[time-nuts] Working with SMT parts.

Adrian Godwin artgodwin at gmail.com
Sat Aug 13 08:20:54 EDT 2016


I use a beautiful Wild M3Z that I got at a good price from a British
Aerospace auction. It does have the disadvantage that there's a very exact
spot to place your eyes, but the image is superb. I typically start at the
bottom end (6.5 x 10 x 0.5) but often use the other zoom levels (up to 40 x
10 x 0.5). It has a Volpi fibre optic ring light but LEDs may be a better
solution nowadays.

I also have an illuminated magnifying lamp - I like the ones made by Lux.

I've considered a video microscope for the times when a large screen would
be desirable but computer and tablet ones are said to have a bit of lag
that make precise movements difficult. Direct video without a computer is
probably better.

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Bob Camp <kb8tq at n1k.org> wrote:

> Hi
>
> You can get a pretty good microscope new for about $1,000. Getting them
> used is a hit or
> miss process. A lot of this stuff actually works very well when in good
> condition with all the
> parts (The Mantis is one example). Without all the parts they don’t work
> or work poorly.
>
> For most of what you do, there is no need for anything fancy. There is a
> Mantis in full working
> condition at work. It never gets used. Magnifier lights get used a lot.
> Low magnification
> microscopes with really good halogen / fiber optic ring lights seem to be
> the most
> popular option.
>
> Bob
>
>
> > On Aug 11, 2016, at 8:06 PM, Steve <steve65 at suddenlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > Can anyone compare the stereo microscope to a camera/monitor for use
> with SMT? I have a cheap stereo microscope that I would like to replace
> with either a much better stereo microscope or a camera/monitor. Is there a
> marked advantage(s) of one versus the other?  I have no "floaters" to
> contend with.
> >
> > Steve, K8JQ
> >
> > On 8/11/2016 4:06 PM, Chuck Harris wrote:
> >> Lots of good suggestions have already been made, but for
> >> me, a boom style stereo microscope, with a distance between
> >> the objective, and the focal point of at least 3 inches works
> >> fairly well...
> >>
> >> One other thing that may force your decision, if you are
> >> older, your eyes will likely have lots of "floaters", which
> >> are debris that floats around in your eyeballs.  This debris
> >> floats in and out of the center of your field of view, and
> >> looks like a bunch of translucent worms, or shadows.
> >>
> >> Your brain, the magnificent organ that it is, tries to compensate
> >> for your eye's degradation, and as long as your eyes can move
> >> about in your field of view, it effectively removes the floaters
> >> from the scenes you are viewing.
> >>
> >> However, if you use a stereo microscope, your eye position
> >> is fixed by the very limited amounts of off axis motion
> >> that will allow a through optical channel.  This lack of off
> >> axis motion will emphasize your floaters in a great way, and you
> >> will see *every* *single* *one*, clearly, as if it were something
> >> you really wanted to view.  Some times, the floaters will cover
> >> the exact thing you need to see clearly, and you will have to
> >> move it off axis by moving it on the microscope stage.
> >>
> >> The only answer to this problem, is to either have perfect eyes,
> >> or to use a microscope where you are looking at a screen, rather
> >> than through a pair of oculars.  This way, your eyes can dart
> >> around, and inspect what they need to see clearly, and the
> >> floaters will be ignored by your brain.
> >>
> >> As far as I know, there is only one optical microscope built this
> >> way, and it is the very expensive Mantis.
> >>
> >> Because of the great expense of flat screen optical microscopes,
> >> most modern SMD viewing equipment is going to the trivially cheap
> >> method of using a CCD/CMOS color video camera and an LCD screen.
> >>
> >> You can do a lot with a cheap USB camera mounted to a boom, a fiber
> >> optic light source, or a ring light, and a laptop computer to
> >> display the image.
> >>
> >> -Chuck Harris
> >>
> >> Bob Albert via time-nuts wrote:
> >>> What are the important parameters regarding purchase of a stereo
> microscope?  I
> >>> see some on ebay for around $50; are those good? Bob
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
> >> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/
> mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> >> and follow the instructions there.
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
> > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/
> mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> > and follow the instructions there.
>
> _______________________________________________
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/
> mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
>


More information about the time-nuts mailing list