#3
Post
by Hobbyst46 » Mon May 18, 2020 1:59 pm
Impressive job ! wow !
About the illumination:
1. in general, a 3W LED is really not powerful for fluorescence. The question is, how you evaluate the efficiency. The best would be some standard sample. A common one, in labs, is stained polymer beads, such as polystyrene latex. These fluoresce at several wavelengths. And they come in narrow diameter ranges: 3um diameter, 10um etc, very uniform (and beautiful). A permanent, or semi-permanent slide of such beads is excellent for judging both the brightness and the uniformity of the field.
2. Another, maybe simpler option, is a slide of a concentrated fluorophore, for example Rodhamine B in glycerine (or other viscous, not-volatile solvent). If it is a saturated solution, the visible fluorescence is only from the surface and does not depend on the thickness of the layer. Can be excited with your 515nm LED (if I remember correctly). Rhodamine is relatively stable against photo-bleaching.
3. In epi-fluorescence, the Kohler method is valid, and the objective serves as condenser. If the Orthoplan has an epi- iris aperture, it should be used for the purpose. Also, the distance of the LED from the optics should be optimized, if feasible. This holds true even for modern fluorescence microscopes.
4. Although the 3W LED is perhaps less than optimal, a high power white LED is not necessarily better. The 3W intensity covers the specific excitation range that one needs to cause fluorescence, whereas the white LED covers a broad range of wavelengths. I mean, using the white LED along with excitation filter might prove to be less than the 3W specific excitation LED. A 15W specific wavelength LED would be best.
Zeiss Standard GFL+Canon EOS-M10, Olympus VMZ stereo