AX70 field diaphragm repair

[Macro_Cosmos]

Went pretty well, guide here: https://macrocosmosblog.wordpress.com/2 ... gm-repair/
Hopefully someone finds this useful or interesting.

AX70 and BX53 transillumination optical train comparison. The AX70 is over-engineered for sure.

[RobertOToole]

Hi MacroC,

Looks amazing, and expensive, any idea how much are those scopes new? Over $10k?

What are all spring loaded sliders at the bottom for the first pic? Filter controls I'm guessing? 6?

Best,

Robert

[houstontx]

I have a AX70 and a BX51...I want to keep one and sell one...which would you keep?

The AX70 has automated objective and filter cube turret, but is possibly twice as heavy as the bx51...

The BX51 has BD nosepiece with larger threadsize and I have RMS adapters and a U-RLA so I can do metalurgical on it...

Still though the AX70 is a beast and I love the automated turret changeover.

[Macro_Cosmos]

Looks amazing, and expensive, any idea how much are those scopes new? Over $10k?

What are all spring loaded sliders at the bottom for the first pic? Filter controls I'm guessing? 6?

I believe they were comfortably over $10k and it depends on configuration. The AX had 4 variants, manual, semi-manual, with fluorescence, and macro. The AX80 is fully automatic. A U-PHOTO photomicrographic head was also offered, it is beyond complex and I have no clue what it does. Seems like overkill.

6 filters are installed in the cassette, a light balancing one, an IF550 green interference filter, and a set of ND filters. The BX53 had 3 and it was an optional component.
There is a 7th one as well, which goes on a slider that can be pulled out of the body. I have a UV-IR cut installed there.

I have a AX70 and a BX51...I want to keep one and sell one...which would you keep?

The AX70 has automated objective and filter cube turret, but is possibly twice as heavy as the bx51...

The BX51 has BD nosepiece with larger threadsize and I have RMS adapters and a U-RLA so I can do metalurgical on it...

Still though the AX70 is a beast and I love the automated turret changeover.

Well, since I replaced a current "top of the line" BX53 with the AX70, you know my biased answer already.
The AX70 is far heavier than any current Olympus microscope, the empty frame is 40kg. The frame was designed to dampen vibrations whereas the modern ones are expected to since on a platform.
You can do metallurgical on the AX without a problem, you just need the darkfield cube. The nosepiece from your BX51 can be mounted onto the AX and vice versa, so I would just not use those RMS adaptors.

Depends on what your needs are, ultimately.
- Do you need to relocate the instrument often?
- Are you happy with buying another AX just to salvage parts? Those modules are very rare.
- Are you happy with the occasional error message prompting a restart?

Between a BX5? and AX70, I will go with the AX70. Between an AX70 and BX63, I will gladly choose the BX63. To the amateur eye, the AX70's Köhler illumination optical train is far more robust. The BX5? resembles something I made 3 years ago for a project with surplus parts.

[enricosavazzi]

[...]
Between a BX5? and AX70, I will go with the AX70. Between an AX70 and BX63, I will gladly choose the BX63. To the amateur eye, the AX70's Köhler illumination optical train is far more robust. The BX5? resembles something I made 3 years ago for a project with surplus parts.

If I remember correctly, the illumination path of the AX70 has a lining that prevents light from illuminating directly and heating up the supporting frame of the microscope. They did this so that there is minimal thermal expansion of the frame even after hours of continuous use of the illuminator.

[Scarodactyl]

Also ask yourself, does having a big scope make you feel like a big shot? Personally, yes.

[Macro_Cosmos]

If I remember correctly, the illumination path of the AX70 has a lining that prevents light from illuminating directly and heating up the supporting frame of the microscope. They did this so that there is minimal thermal expansion of the frame even after hours of continuous use of the illuminator.

That does make sense actually, the Köhler illumination optical train can be completely dismounted as modules. The BX line uses brackets and optical parts that slot into the frame itself. I have to check my information, I do remember somewhere in some public catalogue where this design was referenced.

You can see modules here:
On eBay.
Automatic diaphragm block: 334196579586
Automatic filter cassette (my listing): 185334559960
They all come out and in incredibly easily, barely any adjustments were needed.

Here are some select quotes from a sales training sheet, sorry, I cannot share it.

"So the new microscopes are mainly following the philosophy of the PROVIS and a little of the Leica DMRXA."
- (Compared to Zeiss AXIOPLAN 2 or AXIOPHOT 2): There is no chance to upgrade an existing frame later on. This is possible with the PROVIS.
- The built-in power supply may cause problems due to electrical noise or heat production. Especially for high research, for example, physiology, that is not acceptable. This was the reason why the PROVIS has got an external power supply.
- The PROVIS has got a frame that is much more stable. So research with heavy addon devices (cameras, detectors, etc.) can be carried out much better.

So the gist of the arguments was that the ProVis was intended to be fully user upgradeable with a frame specifically designed to allow electrophysiology applications, where heat and electrical interference will screw results up. This is absolutely true, Axon's newer AxoPatch systems offer a filter (HumSilencer) that deals with noise due to the power supply, producing much better results.

Sources:
https://www.moleculardevices.com/produc ... amplifiers
(I am sure they meant maximise signal-to-noise ratio... I will inform them of this mistake, haha.)

https://www.moleculardevices.com/en/##### ... le-feature