Jump to content

Loupe / eyeglass / eyepiece


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, ajdo said:

Thx JDM. Yes, have heard good things about ASCO loupes. Their are supposed to be on the higher end a fairer price wise. 

ASCO is just the company name as "white label ". Would be good to know if lenses are glass on the cheap ones, and if the CHF 234 ones can be insured <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

I am looking for loupe(s) with a nice glass. From experience in another hobby, I learned a nice less magnified glass is better than a lesser glass quality at higher magnification.

 

A good topic.  I only have crap loupes, and its likely a problem.  With them, 10x often doesn't feel like enough for lathe work.....perhaps better glass would change that.

I had a young watchmaker over not to long ago.  He did years in school in Switzerland and has his own business so is not a wannabe (like me).  He said he spent over $100 on his loupe.  Not sure where you go to get a loupe that expensive, but I guess the point is he felt it was a crucial tool where you should get the best.  Probably something to consider in that.

On all my cheapos, I've ended up grinding slots in them so they don't fog up.  I think Bergeon has one with slots, but I always wonder why it wasn't more of a standard thing, no one else has them fog up?  I also use various DIY rigs to hold them on my head - it always seem about impossible to hold onto with they eye for more than a minute or os

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much appreciated. I tend to agree with the young watchmaker you know. By-once-cry-once and enjoy the hobby more.

From upgrade experience in other hobbies, without going overboard on desired items, one spends more on upgrades than buying right away what they would feel more comfortable with. It’s like running with flip-flops instead of getting running shoes :) Also good tools are re-sellable. Although I also understand higher cost tools may be an issue.

Will post my findings after my research and gathering other people’s input. It may help other newbies get into this hobby more easily. 

Thank you... AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The really expensive Asco loupes are achromats, the next level down (140 bucks) are aplanatic. As I've always understood, achromats are usually also aplanatic, so they deliver accurate color and an undistorted view across the lens. Aplanatic might have some color error. The color gets important when dealing with precious stones but isn't an issue for us watchmakers. I have several of both, and honestly can't tell which is in my hand without looking at the loupe body to see.

In lower powers, the aplanatic issue is sort of a non-issue, as the simple single double convex lens delivers a good image. In higher powers it's almost a necessity that the loupe be a double lens design or there is awful distortion. Most good brands go to double lens groups (two single convex lenses) at around 10x. Seems like there used to be more offerings of double lens loupes in the 5x-ish range, I have a Wild Heerbrug 5x with double lenses and am pretty sure I have an old Asco or Bergeon or two lurking around here the same.

I think all the current offering from the Swiss suppliers are good, you can't go wrong with Asco/Bergeon/Horotec.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much appreciated @NickelSilver, could not find any clear technical information about watchmakers loupes on internet that made as much sense as what you wrote. 

I am sure others will benefit as well from your wisdom on the subject! 

Actually, after your explaination, JDM’s link from this morning is much clearer. It shows the type of glass in ASCO loupes:

http://www.schurch-asco.com/e-shop/catalog/index.php?cPath=114_115&osCsid=d8c3a6eb43bf762fdb59e1e15c3a6fc7

Thank you... AJ

Edited by ajdo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a lot of those Indian aluminium loupes (no. 2...3.5) lying around in my workshop, handy like ball pens.
Today I compared one with a Bergeon 4422 that I use on my bench.
Both are single glass lens. With naked eye I could not find any advantage of the Bergeon. Same sharpness and clearness, same blurring around the edge.

Frank 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Hello

I realized that I mostly use x6 mag?, distance 45 mm and object display 33 mm, why I now understand it makes me tired because I tilt face to check a lower level of a movement. :blink:

I hear x4-5 mag is most common and therefore acquired an aplanatic bergeon loupe no. 2.5 with x4 mag. But it works at a distance around 40 mm which is near x6.7 according to attached info from CousinsUK. Seems not right?  Should I buy a standard version? 

I want a loupe for the general screwing and unscrewing major wrist watch movement components, where I can keep the neck stretched and the screw driver away from cheek:unsure:. I imagine 70-90 mm and strong enough magnification to display a movement around 35 mm. 

Screenshot_20191011-192407.png

Edited by Khan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi TheFixer

Well, I believe good lighting makes it easer.

Despite a good sight, I feel more comfortable using loupe when a tool gets in contact with a component. 

Hand motion is more controllable under a loupe due to reach, which prevents slippery of chosen tool. 

But thats just my opinionB)

 

Edited by Khan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Khan said:

Hi TheFixer

Well, I believe good lighting makes it easer.

Despite a good sight, I feel more comfortable using loupe when a tool gets in contact with a component. 

Hand motion is more controllable under a loupe due to reach, which prevents slippery of screwdriver and scratches. 

But thats just my opinionB)

 

lighting I need to improve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use a 3.5x, obviously 10x is good for checking parts. I use Cousins clip on as i need Glasses for Reading etc. As said lighting is very important, surprising how things look so much easier. But we all have our own ways, and techniques, so best to find what your most comfy with.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

Have any of you tried Dental/Doctor Magnifiers? I've found I need stereo vision while working on movements. I get migraines frequently and I've found the single loupe to trigger them. I currently have a visor that just doesn't stay in place, so I was hoping someone had experience working with these.

s-l1600.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are uncommon among watchmakers. Since the object you're working on is small and doesn't move, unlike an human, when strong magnification is needed a stereo microscope is used instead.

 

 

Edited by jdm
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be interested to see if anyone's using this type of magnifier, the different models vary in magnification and working distance.. I just dislike loupes, and tend to spend a lot of time with my microscope - which is great but not always ideal for everything.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I invested in some Carl Zeiss binocular magnifiers some years ago. They are fairly adjustable, but if you have different doipter needs for each eye are useless. They are only 2.3x mag, compared to 3.5, 4, or 5x which is typical. The working distance is quite large though.

I put them on sometimes, but honestly if I'm the least bit struggling with my 3.5x loupe I slide over to the binocular microscope. Way easier. I highly recommend AO (american optical) scopes, they are under the radar and equivalent to modern Leitz and Nikon scopes. You can always get a dud though (true for any scope 30+ years old).

There are some new "magnivisor" type binocular loupes that have been coming out, with LED lights and everything that look kinda cool, but actually my biggest concern is the lighting, as it's often easier to assess something with a fixed light source.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a dentist, I have been using binocular loupes for almost 20 years. But it's just unnatural to use it for watch repair. When doing watch repair, I prefer to hunch up with the watch right in front of my nose, with wrist and elbow supports. I find that this gives me the best stability, especially after a cup of coffee.

And binocular loupes have many designs. The 1 in the picture might not be suitable for everyone. It offers adjustable interpupillary distance, but there is no adjustment for declination angle and optical plane height. So unless your face fit the frames perfectly, the loupes might not work for you.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

I'm looking for recommendations based on everyone's experience for the optimal loupe magnification/focal length that works the best for pallet jewel or escape wheel lubrication with 9415 grease. Is 10X sufficient or does higher power work better; if the latter is true at what point is the focal length too close for practicality?

I've been using a hand-held 10X triplet lens for that one task but looking for an aplanatic eye loupe, and they're available as 10X, 12X, 14X. Any thoughts and experiences are appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, fixermole said:

I'm looking for recommendations based on everyone's experience for the optimal loupe magnification/focal length that works the best for pallet jewel or escape wheel lubrication

What works for me may not work for you - personal preferences.

x10 is fine, anything more - you will have to get closer, less comfortable to work with.

I like using microscope. You may want to read this:

https://meijitechno.com/how-to-change-magnification-on-stereo-microscopes/

select EMZ-5 as an example with x10 eyepieces and note he working distance, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • somewhere in the universe although as I'm answering this I remembered which discussion group. Somebody had a similar question loss basically expanded it to the watch would totally disintegrate in my think like 30 years. I'd have to go back and find the original discussion if I can the person seem to think that they hairspring would disintegrate like you describe and just metal on metal wearing out the entire watch. Except of course we all work on watches over 30 years and they obviously do not disintegrate. Plus somebody came along and explained why hairsprings do not have the same issues as mainsprings. Although hairsprings do end up with watchmakers insisting on bending and playing with them and torturing them etc. and that obviously is not good for the metal at all. one of the problems that you're having here it is what is the purpose of the test that started this discussion? Let me go and snip out the original image as you can see from images above this watch is horrible. Or is it? What is the purpose of the images up above in other words what exactly would use this test for? The real purpose this test is show the effect of amplitude on timekeeping. Or specifically you're looking for mechanical issues that are causing fluctuations in amplitude which unfortunately shows up  with timekeeping. or basically everything affects timekeeping but amplitude is affected by the mechanical characteristics of the watch from the mainspring to the balance wheel and unfortunately as it's a mechanical watch your always going to have power fluctuations. so how do we rule out unacceptable fluctuations versus the natural characteristic of the watch? Usually if you can find a repeating pattern you can narrow it down to the offending components for instance I'm attaching a PDF. on the second page of the PDF it talks about 21st-century equipment versus paper tape timing machines. Then they give an example of timing problems solely caused by a faulty component. although off you have a user's manual for a paper tape machine it does explain that you can find faulty components by looking at the variations on your paper tape seeing how often they repeat and do the same thing without the fancy software. Even though it was claimed that you couldn't do that in other words you couldn't find a pattern? One of the problems that comes up with modern LCD-based timing machines versus software is limited screen size. In other words it makes it very hard to look for patterns you'll see variations in numbers but it's hard to tell what's going on which is why the display above is really nice to see if there is a problem. for instance here's a paper printout from a witschi timing machine it does look distorted because I changed the speed at which the image would move across the screen. In other words I was trying to figure out a way to extend the screen to being much longer as I was looking for a pattern as you can see there doesn't appear to be a pattern at all so basically we end up with a watch that I cannot time at all they cannot really figure out what the problem is and I actually cannot find a pattern even begin the figure out where the problem might be. Plus I agreed to service this watch for free as I was going to use it for the purposes of a lecture. In other words it's a nice railroad grade pocket watch and I wanted to show before how horrible amplitude is and how wonderful it looks after serviced and after servicing it looked exactly the same still horrible. Then I used software for a clock timing machine and came up with this interesting image one a minor problems we have with time plots and  how they look is that they all do things a little bit differently. So this was occurring approximately every five minutes. Then we need another chart then I replaced something in the watch and we now get this one of the things that I was always bothered with was if I had put the hands on after servicing would the watch have Time? Because the pattern was repeating the watch would average that out may  it would have Time. Oh and what did I change somebody had swapped the mainspring barrel for something different were getting a binding between the mainspring in the center wheel pinion. so the problem you're having is what exactly is the problem? the purpose of the test image is to look for mechanical problems causing amplitude problems. Because it's a mechanical watch your always going to have variations so are the variations in this watch abnormal or normal for this watch? Once we eliminate the mechanical issues beyond it's a mechanical watch then you can work on timing issues. for timing issues I recommend going back to the normal display that were used to and make sure you have your averaging times set correctly. In other words while the graphical display is basically real time years of the numbers are averaged over time. Anywhere from 20 to 40 seconds depending upon whose specs you're looking at. So basically they will average out the problems were seeing on this time plot.   one of my amusements with students that go to the same school is that you have different instructors. So this gives you different experiences like what exactly is tight anyway as I don't remember any thing like this? Then did you know that Rolex at least in Geneva as I visited their service center replace all the screws in the watch every time they service the watch. then why did they do that because they use power screwdrivers and tighten those things down as tight as you can get them which has a problem. How many times can you tighten screw down really tight before the hints break off. So they replace the screws every single time. So personally I don't think they have to be so tight that you're in danger snapping head off that's too tight in my opinion. but the screws definitely shouldn't be falling out either which I've occasionally see and where people just don't tighten their screws tight enough.   Horologica Times -- May 2004 From the Workshop witschi time plot.pdf
    • I guess it is a possibility, but the train wheel bridge was pressed down all the way so I'm not so sure. Then again, the screws weren't tightened at all (imagine being screwed down all the way but using a piece of Rodico instead of a screwdriver). Anyway, the movement is now fully stripped so we'll have to see once I've assembled it again. BTW I found the post where @nickelsilver wrote about tightening screws: As he writes: "In school, if your screws aren't tight, like you think they might snap, you get your movement tossed in the sawdust box!" I'm really curious to know why it is so important to tighten the screws that hard. I usually stop when it feels like there is no chance the screw can start to unscrew itself. Also, screwing down that hard requires perfectly dressed and perfectly sized screwdrivers to avoid slippage and/or damaging the screw slot.
    • This place has them, cheaper than I saw on ebay and they appear to be a legitimate supplier: https://maddisonsofdurham.co.uk/watch-parts/capacitors/seiko-batteries-capacitors/seiko-capacitor-kinetic-30235mz-tc920s-5m42-5m22-5m23-battery-3023-5mz-3023-5my/?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjw7-SvBhB6EiwAwYdCASmviGb9G2ZGW3CtcUZBkNgglcgfPKoqnpOzrzruiPtm69f6DX7UGhoCKl4QAvD_BwE There is also a note at the bottom of the page about them being a newer type, with a slightly different part number.  
    • Are we ignoring  that another watch on tg showed similar rate fluctuation. Did I miss any conclusion made on this sigificant  point ?    Springs have high fatigue threshold,   meaning angle of  bend/distortion  has to be very sharp to cause material fatigue .  An evidence to this point is the bend we form at end of terminal curve or the bend at the collet,  are we causing fatigue there? definately not.       
    • Yes, I do have the Seitz pivot gauge which is worth a small fortune these days. Got mine for about £200 which I thought to be crazy expensive at the time, but I've now seen asking prices over twice that. And no, I do not have the scaled pin gauge, but it would be convenient. Let me know if you find them! Anyway, the Seitz pivot gauge is in my opinion not really necessary if you have the JKA Feintaster. It can measure even the very small pivots w/o making any dents. One will have to be a lot more careful when using the Bergeon micrometres.
×
×
  • Create New...