Minimizing Spherical Aberration: Make The Right Lens Choice ... - spherical abberation

 2024-08-28 05:33:18

mil-prf-13830b pdf

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com

TWO TYPES OF MICROSCOPE - Simple Microscope which is an ordinary magnifying glass or a single lens which magnifies an object - Compound Microscope which has two ...

Just for total confusion, I spec the scratch/dig on my pseudo-ISO prints as 5/80/50!-- Best regards,Steve Eckhardtskeckhardt at mmm dot com

iso 10110-7

Your donation to the Foundation will enable families in need of help in educating their sons leaving a lasting legacy that will benefit current students as well as students for generations to come.

This is because when we perceive an object as white, we are seeing all the colors on the visible light spectrum bouncing off the object and hitting our eye, ...

This comes from the paper, "The Scratch Standard Is Only A CosmeticStandard" by Matt Young."Additionally, the startling factor-of-10 change between Revisions Hand L has caused some users to speculate that the primary standardsmay have healed with the passage of time. Certainly the glass arounda scratch cannot flow (the viscosity of glass at room temperature iswell in excess of 10^15 Pa*s), but chemical weathering of the surfacedue to water vapor in the air is a possibility and could cause theprimary standard either to heal or to worsen. There is evidence,however, that most weathering would take place and stabilize within afew hours or days. In any case, a change has to be quite substantialbefore it is apparent to the naked eye and, I think, would be pickedup by the trained inspectors when they make repeated comparisons withsecondary standards. More probably, it seems to me, small scratchesthat are reported to have "disappeared" have been contaminated by thevolatile constituents of their wooden boxes and merely required a gooddegreasing,"Anyway it is the drawing that has changed with time, due to peoplesattempts to define the scratch number as a width. Revision H of thedrawing was the first define the scratch number as the width of thescratch in microns and also that calibration back to the masters isnot essential. However Revision H was quickly surperceeded two yearslater by Revision J which said the scratch width was one tenth thescratch number and all manufacturer generated standards must becalibrated against the master set. In any event nothing in thecertification procedure had changed, nor has it changed to this day. Remember that a certified set of submasters is boxed but nothermetically sealed and therefore it must be resubmitted periodicallyfor recertification - hence my question can you still get comparisonstandards certified against the masters?

mil-c-675

Perusing different websites and optics suppliers shows that everyonewants to link the scratch number to a width. Some go with the 10 =10 theory and some go with the 10 = 1. My original question on themaster samples was due to these two different schools of thought iecan anyone do the correct calibration or are companies just measuringthe width of their standard samples and saying they are calibrated? If it is the latter then the scratch criteria has changed to reflectMIL-F-48616 - which allows for the actual measurement of the width ofthe scratch but uses letters instead of numbers eg F-F.

> According to the drawing C7641866 L, released in 1980, the mastersamples have moved from Frankford Arsenal to ARRADCOM. Can you stillget your samples calibrated against the masters as stipulated in Note6 of the drawing?> > If not how do all optics companies keep their scratch setscalibrated?> >

Mar 24, 2024 — This device helps photographers and cinematographers determine the optimal exposure settings for their images or footage, by providing accurate ...

Since its inception in 1988 the Foundation has supported the education of over 100 young men at St Edmund’s College in Canberra.

80 50 scratch-dig

I realise that the scratch number doesn't actually define the width ofscratches (like many people beleive) but references the samples usedfor comparison. According to the drawing C7641866 L, released in 1980, the mastersamples have moved from Frankford Arsenal to ARRADCOM. Can you stillget your samples calibrated against the masters as stipulated in Note6 of the drawing?If not how do all optics companies keep their scratch setscalibrated?Thanks.*-----------------------* Posted at: www.GroupSrv.com*-----------------------*

I would contend that this is the industry standard. It is true thatthis MIL spec keeps appearing but in my experience of manufacture ofhigh end optics this does not apply. I'm a little rusty about theactual methods used to apply this spec but doesn't it state that itshould be a visual comparison by eye to the scratch/dig standard undera 40 watt light in a darkened booth viewed at 45 degrees.If I was to inspect and pass optical surfaces in that manner I'd passeverything..... Oh wait what am I fighting it for !!??Taff

Also, as I read the spec, the scratch number is very subjective and isa comparison to standard samples. However the dig number does relateto the actual width of the dig. The drawing I mentioned in my firstpost describes how to make the set of samples. This drawing has hadmany revisions that state many different things ie, "Scratch numbersdo not denote width of scratch. The numbers indicate that thescratch has the same weight or visual appearance as the masterscratch bearing the same weight number", "Scratch number denoteswidth of scratch in microns", "#10 Scratch = 1um +/- 0.1....", andthe ever popular "Dimensions are for reference only". Anyway as Iunderstand these dimensions on the drawing should be used as a guideto preparing your samples but they must be calibrated against themaster set.Perusing different websites and optics suppliers shows that everyonewants to link the scratch number to a width. Some go with the 10 =10 theory and some go with the 10 = 1. My original question on themaster samples was due to these two different schools of thought iecan anyone do the correct calibration or are companies just measuringthe width of their standard samples and saying they are calibrated? If it is the latter then the scratch criteria has changed to reflectMIL-F-48616 - which allows for the actual measurement of the width ofthe scratch but uses letters instead of numbers eg F-F.

Light absorbing black out materials used in optics and photonics applications are available at Edmund Optics.

Your gift allows the College to fulfil its vision of a world where we can provide an education which challenges young men to be the best they can be and opens doors to their future.

Those who have experienced the special quality of St Edmund’s can make bequests to the College, so we can continue to deliver excellence in education in Edmund Rice tradition.

by H Yoda · 2006 · Cited by 176 — Index Terms—Beam quality factor, fiber modes, multimode fiber. I. INTRODUCTION. THE BEAM quality factor (or M2-parameter) of an optical beam is ...

These collimators can be glued into a 2D array with high precision and all light channels are thus parallel. The type of fiber, the operating wavelength, the ...

From my understanding the inspection is, as you mentioned, with a 40Wlight bulb etc. Also, as I read the spec, the scratch number is very subjective and isa comparison to standard samples. However the dig number does relateto the actual width of the dig. The drawing I mentioned in my firstpost describes how to make the set of samples. This drawing has hadmany revisions that state many different things ie, "Scratch numbersdo not denote width of scratch. The numbers indicate that thescratch has the same weight or visual appearance as the masterscratch bearing the same weight number", "Scratch number denoteswidth of scratch in microns", "#10 Scratch = 1um +/- 0.1....", andthe ever popular "Dimensions are for reference only". Anyway as Iunderstand these dimensions on the drawing should be used as a guideto preparing your samples but they must be calibrated against themaster set.Perusing different websites and optics suppliers shows that everyonewants to link the scratch number to a width. Some go with the 10 =10 theory and some go with the 10 = 1. My original question on themaster samples was due to these two different schools of thought iecan anyone do the correct calibration or are companies just measuringthe width of their standard samples and saying they are calibrated? If it is the latter then the scratch criteria has changed to reflectMIL-F-48616 - which allows for the actual measurement of the width ofthe scratch but uses letters instead of numbers eg F-F.

C7641866

Allows for the analysis of the nine most important water quality tests associated with the management of swimming pools and spas.

by S Liu · 2010 · Cited by 140 — The majority of conventional microscopes has a limited depth-of-field (DOF). For instance, the theoretical DOF of a 0.25 NA microscope objective is 8 μm, given ...

"Additionally, the startling factor-of-10 change between Revisions Hand L has caused some users to speculate that the primary standardsmay have healed with the passage of time. Certainly the glass arounda scratch cannot flow (the viscosity of glass at room temperature iswell in excess of 10^15 Pa*s), but chemical weathering of the surfacedue to water vapor in the air is a possibility and could cause theprimary standard either to heal or to worsen. There is evidence,however, that most weathering would take place and stabilize within afew hours or days. In any case, a change has to be quite substantialbefore it is apparent to the naked eye and, I think, would be pickedup by the trained inspectors when they make repeated comparisons withsecondary standards. More probably, it seems to me, small scratchesthat are reported to have "disappeared" have been contaminated by thevolatile constituents of their wooden boxes and merely required a gooddegreasing,"Anyway it is the drawing that has changed with time, due to peoplesattempts to define the scratch number as a width. Revision H of thedrawing was the first define the scratch number as the width of thescratch in microns and also that calibration back to the masters isnot essential. However Revision H was quickly surperceeded two yearslater by Revision J which said the scratch width was one tenth thescratch number and all manufacturer generated standards must becalibrated against the master set. In any event nothing in thecertification procedure had changed, nor has it changed to this day. Remember that a certified set of submasters is boxed but nothermetically sealed and therefore it must be resubmitted periodicallyfor recertification - hence my question can you still get comparisonstandards certified against the masters?

surface quality 60-40

mil-c-48497

LENSES, PRISMS MIRRORS & FILTERS · Anchor Optics 27472 5mm RA Prism Mirror sku10733 · Bausch & Lomb 35-53-16-28 Large Format Precision Grating, ...

If not how do all optics companies keep their scratch setscalibrated?Thanks.*-----------------------* Posted at: www.GroupSrv.com*-----------------------*

Wow! Either I'm buying more optics than I thought, or someone else is using the Internationally Recognized but universally unrecognized standard.As far as the MIL scratch/dig spec, Jean Bennet argued years ago that it was a purely cosmetic spec. If you use it that way, it works well. For instance, if I want laser optics, I spec 20/10, but if I only need commercial grade, I order 80/50. Condensers are 120/80, etc. Just for total confusion, I spec the scratch/dig on my pseudo-ISO prints as 5/80/50!-- Best regards,Steve Eckhardtskeckhardt at mmm dot com

iso 10110-7 pdf

According to the drawing C7641866 L, released in 1980, the mastersamples have moved from Frankford Arsenal to ARRADCOM. Can you stillget your samples calibrated against the masters as stipulated in Note6 of the drawing?If not how do all optics companies keep their scratch setscalibrated?Thanks.*-----------------------* Posted at: www.GroupSrv.com*-----------------------*

Information from OEOSC (who are developing a new standard due outearly next year) indicate that the old scratch dig comparisonstandard is carrying over to the new standard.

Making a philanthropic gift to the College enables countless opportunities for future generations of Eddies students, including your own child. Our students will enjoy an exceptional and vibrant education that will set them up for a bright and prosperous future.

Our weekly newsletter lets you stay up to date on all that is happening at the College and the extended community. You can read old editions of the newsletter here.

As far as the MIL scratch/dig spec, Jean Bennet argued years ago that it was a purely cosmetic spec. If you use it that way, it works well. For instance, if I want laser optics, I spec 20/10, but if I only need commercial grade, I order 80/50. Condensers are 120/80, etc. Just for total confusion, I spec the scratch/dig on my pseudo-ISO prints as 5/80/50!-- Best regards,Steve Eckhardtskeckhardt at mmm dot com

Information from OEOSC (who are developing a new standard due outearly next year) indicate that the old scratch dig comparisonstandard is carrying over to the new standard.

We are a part of the Edmund Rice Education Australia (EREA) network. A network of schools, entities and offices offering a Catholic education in the tradition of Blessed Edmund Rice.

I have a question regarding the MIL spec that has become the industrystandard for specifying scratch-dig.I realise that the scratch number doesn't actually define the width ofscratches (like many people beleive) but references the samples usedfor comparison. According to the drawing C7641866 L, released in 1980, the mastersamples have moved from Frankford Arsenal to ARRADCOM. Can you stillget your samples calibrated against the masters as stipulated in Note6 of the drawing?If not how do all optics companies keep their scratch setscalibrated?Thanks.*-----------------------* Posted at: www.GroupSrv.com*-----------------------*

Information from OEOSC (who are developing a new standard due outearly next year) indicate that the old scratch dig comparisonstandard is carrying over to the new standard.

Anyway it is the drawing that has changed with time, due to peoplesattempts to define the scratch number as a width. Revision H of thedrawing was the first define the scratch number as the width of thescratch in microns and also that calibration back to the masters isnot essential. However Revision H was quickly surperceeded two yearslater by Revision J which said the scratch width was one tenth thescratch number and all manufacturer generated standards must becalibrated against the master set. In any event nothing in thecertification procedure had changed, nor has it changed to this day. Remember that a certified set of submasters is boxed but nothermetically sealed and therefore it must be resubmitted periodicallyfor recertification - hence my question can you still get comparisonstandards certified against the masters?

Recently we've had some (Japanese) vendors insist on an ISO callout ratherthan the MIL standard for scratch and dig...We're told by our main lens vendor (China) that they're seeing 35-40% (andincreasing) ISO format drawings"gac" wrote in messagenews:416ccabf$1...@127.0.0.1...

Silicone oil-based o-ring lubricant compatible with nearly all rubber sealing materials and mating surfaces. Quality, low-cost alternative to Parker O-Lube and ...