Re: Köhler illumination question...
- From: "Dr. Georg N.Nyman" <gnnyman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 15:49:05 +0200
Rene,
I did not write that this is the right way to do, but it is done and it helps - that is the reason why I wrote "improving" and not improving....
The problem with the frosted glass in the aperture plane is that it needs to be optically pretty thin to avoid significant losses of brightness. If you look at the illumination design of larger research microscopes, especially those which have a relay for illumination (for Phasecontrast etc) then you find these devices implanted there.
rgds George
Rene wrote:
Hello to all,
The Koehler vs critical discussion crops up some now and then and is always good for some excitement. I'm surprised however by the high level of microscopists involved in this discussion though! In my own experience I have not seen any differences between critical vs Koehler, also not in theory (when applied with field iris). I think ‘large source Koehler' would be the best system for microscopy, it is based on the projection of the diffusing screen onto the condenser iris, instead of the filament. Needless to say this is far more homogenous, and makes far less critical demands on the whole of the illumination train. My own setup is slightly different, with an opaline glass that can be inserted just behind the lamp. I believe this to be in the focal distance of the collector lens, as with slight condenser adjustment I can see the structure in the image. Interestingly, it is not entirely the same spot as in BF, but when the system is used with circular oblique light above NA 1.0, the field iris is sharp together with the structure of the diffusing screen. Besides of this detail, the field iris behaves perfectly normal in this setup, with closure of the field iris resulting in cut-off of straylight, as is clearly visible when looking in the tube without eyepiece.
George's remark however is a bit off:
A last but not least reason is that the frosted glass increases the
nA
of the illumination which helps "improving" the imaging performance
of
the microscope.
Out of practicality, most illuminator systems I've seen do project the filament too small on the condenser iris, thereby not able to fill the highest apertures (1.3-1.4) fully. Surely a diffuser will help, but it is not really in this respect the right tool for improvement.
Now the Nelson way of illumination is slightly different as well, it assumes illumination by a lamp wick or similar. Even though the illumination train is the same, several people have described this as a superior illumination when details are checked against the edge of the flame, probably due to interference mechanisms, see eg Michael Bingley, Quekett J Micr, 1984, 480-482. He mentions the visibility of the lamp filament with Koehler in the back focal plane of the objective and regards this as a serious optical compromise, while the visibility of the filament in the image as with Nelsonian is optically, hardly more then an aesthetic problem.
Rene.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Köhler illumination question...
- From: rene
- Re: Köhler illumination question...
- References:
- Köhler illumination question...
- From: Rene
- Köhler illumination question...
- Prev by Date: Re: Excuse me...
- Next by Date: Re: Kohler illumination question...
- Previous by thread: Köhler illumination question...
- Next by thread: Re: Köhler illumination question...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|