Reichert Polyvar

[wabutter]

For those interested, that are a number of interation of the Polyvar. the link below is a summary photo list. Some are extremely rare, like the Infrapol. A Polarized light microscope that is only presenting near IR light to the sample. No need for a bino tube. Only a IR sensitive camera. Pretty cool that Silicon is transparent to IR light.
the Poly Spec was am attachable microspectrophotometer. work at the blazing speed of a Z80 process all the way up to 2mhz.

The Polyvar Pol. A TL/IL polarized light microscope for qualitative and quantative microscopy in petrography and forensic. By the way, all optics produced in Vienna were conditinoally strain free for use in Polarized light. the component that had a np disignation were strain free to the quality required in a petrographic scope.

linkn below
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B2o-OZ ... sp=sharing

[Rorschach]

Thanks Wayne! So that is when the Plan Fluor-Apo objectives came out, for the Polyvar 2. Interesting!

The InfraPol and the PolySpec sound intriguing!

[Rorschach]

I rescanned the order guide with the missing pages 4-5.
Here is a link

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HhM2Hy ... drive_link

This link will take you to the Polyvar 2 4 page brochure, it is the only version I have
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hFPQUz ... drive_link

Thre was only one version of the top element for the Universal Condenser. It mention a conservative spec with the acrhromatic reference. I didn'f find a Apochromatic refernce in my lit. However, with 5 elements, I am confident it is a Aochromatic/Aplanatic condenser.What made is somewhat unique was it could be used dry or with oil. Also with the aux lens below the condenser mount, it could be used with a 4x objective

When the Diastar was introduced, that top element could also fit in the 1201 condenser mount. Very good option when using the Reichert produced Plan Fluor objectives.

There is one thing that confuses me. If there was just one version of the top element for the Universal Condenser, how come I have three different tops in each of my thee Universal Condensers?
A=1.3 np
A=1.3 P
A=0.9 P
Could it be then, that the latter two tops are from another Reichert condenser, another scope model?

Edit: Based on what you wrote couple messages above, I assume the 'np' in the first of the condenser tops means that it is of a grade sufficient for a petrographic scope, in terms of being strain-free? Does the 'P' then mean that those are only good enough for simple polarization?

[apochronaut]

Rorschach, could you measure across the thread of one of your condenser barrels?.

[wabutter]

There is one thing that confuses me. If there was just one version of the top element for the Universal Condenser, how come I have three different tops in each of my thee Universal Condensers?
A=1.3 np
A=1.3 P
A=0.9 P
Could it be then, that the latter two tops are from another Reichert condenser, another scope model?

Edit: Based on what you wrote couple messages above, I assume the 'np' in the first of the condenser tops means that it is of a grade sufficient for a petrographic scope, in terms of being strain-free? Does the 'P' then mean that those are only good enough for simple polarization?

As the universal condenser was always supplied with DIC prism, the P was also strain free for use in simple POL or DIC. As I mentioned in an earlier post, all objectives and condenser were designed and built to a strain free standard, Those used on the PLM were selected as the best of the best.

[Rorschach]

Rorschach, could you measure across the thread of one of your condenser barrels?.

Sure: it is 33mm.

[apochronaut]

Rorschach, could you measure across the thread of one of your condenser barrels?.

Sure: it is 33mm.

Thanks.

Well, what a surprise. Not sure where that last sentence in post 150 came from.
A Reichert Austria condenser won't fit the AO/Reichert U.S.A. condenser housings, none of them and certainly not the standard one that the #1201 condenser would have been threaded into. Almost all of the AO fittings were SAE, not metric and the condenser thread was 1 1/4" X 32 t.p.i. or just over 31mm, since the late 60's. If the Reichert Austria 1.30 condenser did fit the 1201 condenser housing that would have meant that they were made in Buffalo.

The Diastar did use a 100X 1.30 Plan Fluor objective and therefore needed a higher order condenser than the standard cat.# 1970 1.25 oil aspheric or cat.# 1201 .90 achromat aplanat but they already had a thread in 1.30 oil achromat aplanat since at least the mid. 1970s and released a very similar 1.40 achromat aplanat along with the Diastar introduction, used primarily in the Diastar.
I have used both of them. Nice , precision well corrected condensers. They are 24mm

Here is the patent for the AO cat. # 2110 1.30 achromat aplanat. https://patents.google.com/patent/US4060306A/en. This patent shows as expired after 1994 but then it shows Leica Microsystems as the current assignee???
Leica also is the current assignee for the over the top 11 element in 8 group achromat aplanat patented by George Aklin and Richard Seidenberg at B & L a little earlier. I don't know if it ever went into production but it was likely aimed at the high N.A. objectives designed for the Research Balplan.

There is a bit of a back story to the Reichert Plan Fluor Apos too, if you are interested.

[Rorschach]

I am always interested in anything that has to do with the Polyvar lineage, optics etc.

[apochronaut]

Here is the patent for your 1.30 condenser. Note the position of the exit pupil.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US391 ... +condenser

[apochronaut]

I am always interested in anything that has to do with the Polyvar lineage, optics etc.

I am not sure when the Polyvar 2 was introduced but I am pretty sure it was sometime after 1985. The Reichert U.S.A. Diastar was introduced in 1985 or 1986. The standard complement of objectives were planachros from 2.5X, 4X, 10X, 20X, 40X and 2- 100X oil and a short series of Neoplans, 2 variations of 10X , 40X, 50X oil and 100X.
In the 1986 brochure there is also listed 4 Plan Fluor objectives. 10X, 40X, and 2-100X. These were made in Austria and it is highly likely that the production of them went hand in hand with the intended production of Plan Fluors for the Polyvar, dubbed Plan Fl Apos.
y
AO had recently produced a short set of 34mm parfocal Plan Apos which could have been put into longer barrels and offered for the Microstar IV/ Diastar. There was a 10X .30 and 40X .80 and I can find a patent for a 100X which I don't think ever came to market but probably by the time they were tweaked to go into 45mm barrels by 1986, they would have been pretty expensive, especially with U.S. labour costs. The 40X was already $800.00 in it's 34mm incarnation. It probably made more sense economically to tweak the existing 4 , 45mm parfocal Austrian Plan Apos into Diastar barrels but then they would have been too expensive as well. The market would have been limited, and the Plan Achros very good already.

It seems that the two factories likely decided to consolidate production on a Plan Fluorite line. Both needed a mid-priced , well colour corrected option.

In using and comparing all of the existing options that overlap between the AO/Reichert Plan Fluors and Reichert Plan Fl Apos , they appear to be the same objectives outside of the tiny over correction that was deliberately installed in the Plan Fluor versions.. The reason for this, remains obscure but it may have more to do with marketing than design.
In comparing the 40X examples for instance, both are .70, have the same working distance, front surface diameter and curvature, back surface diameter and curvature, coating, optical stack length, visual aperture, and optical performance. Only the physical barrel is different and presumably an element somewhere made of a different glass , likely in the back group that provides the needed overcorrection.

Personally, I think the decision out of Austria to call those objectives Plan Fl Apos a poor one. I can directly compare the Plan Achromat, Plan Fluor/Plan Fl Apo and Plan Apo objectives for a number of magnifications in BF , DF and in most cases phase as well, although that is a little trickier due to diaphragm diameter and condenser alterations that have to be observed. Those then are 10X with .25 .30 and .32 apertures, 40X with ..66, .70, .75 and 1.0 apertures and 100X with 1.25, 1.30 and 1.32 apertures , The difference between the achromat offerings and the fluorite offerings is fairly obvious, especially in terms of colour correction but not so much in resolution. There is not so much difference in phase and the working distance of the comparable objectives similar. The biggest performers of the Plan Fluor/ Plan Fluor Apo set are the 2.5X .07 ..and the 40X .70 , which seems every bit a .85 objective but wth a more forgiving coverslip tolerance. It is a great high quality deep field objective for quick and fairly thick fresh mounts where oversize protists and some debris might be.
However, none of the Plan Fluors are Apos. and in dubbing them as such, it gives a false impression of what those objectives are capable of but it may have provided an opportunity to elevate the price some. The difference is particularly noticeable in phase between the 100X 1.30 Plan Fl Apo and the 100X 1.32 Plan Apo, and this is with a .90 phase condenser, so the Plan Apo might be at some slight disadvantage. Stained blood corpuscles for instance, have a shaded , defined 3 dimensionality to them with the Plan Apo. You can see them in depth, their curvatures and angle of presentation distinct and almost lifelike. With the Plan Fl Apo the same corpuscles, although more vivid and defined than when viewed through a Plan Achro, are flat, lacking in many of the visual cues that flesh out the details through the Plan Apo. The 40X .70 performs the best of the phase options and I would have to say is the best of the group, the closest approaching Apochromat performance.
It works well with 15 or 16X eyepieces to yield a clean 600 to 640X magnification too. Both factories were pretty deficient in their supply of 60-63X objectives. There were non from the Buffalo side , although they left a space for one in their cat. numbering scheme, so did intend to trott one out eventually. Austria produced a 63X 1.0 Plan Achro in both glycerin and oil immersion . Very uncommon to find one. I have seen exactly one infinity version in years and years of looking, although the 160mm finite 63X are common. Fortunately all of the 40X objectives take 15X or 16X eyepieces with ease. Both the 10X snd 16X Reichert eyepieces have a 51° view, so the apparent field is identical at 400X or 640X. In the Diastar, the 10X eyepiece has a 41° view and the 15X a 51° view, so the apparent field in the Diastar at 600X is 20% wider than at 400X and in fact the same as that of the Polyvar.

There was a 63X .80 34mm parfocal semi- planachro made in Austria for the Neovar 2 and used briefly towards the mid. 80's by AO for the series 100 microscopes. There are examples of that objective around, fitted with an 11 mm extension at the factory. It thus becomes parfocal with the Poly objectives, so could be used as a dry 63X if need be. It is barely non-plan with a 20mm f.o.v. but would be moreso at a 24mm field.

Both factories also made a 50X oil immersion objective. The Reichert Austria Plan ( achromat) was made very early in the program, should be iris equipped based on Reichert's one objective for all contrast methods policy but shows in the catalogue as not being, and I have never seen one to verify. By 1983 it seems to have been dropped. The U.S.A. objective is a 45mm parfocal 50X .80 derived from the 34mm parfocal # 1016 50X .80 Plan Achro w./ iris but this time issued without an iris and as a Neoplan. All were intended as lower magnification partners to iris equipped 100X objectives for principally, DF.

[Rorschach]

That is interesting stuff!

The Polyvar in our unit, which I assembled today, has five different 40x objectives. Three came with the scope and two in a parts package.

This lead me to think that maybe having two nosepieces for transmitted would be a good idea. One would be for dry objectives and the other for oil immersion. Which leads to the question that did Reichert ever produce an oil immersion25x for this system, PlanApo or Plan?

[apochronaut]

Just the two dry 25X. A Plan ( Achro) .45 and Plan Apo .65 Any literature that I have seen says neither were IK but I know the .45 Plan existed as IK.The 25X Plan Apo is not a common objective.
Certainly, using the 40X 1.0 oil planapo w./iris and 100X 1.32 oil planapo w./iris is a dream pair for DF. The 40X will easily handle your 16X oculars too, so plus the mag. changer , in any application where you are trying to optimize the use of oil immersion , you could theoretically have a quite broad magnification range getting down to 320X, immersed in oil. Not too far above the 250X a 25X would provide but with the mag. changer a 25X will duplicate a 20X as well, or going the other way, a 10X can duplicate a 20X with the mag. changer. See the other thread. viewtopic.php?f=5&t=13173

At some point, they veered from the stated policy of installing iris diaphragms in all objectives over .75 N.A., so that an installed objective set could be used for all possible contrast methods. I know this because the relatively recently made( painted barrel) 63X 1.0 glycerin immersion objective I have does not have an iris. In order to use it for DF however, I discovered that the threaded return spring retaining rear diaphragm of several objectives that I looked at had the same thread. Replacing the 63X diaphragm with the very slightly smaller diapragm from a 100X 1.25 Plan Achro reduced the aperture down to the .90 or .85 required for DF.
If you ever come across a similar 63X oil, the diaphragm swap is a solution then, as an oil complement for DF but you don't want to go too small : just enough.
That one is the only over .75X objective outside of phase objectives I have seen, that has not had an iris. Perhaps it were made for the Diavar 2, which was a similar stand to the Diastar but probably not marketed in North America.
My objective came from a former Buffalo area dealer that worked closely with the Buffalo factory. I think he did some market testing for them and had several prototype designs. It's possible that 63X was such, since it was new. AO prototypes I saw though, were marked as such. They used the term, " submission piece". and had a typed strip of tape attached with a submission date and in the case of an example I own others I saw, had "approved" marked on the label too. B & L prototypes he had also did not have a label.