Bino Prism Surgery...Update

Have questions about the equipment used for macro- or micro- photography? Post those questions in this forum.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

Retro
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:15 pm
Location: Scarborough, Ontario

Bino Prism Surgery...Update

Post by Retro »

Hi again everyone, this is an update to the thread found here:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... php?t=9328

Following are the details of the completed repair job.

It took a long time to find the cement needed to join the prisms (beam splitter). After much searching I settled on Permatex Bullseye Windshield Repair Kit ($15.81 CDN) which was finally found at a "Tuner" auto store not a block from my house. I didn't need the syringe, mount pad, adhesive pad or curing film-square in the kit but the 0.75ml tube of cement seemed ideal (according to the MSDS info) for the 4 drops required.

The next morning was sunny so I spent about an hour prepping the glass and fixture but Murphy stepped in just as it was ready to hit the sun. Fortunately there was only a 35% overcast so standing time was one hour instead of 15 minutes.

Ever since seeing the cloud in the beam splitter I've been searching for what may have caused it. This segment of a document "The Bonding of Optical Elements Techniques and Troubleshooting by Summers Optical" may be the answer:
Edge Pinch, Perimeter Separation, Reticulation

CAUSE:
Thin flats with 90 degree ground edges can show a distortion after cure around the perimeters of their bond surfaces. Beam splitter blocks and corner cubes can show this same distortion, however, it is usually along the line of the acute angle. This is pinching of the edges and is caused by cement shrinkage.
Occasionally this shrinkage will cause bond separation, evidenced by mirror like reflection or interference rings around the perimeter. Reticulation is a term used to describe a "cobwebbing" radiating from the edges of the doublet inward. A look at this under magnification will show microscopic bubbles caused by air being drawn in during the curing because there was not enough or no cement around the bond perimeter as the cement contracted during cure.

REMEDY:
Although both anaerobic and non-anaerobic cements can result in edge pinch, perimeter separation and reticulation; the non-anaerobic cements will cause edge pinch and separation more often. This is because the outer perimeter cement is curing at the same speed as the cement between the elements. As the cement cures the adhesion and shrinkage combine to pull down and in, resulting in pinch, distortion and in some cases bond failure and separation. Reticulation is more common with anaerobic adhesives and is primarily due to lack of cement at the perimeter of the bond. It can not be over emphasized that the chamfer must hold enough cement to be drawn in during cure. Elements without chamfers exhibit a high percentage of perimeter difficulties so chamfers should be designed in to eliminate this problem. Another cause of reticulation is insufficient degassing of the mixed cement. The technician should read carefully any manufacturers instructions to eliminate entrapped air and also take care that there are no air bubbles in the cement left around the perimeter of the bond surface.
Needless to say I gave the mirrored prism a generous chamfer. While observing the curing process it proved to be a good idea.

Speaking of mirrored prism I want to give g4lab (Gene) my sincerest thanks for pointing out that I could just rub the surface with a cerium oxide solution on my finger. It worked amazingly well and the pellicle ionization popped out as bright as new. The acrylic sheet I prepared for polishing was unnecessary.

Image

Having recently acquiring a trinocular head for my A.O. Model 110 I tried it's bino head on the Reichert-Jung. It fits and views perfectly! Choronzon you were right all along. The flats on the Jung-bino are only necessary to accommodate the tube extension. The 2 inch dovetail on any old A.O. infinity drops right in.

Collimation of the splitter assembly was made easy because the 3 screws have a relief below the head and the holes are big enough to allow plenty of wiggle. About 5 tries and the view was perfectly coincident. As a credit to my fixture the final position was very close to the scribe marks I placed around the original assembly.

My plan was to change the 10, 40x, and 100x Aspergillus damaged achromats with Plan Achro's I'd acquired but the 100x on my model 110 was damaged and the 40x which I bought from "dealerdomain" ($47.00) was oil soaked and will not focus.

Here are some pics of a Carolina slide Puccinia graminis Aecia "Wheat Rust" taken through the scope:

Image

Image

Image

This setup suffers more contrast loss than an actual look thanks to 4 glass surfaces between scope and camera but I'm quite happy regardless. You'll have to trust that the view is coincident as it is too difficult to demonstrate.

This is the setup with a Nikon 990:

Image

Thank you very much for your help everyone, it really made the repair a cinch.

Jim

g4lab
Posts: 1437
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 11:07 am

Post by g4lab »

Very nice work! :D

Retro
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:15 pm
Location: Scarborough, Ontario

Post by Retro »

Ahhhh... Praise from Caesar, but if truth be known Gene, it was your solvent recommendation, your cleaning tips and your cement suggestion which made the fix possible. All I did was follow instructions. So again, thank you.

On a related subject: I took that bum 40x plan apart and discovered the centre doublet was cocked about 10° and held with a soft glue (like Elmer's Fixall) so I cleaned it up and studied how to re-affix it in line with the assembly.

While viewing the lens and cup I noticed that the LED ring-lights were casting 2 coloured ring reflections from 2 different surface levels. It occurred to me that if the cup was centred in the aperture and the lights were aligned, the collimation would be sufficient to rescue the objective.

The 2 part epoxy was very slow to completely harden (10 hours) and the alignment seemed perfect, upon assembly although better, the focus was still off.

Not convinced that collimation was the whole problem, and because I wasn't sure if the original cement had softened due to the oil or if someone has been tinkering previously, I tried moving shims, adding/subtracting shims, discovered oil on the back of the front assembly and meticulously removed it... anyway after about 6 hours effort the focus is still out of usable bounds.

My question is: Is the axis of the double convex doublet that critical or could it be, the front assembly has been distorted by the oil?

Image

Humble regards,
Jim

Retro
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:15 pm
Location: Scarborough, Ontario

Post by Retro »

While reading over the thread about flare and light trapping by ChrisR http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... sc&start=0 it occurred to me that the poor image at 40x in the older A.O. Fifty (tungsten lamp, bulging field lens, no rheostat) and to a lesser extent the A.O. R/Jung 150 (halogen/variable, improved field condenser) might be due to the absence of blacking in their tubes.

After pondering and measuring, I dropped a marker blackened 50¢ coin tube into the Reichert 150 and found the view much improved, great in fact.

Image

Image

(Here's the part where things tie in with my previous post)...

On a whim I tried the Cat 1116 - 40x from the older A.O. Fifty in the improved R/Jung 150 and the view was blurry! :x Under magnified scrutiny it was found to be oil soaked too! :shock:

So I stripped it down and washed the front (and 2nd) cells with a 50% baby shampoo solution then cleaned (with "Rexton") and re-assembled the lens. Now both microscopes have an excellent image at 40x.

What I've observed from this arduous exercise is that 40x A.O. achromat lenses have only one (plano-convex) front lens and can be cleaned, whereas plan-achromats have a duo (concave-convex [meniscus]) arrangement and cannot. Therefore: Do not let your hi-dry plan objectives get wet!

Enough said about my tribulations, I should get on with trying to make some pictures.

Wish me luck,
Jim

g4lab
Posts: 1437
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 11:07 am

Post by g4lab »

Jim I don't think you actually need terribly much luck. (of course it never hurts to have it :D )

I work repairing scientific instrumentation for a teaching university. I often say that all it really takes is stubbornness. Although I have in the past, re-cemented lenses like you just did, at this time of my life it there is not enough stubbornness to do that.

I compliment you on your excellent and careful workmanship and your stubbornness in not stopping till you get what you want. I look forward to seeing your photos which I am confident will reflect the same workmanship standards.

I am glad I could help. I have collected a great deal of mostly useless information and am always happy when it does turn out to be of some use to someone.

G

lauriek
Posts: 2402
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:57 am
Location: South East UK
Contact:

Post by lauriek »

I have collected a great deal of mostly useless information and am always happy when it does turn out to be of some use to someone.
I beg to differ Gene, you've come up with all sorts of amazing info on here, keep up the great work!

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic