PREVIEW

 YG Archive - Text Messages - THEORY and USE of a MICROSCOPE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

34417
From: "Rik Littlefield"
Date: Jan 1, 2007
Subject: Re: looking for info about aus Jena scope, especially repl. bulbs 

> "By the way, I failed to ask about possibilities for getting
> a trinoc head for this scope."
> ...
>...the Lomo trinos fit.... [Ray]
> The tri- and binoculars are one of the things Lomo did right. [Don]

Thanks for the info, guys -- a big help! I will keep my eyes open for
options.

--Rik
+--------------

34418
From: "microhans2000"
Date: Jan 1, 2007
Subject: Re: Amphipluera Pellucida - the debate rolls on! 

Hi David,
I never made stereo pairs with the SEM because we where not involved in
that but I see no problem. The stage is easily controlled. It would be
fun to do. And stereo view is indeed amazing.
So yes, no problem.

Hans
+-----------------

34419
From: "scitech200"
Date: Jan 1, 2007
Subject: Re: Amphipluera Pellucida - SEM sample 

Hello Hans & Peter,
Thank you very much for making your outstanding images available to
us! Although the group's primary interest is optical microscopy,
it's always very interesting to see comparative, or complementary,
images - in particular SEM images with their inherently superior
depth of field (view?). Also, there are some group members that have
SEMs in their hobby space....

Hans:
Being an inquisitive guy, I noted in an earlier post that you did
not coat the diatom sample with a highly conductive material such as
gold - which is normally required for SEM operation? I know that
Rene's Ap sample used for some SEM images (now being used by DonW
with a LOMO light microscope) was gold coated. So I assume that you
have an alternative "coating" that can be used with your particular
SEM setup? Or do these diatom images rely upon a special technique
that you have perfected? Of course such a technique opens up a whole
lot of interesting possibilities re samples.

Thanks for any additional SEM sample information you may be willing
to share, and all best wishes for the New Year.

Hans & Peter:
Re the Ap sample, it may be worth contacting Klaus Kemp in the UK.
I believe he is still preparing slides that include a single Ap
diatom. His work is well known and his prices are very reasonable.

Regards, Keith

[ It is uncoated imaged with a FEI XL30 SFEG ]
+-----------------------

34420
From: "microhans2000"
Date: Jan 1, 2007
Subject: Re: Amphipluera Pellucida - SEM sample 

Hi all,
It is always difficult to image non-conducting samples in a SEM but a
low voltage and a low current and fast scanning can help a lot.

The diatoms are mounted on a carbon sticker only the diatom can charge
and not the surroundings; mount on a cover glass without a coating is
too much. I do not like gold coatings because they introduce small
islands of crystallites; a mix of Pt and Au gives less structure in
the coating.
So the best thing would be to have clean material that I can mount on
a carbon sticker.

I live in the Netherlands. You can find my mail address in the group
member-database to contact me for address information.

Hans
+-----------------

34421
From: Gary Bennett
Date: Jan 1, 2007
Subject: Re: A little help identifying this microscope? 

The bulb you have is a GE 1630. Rated at 6.5 volts, 2.77 amp, 18 watts.
More info here:
http://www.servicelighting.com/catalog_product.cfm?prod=EK40311

The AO 650 transformer is rated at 6.5 volts, 4 amp, 26 watts. As long as your
transformer is rated at or above the bulbs rating it will work, the 650 will
work. The AO 650 is infinitely variable from 0 to 6.5 volts, which is a nice
feature. The 650 was sold under both the AO and Reichert names. You could also
use an AO 365 but this transformers output is stepped at 5.5, 6.0 and 6.5 volts.
It is rated at 23 watts and also has the bi-pin socket. If you go shopping on
ebay for the 650 be aware that a model 556 and 655 exists that looks identical
but are rated to only 6 volts.

Hope this helps!
Gary:)
+---------------

34422
From: "Don Sweet"
Date: Jan 1, 2007
Subject: Re: What is that strange preocupation about "the big 4" all about?

Compelled to reply to this thread ...

I'm glad to see the MBA crisis pointed out (once again).
Unfortunately, it's not the only problem. One has to point out that
these MBA's are hired by someone. There is a pendulum swing in
(international) business. Around the turn of the last century (19th
to 20th) the phrase "robber baron" appeared. This circumstance has
reared its ugly head once again. At the top of the economic heap
little attention is paid to anything more than profit. Products (or
services) have almost exclusively become "economic vehicles." Simply
look at computers. If automobiles worked like the average computer,
not only would the roads be shrewn with the burning hulks of wrecked
cars, but dead and mangled bodies would be stacked next to them.

This problem starts from the top down but permeates human behavior.
Getting the job done well has completely changed in the minds of both
the providers and consumers of goods.

"Greed is good" has become the human mantra, not just a line in a
movie.

The MBA mentality is merely a symptom of a much larger moral problem.
Robber barons are the result of tolerance. Tolerance comes from our
grassroots. We're getting everything we deserve because we allow
it ... including crappy microscopes.

Don
+---------

34423
From: "scitech200"
Date: Jan 1, 2007
Subject: Re: Amphipluera Pellucida - SEM sample 

Hi Hans & the Group,

I'll take a shot at organizing the Ap sample from Klauss Kemp - but no
guarantees as to how long this will take!

In the meantime, I found Rene's SEM images in the group archives:
http://www.science-info.net/ks_temp/Rene_ApSEM1.jpg
http://www.science-info.net/ks_temp/Rene_ApSEM2.jpg
from around Nov.2005
I think that the nominal pore spacing is considered to be 0.28 [micron],
but a group member may wish to elaborate on this value.

We had a crash with the archive webserver, but I might be able to
locate the very good images that Don Williams obtained with his
Logitech [4000 Pro webcam] LOMO setup with Rene's slide and 100x objective,
also around Nov.2005. Or maybe Don knows where they are "tucked away" on a
CD someplace....

"hansmicro" wrote:
> So the best thing would be to have clean material that I can mount
> on a carbon sticker. I live in the Netherlands. You can find my mail
> address in the group member-database to contact me for address
> information.
+---------------

34424
From: "L.D."
Date: Jan 1, 2007
Subject: Re: A little help identifying this microscope? 

MUCH appreciated Gary!

I'll have to do some shopping now!

Thanks again,
L.D.
+----------------

34425
From: Alessandro Bertoglio
Date: Jan 1, 2007
Subject: Re: Amphipluera Pellucida - SEM sample 

Ok it's easy from the second image: the pore in 10 micron are about 65
(separation about 0.15 micron). The striae in typlical Amphipleura are 39
in 10 micron (separation about 0.26 micron).

Good 2007!

Ciao
Alessandro
+-----------------

34426
From: "mauricejfox3"
Date: Jan 1, 2007
Subject: AO Model 359 Illuminator

How useful is an AO Model 359 Illuminator? Does it have adjustable
voltage? Can it be focused to create Koehler illumination?

Thanks for any shared knowledge.

Maurice
+--------------

34427
From: "stevenbornsfv"
Date: Jan 1, 2007
Subject: Re: AO Model 359 Illuminator 

Maurice
What does an AO 359 look like? Can you point me to a picture of it?
I just bought an AO Model 370 illuminator (shipped to me today), and am
scouring Steve Nelly's downloads for original instructions on how to focus
the filament image, and set up for Koehler illumination. If I know what your
looking for, I can help you if I run across something.
+---------------

34428
From: "mervhob"
Date: Jan 1, 2007
Subject: Re: Amphipluera Pellucida - SEM sample 

Alessandro,
Having measured the 5 micron bar on Rene's SEM plot, and knowing that
the bar at this magnification on a Cambridge Instruments SEM is
pretty reliable, I make the spacing between stria 306nm, or 83,000
stria/inch. At this spacing, with an RI of the mountant of NLT 1.72,
stria should be clearly visible with oblique lighting at an NA =/>
0.96

My NBS slide quotes 40 stria in 10 micron, perfectly in line
with your estimate, again at the stated RI of the mountant and
using no more than the Kirchoff scalar theory, the stria should be
easily visible.

At the 1 micron bar, I would be less certain, based on a sample of one
Cambridge 200 SEM! Hans SEM pictures are very good, if they are produced
with no shadowing, I would expect to see clear signs of blooming due to
charge build up, with the very thin dielectric layers. As far as I know,
Rene's pictures were produced by shadowing with gold. Hans technique seems
to be be capable of producing better images than the conventional shadowing
- his results certainly suggest that is so.

Best regards,
Merv
+------------------

34429
From: "femtoscope"
Date: Jan 1, 2007
Subject: Re: What is that strange preocupation about "the big 4" all about? 

An MBA has nothing to do with crappy scopes. It is an education. It
has also nothing to do with greed. Greed is a feature that I can find
too often in us.

So, there is no "MBA crisis". Such a statement is just a
trivialization at best that does not provide any constructive means
to help us enhance our joy in microscopy. If I had an MBA, I would
consider this to be a blunt insult.

If one does not want to invest the right amount of money and time,
one will not get a good scope. Why should a great research frame sell
for less than $5000? In 1960, a research frame was at least $1200. In
the meantime, the dollar lost a lot of value. - Microscopy is not a
cheap hobby, especially not when one wants to indulge in
photomicrogrpahy.

We really do not have to discrete people's education. It is a
discussion that does not belong in this group. I am sure there are
other groups available, which are much more suitable for this type of
witch hunt.

Gregor
+-------------

34430
From: "Jim Sutherland"
Date: Jan 1, 2007
Subject: Home Page Photo

Calling your attention to possible corrections for the new home page
photo: Spelling should be ..ostracod
I believe we are viewing the dead shell (valve) structure as if the
organism were living we would see antenna & leg structures.

Keep up the Good Work and Happy New Year. Jim
+---------------

34431
From: "mervhob"
Date: Jan 1, 2007
Subject: Re: What is that strange preocupation about "the big 4" all about?

Gregor,
I wish that it was only rumours we had to worry about. Generally, it
is not optical quality that is the issue, it is mechanical. If you
look at the design of American and British microscopes at the period
when the great market battle was going on with the Japanese, the
evidence suggests that a great deal of effort went into good design
for manufacture. Take the Vickers M12/14/15 stand with its wide
based, Baker derived ball bearing slide and its superbly simple
fine/coarse focus system. I have never seen one of these out of
order, except were they have been wrongly assembled. Consider also
the Watson Microsystem 70, with its flat strip fine focus mechanism,
based on the B & L Van Huerk design. Again, properly designed for low
cost manufacture. This can be compared with the Nikon 'S' stand of
the same epoch, which is really a 1930's design, and expensive to
machine and adjust. I have to state that I like the Nikon 'S', I have
two and they are very stable for photography, but you could never
convince me that they were designed for manufacture! Anymore than the
Leitz and Zeiss of the same epoch were. I have in my workshop a Leitz
Metallograph, with all NPL objectives. Sadly it was originally a
laser scanning microscope, for wafer probing, produced in the late
1970s. The electronics failed, the custom chips used were obscelete,
and the management threw it in a skip, from which I rescued it. One
day I might turn it into a useful microscope again, but as the plan
objectives are inferior to the Vickers Microplan objectives on my
M41, I may not bother. Kevin's arguement that you throw the whole
microscope away because the (not very well designed) electronics is
obscelete is bizarre. You should be able to upgrade the electronics
without difficulty and this would be easy if suitable standards were
enforced. It is a myth that we could not produce the mechanical
quality at resonable cost - modern developments in machine tooling
make equaling the quality of the past a doddle. 

However, what is really apparent is that the young designers have no
real understanding of what good design represents - I recently fixed a
modern (Leica) microscope on which the focussing gearing had
stripped. The reason it had stripped was a complete lack of
understanding of the limitations of plastic as a load carrying
material. A new gear in brass was cut by a watchmaking colleague, who
commented, (shaking his head) 'This was designed by a moron'. And
that, alas, is the root of the problem.

Cheers,
Merv
+----------------

34432
From: Alessandro Bertoglio
Date: Jan 1, 2007
Subject: Re: Amphipluera Pellucida - SEM sample 

Hi,
I remember stria separation with one Leitz NPL Fluotar 50X/1.00 oil with
Zeiss DIC but obviously without oblique light on K. Kemp test plate and
this is the lower n.a. I remember I saw the strial pattern of the
Amhipleura using "normal" contrast enachement system.
Unfortunately I'm not skilled on SEM imaging but the argument sound for me
very interesting.

Ciao
Alessandro
+---------------

34433
From: "femtoscope"
Date: Jan 1, 2007
Subject: Re: What is that strange preocupation about "the big 4" all about? 

Hello, Merv:
I am not debating that especially the mechanical performance of many
microscopes was better in the past. I appreciate my good old Ortholux
every time I touch it. But I found that this is mainly the case for
the entry-level scopes. The development of laboratory/research grade
microscopes is different. For instance, Nikon's older Labophot stands
were not too great. While their new Eclipse series laboratory frames
are great workhorse scopes with good mechanics. On the other hand,
some expensive Swiss-made scope of the "good old times" offered one
of the worst mechanical stage controls I have ever found in a
research grade frame.

So, it depends, as you pointed out, on who actually designed a new
scope and who is in charge of quality assurance during production.
Today, it does not even matter whether or not a part is produced in
China or Japan.

We should not generalize. If someone believes that the quality
slipped over the last couple of years, he/she must specify which
microscpe(s) we are actually taking about. Generalizations, such
as "MBA crisis", "the big four made once good scopes" … can only
lead to verbal jousting.

Happy microscoping,
Gregor
+-----------------

34434
From: "Kevin Sunley"
Date: Jan 1, 2007
Subject: Re: What is that strange preocupation about "the big 4" all about?

Hi Merv,
While I couldn't agree more that the arguement is bizzare, it is
unfortunetly accurate in many cases. Adding insult to injury though
is the fact that it is often not even the electronics that are bad,
but the fact that the company chooses not to upgrade the software or
ensure backwards compatibility. I have seen microplate
spectrophotometers and HPLC chromatography systems which are perfectly
functional be replaced because their owners are simply tired dealing
with Windows 3.x or DOS based systems. The hassle of exporting data
from these systems (using 1.44MB diskettes) and then (hopefully) being
able to import the data into some form of modern software (Word,
Excel, etc.) has in itself killed numerous pieces of equipment, or
ideally at least sent them to a less affluent lab.

I understand that in some cases Windows does support internetworking
between new and very old computers, but finding the rare IT person
that can do anything which isn't though in a basic MCSE course is
difficult. :-)

And in addition to forced obsolescene from lack of updates, many
companies are becoming unable/unwilling to support any of their own
equipment past (or sometimes even during) their 3-5 product life. I
heard one story of a university which bought a very expensive confocal
microscope and after some period of use found it unable to produce
images like it once could. This was a apparently a fairly common
problem as their service rep could almost immediately diagnose it upon
trying a few things, and diagnosed that one of their processors within
the microcsope had a tendency to overheat, causing the problem.

They then informed the owners that unfortunetly the service contract
they had selected did not cover this type of problem, and they would
simply have to purchase a new board (revision 2.0) for the cost of
$10k. This is for a current product which was still in production.
They thought that was a little insane, and after the rep left tacked a
$5 CPU cooling fan on the problem processor and never saw the problem
again.

So while I have no arguements with the fact that new products are not
designed as well as they could be, and that could very likely be due
to lack of competence in today's designers, the number of incidents
where products have been 'forced' into obsolences due to lack of
software updates, new hardware/software standards, proprietary and
non-upgraded hardware features (as you mentioned), and lack of service
on "legacy" products tells me that it is likely there is in addition
to what you say, a corporate philosophy to keep new products moving
out the door at the expense of the life span of older ones.

And finally, due to the speed at which the newer products can be
improved through features that can generally not be added otherwise
(due to an intentional lack of modularity within the products), there
is little resistence to all of this from the consumers because many of
the big dollar labs don't want to keep older equipment around any
longer than possible. Newer equipment puts out data faster, which
produces more papers (with nicer pictures!), which brings in more
grant money, which buys more equipment.

Of course there are many expections with people who build their own
microscopy systems out of open standards and modular/upgradable parts.
These systems also often produce better results as well (although its
debatable whether they're better because they're home built, or if it
is because they are operated by someone capable of building a home
built system).

Kevin
+---------------

34435
From: Steven Born
Date: Jan 1, 2007
Subject: Re: What is that strange preocupation about "the big 4" all about?

Dear Gregor:
You are out of line. Discussing the "MBA mentality" was cogent to the
discussion thread, and it is a business/cultural phenomenon that has
been widely discussed in society. I mentioned it, applying it to a
discussion regarding microscope quality, particularly as applies to
microscopes sold to the secondary education market.
When we purchased microscopes at my school, I DID spend hours and
hours investigating alternative products (I did not get paid for
those hours). Are you willing to provide me with money out of your
pocket to buy better scopes for my classroom? I suspect not.
I already spend over two thousand dollars a year out of my own pocket
for supplies for my classroom.
Accusing people of engaging in a "witch hunt" is what does not belong
here

Steve Born

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   <SKIP>

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

35059
From: Don Williams
Date: Feb 1, 2007
Subject: Re: More hints for a Newcomer 

I am not a Lomo freak. I just happen to have some of their equipment.
But there is nothing much wrong with their optics. The Achromats, with
the way I have things set up, give a perfectly flat field over the
Webcam frame.

And so just for the hell of it I got out one of the old Soviet era Lomo
90/1.25 Achromats and took some pictures of A pellucida. Total time
taken about ten minutes plus five to move them into the Picassa Web
album here:

http://picasaweb.google.com/don.donwilliams/Photomicrographs/photo#5026499098392\
169874

Details for this image and the following 8:

Lomo 90/1.25 160/0.17 Achromat; condenser Lomo Aplanatic 1.4; Periplan
12.5X photo eyepiece; Trinocular Magnification 2.6X; Camera the Logitech
Quickcam Pro 4000 with 12mm Marshall lens. The lamp is a 12/100 Halogen
in a modified housing and illumination was set up for Köhler. I fiddled
about with filters --> blue and light blue and focus between exposures.
Oblique light achieved by using an offset intermediate lens.

Look at the top right hand corner of some of the pictures -- you should
see indistinct dots.

Don W
+----------------

35060
From: "rvanwezel"
Date: Feb 1, 2007
Subject: filter mountant advice 

Guys, I want to mount my polaroid filters between (cover) glass, so
that they won't scratch. I've tried an aqueous mountant (Hydromount,
National Diagnostics), probably a PVA mountant. I discovered (in the
end of course) the stuff seems birefringent...

What's the recommended stuff to mount these plastics??

Thanks, René.
+-----------------

35061
From: "scitech200"
Date: Feb 1, 2007
Subject: Re: More hints for a Newcomer - Ap pics 

Don,
Impressive images.

Which slide: Rene, Carter, KKemp-7, other?

I see they are 1280x960 interpolated resolution with the Logitech
webcam, and I assume no post processing?

-Keith

Don Williams wrote:
> And so just for the hell of it I got out one of the old Soviet era >
> Lomo 90/1.25 Achromats and took some pictures of A pellucida.
+---------------

35062
From: "stevenbornsfv"
Date: Feb 1, 2007
Subject: Nikon S turrets

I own a Nikon SKe and a Nikon S.
I wanted to mount a 20x Nikon objective which I had acquired onto my SKe. When a
quintuple turret (off of a black Nikon) came up on eBay, I purchased it
When the five-position turret arrived yesterday, it was different from the
four-position turret on my SKe, in that it had a dovetail adapter.
I have never seen Nikon SKe era scopes with dovetails on the turret before.
Was it common for the black Nikon S era scopes to have the capability to
switch turrets in an out with a dovetail?
BTW, I removed and saved the dovetail adapter, and the five-position turret
worked just fine.

Steve
+-----------------

35063
From: "stevenbornsfv"
Date: Feb 1, 2007
Subject: Origins of Lomo 

Don
A bit off the subject, but...
I had heard that Lomo was started in the Soviet Union by former Zeiss employees
relocated to Russia after WW2, similar to their relocation of the German rocket
scientists. Is that true?

"Don Williams" wrote:
> I am not a Lomo freak. I just happen to have some of their equipment.
> But there is nothing much wrong with their optics.
+--------------------

35064
From: Don Williams
Date: Feb 1, 2007
Subject: Re: More hints for a Newcomer - Ap pics 

It was the René slide, uncoated segment. I no longer have the KK 7-Form
Plate -- Klaus told us it was a reject anyway. 

The beauty of the Quickcam software is that a fair amount of processing can
be done when the picture is taken. I take stills at 1280 x 960 because the
Logitech software makes a really good job of interpolation.

But the real point of the pictures was to demonstrate that there is very little
wrong with Lomo objectives -- even the cheap ones. But I don't use Lomo eyepieces.
I think the Leitz Periplans are better and seem to match not only the
objectives for which they were designed but the Lomo ones as well.

Don W
+---------------

35065
From: Don Williams
Date: Feb 1, 2007
Subject: Re: Origins of Lomo 

Not only that, but I was also told a lot of equipment was moved to
Leningrad after the war as well. I suppose this would have included the
designs and optical formulae? Lomo now have a new line of objectives and
I know nothing about them.

Don W

"stevenbornsfv" wrote:
> I had heard that Lomo was started in the Soviet Union by former Zeiss
> employees relocated to Russia after WW2,...
+-----------

35066
From: "mattbrin"
Date: Feb 1, 2007
Subject: Re: Excellent book for microscopy 

It's interesting to see what different reactions the same item gets
from different people. I compared the Jackson book to the Muir book
because of external similarities and a similar intent. However, Muir
was an excellent writer and Jackson not. The last word I would use on
the Jackson book is concise. He repeats and and foreshadows endlessly
and takes a long time to get to the point.

However, the main attraction of the Jackson book (and I have decided
that it is an attractive book) is that his points are pitched at the
right level, his choice of points to make is excellent, and most
importantly his points seem to be based on experience and not just on
theory. He talks about the practicalities of matching objectives to
their compensating eyepieces without giving a treatise on the optics
behind spherical and chromatic aberations. He talks about the
importance of highly corrected condensers without going into the wave
theory of light. He gives detailed descriptions of test procedures
that anyone can follow and anyone can do.

I also bought the Barbara Foster book from the Zeiss site since it
also came recommended on this list (my affection for books long
predates my affection for microscopes) and I also think it a very good
book. The differences between the Jackson and the Foster book are
large. There is surprisingly little overlap in content when you get
down to the details. While both books attempt a friendly raport with
the reader and both are successful, the Jackson book seems to be more
successful for reasons that are hard to pin down. However the biggest
difference is that the Jackson book seems to place experience over
theory. Both discuss Kohler illumination. Foster gives (very
readably) the "textbook" discussion as given by the official documents
promulgated by theorists and equipment manufacturers. Jackson gives a
much more down to earth discussion and is the only one that I have
seen point out that Kohler systems built into scopes since the 1970s
are only approximations to Kohler and not true Kohler. And so forth.

I would recommend both books. They are different enough in what they
cover to be both worth having.

Now the question remains: what is a good first book? I have a copy of
"Exploring with the microscope" by Werner Nachtigall which is superb,
but as far as I can tell I bought the last new copy to be found in the
USA. Any nominations for a successor?
+--------------------

35067
From: "mattbrin"
Date: Feb 1, 2007
Subject: Re: Source of " sticky" grease 

Or is _this_ the stuff?
 http://www.sfrcorp.com/product/17

The name seems too generic to identify by google search.
+---------------

35068
From: Don williams
Date: Feb 1, 2007
Subject: Lomo Apo 90/1.30

I was just about to put take the slide off the stage after having my
afternoon cup of tea when I thought I'd just take out the objective that
makes me nervous -- it gives me the heebie jeebies because it has no
spring. But it's probably the best Lomo objective I have. I took six
more pictures at different focus settings and all show nice rows of
dots. They are in the same gallery on Picassa and apart from the
objective which was the Lomo 90/1.30 160/0.17 Apo and the setting of the
mag changer (1.1X and 1.6X) everything else is the same.

 http://picasaweb.google.com/don.donwilliams/Photomicrographs/
                                             photo#5026576583897157154

I don't think there is much wrong with this objective either.

The Picassa web gallery doesn't really do these pictures justice, they
are highly compressed and rather small.

Don W
+-----------------

35069
From: Daniel Holloway
Date: Feb 1, 2007
Subject: Re: Lomo Apo 90/1.30 

Hi Don
I am really pleased that you are talking about Lomo. Many people don't know
about the products they make. I wrote a seller on Ebay about a part that he was
selling. I asked him if it would fit my Lomo trinoc. He responded by saying
'What's a Lomo". I emailed him back and explained that it was a Russian
microscope etc. etc. He emailed me back and said that his response 'What's a
Lomo" was just a rhetorical question. Now why would a seller say something like
that, not really wanting an answer, unless he had a very poor opinion of Lomo. 
Anyway, I love my Lomo. The magnification changer is extremely handy. Of all
my scopes, Lomo is my favorite. My website is filled with pictures I have taken
with it. (oh. I didn't buy from the rhetorical seller).

Dan
+----------------

35072
From: Gordon Couger
Date: Feb 1, 2007
Subject: Re: Origins of Lomo 

Steve,
The way I heard the story and I am sure its not all right is in the
final days of WWII after the lines that split Germany and the rest of
Europe had had been laid I believe at Yalta. The west [Americans, I
believe] rescued/arrested [depending on who tells the story] the top
scientist, engineers and worker and took some equipment to the west, the
Russians took most of the machinery and worker to Leningrad/St.
Petersburg to make Lomo. Some of Lomo's parts are right out of 1945
Zeiss' catalog. Their water immersion objectives are one example. Zeiss
aus Jenna rebuilt its self with what was left with some help form the
Ernst Abby foundation for a while before deteriorating politics brought
an end to it. Essentially and all new company had to be made form the
core that had been brought to he west which is why I think we can buy
screws for Zeiss (west) in the hardware store.

The Money in the Ernst Abby Foundation made a lot of this possible. Abby
left his considerable fortune and ownership in Carl Zeiss in Trust to be
used to run the company. I think this was unique in major companies. I
don't know how the ownership of Zeiss is managed today but it refers to
its self as a cooperation.

The story varies depending on who tells it.
Gordon
+--------------

35073
From: Gordon Couger
Date: Feb 1, 2007
Subject: Re: Source of " sticky" grease 

Why use and EP lube for an job that doesn't require it?

Gordon
+-------------

35074
From: "femtoscope"
Date: Feb 1, 2007
Subject: Re: Excellent book for microscopy 

This depends on the language. Today, if I just stared with
microscopy, I would just download the "Mikrofibel" written by Klaus
Henkel (Germany). The book is written in German; but learning a
little bit German is easier than learning how to use a microscope.
The Mikrofibel (edition from June 14, 2003) can be downloaded here:
 www.mikroskopie-muenchen.de/mikrofibel.pdf

Then, I would get used copies of

Georg Stehli, The Microscope and how to use it, Dover Publications,
Inc., New York. - In 1975, I bought a copy of the German edition "Das
Mikroskop für Jedermann". This is a very good book, which I recommend
to every microscopist. It is written by Dr. Georg Stehli (1883-1951).
Since this text is over half a century old, most of the chemicals
described are no longer available for the general public. The Dover
edition has just over 160 pages.

Werner Nachtigall, Exploring with the Microscope, Sterling Publishing
Co., New York (1996). - An inexpensive book with beautiful
illustrations, which gives a good introduction to microscopy and
provides useful information for photomicrography. This book is
written by Prof. Werner Nachtigall who maintains a web-site at the
Universität des Saarlandes.

S. Bradbury and B. Bracegirdle, Introduction to Light Microscopy,
Royal Microscopical Society Handbook No. 42, BIOS Scientific
Publishers Limited, Oxford (1998). - This little book of only 123
pages summarizes neatly the instrumentation used in light microscopy.
There are many other RMS handbooks that cover various aspects of
microscopy.

And then, if I still needed more books, I would get

Douglas B. Murphy, Fundamentals of Light Microscopy and Electronic
Imaging, John Wiley & Sons (2001). - Besides explaining the
fundamentals, one of the book's main focuses is digital
photomicrography. I also like the chapters about fluorescence
microscopy and confocal laser scanning microscopy.

Fred Rost and Ron Oldfield, Photography with a Microscope, Cambridge
University Press (2000). - A nice book, which explains the
fundamentals well. Besides explaining the fundamentals, on of its
main focuses is photomicrography with an "analog" camera (not a
digital camera).

Richard E. Stoiber and Stearns A. Morse, Crystal Identification with
the Polarizing Microscope, Chapman & Hall, New York (1994). - This is
a must-have book for everybody interested in polarizing microscopy.
The authors explain clearly the optical properties of anisotropic
crystals.

And then, more more more... The list of great books about microscopy
and photomicrography is long enough. But most of the books have to be
purchased through a network selling also used books (e.g.
http://www.abebooks.com/). Loveland, Shillaber, Lawson, Delley are a
few names of great authors of books about photomicrography. And last
but not least, there are the three volumes about "Advanced Light
Microscopy" written by the legendary Maksymilian Pluta.

Cheers,
Gregor
+------------------

35075
From: DonH
Date: Feb 1, 2007
Subject: Re: Lomo Apo 90/1.30 

"Daniel Holloway" wrote:
> Now why would a seller say
> something like that, not really wanting an answer,
> unless he had a very poor opinion of Lomo.

I can answer that. People (like me, or others I know)
who had bad experiences with Soviet-era LOMO equipment
still carry that perception. Of course I've heard
enough about their newer equipment that I might give
them a shot if I were shopping new on a budget. Now
that the USSR is gone and the Russians are in
essentially a free market, they are learning quickly
the value of quality control consumer opinion.

I think people who are LOMO fans will face that
perception for years to come, although this forum is
one place where people can learn otherwise.

Good luck,
Don
+----------------

35077
From: Steven Born
Date: Feb 1, 2007
Subject: Re: Excellent book for microscopy 

Gregor
The Stehi book from Dover is excellent book for beginners. At my
previous high school, we bought ten copies for each classroom, as a
supplementary resource book for our students, and the teachers who
did not have much of a microscopy background. It is accessible, and
clear.

Steve Born
+------------------

35079
From: "stevenbornsfv"
Date: Feb 1, 2007
Subject: Need manual and info for McArthur Open University Microscope

This is the month for good eBay deals
I just picked up a McArthur Open University Microscope.
I've looked at all the articles on Micscape, but as yet, have not found a 
manual for this microscope. I'm also looking for published material about
the accessories-filters, add ons, etc.

I know that these scopes will not take AA or AAA bateries. Since they are
British, I suppose the original batteries are something only sold in Britain or
other places.
Also, what is the reference for the bulbs?

Where can I get a copy of the manaul, and what were the original batteries?

Steve
+-----------------

35080
From: Steven Born
Date: Feb 1, 2007
Subject: Re: Searching for Dealer with old Nikon S stock 

Thanks Gordon
I called Richard, and he was very helpful!

Steve

"Gordon Couger" wrote:
> Steve,
> I think Dick Chisson may have be a Nikon guy. 
+-----------------

35081
From: "Gregg Kleinberg"
Date: Feb 1, 2007
Subject: Re: Nikon S turrets 

Steve,
The research, or metallurgical, versions of the Nikon S series may have had the
dovetail mount, in that you conceiveably might have had two (or more) sets of
objectives - one say for DIC, one for brightfield, one for Phase, etc. This
would facilitate quick exchange of the objective sets.

Now, most manufacturers create multiple illumination solutions that will work on
one set of objectives.

Hope this helps!
Gregg
+---------------------

35082
From: Steven Born
Date: Feb 1, 2007
Subject: Re: Nikon S turrets 

Thanks
That cleared up that question

Steve Born

"Gregg Kleinberg" wrote:
> The research, or metallurgical, versions of the Nikon S series may
> have had the dovetail mount, in that you conceiveably might have
> had two (or more) sets of objectives - one say for DIC, one for
> brightfield, one for Phase, etc. This would facilitate quick
> exchange of the objective sets.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   <SKIP>

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------