TRINOCULAR HEAD FOR CORRECT TOKYO SEIWA MICROSCOPE

[apochronaut]

That is a very good microscope. Image quality is first rate and there is lots of accessories around for them at low cost , if you search it out and are patient. If you maintain an interest and want to build your system, you can take that one quite far. D.I.C. is problematical but most else is around.

Don't hesitate to connect here and ask questions. There is much support for those microscopes still at hand. Congratulations.

[stjepo]

That is a very good microscope. Image quality is first rate and there is lots of accessories around for them at low cost , if you search it out and are patient. If you maintain an interest and want to build your system, you can take that one quite far. D.I.C. is problematical but most else is around.

Don't hesitate to connect here and ask questions. There is much support for those microscopes still at hand. Congratulations.

All the merit is yours, you guided me very well and you even found the micro, all I did was make an offer, that I thought the seller would never accept, ... but he did.


Regards (I keep you posted)

[stjepo]

Hello Apochronaut, the AO has arrived and is in very poor shape.

1. No screw to hold the head, easy to solve,
2. Coarse focus very loose and the fine focus... do no work (and is a bit twisted), no idea how to solve it,
3. Looks corroded in many parts, specially in the condenser,
3. The good news is all objectives are in good shape (cosmetically not very well),
4. The bad news I am not able to focus anything as the objectives seem to be to far from the stage, I enclose a picture of the 100x oil at it maximum approach to the stage (no need of oil anymore)
Is there a way to approach the stage more to the objectives? I was able to focus approaching the specimen to the objective.



To be honest I thought that the AO was better manufactured, looks very cheap if compared to the Seiwa.

Well, has not been a expensive experience. I have not many hopes with it.

Regards

[apochronaut]

Hello Apochronaut, the AO has arrived and is in very poor shape.

1. No screw to hold the head, easy to solve,
2. Coarse focus very loose and the fine focus... do no work (and is a bit twisted), no idea how to solve it,
3. Looks corroded in many parts, specially in the condenser,
3. The good news is all objectives are in good shape (cosmetically not very well),
4. The bad news I am not able to focus anything as the objectives seem to be to far from the stage, I enclose a picture of the 100x oil at it maximum approach to the stage (no need of oil anymore)
Is there a way to approach the stage more to the objectives? I was able to focus approaching the specimen to the objective.



To be honest I thought that the AO was better manufactured, looks very cheap if compared to the Seiwa.

Well, has not been a expensive experience. I have not many hopes with it.

Regards

I sent you that link because the seller clearly offers a free return within 30 days, if there are any issues, so there was really no risk.. It's printed right in the listing. Ebay will hold him to that. If the seller does not issue you a shipping ticket or offer compensation to you to cover your return shipping in advance, they will refund you. You need to contact the seller, point out the poor condition of the instrument and ask for a refund.

Regarding the condition. It is hard to tell such things from pictures but it seems that the microscope has been poorly maintained or even abused. The problems you describe are fairly straightforward and if you end up with the microscope in the long run( that probably would be due to the sellers unwillingness to pay for the return shipping and therefore forfeit the instrument to you), I'm willing to help you solve them. I'm curious why you say, "cheap"? What parts or designs in that microscope would you describe as "cheap". I'm interested .

Regarding the focus. If you look carefully at the microscope there is a dovetail slide that the stage can go up and down on. That microscope has a floating focusing nosepiece, with a fixed stage . The stage is unlocked for removal, using the machined and cast aluminum lever on the left side, situated between the left coaxial focusing knob and the condenser focusing knob. There is a travel limiter on top of the dovetail. It is an allen type screw. The stage need not be any higher than that limiter and usually is set up to that limiter

Those objectives should have no problem focusing , if the stage is adjusted properly which it appears to be based on the pictures. It looks like the nosepiece is sitting a little high, so if that can't be lowered with the coarse focus, then there is stiffness there somewhere.

Yes. I noticed the missing thumbscrew for the dovetail. It's 10-24 screw, about an inch long. Any ordinary screw will do for now but a thumbscrew would be nice. There are some capscrews on ebay for little with free shipping.

Disappointing for sure , so notify that you intend to return it but you may end up with it at no cost anyway.

[stjepo]

I forgot to send you the pictures. Thanks for your help.

I appreciate your time but you have no fault in this, I took my risk because of me, not because of you. My comments are not to blame you in any degree... even if a do not get the money back.

I appreciate more your disinterested help that the money I have spent.

Said that, let's see if is my ignorance that hasn't been able to make it work.

Yes, there is 'dovetail slide that the stage can go up and down on'

I send you some pictures:

[Hobbyst46]

@stjepo
A side note - the slide on the photo, marked "onion rind", appears to me thicker than the normal 1-1.2mm slides.

[apochronaut]

stage appears to be at the top, so if it is not focusing, then the nosepiece must not be lowering enough. when the microscope is at close focus, for instance when the oil immersion objective is being used or even with the 40x, there should be about 2cm. of the paler grey yoke that the nosepiece dovetail sits in visible, below the main housing that it rides in.

Whoever owned the microscope was a slob and let reagents, and or immersion oil, and or cleaning agents collect on the stage and condenser. That kind of stuff occurs with old microscopes but can be cleaned up and touched up, seldom affecting their actual function but that level of corrosion is a little bit extreme. No microscope is immune to that kind of abuse. Unfortunately, the seller chose to conceal that in the pictures, choosing to vaguely refer to " used condition as pictured", which they did not in fact picture. Normally, ebay would allow a return at no cost to you, due to the act of concealing such corrosion. It is way beyond, used condition.

I still would like to know what aspects of the microscope you consider "cheap"

[stjepo]

I still would like to know what aspects of the microscope you consider "cheap"

I send you a picture:

[stjepo]

Going back to the nose piece problem

stage appears to be at the top, so if it is not focusing, then the nosepiece must not be lowering enough. when the microscope is at close focus, for instance when the oil immersion objective is being used or even with the 40x, there should be about 2cm. of the paler grey yoke that the nosepiece dovetail sits in visible, below the main housing that it rides in.

Whoever owned the microscope was a slob and let reagents, and or immersion oil, and or cleaning agents collect on the stage and condenser. That kind of stuff occurs with old microscopes but can be cleaned up and touched up, seldom affecting their actual function...

Any idea how to fix it?. Both parts do not move further away. Looks like the microscope never lowered enough.

... but that level of corrosion is a little bit extreme. No microscope is immune to that kind of abuse. Unfortunately, the seller chose to conceal that in the pictures, choosing to vaguely refer to " used condition as pictured", which they did not in fact picture. Normally, ebay would allow a return at no cost to you, due to the act of concealing such corrosion. It is way beyond, used condition.

What should I do? I will appreciate your advice if you can help me.

The objectives...

Regards

[stjepo]

Now objectives get closer.

I have repaired it.


Regards

[stjepo]

@stjepo
A side note - the slide on the photo, marked "onion rind", appears to me thicker than the normal 1-1.2mm slides.

Yes that is true...


Regards

[stjepo]

The nosepiece gets stack when gets to the lower position. Something is wrong.


Regards

[apochronaut]

I still would like to know what aspects of the microscope you consider "cheap"

I send you a picture:

Oh dear! You can't judge the capability and performance of a microscope from looking at it, unless you are very familiar with the era in which it was built, it's design parameters , the reasoning behind it's construction and some knowledge of the company that built it and the company that branded it.
For instance the enamelled flat top stage is that way for a reason, not because they wanted to build a cheap one. It can be fitted with left or right hand controls or slide holders and the flat profile allows for easier access from above. The reversed nosepiece, designed in the late 50's, is a precision casting and machining with a very low variance between objective centers, for it's day. It has external stops , rather than internal. In the era of it's original design, it was common to use the objectives themselves to turn the nosepiece, something many microscopists still do today but by the time the Seiwa nosepiece was mfg., about 20 years later, a grip ring had become fashionable and ubiquitous. The nosepiece is that way because it is purposeful, not cheap.
What is cheap about a machined aluminum coaxial focus with engraved 1 micron increments? Maybe you would prefer plastic?
Here is a link to some literature. You need to educate yourself about your instrument.
http://user.xmission.com/~psneeley/Pers ... oscope.htm

[apochronaut]

Going back to the nose piece problem

stage appears to be at the top, so if it is not focusing, then the nosepiece must not be lowering enough. when the microscope is at close focus, for instance when the oil immersion objective is being used or even with the 40x, there should be about 2cm. of the paler grey yoke that the nosepiece dovetail sits in visible, below the main housing that it rides in.

Whoever owned the microscope was a slob and let reagents, and or immersion oil, and or cleaning agents collect on the stage and condenser. That kind of stuff occurs with old microscopes but can be cleaned up and touched up, seldom affecting their actual function...

Any idea how to fix it?. Both parts do not move further away. Looks like the microscope never lowered enough.

... but that level of corrosion is a little bit extreme. No microscope is immune to that kind of abuse. Unfortunately, the seller chose to conceal that in the pictures, choosing to vaguely refer to " used condition as pictured", which they did not in fact picture. Normally, ebay would allow a return at no cost to you, due to the act of concealing such corrosion. It is way beyond, used condition.

What should I do? I will appreciate your advice if you can help me.[ quote]



Go to My ebay. Scroll to the bottom and click on Resolution Center. Click on , I have received an item that does not match the seller's description. Follow the prompts and file to return the item.

The broken focus and corrosion from abuse , were not disclosed. You need to return it for a refund

[stjepo]

I still would like to know what aspects of the microscope you consider "cheap"

I send you a picture:

Oh dear! You can't judge the capability and performance of a microscope from looking at it, unless you are very familiar with the era in which it was built, it's design parameters , the reasoning behind it's construction and some knowledge of the company that built it and the company that branded it.
For instance the enamelled flat top stage is that way for a reason, not because they wanted to build a cheap one. It can be fitted with left or right hand controls or slide holders and the flat profile allows for easier access from above. The reversed nosepiece, designed in the late 50's, is a precision casting and machining with a very low variance between objective centers, for it's day. It has external stops , rather than internal. In the era of it's original design, it was common to use the objectives themselves to turn the nosepiece, something many microscopists still do today but by the time the Seiwa nosepiece was mfg., about 20 years later, a grip ring had become fashionable and ubiquitous. The nosepiece is that way because it is purposeful, not cheap.
What is cheap about a machined aluminum coaxial focus with engraved 1 micron increments? Maybe you would prefer plastic?
Here is a link to some literature. You need to educate yourself about your instrument.
http://user.xmission.com/~psneeley/Pers ... oscope.htm

Opps... I did not mean to upset you. My seiwa is from 1988. Yes I need to be educated... no I do not prefer plastic.


You asked for my opinion about the looks of the Microscope not about the the capability and performance of a microscope. How can I judge that from looking at it? and also I always confessed my ignorance about Microscopes.

Regards

[Hobbyst46]

@stjepo
A side note - the slide on the photo, marked "onion rind", appears to me thicker than the normal 1-1.2mm slides.

Yes that is true...


Regards

I asked since, for magnifications 20x-100x, the condenser should be raised high, almost touch the slide, and the slide thickness should better be the common 1-1.2mm.

[apochronaut]

I send you a picture:

Oh dear! You can't judge the capability and performance of a microscope from looking at it, unless you are very familiar with the era in which it was built, it's design parameters , the reasoning behind it's construction and some knowledge of the company that built it and the company that branded it.
For instance the enamelled flat top stage is that way for a reason, not because they wanted to build a cheap one. It can be fitted with left or right hand controls or slide holders and the flat profile allows for easier access from above. The reversed nosepiece, designed in the late 50's, is a precision casting and machining with a very low variance between objective centers, for it's day. It has external stops , rather than internal. In the era of it's original design, it was common to use the objectives themselves to turn the nosepiece, something many microscopists still do today but by the time the Seiwa nosepiece was mfg., about 20 years later, a grip ring had become fashionable and ubiquitous. The nosepiece is that way because it is purposeful, not cheap.
What is cheap about a machined aluminum coaxial focus with engraved 1 micron increments? Maybe you would prefer plastic?
Here is a link to some literature. You need to educate yourself about your instrument.
http://user.xmission.com/~psneeley/Pers ... oscope.htm

Doesn't matter to me , only I think it is best that opinions of cosmetic value aren't voiced as a judgment of quality. You did say this "To be honest I thought that the AO was better manufactured". Other novices, contemplating the purchase of a used AO microscope might be turned off, with such a blatant dismissal of quality, however ignorantly based. In some cases, that would be unfortunate because dollar for dollar, AO or AO/Reichert microscopes from the series 4 forward are usually the best value in a used microscope and those with a limited budget can make their money go a lot farther buying into one. Yes, deals can be found with other brands too but the quality/price ratio with AO is unusually high. Having someone with one in hand saying they are cheaply made, is not helpful to others, contemplating what best to buy, with a fixed budget.

Opps... I did not mean to upset you. My seiwa is from 1988. Yes I need to be educated... no I do not prefer plastic.


You asked for my opinion about the looks of the Microscope not about the the capability and performance of a microscope. How can I judge that from looking at it? and also I always confessed my ignorance about Microscopes.

Regards

[stjepo]

Oh dear! You can't judge the capability and performance of a microscope from looking at it, unless you are very familiar with the era in which it was built, it's design parameters , the reasoning behind it's construction and some knowledge of the company that built it and the company that branded it.
For instance the enamelled flat top stage is that way for a reason, not because they wanted to build a cheap one. It can be fitted with left or right hand controls or slide holders and the flat profile allows for easier access from above. The reversed nosepiece, designed in the late 50's, is a precision casting and machining with a very low variance between objective centers, for it's day. It has external stops , rather than internal. In the era of it's original design, it was common to use the objectives themselves to turn the nosepiece, something many microscopists still do today but by the time the Seiwa nosepiece was mfg., about 20 years later, a grip ring had become fashionable and ubiquitous. The nosepiece is that way because it is purposeful, not cheap.
What is cheap about a machined aluminum coaxial focus with engraved 1 micron increments? Maybe you would prefer plastic?
Here is a link to some literature. You need to educate yourself about your instrument.
http://user.xmission.com/~psneeley/Pers ... oscope.htm

Doesn't matter to me , only I think it is best that opinions of cosmetic value aren't voiced as a judgment of quality. You did say this "To be honest I thought that the AO was better manufactured". Other novices, contemplating the purchase of a used AO microscope might be turned off, with such a blatant dismissal of quality, however ignorantly based. In some cases, that would be unfortunate because dollar for dollar, AO or AO/Reichert microscopes from the series 4 forward are usually the best value in a used microscope and those with a limited budget can make their money go a lot farther buying into one. Yes, deals can be found with other brands too but the quality/price ratio with AO is unusually high. Having someone with one in hand saying they are cheaply made, is not helpful to others, contemplating what best to buy, with a fixed budget.

Opps... I did not mean to upset you. My seiwa is from 1988. Yes I need to be educated... no I do not prefer plastic.


You asked for my opinion about the looks of the Microscope not about the the capability and performance of a microscope. How can I judge that from looking at it? and also I always confessed my ignorance about Microscopes.

Regards

Dear apochronaut you have repeated many times my ignorance that I did confess, sorry if I offended you, but there is a point that one must stop with those adjectives, specially if as you say: 'Doesn't matter to me...'. You asked for my opinion, sorry if it wasn't what you expected.

I would not be worried by the opinion of 'an ignorant', like me, against the opinion of an 'expert' like you. People knows how to discriminate.

I have opened and tried to repair this microscope with a technician, I tried to save it, but had he found no ball bearings and the lever of the objectives was not in place because it has had a strong strike in the left side that make impossible to line up the condenser and the objective.

I will not give you the opinion of this expert, you may not like it.

The seller has accepted the devolution I assume he will pay the additional transportation cost.

Thanks for all you advice;

Regards

[apochronaut]

I'm glad you found a solution for a damaged microscope. To return it, based on the guarantee of the seller. That is the course of action to take, as previously advised..

Regarding nosepieces. That one is based on the designs post W.W.II and a bit before, when nosepieces were seldom fitted with ball bearings. I don't know of any but there may have been some. It has a double cone center bearing. They are quite sturdy and precise, especially with 34mm parfocal objectives. The conical center bearing design, served the microscope manufacturing community well for a century. Taking a fall to the floor from a table, was not usually considered part of the design parameters of a nosepiece.
During the 1970's ballbearing nosepieces became increasingly common as nosepieces became larger, more objectives were fitted and they became weightier with more glass. The AO nosepiece made for the series of microscopes subsequent to the 10, had a larger 5 objective ball race nosepiece, as did virtually every other competitive microscope of that period. Neither design is better than the other, as long as the stresses associated with weight and weight distribution are attended to. Most microscopes manufactured for markets above student grade, typically have used ball bearing nosepieces since about 1975, unless they were designed in a prior era and were still in production.
You might pass this info. along to your " tech.". Perhaps he can learn something too.

[stjepo]

I'm glad you found a solution for a damaged microscope. To return it, based on the guarantee of the seller. That is the course of action to take, as previously advised..

Regarding nosepieces. That one is based on the designs post W.W.II and a bit before, when nosepieces were seldom fitted with ball bearings. I don't know of any but there may have been some. It has a double cone center bearing. They are quite sturdy and precise, especially with 34mm parfocal objectives. The conical center bearing design, served the microscope manufacturing community well for a century. Taking a fall to the floor from a table, was not usually considered part of the design parameters of a nosepiece.
During the 1970's ballbearing nosepieces became increasingly common as nosepieces became larger, more objectives were fitted and they became weightier with more glass. The AO nosepiece made for the series of microscopes subsequent to the 10, had a larger 5 objective ball race nosepiece, as did virtually every other competitive microscope of that period. Neither design is better than the other, as long as the stresses associated with weight and weight distribution are attended to. Most microscopes manufactured for markets above student grade, typically have used ball bearing nosepieces since about 1975, unless they were designed in a prior era and were still in production.
You might pass this info. along to your " tech.". Perhaps he can learn something too.

Don't worry he will learn from the master.

Regards

[stjepo]

Some images...

[Hobbyst46]

@stjepo
I follow your post and, in my opinion, the purchase of the AO microscope was a very good bargain! Not only there is a chance that it will serve you well, since one by one you surmount the faulty parts; but you are now experienced with expected and unexpected aspects of handling a used microscope! folks who purchase old microscopes for hobby use, and pay (relatively) small sums for them, so often have to solve hardware issues. So you are on the right way to enjoy!
BTW, since you consider a LED light, there is a backup in the case you encounter difficulties: retroDiode of TX, USA make LED illumination setups for some models of AO microscopes. Not inexpensive, around $150-200 I think, but still a potential backup.

[stjepo]

@stjepo
I follow your post and, in my opinion, the purchase of the AO microscope was a very good bargain! Not only there is a chance that it will serve you well, since one by one you surmount the faulty parts; but you are now experienced with expected and unexpected aspects of handling a used microscope! folks who purchase old microscopes for hobby use, and pay (relatively) small sums for them, so often have to solve hardware issues. So you are on the right way to enjoy!
BTW, since you consider a LED light, there is a backup in the case you encounter difficulties: retroDiode of TX, USA make LED illumination setups for some models of AO microscopes. Not inexpensive, around $150-200 I think, but still a potential backup.

Dear Hobbyst46 I am returning the microscope I have seen its hardware and I have solved some of its issues but is not it for me, I am too ignorant.

Regards

[stjepo]

Forgot to send this note:

[photomicro]

I have really enjoyed reading this 'saga' that as often happens, started off life as one thing, and ended up another. One of the 'side-effects' of forums I guess.

Just to add a little, I have the one AO stand, a much loved Series 10. Like many marques, the quality of construction changed over the years, and later AO/Reichert stands seemed to become lighter..but does this mean less functional?

In my opinion, based in the UK, and more used to using Zeiss (West) previously..the AO looks a little 'Art Deco' by comparison. However, the focus is an absolute dream to use, as is the mechanical stage, despite the slide-holding part looking so simple..it works well. The field of view is great, and the wide field eyepieces, even the x15s are a joy to use. The binocular head fits easily, and the screw has a nylon (or similar) tip. I find some of the plan-achro objectives very good, especially the x20 and x44. Ergonomically, it is so easy to use, and I like the images it produces. My only regret is that we see so little of the stuff over this side of the pond, so I cannot easily add to the kit I have. A fellow on this forum did help out with a phase condenser, for which I was most grateful. My couple of phase objectives are 'dark-phase'.

By contrast, I have owned Zeiss Junior, GFL, WL, Universal, Photomicroscope and Ultraphot stands. All most versatile, but I was a little affected by the dreaded delimitation, and decided to drop all my Zeiss kit a couple of years ago. Having said that, I do have a GFL in original box with accessory tray, but no optics, from a deceased friend.

The Zeiss has lots of interchangeable parts, looks great (the solid brass black ones) but is rather over-engineered in parts. Ironically, the later great series fine focus, albeit plastic worked better than the metal. The larger stands had very soft screws holding and centring the binocular head, and they were 'double screws' where the one doing the work was behind the first one.

No stand is perfect in every respect, but I would say that although very different designs, and with different 'finish' the AO 10 is every bit as well made, if not better in some respects, than the Zeiss.

[apochronaut]

After W.W. II, AO/Spencer very quickly altered course from making brass and cast iron based stands to cast aluminum based stands. The footprint of the aluminum stands ended up being progressively larger over time in order to maintain stability but due to the aluminum base material, many individual components were lighter, although physically of similar size. The objective barrels, except for the student grade series, continued to be chrome on brass. Eyepieces became aluminum spinnings. Brass was retained in certain critical components, where aluminum was not a possible replacement. In later years, when stainless steel became easier to access at an acceptable cost, it replaced brass in some components.
Brass was extremely useful during W.W.II and scrap brass non-existent after the war. Most had been "exported" to Europe or Japan, so they had lots of canon shells to make microscopes out of. In North America, the price of a commodity metal such as copper, was held stable until 1945 and by 1948, the price had about doubled. Ditto for zinc but aluminum barely rose at all. Scrap steel prices , more than doubled in the same period.

Regarding the series 10, it is good to place it in context. Some of the design features make it seem a bit quirky, especially when comparing it to a microscope that was designed considerably later. The fact that it persisted in production for 20 years, is .a testament to it's versatility and refinement of optics. It was designed beignning in the late 50's, and at a time when it was still common to use a mirror. Thus, it is a modified horseshoe base microscope which can be fitted with several different illumination options between the legs. It was the first production , high quality , infinity corrected microscope by many years and by the late 60's wide field plan optics were common in them. As a horseshoe base microscope with a small footprint, it is the lightest and smallest of the infinity corrected series( not considering the student grade series). By the time the 400 series was introduced around 1985, the footprint was considerably larger, with most structural components larger. A loaded 5 objective series 10 weighs about 15 lbs., a loaded 5 objective series 410, weighs about 18 lbs.

[Hobbyst46]

A side note about polymers (="plastic"): in the past decades, say 20 years, some new polymers have emerged, that are mechanically superb: tough, stable and machinable, and do not require lubrication - For example, PEEK (a poly ether ketone). Parts made of such polymers could function very well. They are expensive, though, and I wonder if they are used in modern microscopes?

[stjepo]

Sorry

[stjepo]

Sorry...

In my opinion, based in the UK, and more used to using Zeiss (West) previously..the AO looks a little 'Art Deco' by comparison.

You stated better than me what I wanted to say... maybe the language...

Regards

[stjepo]

I have repaired all the problems this micro had but one: how to repair the coarse focusing mechanism that get blocked when the objectives are in the down position. Maybe the timing is bad-adjusted on your stand. "Timing is set by rotating the entire coarse / fine mechanism, until the coarse focus can be driven from one hard stop to the other, without losing the pawl mechanism."

I don't know how to do it.

Besides this small problem and using a led light, is true that the focus of this microscope with its simple mechanisem, is very smooth .

Comparing (bear in mind my ignorance) I have seen that the objectives 4X and 10X are sligthly better than the ones in the Seiwa but the 40X and the 100x of the Seiwa are much better.

Regards