Robbyrockett2
Air-Valve Autobot!
Or use a phone, I figured out the phone adapter is built in for androids. I dunno what the other one is....iPhone maybe
Robbyrockett2
Air-Valve Autobot!
Nah, it's not iPhone, idk what the hell it is.
I have friking old windows phone. I actually use phone only for calling and all people think I am a moron -.- What can I say, I like to watch big screen
Robbyrockett2
Air-Valve Autobot!
So get a garbage Android for $10I have friking old windows phone. I actually use phone only for calling and all people think I am a moron -.- What can I say, I like to watch big screen
yay I'll have 2 garbage phones.
nah I'll rather get one laptop
edit; I just remembered. I have one old lap top laying somewhere with windows xp. Maybe I can do this!
edit; I just remembered. I have one old lap top laying somewhere with windows xp. Maybe I can do this!
If you are trying to get a stereo microscope into focus, the body of the microscope is either too far away or too close to your sample. If you know the working distance for the stereo microscope, you can properly set up the microscope so the head is the correct distance from the stand. Working distance is the distance that is required between the lens of the stereo microscope body and the top of your sample in order for your sample to appear in focus when looking through the microscope.
Keep in mind that when you add or remove a stereo microscope auxiliary lens, the working distance of your stereo microscope will change as well.
https://www.microscopeworld.com/t-trouble_microscope_focusing.aspx
Looks to me, that's how microscope works... I was expecting I will set the distance and then focus. Damn, I am so naive
Keep in mind that when you add or remove a stereo microscope auxiliary lens, the working distance of your stereo microscope will change as well.
https://www.microscopeworld.com/t-trouble_microscope_focusing.aspx
Looks to me, that's how microscope works... I was expecting I will set the distance and then focus. Damn, I am so naive
Vladimir
Detail Decepticon!
I thought to do that myself to the nozzles, but chinese. What it may give, you've already answered. But anyway, I'll try it somehow and only to chinese.
I have a question, are you sure you will do that right?
For japanese nozzles cost a bit.That's what some chinese successfully do on their factory.
K
kkx
Guest
The three nozzles pictured here are the Iwata .2 on the left, an Olympos .18 center (note the outer cone contour is very different), and an Iwata .18 - when pin gauged, the .2 Iwata had the smallest actual opening.
Finally, have time to have a look at the nozzle again.
Things are getting weirder for me.
The nozzle on the left in the attached photo is on my spare head and the right is stock nozzle on my (newly received last month) MPC.
Both nozzles measured to have the same 0.31mm (relative to my setup, so it is not absolute).
From memory, I am pretty sure the spare head nozzle is an Iwata.
But from the photo, the new Olympos nozzle on the MPC looks more like your Iwata's nozzle (left and right on his photo) and my spare head nozzle seems to look more like your Olympos nozzle in the middle.
And the spare head will not work with any of my Olympos .18 needle. It does not even work with the .23 needle from the MPC. It only works with the .18 needle for Ps770 and .20 needle from my Infinity.
I am giving up and will chalk this up to what you said about the difference in manufacturing and tweaking across the years from these company. Maybe my memory fails me, I didn't buy an Iwata nozzle for the spare head. Who knows.
What is important is how they spray now. All seems ok apart from the needle requirement mentioned above.
I am more curious about the 0.38 mm relative measurement of the PS770 nozzle. Which is relatively bigger than the MPC .23 nozzle. I am buying a new microscope with reference card so I can take photos with a better reference. Will redo the measurement again.
It is late now, so will check the spray pattern of the tight gap nozzle cap vs the large hole nozzle cap tomorrow. Just want to experience what you say about the large hole will have a softer pattern. Going forward, I will know which brush/head to choose when I need different behavior.
Attachments
K
kkx
Guest
I thought to do that myself to the nozzles, but chinese. What it may give, you've already answered. But anyway, I'll try it somehow and only to chinese.
I have a question, are you sure you will do that right?
That's what some chinese successfully do on their factory.
Hi Vladimir,
I will definitely try it out on cheap Chinese nozzle first. Just to experiment until I know what to expect before I touch the expensive Japanese nozzle.
K
kkx
Guest
Another easier way to define the magnification is to compare the actual object size to what you see on screen.
During my research in choosing which new microscope to buy (end up deciding to pay a bit more for a one with 5mp sensor), I have seen this method used.
One reviewer shows the image from the microscope full screen on his monitor and measures the size of the object on the monitor. If a 1mm object appears as 100mm on his monitor, then the magnification is 100x.
This is without any digital zoom.
Some software will allow you to zoom in further (digitally) and increase the magnification, but you are losing pixels and image quality.
Some of the magnification claims by the microscope manufacturer are correct only after max digital zoom is applied.
So for correct measurement, I will always lock the focus plane and take a photo of the reference ruler and the software can use that to calculate the real meaning in distance for a fixed number of pixels on the photo taken of my nozzles. Don't really care about magnification.
K
kkx
Guest
I am still interested in this. But now I am solving another problem. Got today prescription for my glasses... They give me like 85 euros but only on glasses for driving(not for close vewing). And I friking use randolph engeniring aviators... Where the hell I would get hooks like this one:
http://shadowclip.com/
so I could put correction lenses inside of my great american sunglasses
Back on the topic. I have off topic issues btw. Yep I am looking to buy microscope thingy. Was thinking that usb stuff is great, but con of that microscope can be, that you can't turn around nozzles and stuff wile you looking at it. you need to set it on place and look at computer. Still thinking what to do.
For your reference (in case it is useful for the time when you are ready to choose a microscope) I am going for this:
https://www.amazon.com/Celestron-Ha...1544865123&sr=8-3&keywords=5mp+usb+microscope
Mainly because it has a 5mp sensor compare to other $20 unit that has a 0.3MP sensor. Some unit between $20 and $70 have a 2MP sensor. So those might be a better choice ($75 is quite costly).
DaveG
Airbush Analyst
I'm not sure what you have going on there - the MPC is a .23? correct? In your side by side photo's it looks like an Olympos nozzle on the left, Iwata nozzle on the right, but in an Olympos base. The longer Olympos nozzle should work with the longer taper Olympos .23 needle but suffer in performance with the others - the seal angles are different. Also, with the differing lengths of the nozzles, you need to match them with their corresponding nozzle caps to get the right amount of nozzle protrusion... I just finished telling someone else that I did a lot of testing with swapping needles around between brands and sizes, and found very few examples where overall performance was improved in any of them by using anything other than the needle intended for that particular set up. I have also not had any good luck swapping, or mixing and matching parts between Iwata and Olympos - other than going with complete sets. If I change a nozzle on a Micron, I use the entire head assembly of one brand, along with corresponding needle. On a non-Micron Olympos, if I change a nozzle to Iwata, I use an Iwata nozzle cap and needle. Lastly, I never mix my brush parts in a pile. If I pick a piece up, I can tell you exactly what it came from, or it is on that brush, or in a bag with a label - never have to guess.
DaveG
Airbush Analyst
Oh, and another thing - it seems to me that you are looking to make sense out of measurements between two different brands. If Olympos calls theirs a .23, and GSI Creos calls theirs a .18 (well, include Iwata here) - comparing the physical size between them is irrelevant anywhere but in your head . What matters is what happens in use ... I have dozens and dozens of brushes from scores of makers, spanning almost 3/4's of a century, and I can pull lines with all of them that are not so different as to make one stand out much beyond another... they all work. Much, much more of "performance" out of a brush comes down to personal preference(s), and an understanding of how the tool wants to work.
. What matters is what happens in use ... I have dozens and dozens of brushes from scores of makers, spanning almost 3/4's of a century, and I can pull lines with all of them that are not so different as to make one stand out much beyond another... they all work. Much, much more of "performance" out of a brush comes down to personal preference(s), and an understanding of how the tool wants to work.
Last edited:
Robbyrockett2
Air-Valve Autobot!
That's what I'm saying. That Is not actual zoom power. I originally presumed it was....but it doesn't actually work that way.
Especially given a cheapo scope.
If I use a 15" monitor and measure like that and say ok it's 100x, then switch to a 60" monitor...I've increased the scale but I'm not actually zooming in more.
I can't really call it 400x power and I won't see the detail that actual 400x provides. The picture won't actually be any closer whether I use a 4" screen or 400" screen.
It's the same as using digital zoom.
I just wish I knew what the actual optical zoom was.
DaveG
Airbush Analyst
I just checked with gauge pins - got 0.35mm/.014" on the Iwata and PS770 .18 nozzle. On Olympos and Iwata .23's they measured out at 0.27mm/.011", with the Iwata fitting tighter on the pin. The Olympos .23 needle is vastly different (longer taper, with more needle protrusion from nozzle,) while the Iwata and PS770 .18 needles are just about identical to the Iwata .23.
With 5 brushes - 1 Iwata .18 Micron, 1 Iwata .23 Micron, 1 GSI PS770 .18, 1 Olympos .18 Micron, 1 Olympos .23 Micron - the thinnest line I can possibly pull comes from the Olympos .18 Micron. Right behind it are the Iwata and PS770 .18's which look much darker than the very soft appearing Olympos lines, but are in reality just a tiny hair thicker (edges of the actual line are smoother, and cleaner vs the Olympos).
With 5 brushes - 1 Iwata .18 Micron, 1 Iwata .23 Micron, 1 GSI PS770 .18, 1 Olympos .18 Micron, 1 Olympos .23 Micron - the thinnest line I can possibly pull comes from the Olympos .18 Micron. Right behind it are the Iwata and PS770 .18's which look much darker than the very soft appearing Olympos lines, but are in reality just a tiny hair thicker (edges of the actual line are smoother, and cleaner vs the Olympos).
Robbyrockett2
Air-Valve Autobot!
Further proof the nozzle size is not the main determining factor on line size.
Being as the .23 actually comes in at a smaller size than the .18 but the .18 pulls a finer line.
DaveG
Airbush Analyst
I think that the angle in which air strips paint from the tip of the needle is the determining factor for the theoretical size of the line width produced.
