Re: A strange Zeiss mono-tube
From: Aaron (nghy_at_comcast.net)
Date: 07/16/04
- Next message: Mark Greenfield: "Re: Lyme Disease in blood"
- Previous message: Kevin Cunningham: "Re: A strange Zeiss mono-tube"
- In reply to: Kevin Sunley: "A strange Zeiss mono-tube"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 16 Jul 2004 11:33:05 -0500
Hello,
My speculation is that the lens system in the tube provides slight
adjustments to the focus for a film camera system that is mounts on
the end of the phototube.
Getting the microscope image to focus on a film plan at eaxactly the
same point as the image seen in the eyepieces is very difficult. I
suspect this phototube has optics to trim the focus to make the image
on the film and the image in the eyepiece par-focal, especially
considering the scale on the tube. It looks to be very similar to the
scale on an eyepiece.with diopter adjustments. .
Aaron
On 16 Jul 2004 03:07:08 GMT, Kevin Sunley
<umsunle0@REMOVEcc.umanitoba.ca> wrote:
>Hi everyone,
>
>I have an obscure question that I'm hoping someone may know
>something about.
>
>It concerns a West German Zeiss straight (non-inclined) microscope
>mono-tube, such as one used to mount a camera. This tube (see picture)
>has a collar to allow the tube length to be adjusted, but this feature
>is not directly related to my question.
>
>The tube can be seen here:
>
>http://www.sunley.ca/microscope/images/images.html
>
>.. click on the "Zeiss non-inclined mono-tube with lens".
>
>
>Now comes the question. It concerns the lens that is factory mounted
>inside the tube, which can be seen if you look closely at the
>picture showing the bottom of the tube.
>
>The person I bought the tube from was quite confident that its
>origin was from a Zeiss microspectrophotometer which was built with
>some quartz optics. As it turns out the lenses do not seem to be
>quartz (no transmission below 340nm), but it still seems to be an
>interesting part.
>
>Firstly, the lens inside the tube, although it seems to be factory
>mounted, seems to be a post-manufacturing addition to a regular
>adjustable monotube. This is because the item was painted prior to
>milling out portions of the tube's inside to fit the lens mount.
>This might indicate that it may be a part from a unit which was not
>manufactured in a great quantity.
>
>Secondly, although my first thought was that it was for changing the
>tube length of the optical path, the lens instead seems to function as
>one of two things:
>
>1) a permenantly mounted bertrand lens (most likely)
>2) some sort of permentantly mounted eyepiece,
>
>This is because if I use the tube with a Zeiss eyepiece, I see a
>very sharp, clear, and magnified view of the back focal plane of the
>objective.
>
>If I use the tube without an eyepiece, a view of the specimen can be
>seen just by looking down the tube, but it is hard to focus on, and
>you have to keep your eye very(!) close to the tube.
>
>
>So I'm leaning towards a bertrand lens system, but not ruling out it
>being a lens to use the microscope with some type of video camera
>and/or photomultiplier system. The latter seems unlikely though, as
>a tube used with Zeiss' microspectrophotometer would likely have had
>quartz lenses (since most of the units allowed %T measurements into
>the far-UV).
>
>
>So can anyone think of any reason or type of equipment that would
>have a non-removable bertrand lens in it. I know there are many
>analytical uses of microscopes, including microspectrophotometers,
>FTIRs, etc., and it could be from any of these, or something
>completely unrelated like a dedicated conoscopic microscope (if such a
>thing was ever made).
>
>The last bit of possibly helpful information I have is that I have
>seen the exact same type of adjustable straight tube, but without
>any lenses internal to it. But the non-lensed tube did not have the
>white ring around its base. So the ring seems to indicate that the
>tube has some type of special use, but that's all I know.
>
>Also, the lenses do not seem to be coated (which seems unusual for
>most post-WWII Zeiss optics I've seen).
>
>
>Any and all guesses are appreciated.
>
>
>Kevin
- Next message: Mark Greenfield: "Re: Lyme Disease in blood"
- Previous message: Kevin Cunningham: "Re: A strange Zeiss mono-tube"
- In reply to: Kevin Sunley: "A strange Zeiss mono-tube"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
