Q. Where did the original pattern for the Standard microscope come from?

A. The (Scott) British Antarctic Expedition of 1912 used the Standard microscope, acquired from the Globe and Orrery 132 - 134 of Fleet Street in london, from a firm trading as Compass, Theodolite, and Sextant, until 1915.

Formally the company had traded as Cole instruments, suppliers of the best of surgical instruments to the Admiralty, and Royal Navy. But in 1890, after the very tragic death of Benjamin Coles father from a heart attack, Benjamin Cole wished for the firms microscopy interests to be passed to Thomas Cooke, the leading machinist of the company at the Buckingham works. T. Cooke aspired to run the company until 1915, when a first world war gas attack from a German Zeplin fatally asphyxiated the entire company of directors of the firm.

In 1915, Compass Theodolite and Sextant was run and managed by the Royal Navy, during the Great war, and continued trading to the Admiralty as part of Vickers Instrument, part of the British Fleet Air Arm. The company was dissolved into two parts, the Fleet street real estate interests, and microscope production facilities continued trading to the Navy, from the Strand in Fleet Street, but under the new title of Cooke instruments.

The other half of the company with medical interests, moved to Hatten Gardens, where it still trades as Bellingham and Stanley. The Stanley microscope moved to Hatten Gardens. The Cooke microscope interests remained at the Orrery.

After the Great war, in 1922, Troughten and Simms, sought partnership interests, with the Cooke Microscopes, and the cooperative, of CTS Cooke Troughten and Simms, for formed, as a subdivision of commercial interests, of Vickers Instruments.

Of the trio, its was only Cooke, who held speciality in microscope instrument production, the other partners boasted expertise, in Theodolite and Sextant manufacture.

The failure of the BAE in 1912, meant that the equipment was left unattended in the antarctic, until the rescue party arrived. Both Watson, and the Dr who stood in the place of Captain Oates owned microscopes, as did many of the scientist involved in the expedition. On the arrival of the rescue party, one of these microscopes was found to be missing. It was later found in the French occupied part of China, known as Kwangchow. It was this microscope, which influenced the pattern of microscope manufacture in the Far East.

Q. Why did Scotts antarctic expedition fail?

A. In the early 1900s there was great confusion about the use of Barometers. Captain R. Scott was a traditional sailor, and preferred to use the fir cone, and human expertise as a means of the prediction of the onset of stormy weather conditions. Instrument manufacturers, thought it better to predict the onset of rain, by a measure of the relative humidity of the atmosphere, using a device that amplified the extension of a strand of horse hair, against a weighted spring, as opposed to a measure of air pressure.

An alternative instrument, the anaerobic barometer, was very difficult to understand in correlation to foresight of weather conditions, it was not generally understood that to successfully predict weather change one has to observe the rise and fall of the needle, rather than what the need points to. and this was most clearly asserted by Scott when he asked that Cole change the name of the markings on the horse hair barometer, from Dry to Fair, as his observance as a seaman, showed it to be failing to adequately predict weather changes. So the horse hair barometer seemed like the perfect instrument for the task.

But too often in rough service, the horse hair would brake, when the instrument was dropped or was knocked. So horse hair barometers were not manufactured for very long, and not suited to the purpose for which Scott employed them. The horse hair barometer failed Scott. He had originally agreed to test the use of a horse hair barometer on his expedition, but later, he insisted that a fir cone be especially shipped out to him in the antarctic, after his instrument was found to be failing. It was a failure in the horse hair barometric instrument, which gave rise to a sudden unexpected storm on Scotts ship, on the way out to the antarctic, not Scotts misjudgement, and when the ship started taking in water due it was due to damage caused by these unsecured, unstrapped cases. The cases contained supplies for the expedition, but while attendants despodically attempted to secure the leak on board of the ship, others threw overboard many of the damaged and water spoiled cases which contained the supplies and stores for their future endeavour. The failed horse hair barometric instrument continued to be of no use to Scott as he embarked on his journey to the pole, and quite probably giving false readings of weather conditions led to errors in judgement of climate, which gave rise to delays in the journey forwards to the pole. The last time I remember seeing Scott as a child, was on Christmas Day, when we flew out with a fir cone for him.

Q. What is the difference between the Chinese manufactured microscope, and the British Antarctic Expedition, English microscope from the orrery?

A. The original Standard microscopes manufactured in the UK from the Buckingham works had a crows foot base, which was made cast from iron. This design was found to be weak and the bases too often broke with metal fatigue. They also used a fine focus mechanism which depends upon the turn of a spiral shaft against a toothed lever. This was found to be too delicate, too refined, and required more maintenance. In the process of Chinese production, these flaws were removed and the design was strengthened by a horseshoe base, and an improved fine focus design.

Q. Are more modern microscopes technically better?

A. No. The traditional microscopes that comply to the BS, are very simple, very powerful, and very simple to maintain, and upkeep.

Q. You mention British Standard, why is a Chinese microscope made to a British Standard?

A. It is not, the Chinese microscope is made to Japan Industry Standard, the JIS Standard, which is based upon the British Standard, specification BS 7012. The British Standard, is more strict, than other standards. The microscope, as it was manufactured in Kwangchow, was part of a British Government development initiative, and made to conform to a JIS standard, that complies fully with the British Standards expected by the British Government overseas development agency.

Q. What is the difference between Guangzhou and Kwangchow?

A. They are two different places. Kwangchow was a French occupied part of China, but in 1948 it became formally a British overseas territory under the post war redevelopment plan, the Kwangchow region is external to the main part of china. After a terrible monsoon in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the factory at Kwangchow was flooded, and destroyed. The production of microscopes then moved to a new factory in Guangzhou. British interests on main land China, moved to the Macaw district, until 1972 when the British overseas territories in China were formally handed back to Chinese control, by Douglas Hurd.

Q. A Japanese person said my microscope was made in Canton, not Guangzhou, or Kwangchow, who am I to believe?

A. Believe them both, the Japanese refer to the region, as the English did, it was formally called Canton.

Q. Will Guangzhou support and maintain Kwangchow microscopes?

A. Yes. I have been assured by Kevin, at the factory at Guangzhou, they can calibrate, service and support the microscopes formally made at Kwangchow.

Q. Does the microscope have a British or Far Eastern Trade mark?

A. The Trade mark indicates the place of manufacture.

Q. Have the Chinese / Japanese taken the orrery trade mark?

A. No, the Trade mark is the Trade mark of the Chinese and Japanese Air forces, it is a trading sign of the Wang family industries. The sign of COS in China is associated to the Founder of Modern day China, and the Chinese god of the Universe, sometimes the Emperor of Japan, and the Emperor of China. It is also the 13th sign of the Zodiac Ophiuchus, Serpentarius, Aesculapius, the serpent bearer. It means you excellence you must not seek for him.

Q. Is the trade mark the sign of standards compliance?

A. The trade mark does not itself denote compliance to a standard, other than it remains a trade mark associated to be the very best that the nations of China, and Japan can produce. In other words, it is very unlikely it will fail a standard in any way.

Q. Is it possible to achieve Kohler lighting?

A. The L-201 formally the old TOE P-6C, can achieve kohler lighting, as it has a condenser iris, fitted about the lower region of the condenser. The L-101 formally the old TOE P-6 cannot, as it has no condenser, or iris.

Q. Can the microscope be used for polarised Microscopy?

A. Yes, the L-201 microscope condenser has a filter holder whereon polarised film may be placed. A polarised film may also be fitted to the interior diaphragm of an ocular, or alternative a polarised eye piece me used. The ocular is rotated to align and control the alignment of light.

Q. When I lift the ocular, the image gets bigger, is this correct?

A. The original microscope standard allowed for a wide variety of optical and mechanical tube lengths, so by increasing the mechanical tube length, from 160mm to 200mm, a greater amplification of image may be achieved.

In the 1950s, the RMS set the standard for the optical tube length as being 160mm. All microscopes may show the same size image, in the ocular, according to their optical design purposes, ie. 15x diameters amplification, or 10x diameters, and so on. During this time, some microscope manufacturers prevented there being any advantage by further amplification of the image size by the fitment of additional extension tubes or extending draw tubes to the ocular tube head, and by fitting a convex lens between the objective and ocular in the head of the microscope tube, they affixed the microscope design to a restricted capacity of magnification.

So when a convex lens has been fitted inside the microscope head tube, the size of the image remains the same, whatever the extension of ocular tube, so lifting the ocular, from the ocular tube, does not increase the size of the image. This has advantages, and disadvantages.

The advantages to having the head lens fitted, is that it is easier to use the microscope with a camera. And it is also means that a micrometer ocular can be fitted to the ocular tube and measurements taken by a comparison of scale in the ocular to specimen size, which is convenient for repetitive and routine inspection, assuming of course the microscope is fitted with a head lens which is calibrated so the fitted ocular measurement scale, relates directly in measure to the lateral distances of measure at the stage level. This of course make no account or allowance for errors which may arise due to deviations in the capacities of depth of field measure.

The disadvantage is that with a head lens fitted, the image size remains fixed, and this in turn prevents there being any further amplification of image size by lifting the ocular, or by extending the mechanical and optical tube length. It also reduces the light through the optical system thereby restricting the microscope from using objectives with powers greater than 100x diameters. Convex fixed head tube lenses were originally fitted inside the L-201 microscope, by the manufacturer at Kwangchow, but after shipment to the UK, and throughout the 1970s, these lenses were removed by optical engineers wishing to empower their microscopes to superior performance required by western use.

Q. If the image size changes relative to the optical tube length, how can I ensure I am making a correct standards micromeasure using a microscope without the convex head lens?

A. The standard and best means of micomeasure, is to compare the sample under inspection, to that of a standard rule micromeasure slide. After all to measure something, we place a rule along side of the object we wish to measure. By calibrating the movement of a super-stage as it traverses its lateral positions between two points marked by an observance of co-relation with a cross hair ocular, the degree of movement of the super-stage is then compared to that by the same movement shown on the standards slide measurement scale. So in this way, all measures are taken at the stage platform level. Depth of field errors are thereby negated.

Further, the L-201 is fitted with a round rotating stage, so it may measure in two directions, or angularly. By turning the thumbscrew gently, the round stage may be moved very precisely indeed, and even, without the need for the super-stage. So this is the most accurate means of measurement, most suitable to precision work of close tolerance.

However, for most, it is not as quick and convenient in the frequent, routine, and repetitive, assembly inspection tasks, when the method for making measurements by co-ordinating a calibrated ocular with its internal micromeasure scale, to that of the optical and mechanical tube length, is more convenient, available, and pre-defined, by the duties and superordinate responsibilities of that Master of calibrating and exacting the placement of head tube lenses, in a way that defines ensures, and guarantees, that a measurement on the stage is actually relative in co-ordination to that of the ocular micromeasure scale.

Remember, please, that however often that calibration be done, the task of the movement of a microscope from one place to another, may still yet yield, that once perfected calibration of relation of fixed head tube lens, to ocular micromeasure, being micromeasurely erroneous.

Q. Is the microscope par focal?

A. No, a microscope itself is not par focal, however most microscopes manufactured after 1922 come with a portfolio of a range of par focal objective lenses, which make it so.

Q. What is par focal?

A. A microscope is said to be par focal, when is it fitted with objectives that have been designed and constructed in such a way as to minimise (to less than 5mm vertical movement of the head tube) the need for great changes in course focus after switching between the objective lenses mounted on the rotor of the turret.

Q. My microscope lenses are not DIN standard, does that matter?

A. This one is even better. Right, DIN standard, implies European metric compliance. Often it is said, that European optics are better as metric standards are more precise. When lenses were originally devised, scientists found that the harmonics of the wavelengths of light have have aberrations, when the lens have a certain physical size in thickness, and multiples of thickness, and not. Nearly every measurement of lens thickness, was formulated and settled in days when Imperial standards were the norm. Conveniently, for opticians, it was found that sizes of those lenses creating minimal aberrations, correlated, exactly, to the divisions found in the Imperial measure. So, opticians ensured that lenses were manufactured in sizes compliant to Imperial measures.

The DIN standard, defines metric measures, most near to the Imperial measures, but not exactly. When lenses are made to DIN standards, their physical sizes are metric based in measure first, and the size nearest to perfection secondly. For example, 0.1 of an inch, is equal 2.54mm to achieve a measure in the metric standard it is necessary to involve a measure to two decimal places, when it could exist as one. Now suppose an ideal lens type defined in terms of a thickness of 0.1 inches, gave the minimum aberration to white light passing through it, less colour fringing in other words less chromatic aberrations, to make a lens in a 0.1 inch mould is easy to measure and construct, but to construct a lens mould with a size of 2.54mm in depth, it would be in fact, Imperial based metric, not metric as the DIN standard, so the mould would be made to a size of 2.5mm, and 0.04mm would be accepted as the tolerance error needing correction.

After construction the metric lenses have to be corrected, by using a coating or in the case of compound lenses by offsetting the space between the two lenses in the compound lens tube. So DIN lenses have to be corrected with a lens coating, which may wear, whereas Imperial based lenses, have no natural aberration by design, they are just plain glass lenses made to Imperial sizes.

And so it is Imperial optics are both easier to manufacture, cheaper, more durable, and optically naturally better. Most tooling and manufacturing in China and Japan, is in fact still Imperial based. DIN standard optical patterns are popular, but usually manufactured because of European requirements, they are the exception, and consequently more expensive, usually they have to be obtained from Europe, from European lens manufacturers, only, where as Imperial lenses may be obtained from South Africa, China, Japan, America, India or Britain.

Q. Is there any advantage to fitting a angular swivel head to the L-201 microscope?

A. No. The angular rotating swivel heads that can be seen fitted to the Lomo M6P, contain a prism which negates and reduces light in the optical path, thereby reducing the overall amplification power of the microscope.

Q. Why do people prefer monocular microscopes to binocular ones?

A. Binocular microscopes are more complex to use and maintain. Further they contain a prism in the tube which reduces the overall amplification power of the microscope, as high power objective above 100x diametric amplification cannot be fitted due to failure in lighting.

Q. Can I fit an under-stage lighting device?

A. You can, they are available in battery and mains forms, but it is not advisable, for safety reasons, a freyed mains cable might lead to the metal frame of the microscope becoming livened. The microscope is better illuminated by using a seperate lamp with a colminator lens and and field iris, which directs light to the mirror mounted underneath the microscope condenser.

Q. Can I fit objectives that have the RMS thread without the need for an adapter?

A. You can, the microscope complies to the RMS standard for thread objectives.

Q. What oculars may be fitted to the microscope?

A. You can fit oculars that have the RMS standard diameter of 23.3 mm.

Q. How do I use the microscope for photo microscopy?

A. You can project the image at the eye piece onto a mirror mounted onto a retort stand, and direct an SLR camera with a telephoto attachment mounted on a separate tripod towards the image on the mirror, a camera lucida is ideally suited to this purpose, alternatively you can hold a lightweight compact digital camera over the occular tube and take a photograph through the eye piece. Cameras, should never be directly mounted onto the eyepiece tube, unsupported. A lightweight USB camera can be utilised for the task of capturing images to a computer vdu.

Q. Should I doubt the quality of Chinese made optical lenses?

A. No. There is no good reason to suspect or doubt chinese optical lenses crafting conform in practice to the standards expected in the West.

Q. Are Chinese lenses error corrected in any way?

A. No. Chinese lenses manufactured to the Imperial standards found on RMS microscopes are manufactured exactly to that pattern, their glasses need no error correction of additional coating to correction for chromatic abberation.

Q. Is there any advantage to using the cheaper uncoated Chinese lenses in preference to European coated lenses?

A. Yes, principally, uncoated lenses are manufactured to exacting tolerances in glass, they give a better overal performance in that capacity, than DIN optics before their correction, and they are also much easier to clean, with general purpose lense tissues.

Q. How should I clean the lenses on the microscope objective and ocular?

A. You can clean the lenses with lens tissues soaked in an ISOPROPIC ALCOHOL AND DENAT compound, these can be optained from camera shops, and opticians, in sealed packets, sold as spectacle cleaning tissues.

Q. How can I stop the ocular from steaming up when I use the microscope?

A. Wear BS safety glasses.

Q. I have heard the term Eye height, is it important to know, and what does that actually mean?

A. Yes its important to know, and consider the ocular eye height. Good oculars, have a high eye heights. The eye height is the distance of measure from your eye, to the lens you view an image through. Like the working distance describes the range that an objective remains in sharp focus before the specimen, the eye height describes the optimal distance to view an image through an ocular for it to remain in focus. A long eye height is advantageous as it reduces eyestrain, and keeps your eyes well away from potential contact with the ocular tube, as it moves in use.