L was bought out by Leica. They
were producing the sterozoom pods in exact duplicate of
B&Ls designe, probably from the same factory.

Now Leica seems to have gotten away from those though.

I've used a sterozoom 4 for years, at one time they made
ultra-wide field 15x eyepieces, that give more field
of view than the regular 10x WF ones. With those things
the sterozoom really becomes quite useable. I used sunnex
lamps to illuminate, but at this time I've found that
a fiber-optic ring light is the way to go. But I still
keep two sunnex lamps right there, for fill-in light.

I found a Wild stero microscope in the scrap metal bin
(heh, I love working here) and got my boss to spring
for the eyepieces it was missing. Marginally nicer
than the sterozoom. The field of view on that seems to
have a *teeny* bit of barrel distortion though, compared
to the sterozoom. Just takes getting used to.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Lennie the Lurker
says...

Do you think he would have a surplus illuminator from a
zeiss surgical microscope?

You mean the one used in surgury? On the humongous stand? He might
have, and IIRC, his number is (608)249-6961.

Thanks for the lead, I've been searching for that. Yep, the
one with the roll-y-round stand.

What's a gray lady, the one with the revolving turret with
the three binocular objectives?

Yup. More commonly refered to as the "neck breaking SOB" because the
standard mount doesn't incline. I have the inclining mount. IIRC,
the standard mount is the "A" mount, the inclining stand for the "A"
mount is the "B" mount, and the one most often seen in industrial work
is the "C" mount.

Ah, I have one of those at home. It was purchased for my father
when he was in high school, by his dad. That and a AO monocular
microscope. I inherited the binocular one and it does come
in handy at home at times. Wood, leatherette covered case,
but the finish on the stand is black crinkle finish IIRC.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Loren A. Coe" wrote in message news:07A%b.405328$I06.4401672@attbi_s01...
Lennie the Lurker wrote:

does the color/type of finish date the AO products? what i bid on
appears to be an older model, with a gray (probably crackle) finish.
comparing photos of similar models (with the _same_ model#) will
show a smooth finish, and a redesigned throat/slide.

also, does anyone know what a "HOM 1-1.8mm" objective would be,

THis would be roughly 100X, "HOM" means oil immersion. Combined with
10X eyepieces, roughly 100X, but won't show much without using the
drop of oil between the lens and the coverslip. THe oil corrects for
the dispersion and difraction of the glass/air intersections. the 1.8
is the focal length of the lens in milimeters.

or
what N.A. means (wrt to objectives)? Refers to a type of achromat lens, I'm not sure which type, but it's not really important, other than the newer types use an infinity corrected focus, and this isn't it. It's a standard older type, pretty easy to find and not too expensive. Newer ones are sometimes easy to find, but need your right leg to pay for them.

THe later series of AO scopes were kinda nice as gravity is what pulls
the focus tube down. Nothing worse than having a rack and pinion
pushing an expensive objective through the cover slip and scratching
it.

If you look for different lenses, one way to make sure you don't get a
bad one, use one of the eyepieces backwards, they make a good 10x
loupe that way, and look at the surface of the glass. Scratches,
sleeks, those will show up easily if the light hits it right. If
they're there, leave it behind. (Sleeks are a general "fogginess"
from using the wrong thing to clean them, just tiny scratches in the
surface. Usually found in the lower power objectives.) YOu'll never
buy less glass for more money. Some of the older lenses had the
cemented elements mounted using canada balsam, if they show what looks
like spiderwebs when looking from the top, leave them behind too.
When I was recementing objectives, it cost more to do than it was
worth.

Lennie the Lurker wrote:
"Loren A. Coe" wrote in message news:07A%b.405328$I06.4401672@attbi_s01...
Lennie the Lurker wrote:

also, does anyone know what a "HOM 1-1.8mm" objective would be,

THis would be roughly 100X, "HOM" means oil immersion. Combined with
10X eyepieces, roughly 100X, but won't show much without using the

yes, it says 96x (from the Ebay description).

drop of oil between the lens and the coverslip. THe oil corrects for
the dispersion and difraction of the glass/air intersections. the 1.8
is the focal length of the lens in milimeters.

what's with the range, 1mm-1.8? another lens is a "Planoacrho 40x/.66",
is that of particular interest/value? these are all supposed to be AO
lenses. it s/b here on Tuesday, according to the Fedex tracking site.

the 95x w/be 950x with a 10x ep, right? can that power actually be
expected to function well on this class of instrument (assuming good
condition)? i have talked to the seller and i expect the objectives
came with the microscope, so it is missing the lower (4x) objective
in favor of the 95x.

what N.A. means (wrt to objectives)? Refers to a type of achromat lens, I'm not sure which type, but it's not really important, other than the newer types use an infinity corrected focus, and this isn't it. It's a standard older type, pretty easy to find and not too expensive. Newer ones are sometimes easy to find, but need your right leg to pay for them.

there was an One-Sixty Dark Field that closed w/no bids at 175.00(res)
with three lenses marked "infinity". the seller didn't seem to want
anything to do with possible condition issues so i abstained. maybe
that was a good deal if the objectives were good.

THe later series of AO scopes were kinda nice as gravity is what pulls
the focus tube down. Nothing worse than having a rack and pinion
pushing an expensive objective through the cover slip and scratching
it.

i notice most of the chinese offerings have "spring-loaded" objectives
in the higher power ranges. thanks again, especially for the advice on
picking lenses. --Loren

In article
,
says...
skuke wrote in message .. .

I agree! Better quality optics, prisms, brightness, field of view size,
sharpness at the edges, ease of use... I've used Meiji and Bausch and Lomb
stereo 'scopes and the Meiji's were far superior. I've also used Olympus
and B&L(?) compound (biology) 'scopes and the Olympus was better.

YOu've got a sorry case of "japsuperioritis". If you used one of the
last B&L scopes sold, just bear in mind that it was from the same line
that made Olympus. Optically, mechanically, the same, the only
difference, the name tag. The best one I've ever used was a B&L
Balplan, not popular because if anything happens to the objectives,
you're screwed, no other company on earth has ever marketed a flat
field scope that was of that quality and as well accepted.


Can you tell me if the Dynoptic flat field scopes use the
same objectives as the Balplans? I have one like this...

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/quekett/Others/BL-
Zoom.html

except it has a photo port, but no zoom. It has no
objectives, but someone once told me they thought the scope
could be modified to use standard objectives. Is this
heresy? Do you know if it can be done, or if the proper
objectives are available?

Ned Simmons

Ned Simmons wrote in message ...

Can you tell me if the Dynoptic flat field scopes use the
same objectives as the Balplans? I have one like this...

The flat field objectives were used in several Bausch scopes,
optically they're the same, and the threads would be the same.
Strangely, one of the cheapest microscopes Bausch built was a flat
field. Those lenses are easy to spot, the barrels are aluminum. I
think the scopes were aimed at high schools, the cheap ones, not
exactly a paragon of quality.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/quekett/Others/BL-
Zoom.html

except it has a photo port, but no zoom. It has no
objectives, but someone once told me they thought the scope
could be modified to use standard objectives. Is this
heresy? Do you know if it can be done, or if the proper
objectives are available?

It might be possible to convert to the achromats, but would result in
a lot of non standard magnifications, and somewhat degraded
performance. The barrel length is different, I believe the flat field
is slightly longer. I have a similar head to that, no stand or
objectives, but with both the camera port and zoom. The zoom
mechanism is what caused the most problems with these, it gets out of
whack pretty easily. (Somewhere in a box up in the attic, I've got the
original B&L camera adaptor, complete with the Kodak body made to fit
it. It's somewhat of a bitch to set up, but then it holds everything
beautifully once it's set. The body is a Kodak Pony 135 without
shutter or lens.)

Objectives might be available, about the time I started to taper off
on the work, there were a few companies that were recementing them,
but I believe the price was mighty. I haven't looked, I think Jerry
might have a website, look for J&H microscope repair service.

"Loren A. Coe" wrote in message news:77S%b.425546$na.844884@attbi_s04...
Lennie the Lurker wrote:
"Loren A. Coe" wrote in message news:07A%b.405328$I06.4401672@attbi_s01...
Lennie the Lurker wrote:

also, does anyone know what a "HOM 1-1.8mm" objective would be,

THis would be roughly 100X, "HOM" means oil immersion. Combined with
10X eyepieces, roughly 100X, but won't show much without using the

yes, it says 96x (from the Ebay description).

Yeah, and pardon the missing (0), that should have been 1000X. 96X is
pretty well a standard for older AO stuff, 97X for B&L. They're
interchangeable.

drop of oil between the lens and the coverslip. THe oil corrects for
the dispersion and difraction of the glass/air intersections. the 1.8
is the focal length of the lens in milimeters.

what's with the range, 1mm-1.8? another lens is a "Planoacrho 40x/.66",
is that of particular interest/value? these are all supposed to be AO
lenses. it s/b here on Tuesday, according to the Fedex tracking site.

Ok, I'm thinking a little screwed up here. It's a 1mm focal length,
f1.8 lens. The 1.8 is also where the diaphram on the condenser should
be set for the best definition. I shouldn't say "f1.8", it's an
optical ratio, but I don't understand exactly what it is. But, like a
camera, lower numbers, brighter picture. 1.8 is pretty well standard
for oil immersions. (Older standard. newer ones have a lot more
glass.)

the 95x w/be 950x with a 10x ep, right? can that power actually be
expected to function well on this class of instrument (assuming good
condition)? i have talked to the seller and i expect the objectives
came with the microscope, so it is missing the lower (4x) objective
in favor of the 95x.

It should run to 960, and maybe even get away with using 15X
eyepieces, but usually that only runs into having a bigger image and
not as much detail. NOt having a four position objective turret, I
switch back and forth from the 4X objective to the 100X, depending on
what I need at the time. The higher power lens isn't really practical
with things that are swimming, too hard to follow them. The 96X was
not all that common, compared to the 4X or 6X. Lower powers are nice
to have at times.

there was an One-Sixty Dark Field that closed w/no bids at 175.00(res)
with three lenses marked "infinity". the seller didn't seem to want
anything to do with possible condition issues so i abstained. maybe
that was a good deal if the objectives were good.

The 160 is an infinity corrected scope, those lenses are different
from the achromats. One element of the lens is built into the scope
itself. Making a dark field is only a matter of finding a condenser,
otherwise the scope is the same. I have most of the accessories for
an older Bausch that I bought some years ago, monoc, binoc, trinoc,
darkfield, polarized, there's quite a bit available for some of them,
for others, unobtainium. Phase contrast is another that's nice, but
the objectives and the condenser have to both be for phase contrast.
It's a bear to set up the first time, too. Annular reticles in the
condenser that have to be exactly aligned with the objective. I don't
have one.

i notice most of the chinese offerings have "spring-loaded" objectives
in the higher power ranges. thanks again, especially for the advice on
picking lenses. --Loren

Swift, from Japan also has the spring loaded objectives. Beautiful
for high schools, but I'm not sure how well they relocate after being
moved. Think I paid something like $30 for a 100X Swift objective,
seemed ok, but it was for a scope I was donating. I've seen some of
the CHinese stuff, the optics aren't bad, but if you ever clean the
RT-44 out of the mechanism, you'll never get it to hold a setting.

Lennie the Lurker wrote:
"Loren A. Coe" wrote in message news:xGs%b.66200$4o.87437@attbi_s52...

especially since I only pay $10 each.) Mechanical stage is always a
plus, and if it doesn't have one, and the stage fingers, those two
little clips, are missing, pass on it. They're made of the finest
unobtanium. (IF some enterprising person wants to do it, there's a

what's so difficult about these? you just mean that no one manufactures
them? the little clips on this Celestron 4030 (fixed stage) work very
well and could not possibly be expensive to produce. or do you mean
the metal or finish on lab grade clips is the real problem?

these appear to be a springy ss, mounted on posts w/coil springs. this
scope is likely going back to Fry's, the ep is a very narrow field,
and the none of the optics are coated (as claimed on the box) but it
has been really impressive otherwise. nice dual focus, large stage,
parafocal, and precise turret function. thanks again, --Loren

good market for replacements for B&L and AO, and most don't care if
they're $15 each. Without them, scopes that don't have a mechanical
stage are almost useless.) Eyepiece barrel diameter and objective
lens threads are standardized, nothing else is.

"Loren A. Coe" wrote in message news:UKr0c.4488$ko6.42807@attbi_s02...

what's so difficult about these? you just mean that no one manufactures
them? the little clips on this Celestron 4030 (fixed stage) work very
well and could not possibly be expensive to produce. or do you mean
the metal or finish on lab grade clips is the real problem?

The rule of thumb seems to be "beyond the threads on the objectives,
thyne accessories shall not fit on anyone else's product." Seems like
they all made them different lengths and with different pin sizes.
Finding some that will work isn't really a problem, but it's much
nicer when they fit like they're supposed to. Nothing really
difficult about them, just that I don't want to get into doing that.
The other problem is that most current scopes are still supported,
it's only the ones that are too old that you can't buy new parts for.
This means the work is probably not worth it.

In article 15a48d98.0402272311.1fb8bb53
@posting.google.com, says...
Ned Simmons wrote in message ...

Can you tell me if the Dynoptic flat field scopes use the
same objectives as the Balplans? I have one like this...

The flat field objectives were used in several Bausch scopes,
optically they're the same, and the threads would be the same.
Strangely, one of the cheapest microscopes Bausch built was a flat
field. Those lenses are easy to spot, the barrels are aluminum. I
think the scopes were aimed at high schools, the cheap ones, not
exactly a paragon of quality.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/quekett/Others/BL-
Zoom.html

except it has a photo port, but no zoom. It has no
objectives, but someone once told me they thought the scope
could be modified to use standard objectives. Is this
heresy? Do you know if it can be done, or if the proper
objectives are available?

It might be possible to convert to the achromats, but would result in
a lot of non standard magnifications, and somewhat degraded
performance. The barrel length is different, I believe the flat field
is slightly longer. I have a similar head to that, no stand or
objectives, but with both the camera port and zoom. The zoom
mechanism is what caused the most problems with these, it gets out of
whack pretty easily. (Somewhere in a box up in the attic, I've got the
original B&L camera adaptor, complete with the Kodak body made to fit
it. It's somewhat of a bitch to set up, but then it holds everything
beautifully once it's set. The body is a Kodak Pony 135 without
shutter or lens.)

Objectives might be available, about the time I started to taper off
on the work, there were a few companies that were recementing them,
but I believe the price was mighty. I haven't looked, I think Jerry
might have a website, look for J&H microscope repair service.


Thanks for the info. It sounds like it's probably not worth
the trouble since I've got a similar non-flat field
Dynazoom that's in great condition.

Google didn't find a "J&H Microscope".

Ned Simmons

Lennie the Lurker wrote:
...... I've seen some of
the CHinese stuff, the optics aren't bad, but if you ever clean the
RT-44 out of the mechanism, you'll never get it to hold a setting.

this sounds like the clear gunk found on _all_ chinese focus mechanisms
used in their telescopes, right?

my AO Spencer microscope arrived and one problem is slop in the
x-y table. there does _not_ seem to be an adjustment for the gibs.
what does that leave but heavier grease?

this is an older scope, 60's or so(?), and has a tag for the last
service of 1988. do i need to buy a tube of RT-44? where? grin
slop is not really the correct term, "free movement" is more like it.
the table will move with only slight finger pressure. the gears engage
just fine, no slippage there. --Loren

"Loren A. Coe" wrote in message news:6GT1c.480452$na.1161301@attbi_s04...
Lennie the Lurker wrote:
..... I've seen some of
the CHinese stuff, the optics aren't bad, but if you ever clean the
RT-44 out of the mechanism, you'll never get it to hold a setting.

this sounds like the clear gunk found on _all_ chinese focus mechanisms
used in their telescopes, right?

The same. Most of the older "C" frame types of US made scopes have
made use of it too.

my AO Spencer microscope arrived and one problem is slop in the
x-y table. there does _not_ seem to be an adjustment for the gibs.
what does that leave but heavier grease?

One of the gib plates is screwed on. Adjustment is by carefully
taking a tiny amount off the back side so it tightens up a little.
Jerry does it with a surface plate and 320 grit paper. I cheat and
use the surface grinder.

this is an older scope, 60's or so(?), and has a tag for the last
service of 1988. do i need to buy a tube of RT-44? where? grin
slop is not really the correct term, "free movement" is more like it.
the table will move with only slight finger pressure. the gears engage
just fine, no slippage there. --Loren

I bought a tube from American Science and Surplus some years ago. One
tube should last a lifetime, not much is needed. The table might not
need to be tightened, if you can reverse directions while looking
through it and not see any angular motion, it's ok. Depending on who
used it, they can be anywhere from quite stiff to moving without doing
much more than blowing on it. If it was used in urology, it might not
move at all. (I've had a few of those apart. Happy-happy, joy-joy,
NOT.) Cytology, it will probably have been used for only a small area
of it's motion, hematology, a bit more. I have one I'm still trying
to figure out, came out of the state crime lab. It has motions to
raise and lower the table as well as the focus tube, both bright and
darkfield condensers, Eppe or mirror illumination. It was used in the
handwriting analysis, seems like a bit of overkill. 4X, 6X, 10X and
20X eyepieces. No widefields, all the little squinters. objectives
5, 10, 43X. Odd duck all the way around. (So was the guy we got it
from.)