Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Delamination - Zeiss x63 - advice needed about optical theory

Expand Messages
  • leitzscope
    Hello everyone I need a bit of advice. I have the much vaunted Zeiss planapo x63 na 1.4 objective. Like a lot of these it has some delamination, in this case
    Message 1 of 28 , Oct 1, 2006
      Hello everyone

      I need a bit of advice. I have the much vaunted Zeiss planapo x63 na
      1.4 objective. Like a lot of these it has some delamination, in this
      case a slight annular shadow extending from the outer edge towards
      the middle for approaching 20% of the diameter.

      In use the objective gives good images with no apparent lack of
      contrast. As you know, in normal use it is customary to close the
      condenser iris perhaps to the 80% position to get reasonable contrast
      in the image.

      My questions to you optical theorists are these:

      By shutting the iris in this manner am I blocking the area of
      delamination?

      When we do this are we reducing the theoretical resolution of the
      objective?

      Is shutting the iris to an approximately 80% position just custom and
      practice to get reasonable contrast?

      Should we in fact only close the iris to the outer edge of the light
      cone to get maximun resolution?

      Regards to all, Ray
    • Don Williams
      This objective needs to be used with an immersion condenser otherwise the NA will be limited to just under 1.0 anyway. To get best resolution set up Köhler
      Message 2 of 28 , Oct 1, 2006
        This objective needs to be used with an immersion condenser otherwise
        the NA will be limited to just under 1.0 anyway. To get best resolution
        set up Köhler illumination and adjust the field diaphragm so that the
        edges of the blades are just inside or coincide with the edge of the
        field. But both objective and condenser must be immersed or you won't be
        using the objective anywhere near its full potential. Internal
        reflection in the delaminated parts will cause some distortion. Better
        ask Emile, he knows these Zeiss objectives very well.

        D

        leitzscope wrote:
        >
        > Hello everyone
        >
        > I need a bit of advice. I have the much vaunted Zeiss planapo x63 na
        > 1.4 objective. Like a lot of these it has some delamination, in this
        > case a slight annular shadow extending from the outer edge towards
        > the middle for approaching 20% of the diameter.
        >
        > In use the objective gives good images with no apparent lack of
        > contrast. As you know, in normal use it is customary to close the
        > condenser iris perhaps to the 80% position to get reasonable contrast
        > in the image.
        >
        > My questions to you optical theorists are these:
        >
        > By shutting the iris in this manner am I blocking the area of
        > delamination?
        >
        > When we do this are we reducing the theoretical resolution of the
        > objective?
        >
        > Is shutting the iris to an approximately 80% position just custom and
        > practice to get reasonable contrast?
        >
        > Should we in fact only close the iris to the outer edge of the light
        > cone to get maximun resolution?
        >
        > Regards to all, Ray
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        >
        > No virus found in this incoming message.
        > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
        > Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.10/459 - Release Date: 29.9.2006
        >


        --
        Dr E D F Williams
        www.kolumbus.fi/mimosa/
        http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams/
        41660 TOIVAKKA – Finland - +358400706616
      • leitzscope
        Thanks Don In fact I always use my high mag planapos with slide oiled both sides. I have to say the only objectives where the resolution advantage of oiling
        Message 3 of 28 , Oct 1, 2006
          Thanks Don

          In fact I always use my high mag planapos with slide oiled both sides.
          I have to say the only objectives where the resolution advantage of
          oiling the condenser is obvious to me are the fabulous modern Olympus
          Ultra Planapos.

          Ray
        • emeylan
          Hi Ray, Don is correct, there is no cure for delamination, other than having your objective completely overhauled at factory. Since your objective is
          Message 4 of 28 , Oct 1, 2006
            Hi Ray,
            Don is correct, there is no cure for delamination, other than having
            your objective completely overhauled at factory. Since your
            objective is certainly > 20 years old, Zeiss might not even offer you
            the repair.
            Fortunately delamination is not as critical as it looks. I have seen
            objectives much worst as you describe, and 90% of the users did not
            even notice anything. Delamination is very slow, I am sure, you can
            have a few more years, before it become critical.
            emile


            --- In Microscope@yahoogroups.com, "leitzscope" <raymondsloss@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > Thanks Don
            >
            > In fact I always use my high mag planapos with slide oiled both
            sides.
            > I have to say the only objectives where the resolution advantage of
            > oiling the condenser is obvious to me are the fabulous modern
            Olympus
            > Ultra Planapos.
            >
            > Ray
            >
          • rvanwezel
            Wonderful experience, those high NA lenses. We use them routinely on inverteds at condenser NA 0.5. (live phytoplankton in 1ml chambers). I think that s
            Message 5 of 28 , Oct 1, 2006
              Wonderful experience, those high NA lenses. We use them routinely on
              inverteds at condenser NA 0.5. (live phytoplankton in 1ml chambers).
              I think that's reasonable compromise between contrast and resolution
              in BF. I wouldn't be satisfied with this setup in DIC though, and it
              seems I will be in the position to acquire DIC soon. I'm wondering
              about getting reflection DIC, as it is pretty cheap to set up on an
              inverted and is superior for use on diatoms (which will be the main
              use). Unfortunately it's useless for our normal stuff, but without
              doubt it's going to be an interesting experience.

              Sorry , back to your lens, of course it's nowhere near the
              theoretical limit, but the best we can get with enough contrast.
              The delamination will play up (if at all visible) in the illuminated
              areas of delamination. (reflection effects etc, as Don mentioned).
              But in limited aperture mode, effects are even less. The information
              from those areas are limited anyway, so losing say, 10% of that light
              will hardly has an effect visually. For that critical last bit of
              information, you better use a 100x anyway.

              Hope you will feel better knowing any lens is a compromise...

              René.

              --- In Microscope@yahoogroups.com, Don Williams <don.williams@...>
              wrote:
              >
              > This objective needs to be used with an immersion condenser
              otherwise
              > the NA will be limited to just under 1.0 anyway. To get best
              resolution
              > set up Köhler illumination and adjust the field diaphragm so that
              the
              > edges of the blades are just inside or coincide with the edge of
              the
              > field. But both objective and condenser must be immersed or you
              won't be
              > using the objective anywhere near its full potential. Internal
              > reflection in the delaminated parts will cause some distortion.
              Better
              > ask Emile, he knows these Zeiss objectives very well.
              >
              > D
              >
              > leitzscope wrote:
              > >
              > > Hello everyone
              > >
              > > I need a bit of advice. I have the much vaunted Zeiss planapo x63
              na
              > > 1.4 objective. Like a lot of these it has some delamination, in
              this
              > > case a slight annular shadow extending from the outer edge towards
              > > the middle for approaching 20% of the diameter.
              > >
              > > In use the objective gives good images with no apparent lack of
              > > contrast. As you know, in normal use it is customary to close the
              > > condenser iris perhaps to the 80% position to get reasonable
              contrast
              > > in the image.
              > >
              > > My questions to you optical theorists are these:
              > >
              > > By shutting the iris in this manner am I blocking the area of
              > > delamination?
              > >
              > > When we do this are we reducing the theoretical resolution of the
              > > objective?
              > >
              > > Is shutting the iris to an approximately 80% position just custom
              and
              > > practice to get reasonable contrast?
              > >
              > > Should we in fact only close the iris to the outer edge of the
              light
              > > cone to get maximun resolution?
              > >
              > > Regards to all, Ray
              > >
              > >
              > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
              ------
              > >
              > > No virus found in this incoming message.
              > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
              > > Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.10/459 - Release Date:
              29.9.2006
              > >
              >
              >
              > --
              > Dr E D F Williams
              > www.kolumbus.fi/mimosa/
              > http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams/
              > 41660 TOIVAKKA – Finland - +358400706616
              >
            • leitzscope
              Hi Don/René Thanks for responses. Still not sure of the theory here (my original questions). I have always shut my iris to the outer cone of light, but every
              Message 6 of 28 , Oct 1, 2006
                Hi Don/René

                Thanks for responses. Still not sure of the theory here (my original
                questions).

                I have always shut my iris to the outer cone of light, but every book
                says "about 80%", I assume therefore they are gaining contrast at the
                expense of resolution.

                Ray
              • hannah infante
                Visit this site http://www.truevisionmicroscopes.com leitzscope wrote: Hi Don/René Thanks for responses. Still not sure of the theory
                Message 7 of 28 , Oct 1, 2006
                  Visit this site

                  http://www.truevisionmicroscopes.com

                  leitzscope <raymondsloss@...> wrote:
                  Hi Don/René

                  Thanks for responses. Still not sure of the theory here (my original
                  questions).

                  I have always shut my iris to the outer cone of light, but every book
                  says "about 80%", I assume therefore they are gaining contrast at the
                  expense of resolution.

                  Ray






                  ---------------------------------
                  Do you Yahoo!?
                  Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • leitzscope
                  Hi Emile Now, don t laugh out loud. I am an engineer and have a lot of experience designing and manufacturing small complex objects. Someone put the x63
                  Message 8 of 28 , Oct 1, 2006
                    Hi Emile

                    Now, don't laugh out loud. I am an engineer and have a lot of
                    experience designing and manufacturing small complex objects. Someone
                    put the x63 together, why can't I dismantle it and re-cement the
                    delaminated bit (I know they have around fifteen elements!).
                    Do you know anyone who's done it?

                    Ray
                  • emeylan
                    Hi Ray, I will not laugh out loud. This group exchange ideas and everybody is free to do so. I recommend the factory, because of three reasons: 1) The
                    Message 9 of 28 , Oct 1, 2006
                      Hi Ray,
                      I will not laugh out loud. This group exchange ideas and everybody
                      is free to do so.

                      I recommend the factory, because of three reasons:

                      1) The factory Carl Zeiss recommend this because it cannot be done
                      outside.
                      2) I have seen the jigs and tools at factory to assemble this
                      objectives. I am also pretty sure, it would be almost impossible
                      to do this without this tools. Personnaly, I would keep my fingers
                      out of this.
                      3) For the last thirty years, I had customers here in the US,
                      giving their objectives for repair to some US outfitt, claiming they
                      can repair this objectives. Every single of this objectives did
                      end up in the trash.

                      If it is your objective, you can do whatsever you wish with it.

                      But, if this objective does not belong to me, I will only
                      recommend the factory or a replacement.

                      Now, you can laugh !

                      :-) emile


                      --- In Microscope@yahoogroups.com, "leitzscope" <raymondsloss@...>
                      wrote:
                      >
                      > Hi Emile
                      >
                      > Now, don't laugh out loud. I am an engineer and have a lot of
                      > experience designing and manufacturing small complex objects.
                      Someone
                      > put the x63 together, why can't I dismantle it and re-cement the
                      > delaminated bit (I know they have around fifteen elements!).
                      > Do you know anyone who's done it?
                      >
                      > Ray
                      >
                    • Kevin Sunley
                      Hi Ray, The theory is complicated, with most of the details far beyond my own understanding, but I can give my best attempt. When the light goes through the
                      Message 10 of 28 , Oct 1, 2006
                        Hi Ray,

                        The theory is complicated, with most of the details far beyond my own
                        understanding, but I can give my best attempt.

                        When the light goes through the condenser into the objective without
                        going through a sample is it (theoretically at least) undeviated from
                        how it was entering the condenser.

                        If it interacts with a sample, it is diffracted into a fan of
                        different beams of light which spread out like a fan from the point of
                        interaction. The light which is undeviated is called the Zero order
                        of diffraction, with the number of the order increasing the more the
                        beam is spread out (First order, Second order, Third order, etc.)

                        All of these orders are recombined into a final image that we observe
                        through the eyepieces. Mathematics which describe this recombination
                        have been worked out and are often described as Fourier mathematics.
                        In short the different wave forms of light contained in each order of
                        diffraction are superimposed and interact with each other in either
                        positive or negative interference. The more orders of diffraction you
                        have, the more detail there is to reconstruct the image, and in
                        effect, the more resolution you have.

                        Since the NA of the objective is essentially the width of the angle of
                        the cone of light the objective "sees", it represents how many orders
                        of diffraction which can be captured by the microscope. Closing the
                        iris limits the width of the cone of light that enters objective and
                        as a result restricts how many orders of diffract are possible to
                        start with. It's more complicated than I'm describing, but I'm pretty
                        sure it's along the same idea.

                        The trade off of contrast and resolution is unavoidable as well, it is
                        very, very rare that some actually needs 100% of the available
                        resolution of the microscope, the 80% iris rule is a good general
                        rule, since it provides and more appealing and useful image than with
                        the iris set at 100%.

                        The microscope may be able to resolve something optically, but if the
                        constrast is not great enough to see it visually it doesn't offer much
                        help to the microscopist. Artifically increasing the contrast
                        digitally (with a high bit-depth camera) and a pseudo-colour LUT can
                        get over this, but that's a different dicussion.

                        Personally I've never had a Zeiss objective that has delaminated, so
                        I'll leave the practical side of the discussion to those who've
                        already answered, however I had an older (all brass, 1920's) B&L
                        63x/1.4 apochromat which was completely delaminated. Two of the glass
                        elements had completely phyiscally moved apart, and it still made an
                        decent image, although obviously not great. In this case we did take
                        it apart and recement the lens with Canada Balsam and surprisingly
                        enough it did work well after that.

                        However the lens was not great to start with and was easy to assemble
                        (each element physically mounted in a seperate brass mounting ring).
                        I don't know how Zeiss lenses are constructed, and if your lens is
                        performing well then I certainly wouldn't recommend doing it yourself
                        with such a great lens. With mine I had nothing to lose, so it's a
                        little different. If the lenses are tilted even a little off the
                        optical axis it can destroy your image, and the lenses in those
                        objectives are very, very tiny.

                        HTH,

                        Kevin

                        --- In Microscope@yahoogroups.com, "leitzscope" <raymondsloss@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Hi Don/René
                        >
                        > Thanks for responses. Still not sure of the theory here (my original
                        > questions).
                      • Dogs Afire
                        Although not addressing the theory as you asked in your original question, this site: http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/artaug06/dw-delam.html provides some
                        Message 11 of 28 , Oct 1, 2006
                          Although not addressing the theory as you asked in
                          your original question, this site:
                          http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/artaug06/dw-delam.html

                          provides some very helpful (and reassuring)
                          information regarding the effects of delamination.

                          Don Baker

                          __________________________________________________
                          Do You Yahoo!?
                          Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                          http://mail.yahoo.com
                        • leitzscope
                          Thanks everyone for your replies and links. Kevin another excellent, clear summary. Regards to all, Ray
                          Message 12 of 28 , Oct 2, 2006
                            Thanks everyone for your replies and links.

                            Kevin another excellent, clear summary.

                            Regards to all, Ray
                          • David Littlewood
                            In message , Dogs Afire writes ... Ray, I would add to Don s suggestion the following
                            Message 13 of 28 , Oct 6, 2006
                              In message <20061002011351.44560.qmail@...>, Dogs
                              Afire <dogsafire@...> writes
                              >
                              >Although not addressing the theory as you asked in
                              >your original question, this site:
                              >http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/artaug06/dw-delam.html
                              >
                              >provides some very helpful (and reassuring)
                              >information regarding the effects of delamination.
                              >Don Baker
                              >
                              Ray,

                              I would add to Don's suggestion the following site:

                              http://www.the-ultraphot-shop.org.uk/faq.htm

                              Spike Walker (who knows more about Zeiss microscopy equipment than
                              anyone else I know) also once sent a delaminated objective to someone -
                              may even have been the place someone else mentioned - and it was utterly
                              unsuccessful. I have never heard of anyone doing a successful repair.
                              However, you will see from Spike's remarks that if your lens gives good
                              performance now, it will probably continue to do so unless you abuse it.

                              I have a large number of Zeiss objectives; only one transmitted light
                              objective (a 10x 0.32 planapo) has noticeable delamination. This lens,
                              bought on eBay, looks pristine, but the delamination is clearly visible
                              using a Bertrand lens, and gives an image of very poor contrast and
                              resolution (I since acquired a perfect specimen of the same lens so I
                              know what it should look like).

                              I also have several epiplans with DIC prisms, and some of these show
                              delamination. Some of these seem unaffected, some are visibly degraded.

                              David
                              --
                              David Littlewood
                            • leitzscope
                              David thanks for your comments. I have collected a lot of Zeiss objectives over the years. I have a pristine Planapo for every delaminated one. My opinion is
                              Message 14 of 28 , Oct 6, 2006
                                David thanks for your comments.

                                I have collected a lot of Zeiss objectives over the years. I have a
                                pristine Planapo for every delaminated one. My opinion is that even
                                slight delamination makes a huge difference to contrast (less to
                                resolution).

                                A recent addition was a planapo x25, it had a very poor image, when
                                examined under a stereo it showed what appeared to be a frosted front
                                element! I thought it might be damaged coating or dried oil it had
                                accidentally been dipped in. I examined it more closely with an Epi
                                objective and was amazed to see a ground glass 'frosted' concave lens
                                surface, similar in shape to the properly finished element on my good
                                x25. I can only conclude it came from the factory with an unfinished
                                unchecked element. I'm going to send it to Zeiss for their comments.
                                Most amazing is the fact it produces an image at all and that the lab
                                that used it never noticed.

                                Ray
                              • Gordon Couger
                                Hi David, I can understand the difficulty repairing an objective but I can t understand the problem repairing a DIC prism. That s not rocket science. I can t
                                Message 15 of 28 , Oct 6, 2006
                                  Hi David,

                                  I can understand the difficulty repairing an objective but I can't
                                  understand the problem repairing a DIC prism. That's not rocket science. I
                                  can't see how the refractive index of the optical cement can't do that much
                                  in a prism with that low an angle.

                                  Gordon



                                  On 10/6/06, David Littlewood <david@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > In message <20061002011351.44560.qmail@...<20061002011351.44560.qmail%40web52908.mail.yahoo.com>>,
                                  > Dogs
                                  > Afire <dogsafire@... <dogsafire%40yahoo.com>> writes
                                  > >
                                  > >Although not addressing the theory as you asked in
                                  > >your original question, this site:
                                  > >http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/artaug06/dw-delam.html
                                  > >
                                  > >provides some very helpful (and reassuring)
                                  > >information regarding the effects of delamination.
                                  > >Don Baker
                                  > >
                                  > Ray,
                                  >
                                  > I would add to Don's suggestion the following site:
                                  >
                                  > http://www.the-ultraphot-shop.org.uk/faq.htm
                                  >
                                  > Spike Walker (who knows more about Zeiss microscopy equipment than
                                  > anyone else I know) also once sent a delaminated objective to someone -
                                  > may even have been the place someone else mentioned - and it was utterly
                                  > unsuccessful. I have never heard of anyone doing a successful repair.
                                  > However, you will see from Spike's remarks that if your lens gives good
                                  > performance now, it will probably continue to do so unless you abuse it.
                                  >
                                  > I have a large number of Zeiss objectives; only one transmitted light
                                  > objective (a 10x 0.32 planapo) has noticeable delamination. This lens,
                                  > bought on eBay, looks pristine, but the delamination is clearly visible
                                  > using a Bertrand lens, and gives an image of very poor contrast and
                                  > resolution (I since acquired a perfect specimen of the same lens so I
                                  > know what it should look like).
                                  >
                                  > I also have several epiplans with DIC prisms, and some of these show
                                  > delamination. Some of these seem unaffected, some are visibly degraded.
                                  >
                                  > David
                                  > --
                                  > David Littlewood
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >


                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • David Littlewood
                                  In message , Gordon Couger writes ... Hi Gordon, I was referring to
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Oct 6, 2006
                                    In message
                                    <da203e310610061411t7a78fc21v243af1cfabe86594@...>, Gordon
                                    Couger <gordon.couger@...> writes
                                    >
                                    >Hi David,
                                    >
                                    >I can understand the difficulty repairing an objective but I can't
                                    >understand the problem repairing a DIC prism. That's not rocket science. I
                                    >can't see how the refractive index of the optical cement can't do that much
                                    >in a prism with that low an angle.
                                    >
                                    >Gordon
                                    >
                                    Hi Gordon,

                                    I was referring to repairs on the objectives; yes, I can see that
                                    repairing the prisms would be a whole lot easier (may even try it myself
                                    one day) but then they are also not that expensive to replace either.

                                    David
                                    --
                                    David Littlewood
                                  • jfor@quik.com
                                    ... Gordon, I ve been trying to get DIC INKOs for my UEM fixed for several years. There seems to be no one who will / can do it. Zeiss is ONLY willing to put
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Oct 6, 2006
                                      > Hi David,
                                      >
                                      > I can understand the difficulty repairing an objective but I can't
                                      > understand the problem repairing a DIC prism. That's not rocket science.
                                      > I can't see how the refractive index of the optical cement can't do that
                                      > much in a prism with that low an angle.
                                      >
                                      > Gordon

                                      Gordon,

                                      I've been trying to get DIC INKOs for my UEM fixed for several years.
                                      There seems to be no one who will / can do it. Zeiss is ONLY willing to
                                      put in a new assembly for $$$$.

                                      Want to give it a try? I think I have a prism with little to loose.
                                      -John
                                    • Gordon Couger
                                      Hi John, I have one to try already they are easy to come by. Gordon ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      Message 18 of 28 , Oct 7, 2006
                                        Hi John,

                                        I have one to try already they are easy to come by.

                                        Gordon

                                        On 10/6/06, jfor@... <jfor@...> wrote:


                                        > II've been trying to get DIC INKOs for my UEM fixed for several years.
                                        > There seems to be no one who will / can do it. Zeiss is ONLY willing to
                                        > put in a new assembly for $$$$.
                                        >
                                        > Want to give it a try? I think I have a prism with little to loose.
                                        > -John
                                        >


                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • emeylan
                                        Hi Gordon, That s not rocket science. I am not too sure about this. I still have to hear of somebody fully succesful with this type of repair other that
                                        Message 19 of 28 , Oct 7, 2006
                                          Hi Gordon,
                                          "That's not rocket science."

                                          I am not too sure about this. I still have to hear of somebody
                                          fully succesful with this type of repair other that the main factory.
                                          :-) emile


                                          --- In Microscope@yahoogroups.com, "Gordon Couger"
                                          <gordon.couger@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > Hi David,
                                          >
                                          > I can understand the difficulty repairing an objective but I can't
                                          > understand the problem repairing a DIC prism. That's not rocket
                                          science. I
                                          > can't see how the refractive index of the optical cement can't do
                                          that much
                                          > in a prism with that low an angle.
                                          >
                                          > Gordon
                                          >
                                        • jfor@quik.com
                                          ... OTHER than the factory ??? Even they don t seem to do it, according to the guys in NJ a year or two ago. -John
                                          Message 20 of 28 , Oct 7, 2006
                                            > Hi Gordon,
                                            > "That's not rocket science."
                                            >
                                            > I am not too sure about this. I still have to hear of somebody
                                            > fully succesful with this type of repair other that the main factory.
                                            > :-) emile

                                            OTHER than the factory ??? Even they don't seem to do it, according to the
                                            guys in NJ a year or two ago.

                                            -John
                                          • uca_minax
                                            Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what the approximate cost of remounting a planapo is? Just guessing, I would expect it to rival the lens replacement
                                            Message 21 of 28 , Oct 7, 2006
                                              Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what the approximate cost of
                                              remounting a planapo is? Just guessing, I would expect it to rival
                                              the lens replacement cost on eBay, especially if the results are
                                              questionable.
                                              Best regards,
                                              Steve

                                              --- In Microscope@yahoogroups.com, <jfor@...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              > > Hi Gordon,
                                              > > "That's not rocket science."
                                              > >
                                              > > I am not too sure about this. I still have to hear of somebody
                                              > > fully succesful with this type of repair other that the main
                                              factory.
                                              > > :-) emile
                                              >
                                              > OTHER than the factory ??? Even they don't seem to do it, according
                                              to the
                                              > guys in NJ a year or two ago.
                                              >
                                              > -John
                                              >
                                            • emeylan
                                              Hi John, You are correct, optical parts from the F=160mm line of microscope are getting very difficult to repair or replace. I had components from an
                                              Message 22 of 28 , Oct 8, 2006
                                                Hi John,
                                                You are correct, optical parts from the F=160mm line of microscope
                                                are getting very difficult to repair or replace. I had components
                                                from an Axiomat and the company told me, they have nobody anymore to
                                                do anything for the Axiomat.

                                                But the point, I wanted to make, is: I heve never seen an
                                                objective delaminated or a DIC prism delaminated repaired here in
                                                the US, and been accepted by my customer as an acceptable
                                                solution. Every single of this repair have end up in the trash.

                                                Off course, if you do this on your own equipment, because there is
                                                no other solution, it is different. You are the one who do the
                                                repair and you are the one to decide if you are satisfied or not.

                                                :-) emile

                                                --- In Microscope@yahoogroups.com, <jfor@...> wrote:
                                                >
                                                > > Hi Gordon,
                                                > > "That's not rocket science."
                                                > >
                                                > > I am not too sure about this. I still have to hear of somebody
                                                > > fully succesful with this type of repair other that the main
                                                factory.
                                                > > :-) emile
                                                >
                                                > OTHER than the factory ??? Even they don't seem to do it,
                                                according to the
                                                > guys in NJ a year or two ago.
                                                >
                                                > -John
                                                >
                                              • emeylan
                                                An objective repair at Carl Zeiss factory cost aound 50% to 70% of a new objective, depending how many lenses have to be replaced. The objective is not
                                                Message 23 of 28 , Oct 8, 2006
                                                  An objective repair at Carl Zeiss factory cost aound 50% to 70% of a
                                                  new objective, depending how many lenses have to be replaced.
                                                  The objective is not repaired separately, but put on the chaine of
                                                  work with other new objectives. Which make this repair last for 2 -
                                                  3 months.
                                                  Also, since the factory does not build optic for the F=160mm line of
                                                  microscopes, there is a chance that the factory will not accept the
                                                  repair.
                                                  :-) emile


                                                  --- In Microscope@yahoogroups.com, "uca_minax" <uca_minax@...> wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  > Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what the approximate cost
                                                  of
                                                  > remounting a planapo is? Just guessing, I would expect it to
                                                  rival
                                                  > the lens replacement cost on eBay, especially if the results are
                                                  > questionable.
                                                  > Best regards,
                                                  > Steve
                                                  >
                                                  > --- In Microscope@yahoogroups.com, <jfor@> wrote:
                                                  > >
                                                  > > > Hi Gordon,
                                                  > > > "That's not rocket science."
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > I am not too sure about this. I still have to hear of
                                                  somebody
                                                  > > > fully succesful with this type of repair other that the main
                                                  > factory.
                                                  > > > :-) emile
                                                  > >
                                                  > > OTHER than the factory ??? Even they don't seem to do it,
                                                  according
                                                  > to the
                                                  > > guys in NJ a year or two ago.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > -John
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                • Gordon Couger
                                                  Hi Emile, It may be more complex for a reflected light DIC prism than a transmitted light set up. The cement does play a part in the optical action of the
                                                  Message 24 of 28 , Oct 19, 2006
                                                    Hi Emile,

                                                    It may be more complex for a reflected light DIC prism than a transmitted
                                                    light set up. The cement does play a part in the optical action of the
                                                    prism. I under stand a transmitted light DIC to go out on a limb and say it
                                                    should work but i don't understand how to make a Nomarski prism with
                                                    interferance plane outside the Nomarski Prism as is needed in reflected
                                                    light.

                                                    Do you know anyone that has tried to recemet a prism?

                                                    Looking at A reflected light DIC prism just now I can see the delamination
                                                    destroys the DIC if it is present. Any defect in the field of focus shows up
                                                    in the image. And the pass back and forth though the Noranski prism must
                                                    work properly to shear and reassemble the light. There s no slider to play
                                                    with as there is in transmitted light DIC. I can see how the art of the
                                                    assembly and choice of cements could have some effect. There had to be some
                                                    reason Zeiss stuck by that cement for so long over the year it cost them a
                                                    fortune make the bad optics good before they stopped the practice. I am sure
                                                    the fellow that found a better cemet got a nice bouns.

                                                    Gordon

                                                    On 10/7/06, emeylan <emeylan@...> wrote:

                                                    Hi Gordon,
                                                    "That's not rocket science."

                                                    I am not too sure about this. I still have to hear of somebody
                                                    fully succesful with this type of repair other that the main factory.
                                                    :-) emile

                                                    --- In Microscope@yahoogroups.com, "Gordon Couger"
                                                    <gordon.couger@...> wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    > Hi David,
                                                    >
                                                    > I can understand the difficulty repairing an objective but I can't
                                                    > understand the problem repairing a DIC prism. That's not rocket
                                                    science. I
                                                    > can't see how the refractive index of the optical cement can't do
                                                    that much
                                                    > in a prism with that low an angle.
                                                    >
                                                    > Gordon
                                                    >

                                                    _


                                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                  • leitzscope
                                                    gordon.couger wrote: Do you know anyone that has tried to re-cement a prism? I have Gordon! I had two prisms badly corroded at the join. I slowly heated them
                                                    Message 25 of 28 , Oct 19, 2006
                                                      gordon.couger wrote:

                                                      Do you know anyone that has tried to re-cement a prism?

                                                      I have Gordon!

                                                      I had two prisms badly corroded at the join. I slowly heated them to
                                                      boiling point (in Water). I then pulled them apart, let them cool and
                                                      cleaned the residue off with Xylene (trying not to breath
                                                      simultaneously!). I then softened some Canada Balsam with Xylene (to
                                                      a fairly thick consistency). I put a tiny drop on the prism surface
                                                      (which was about 20mm square) and pressed the other prism in place. I
                                                      was amazed to see no bubbles but a perfect transparent join. I then
                                                      left it a few days to harden.

                                                      Now for the no-brainer! I realised the 45 degree surface was
                                                      originally partially sivered - I had converted two 45 degree prisms
                                                      into one perfect non internally reflecting block of glass!

                                                      But at least I proved it's not that difficult.

                                                      Ray
                                                    • Gordon Couger
                                                      ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                      Message 26 of 28 , Oct 19, 2006
                                                        >
                                                        > Hi Ray,
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        > Partly slivering one surface of the prism would increase the complexity a
                                                        > great deal. It would to be easy to measure so you could re-silver the prism.
                                                        > And no manufacturer in their right mind would let the details of that part
                                                        > of the art out.
                                                        >
                                                        > Partially silvered cover slips and slides will make a transmitted
                                                        > inference scope and a partially slivered cover slip of front surface of an
                                                        > objective will make a reflected light interference scope. I think the
                                                        > partial silvered faces prism would need to be optically parallel to each
                                                        > other and form a interference effect form the same prism. I think it gives
                                                        > me a bit more insight in how the reflected DIC works. But I understand how
                                                        > the female reproductive system work as well and I sure can't do that either.
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        > Thanks for explaining why re-cementing the prisms won't work. There is no
                                                        > reason to make the mirror costing hard in the inside of prism.
                                                        >
                                                        > Thanks
                                                        > Gordon
                                                        >
                                                        > On 10/19/06, leitzscope <raymondsloss@...> wrote:
                                                        >
                                                        > gordon.couger wrote:
                                                        >
                                                        > Do you know anyone that has tried to re-cement a prism?
                                                        >
                                                        > I have Gordon!
                                                        >
                                                        > I had two prisms badly corroded at the join. I slowly heated them to
                                                        > boiling point (in Water). I then pulled them apart, let them cool and
                                                        > cleaned the residue off with Xylene (trying not to breath
                                                        > simultaneously!). I then softened some Canada Balsam with Xylene (to
                                                        > a fairly thick consistency). I put a tiny drop on the prism surface
                                                        > (which was about 20mm square) and pressed the other prism in place. I
                                                        > was amazed to see no bubbles but a perfect transparent join. I then
                                                        > left it a few days to harden.
                                                        >
                                                        > Now for the no-brainer! I realised the 45 degree surface was
                                                        > originally partially sivered - I had converted two 45 degree prisms
                                                        > into one perfect non internally reflecting block of glass!
                                                        >
                                                        > But at least I proved it's not that difficult.
                                                        >
                                                        > Ray
                                                        >
                                                        > _
                                                        >
                                                        >


                                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                      • emeylan
                                                        I did reply to this message already. I do not know of anybody been successful with this. ... transmitted ... the ... and say it ... reflected ...
                                                        Message 27 of 28 , Oct 20, 2006
                                                          I did reply to this message already. I do not know of anybody been
                                                          successful with this.
                                                          :-) emile


                                                          --- In Microscope@yahoogroups.com, "Gordon Couger"
                                                          <gordon.couger@...> wrote:
                                                          >
                                                          > Hi Emile,
                                                          >
                                                          > It may be more complex for a reflected light DIC prism than a
                                                          transmitted
                                                          > light set up. The cement does play a part in the optical action of
                                                          the
                                                          > prism. I under stand a transmitted light DIC to go out on a limb
                                                          and say it
                                                          > should work but i don't understand how to make a Nomarski prism with
                                                          > interferance plane outside the Nomarski Prism as is needed in
                                                          reflected
                                                          > light.
                                                          >
                                                          > Do you know anyone that has tried to recemet a prism?
                                                          >
                                                          > Looking at A reflected light DIC prism just now I can see the
                                                          delamination
                                                          > destroys the DIC if it is present. Any defect in the field of focus
                                                          shows up
                                                          > in the image. And the pass back and forth though the Noranski prism
                                                          must
                                                          > work properly to shear and reassemble the light. There s no slider
                                                          to play
                                                          > with as there is in transmitted light DIC. I can see how the art of
                                                          the
                                                          > assembly and choice of cements could have some effect. There had to
                                                          be some
                                                          > reason Zeiss stuck by that cement for so long over the year it cost
                                                          them a
                                                          > fortune make the bad optics good before they stopped the practice.
                                                          I am sure
                                                          > the fellow that found a better cemet got a nice bouns.
                                                          >
                                                          > Gordon
                                                          >
                                                          > On 10/7/06, emeylan <emeylan@...> wrote:
                                                          >
                                                          > Hi Gordon,
                                                          > "That's not rocket science."
                                                          >
                                                          > I am not too sure about this. I still have to hear of somebody
                                                          > fully succesful with this type of repair other that the main
                                                          factory.
                                                          > :-) emile
                                                          >
                                                          > --- In Microscope@yahoogroups.com, "Gordon Couger"
                                                          > <gordon.couger@> wrote:
                                                          > >
                                                          > > Hi David,
                                                          > >
                                                          > > I can understand the difficulty repairing an objective but I can't
                                                          > > understand the problem repairing a DIC prism. That's not rocket
                                                          > science. I
                                                          > > can't see how the refractive index of the optical cement can't do
                                                          > that much
                                                          > > in a prism with that low an angle.
                                                          > >
                                                          > > Gordon
                                                          > >
                                                          >
                                                          > _
                                                          >
                                                          >
                                                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                          >
                                                        • Gordon Couger
                                                          Hi Emile, ... I am really bad about wanting to know why when someone says something won t work. I spent the last 4 or 5 hours reading patents. Adding partial
                                                          Message 28 of 28 , Oct 20, 2006
                                                            Hi Emile,

                                                            >
                                                            I am really bad about wanting to know why when someone says something won't
                                                            work. I spent the last 4 or 5 hours reading patents.

                                                            Adding partial silvering the one of the prisms makes it a far more difficult
                                                            repair. Few people or firms have the means to do it. Doing it one off even
                                                            if you had the equipment and knew what you were doing would be pretty
                                                            expensive. I should have noticed the reflection the prism has. It doesn't
                                                            look dark to my eye mounted in an objective but when the light strikes it
                                                            right it shines like a mirror showing the reflective coating. That bit of
                                                            information does give someone trying it a better chance next time.

                                                            For those interested Nomarski's patent is US patent #2,924,142, Smith's is #
                                                            2,601,175 looking for Nomarski's patent which has to be found by finding
                                                            another patent that refers to it because it has not been converted to text I
                                                            came across a 1971 patent 3,868,168 by Johannes D. De Veer assigned to AO
                                                            Spencer that looks interesting where he claims to get the same effect with
                                                            simple plane wedges of quartz. Claiming and doing are often two very
                                                            different things. Georges Nomarski patented a number of ways to obtain DIC.
                                                            I couldn't find any reference to partially silvered prisms. I still have a
                                                            hard time getting my head around how reflected light DIC works compared to
                                                            the much simpler transmitted light DIC. After spending 3 or 4 hours reading
                                                            patents I have a better idea. But the saying and doing are often very
                                                            different things. I expect that is the case with making reflected light DIC
                                                            work.

                                                            I am including the patent numbers in case some one else is interested. Most
                                                            of them had to be hand copied form scanned documents.

                                                            Smith's patent #2,602,175 is the most readable of the two and covers the
                                                            basics the best. he refers to the following US patents 2,014,688, 2045124,
                                                            2105671*, 2128394, 2303906, 2427689, 2437061, & 2516905. Nomarski referenced
                                                            these US patents only 2516905 is in common with Smith and Smith in 2601175,
                                                            Nomarski also references 942393, 2460515, 2516905, 2660922, & 2732759. I
                                                            expect most of the interesting patents are in the UK and Europe. The USA was
                                                            not at the head of research in Microscopy. I expect by the the 20's most of
                                                            the patents were filed in the USA we are and were a big market.

                                                            Cheers
                                                            Gordon

                                                            On 10/20/06, emeylan <emeylan@...> wrote:

                                                            I did reply to this message already. I do not know of anybody been
                                                            successful with this.
                                                            :-) emile

                                                            --- In Microscope@yahoogroups.com, "Gordon Couger"
                                                            <gordon.couger@...> wrote:
                                                            >
                                                            > Hi Emile,
                                                            >
                                                            > It may be more complex for a reflected light DIC prism than a
                                                            transmitted
                                                            > light set up. The cement does play a part in the optical action of
                                                            the
                                                            > prism. I under stand a transmitted light DIC to go out on a limb
                                                            and say it
                                                            > should work but i don't understand how to make a Nomarski prism with
                                                            > interferance plane outside the Nomarski Prism as is needed in
                                                            reflected
                                                            > light.
                                                            >
                                                            > Do you know anyone that has tried to recemet a prism?
                                                            >
                                                            > Looking at A reflected light DIC prism just now I can see the
                                                            delamination
                                                            > destroys the DIC if it is present. Any defect in the field of focus
                                                            shows up
                                                            > in the image. And the pass back and forth though the Noranski prism
                                                            must
                                                            > work properly to shear and reassemble the light. There s no slider
                                                            to play
                                                            > with as there is in transmitted light DIC. I can see how the art of
                                                            the
                                                            > assembly and choice of cements could have some effect. There had to
                                                            be some
                                                            > reason Zeiss stuck by that cement for so long over the year it cost
                                                            them a
                                                            > fortune make the bad optics good before they stopped the practice.
                                                            I am sure
                                                            > the fellow that found a better cemet got a nice bouns.
                                                            >
                                                            > Gordon
                                                            >
                                                            > On 10/7/06, emeylan <emeylan@...> wrote:
                                                            >
                                                            > Hi Gordon,
                                                            > "That's not rocket science."
                                                            >
                                                            > I am not too sure about this. I still have to hear of somebody
                                                            > fully succesful with this type of repair other that the main
                                                            factory.
                                                            > :-) emile
                                                            >
                                                            > --- In Microscope@yahoogroups.com, "Gordon Couger"
                                                            > <gordon.couger@> wrote:
                                                            > >
                                                            > > Hi David,
                                                            > >
                                                            > > I can understand the difficulty repairing an objective but I can't
                                                            > > understand the problem repairing a DIC prism. That's not rocket
                                                            > science. I
                                                            > > can't see how the refractive index of the optical cement can't do
                                                            > that much
                                                            > > in a prism with that low an angle.
                                                            > >
                                                            > > Gordon
                                                            >


                                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.