WANTED AO10 QUINTUPLE NOSEPIECE

[Dale]

That about says it. My obj's are reproducing! Help.
Dale

[lorez]

Sorry for the delay, I don't have one.

lorez

[Dale]

Ah, that's ok. I just feel bad about missing one on ebay by hours.

[lorez]

I hope you find one.

lorez

[apochronaut]

Try here, Dale : http://www.martinmicroscope.com/. I would use the phone and ask for Aaron. He is a good guy. If not , there is another dealer, who might have one. They are not such good guys and I hesitate to recommend them to anyone but in a pinch, their stocklist comes in handy.

[Dale]

Took a chance and emailed Martinscope. You could pm me the "not so nice" seller, after dealing with my super nasty
post office nothing could be too bad! I'm not in a big hurry, but when you are 73 you don't put too much stuff
on the back burner
Dale

[apochronaut]

I'll p.m. it to you. Almost for sure, Martin will undercut the other dealer on price, if they have one.

[Dale]

Aaron just replied, they want $86, the one on ebay was $38. I see your pm arrived, maybe I can get a third price.

[apochronaut]

Odd #, 86.00? That's probably the catalogued price from 1970 and they are quoting for a new one. That's why I suggested phoning them. It's always better because you can discuss options for used parts, with them, which they might well have.
I've generally found them to be fair, although with new parts, they can get stuck on the most recent catalogued price. They actually bought this inventory from AO , so have some money invested and don't want to take a loss.... and they figure that charging an ancient catalogue price is pretty good value, given what a five hole nosepiece would cost for an equivalent quality microscope presently.

[Dale]

Yup, Martin had one for $79, and I'm assuming that it is a new one. Have queried both companies about trading
my quad. Had no idea these would be so rare!
Dale

[apochronaut]

Yes. The standard complement for microscopes was, in the time those were made, a 4 or 5, 10, 40 and 100. It still is the case today, with most basic microscope systems being sold. The 5 hole nosepieces are about as rare as the 20X or 60X objectives, that are normally put in them and those are not that common either. With the series 100, relatively more 5 holes are found, because the 2.5X objective arrived on the AO infinity corrected scene, as well as a 63X, so there were actually 7 objective magnification options, not including options for incident or epi microscopy. With the series 400, the norm is usually a 5 hole , with 6 holes only, being found on the 420 model. The 400 series had also 7 objective options, with clearly a plan to include a 60 or 63X in the future, because there is a one # gap in the catalogue #'s between the 40X and the 100X.

[Dale]

I was super fortunate in buying my dark phase kit from a fantastic forum member who sent
me a surprise in the form of that rare 20X, shick is why I'm looking for the quint' nosepiece.
Dale

[apochronaut]

AO and the earlier Spencer 20X achromat objectives have always been N.A. .50. You can go back as far as you can , to the time when they didn't even have 20X stamped on them, just 8mm and they were .50. Very few companies produced a standard achro 20X that was .50, most were .40 or sometimes .45.
AO/Spencer have always made excellent 20X objectives. Sometimes AO struggled with their 10X ( 16mm) designs; the cat. # 1019 , for instance isn't great and was clearly upgraded considerably with the # 1021 but the first 20X planachro they made, the # 1022 continued in production from the mid-60's into the 90's. All the other objectives around it; the 10X, 40X and 100X were modified for field flatness and colour correction and released with new cat.#'s as the planachro objective line became better but they didn't need to modify the # 1022. It started out as a planachro and then as it's companion objectives, 1019,1023 and 1024 were discontinued and 1021,1029,1309 and 1311 were released as advanced planachros, they just applied that name to the 1022 as well because it already met those performance standards.

[Charles]

I have a five hole nosepiece but I'm sure it came from an AO 110. I tried it on my AO 20 and it fits but, it hangs down about 5mm more than the four hole nosepiece. I think it may still work because of the infinity system will allow extra distance? You may need to lower the stage 5mm so it doesn't hit.

What do you think Phil? You think there would be any problems with either BF or Phase?

Here it is on an AO 20.

AO Five Hole on 20.jpg (65.73 KiB) Viewed 10400 times

Bottom

AO Five Hole.jpg (48.93 KiB) Viewed 10400 times

Top

AO Five Hole Top.jpg (47.5 KiB) Viewed 10400 times

Side

[Dale]

At first, when you said it 'hung down' I thought that there was a 5mm gap from the top
of the turret to the bottom of the scope where it slides up into. You mean that the bottom of the
selected objective is 5mm closer to the stage? I measured my quad and it is 27mm. I was
also worried about the understage component clearance, but there is enough room between the
4X aux-lens and the illuminator filter holder to lower the stage 5mm. So the problem is whether
the increased distance would run afoul of the anuli, and that is over my head. I could unscrew
an objective, but that would only be a few mm. I am too tired to think about looking at conjugate
plane diagrams tonight, and the chance I would understand the effect of a 5mm gap is iffy anyway.
Dale

[Charles]

Yes. This nosepiece brings the objective 5mm closer to the stage. And being an infinity system, I don't think there would be any problems optically for BF. IMO, for phase it shouldn't have any affect either since the distance from the phase annuli in the condenser and phase ring in the objective is the same distance. But, I've been known to be wrong, so I'll let anyone more knowledgeable chime in here...Phil...Gary?

[Dale]

Perhaps all quintuple nosepieces have this 5mm dropsy condition?

[lorez]

Dale,

I think you have considered the important aspect here; the clearance between the condenser and illuminator. If you are comfortable with the space available then there should be no problems with the other features as their relationships will not change. Of course, whenever you start swapping parts always expect the unexpected.

lorez

[Dale]

That is terrific news, now I should search for info on changing the stage height. I hope that was subtle.
Dale

[Charles]

It is fairly easy and hard to get to at the same time...

You will need to crank the objective turret all the way up and the stage all the way down to give you some room.
Next you will need to unscrew the hex screw (circled in red in the picture) with a proper sized Allen wrench.
Next you will need to turn the stage locking lever (circled in blue in the picture) counter clockwise to release the stage.
You can raise or lower the stage and then turn the lever clockwise to secure. To check for proper height of the stage in reference to the objective, crank the coarse focus so the objective turret is in its most down position, with the fine focus at its mid-point of travel, focus on a slide at 10 or 20x by raising or lowering the stage gently and then turn the locking lever clockwise to secure. Gently turn in the 40X and 100X to ensure they clear the slide.
Screw the hex screw back down onto the stage.
Check your work again.

AO Five Hole on 20 Stage.jpg (66.8 KiB) Viewed 10374 times

[lorez]

It is fairly easy and hard to get to at the same time...

You can take the hard part out if you simply forget about the screw circled in red. Its purpose is to prevent the stage from rising... imagine that. Seriously, the clamp is quite sufficient to hold the sage in position.

lorez

[Charles]

He is correct. You would only need to unscrew the screw if you were to raise or remove the stage.

[Dale]

Charles, do you prefer cash, check, or paypal? PM me. I am going to one of my banks today. Being
patient sure has its rewards.
Dale

[Dennis]

I have a five hole turrent for an Olympus scope if anyone is interested or if fits Dale's.

I ordered at same time I ordered my scope and here the scope came with a five hole one so I wasted my money.

-Dennis

[gekko]

I may be wrong, but my concern is the change in the tube length that I think would occur, resulting in increased spherical aberration. I know you said this was an infinity system, but the allowable change in length, as far as I know, is between the tube lens and the eyepiece where the light is parallel, not between the objective and the tube lens. So, if the extension is in the lens turret, then I think the tube length has to be moved down by the amount of the extension (I don't know how feasible this would be to do). I hope someone (apochronaut? since the question was originally addressed to him) will clarify this or correct me if I am wrong. [edit] Well, I was definitely wrong: I had things reversed in my mind. Apologies. The parallel light is between the objective and the tube lens, so what was said earlier is correct.

[Charles]

Hi gekko,

There is no lens from the back of the objective to the telescope lens in the viewing body so I believe the distance can be extended anywhere from the back of the objective to the viewing body.

Dale,

Do you have a picture of the five hole objective that Martin Microscopes has? It would be interesting to see what it looks like.

[Dale]

I will ask, but it is Sat night. I also have an offer from MicroscopeCentral
for $79. I am going to spend some time trying to see if AO used the same
turret on both models, and if ALL 5 holers 5mm longer.
I appreciate your efforts, but if you want to bail I will understand.
Dale.

[Charles]

No bailing here. Just want to make sure you get the right piece for your microscope.

[Dale]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/AO-AMERICAN-OPT ... true&rt=nc

That is the ebay 110 5 holer, I don't know if that small picture of the top will help.
Dale

[Charles]

That one is the same as my 110 five holer.

This is the one made for the AO 10/20:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/American-Optica ... 7675.l2557