Pocket RMS microscope with condenser, darkfield, schlieren and 3D printable

[zzffnn]

A microscopist in UK designed this good looking pocket RMS microscope, which can take a NA 0.9 condenser module and provide darkfield and Schlieren imaging in the field, along with other modules such dual monocular teaching head.

It is 3D printable as well:

https://youtu.be/7UbkrZyNgpo

Github for DIY 3D printing:
https://github.com/TadPath/PUMA

https://www.optarc.co.uk/products/puma-products/

It appears to be 551 grams in weight without the optional condenser module, which is NOT provided in the standard package at the moment.

Standard package includes a 10x eyepiece and 4x + 10x RMS plan achromat objectives and costs 239 GBP.

Has anyone here tried it?

I am in USA and would like to try it. I have emailed them (with recommendation that they offer a package without objectives or eyepiece, but with condenser) and am waiting for reply.

[apochronaut]

It's hardly pocket, is it? If you recall , Fan, I have/had those Schutz micrometer screw fine focus microscopes around a couple of years ago. They are smaller and also provide high quality imaging from 3 R.M.S. objectives on the smallest possible nosepiece. No printing, no plastic, no mechano set precision, no breakdown, no reassembly, no lost parts or eventual stripped threads. This one would be 500.00 before it got close.

[75RR]

It's hardly pocket, is it?

I would add that it does not look particularly sturdy either. Not what I would consider a Field microscope.

[zzffnn]

It is always a compromise for practicality / cost and depends on where you accept the compromise.

I have used an all plastic pocket scope (at less than 1 lb of weight) of similar design in the field. In my hands (when I actually used it), 400x works reasonably sturdy. But that has no condenser and 400x resolution is terrible.

Of course the 3D printed scope won't be as sturdy as a >3lb metal scope. But as I am already carrying 35 lbs of other outdoor gears (and cameras and lenses), a saving of 2 lbs is significant.

Apo:

I don't disagree with the disadvantages you pointed out (when I contacted Optarc.co.uk, I did suggest removing their pre-included objectives/ eyepiece to save cost and use high quality metal gears in focusing mechanism). Also note that those who have 3D printer can supposedly print out everything for around 89 GBP; its design is shared for free on github.

Also, when I discussed with you on buying your Schutz scope, there was no condenser and no micrometer slide holder installed; yes, I can DIY but I would rather spend the time in actual microscopy. I am still interested in making the Schutz work, but we are all busying with so many projects in our limited free time.

Not everyone can easily buy or make a Schutz into a field microscope. Schutz weights around 3lbs if I remember correctly? That 3D printed scope weights 551 grams.

Another beauty of that 3D printed scope is that its is highly modular. One can add electronic condenser filter, Schlieren filters, Z axis control, epi illumination, dual monocular teaching heads, all onto the same base system. Assembling some of those features for my Nikon Optiphot took me a long time to DIY (for example, Schlieren filters are difficult to place above objectives if there is mismatch).

[Rossf]

My two cents-I wonder if simplification is key to good modern field scopes-my CK-1 inverted only has course focus but if wheel is big enough it’s quite usable even at 400x-also I wonder about alternatives to X/Y stage like a floating stage you just gently push around-I think mechanics need a real change in design philosophy-I’ve thought a lot about printable scopes that assume your phone camera will be the eyepiece as their so ubiquitous-thinking needs to be right out of the box in my opinion-especially if it only needs to do one type of microscopy…

[Gatorengineer64]

Google isnt readily leading met to a Schutz micrometer microscope. Can someone share a link out of curiosity?

[apochronaut]

It is always a compromise for practicality / cost and depends on where you accept the compromise.

I have used an all plastic pocket scope (at less than 1 lb of weight) of similar design in the field. In my hands (when I actually used it), 400x works reasonably sturdy. But that has no condenser and 400x resolution is terrible.

Of course the 3D printed scope won't be as sturdy as a >3lb metal scope. But as I am already carrying 35 lbs of other outdoor gears (and cameras and lenses), a saving of 2 lbs is significant.

Apo:

I don't disagree with the disadvantages you pointed out (when I contacted Optarc.co.uk, I did suggest removing their pre-included objectives/ eyepiece to save cost and use high quality metal gears in focusing mechanism). Also note that those who have 3D printer can supposedly print out everything for around 89 GBP; its design is shared for free on github.

Also, when I discussed with you on buying your Schutz scope, there was no condenser and no micrometer slide holder installed; yes, I can DIY but I would rather spend the time in actual microscopy. I am still interested in making the Schutz work, but we are all busying with so many projects in our limited free time.

Not everyone can easily buy or make a Schutz into a field microscope. Schutz weights around 3lbs if I remember correctly? That 3D printed scope weights 551 grams.

Another beauty of that 3D printed scope is that its is highly modular. One can add electronic condenser filter, Schlieren filters, Z axis control, epi illumination, dual monocular teaching heads, all onto the same base system. Assembling some of those features for my Nikon Optiphot took me a long time to DIY (for example, Schlieren filters are difficult to place above objectives if there is mismatch).

The Schutz scope in fact weighs less than 2 lbs. I think you are confusing it with another microscope you knew about : the modified binocular 4 objective model 78 I built that has DF built in and 800X dry magnification at .90. It is 4 lbs. +
Microscopes require precision unless one is content with 4 and 10X objectives. The fact that microscope
has to be disassembled and packed into a huge carry bag then reassembled to use is tragic. Newbies might see that as an actual portable microscope, not realizing that it is a poor design and without extensive and clearly expensive modification is about as usefull and much less portable than a plastic McArthur Open University model. It advertises high and I'm pretty sure will in many cases deliver low. The opposite should be true.

[75RR]

.
Perhaps a restatement of the limitations that a FMH (Field Microscope Hiking) necessarily has, due to size and weight limits, as well as the operational constraint of its use in the field might be helpful.

As would the reason one might want to use a microscope in the field other than confirming that the samples taken contain the desired specimens before heading home.

Among the operational constraints are ergonomics.

It can difficult to maintain good posture even with a table and chair as MicroBob pointed out. ;)
.


By the way - I do wonder if the Swift Fieldmaster 31 was designed to be used standing up? i.e. hand held
.

[MicroBob]

I think that different types of field microscopes can be useful: From the normal lab microscope in a sturdy box to travel by car and use in a hotel room or on a meeting to a tiny high power sample-tester to avoid carrying home glasses full of dirt. In between these extremes lots of differnt solutions have been developed. Whether the PUMA is attactive depends on what is available and what is needed. The used market depends fully on the country one lives in and the available funds. If one needs a bright field / oblique microscope with 200x magnification and coarse focus of bigger or medium size lots of options are available on the better equiped markets new and used. Here I would see room for an own development only in case it offers an especially combination of properties, which is unlikely. The situation changes when one has no access to an attractive market, or needs something that is scarce:

- high useable magnification (400x and above) with small build size
- motorisation
- bino or trino tube in tiny dimensions
- easy to use integrated photo solution
- a set of many identical instruments
- identical instruments in remote places

The open flexure microscope uses a tue lens to shorten the physical tube length. This seems to be an attractive design idea for a tiny sample-tester.