With a 1.3MP USB camera attached!

It goes to 2000x!

Innerspace, here I come!

We'll find those damn aliens.

With a 1.3MP USB camera attached!

It goes to 2000x!

Innerspace, here I come!

We'll find those damn aliens.

LOL. Please post pictures!

---

Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas.

Albert Einstein

http://i17.ebayimg.com/07/i/001/11/8b/af16_1_b.JPG

Cool.

BTW you can post pictures by enclosing the picture url in [img][/img] brackets. like I just did for yours.

:)

---

Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas.

Albert Einstein

. . . eh Stephen - see Our Friends Thread (now closed):

Message boards : Cafe SETI : Mr. Majestic's Microscopy..... and life on Mars?

---

BOINC Wiki . . .

Science Status Page . . .

I bought a Celestron 44110 for $1000 including shipping at Adorama and received it August 4. I didn't open it up until August 19 because of a within-city move. There are some things about it I don't like. 1. One of the two diaphragms doesn't center properly. The adjusting screws just kinda dig in rather than move it. I turned the scope on its side and saw a spring that holds the diaphragm against its adjusting screws. If I push on that spring and turn the screws the diaphragm will move. 2. I don't like the stage. The forward-and-back motion is OK. But the side-to-side motion has two arms that merely move the slide by gripping it from the top. Often the slide moves nowhere; the arms merely slide along the stationary slide. 3. I still haven't been able to find a way to mount an eyepiece micrometer into one eyepiece because Celestron has no retaining rings for it. Neither does any other vendor that I can find. I haven't had much time for microscopy since getting it. I've been too busy with other things. Things that make that microscope relatively expensive are the plan objectives, plan eyepieces and Koehler illuminator. These sound desirable, maybe are, but I have no cheaper scope with to compare it. I saw the minutehand of my watch jump every second, but could not see the hourhand jump because the power was only 40x. All the other objectives of this scope (this may be true with most other scopes, too, I don't know) have extremely little working distance and I would have to remove the crystal of my watch to get close enough to see the hands, even with 100x. Then I would have to buy an expensive fiber-optic overhead light.

---

We'll find those damn aliens.

Please don't squish 'em between the slides and the cover slips... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

I have a Meade..... gets up to 1200x mag ;) No camera though.... at least I haven't bought one yet ;)

---

Got the microscope in the mail today. I am having some driver issues with the USB camera, though. It says I need XP service pack 2 to install but I am already at service pack 3! Grrrrr!

I emailed the manufacturer of the camera. Will keep you posted on how things turn out.

Well I got the camera to work but it has too many dead pixels, so I'm sending it back for a new one.

Now there are no dead pixels. Don't ask me how it happened but they cleared up. Now I'm having trouble with the lens that is connected to the camera. It looks like imperfections because they don't go away when I wipe them.

Always something...

Grasshopper leg at 200x.

Becky the diabetic's blood at 800x.

Red blood cells that are not red? Doesn't make any sense to me. One would think there is a lack of iron in them. But the person they came from isn't anemic. Any ideas?

Red blood cells that are not red? Doesn't make any sense to me. One would think there is a lack of iron in them. But the person they came from isn't anemic. Any ideas?

Yep, they aren't circulating any more. Might have gone all blue blood on you.

Found out the specks on my camera lens are bubbles. It's a plastic lens, too. Very cheap. I am not amused. Gonna have to buy a different camera.

Found out the specks on my camera lens are bubbles. It's a plastic lens, too. Very cheap. I am not amused. Gonna have to buy a different camera.

Although that looks bad on the lens, those imperfections will be completely out of focus. Hence, you won't see them. So, not as bad as might first appear. All you suffer is a little light loss and a little light scattering.

What is important is the quality of the images (the end result) that you see.

The costing of the parts will very likely be balanced to give a good overall effect. If you want to use a better lens, then you need to also buy a better image sensor to go with it. Then you'll need a better and more solid mount to hold it all together more resiliently. Improved lighting will help also. And then...


How good do you want to go?

;-)

Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

I havent been using my microscope lately and so havent been looking at red blood corpuscles to see how much pink is visible. Maybe the red color is so weak because one's looking through such a thin layer of protoplasm - about two microns max judging by the (7.6 micron) diameter and shape.

---

You can get a special dye that will dye them red and increase contrast....


Usually a Wright's stain

P.S. You can get the stain cheaper than this. This is a 1L bottle keep in mind :)

---