Scientific methods

Gavin Nugent · 5th March 2011, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrwizard

It is a bit tedious but examining the surface with a simple microscope might help on the unreadable sections. I'm sure if you ask politely, someone from the university of Queensland will help you with access to the right equipment. I would start asking a mineralogy or materials science department.

Best Regards,
Thilo

Hi Thilo, thank you for a great suggestion!
I recently sold an item to a chap in the Physics dept at UQ...I hope he is receptive to the idea and can offer direction.

I'll let you know if I have success with this method.

Gav

fearn · 5th March 2011, 05:23 PM

Hi Gav,

Talc isn't a bad idea. Check out the techniques for seeing the images on old gravestones and petroglyphs. Basically, use a non-staining fine powder that has a color in contrast to the surface, to fill in the grooves and make them more evident.

Alternatively, light the piece from a low angle, along the blade (like the setting sun), so that the shadows from any grooves or ridges stand out.

So far as the microscope goes, you want a dissecting microscope, not a compound microscope. If you can't get anything from the physicist, you can often buy one surplus for well under a thousand dollars. Or if that's too much, there are number of simple magnifiers (for jewelers, fishing fly makers and other hobbyists) which would work too.

Best,

F

katana · 5th March 2011, 06:55 PM

Hi Gav,
I recently purchased a USB Digital Microscope....with a mag of up to 200x . It is fantastic, allows you to take snap shots via the PC. I highly recommend one...and they are relatively cheap (around £60 ) When I get a chance I will add some images created with the microscope so that you can see the results

I do not think talc would help much, wouldn't it just highlight the cross hatching to which the gold is applied

or am I mistaken

Kind Regards David

fearn · 5th March 2011, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by katana

Hi Gav,
I recently purchased a USB Digital Microscope....with a mag of up to 200x . It is fantastic, allows you to take snap shots via the PC. I highly recommend one...and they are relatively cheap (around £60 ) When I get a chance I will add some images created with the microscope so that you can see the results

Hi David,

Which brand of microscope? There are a bunch out there, and some seem to have gotten bad reviews.

F

katana · 5th March 2011, 09:14 PM

Hi Gav,
here are some quick images including a blade, stitching and woven reed pattern (reeding less than 0.75 mm in width) on an african scabbard, a British 50p piece, human hair and a metal tape measure (each graduation = 1mm)

I am suitably impressed

Regards David

.

mrwizard · 5th March 2011, 10:04 PM

Hello everybody,

USB microscopes can be really fun and may even be sufficient for the task at hand but everthing written on the box should be taken with a containership-load of salt.

Here is an article that explains some of the principal constraints http://www.msscweb.org/public/articl...nification.pdf

My guess the optical magnification of most inexpensive usb-microscopes is in the range of 20x-30x.
Another concern is the Depth of Field which is likely very small. Again, these things are fun might be sufficient for what Gav wants to achieve.

I personally own a Lomo MBS-10 microscope that i use regulary for hobby purposes. The thing is build like a tank and has good optical components. Still I don't get much more out of it than 100x. I wouldn't even dare to compare it to the modern scientific microscopes found at most universities.

@Gav: Don't buy any microscope if you don't plan to use it regulary.

Best Regards,
Thilo

fearn · 5th March 2011, 10:37 PM

Thanks Thilo,

I was thinking of a substitute for a dissecting scope for botanical work, as well as looking at collections.

Best,

F

katana · 5th March 2011, 11:16 PM

As Thilo has stated, the 200x mag seems a little exagerated

(I never believed it would be that good) but, nevertheless certainly seems to be at least 30x. The pictures I have posted are not 'photoshopped' ....so there is further 'scope' to improve the pictures. The illumination is provided by LED's intergrated into the 'telescope' and seems to be sufficent without causing glare from shiny surfaces.

They certainly are 'fun' though and bought it to investigate some of my collection.

Regards David

5th March 2011, 06:55 PM	#3
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,658	Hi Gav, I recently purchased a USB Digital Microscope....with a mag of up to 200x . It is fantastic, allows you to take snap shots via the PC. I highly recommend one...and they are relatively cheap (around £60 ) When I get a chance I will add some images created with the microscope so that you can see the results I do not think talc would help much, wouldn't it just highlight the cross hatching to which the gold is applied or am I mistaken Kind Regards David Last edited by katana; 6th March 2011 at 06:35 PM.

5th March 2011, 09:14 PM	#5
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,658	Hi Gav, here are some quick images including a blade, stitching and woven reed pattern (reeding less than 0.75 mm in width) on an african scabbard, a British 50p piece, human hair and a metal tape measure (each graduation = 1mm) I am suitably impressed Regards David . Attached Images

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

5th March 2011, 05:23 PM	#2
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	Hi Gav, Talc isn't a bad idea. Check out the techniques for seeing the images on old gravestones and petroglyphs. Basically, use a non-staining fine powder that has a color in contrast to the surface, to fill in the grooves and make them more evident. Alternatively, light the piece from a low angle, along the blade (like the setting sun), so that the shadows from any grooves or ridges stand out. So far as the microscope goes, you want a dissecting microscope, not a compound microscope. If you can't get anything from the physicist, you can often buy one surplus for well under a thousand dollars. Or if that's too much, there are number of simple magnifiers (for jewelers, fishing fly makers and other hobbyists) which would work too. Best, F

5th March 2011, 10:04 PM	#6
mrwizard Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Dortmund, Germany Posts: 102	Hello everybody, USB microscopes can be really fun and may even be sufficient for the task at hand but everthing written on the box should be taken with a containership-load of salt. Here is an article that explains some of the principal constraints http://www.msscweb.org/public/articl...nification.pdf My guess the optical magnification of most inexpensive usb-microscopes is in the range of 20x-30x. Another concern is the Depth of Field which is likely very small. Again, these things are fun might be sufficient for what Gav wants to achieve. I personally own a Lomo MBS-10 microscope that i use regulary for hobby purposes. The thing is build like a tank and has good optical components. Still I don't get much more out of it than 100x. I wouldn't even dare to compare it to the modern scientific microscopes found at most universities. @Gav: Don't buy any microscope if you don't plan to use it regulary. Best Regards, Thilo

5th March 2011, 10:37 PM	#7
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	Thanks Thilo, I was thinking of a substitute for a dissecting scope for botanical work, as well as looking at collections. Best, F

5th March 2011, 11:16 PM	#8
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,658	As Thilo has stated, the 200x mag seems a little exagerated (I never believed it would be that good) but, nevertheless certainly seems to be at least 30x. The pictures I have posted are not 'photoshopped' ....so there is further 'scope' to improve the pictures. The illumination is provided by LED's intergrated into the 'telescope' and seems to be sufficent without causing glare from shiny surfaces. They certainly are 'fun' though and bought it to investigate some of my collection. Regards David