Home PageAbout MindatThe Mindat ManualHistory of MindatCopyright StatusWho We AreContact UsAdvertise on Mindat
Donate to MindatCorporate SponsorshipSponsor a PageSponsored PagesMindat AdvertisersAdvertise on Mindat
Learning CenterWhat is a mineral?The most common minerals on earthInformation for EducatorsMindat ArticlesThe ElementsThe Rock H. Currier Digital LibraryGeologic Time
Minerals by PropertiesMinerals by ChemistryAdvanced Locality SearchRandom MineralRandom LocalitySearch by minIDLocalities Near MeSearch ArticlesSearch GlossaryMore Search Options
The Mindat ManualAdd a New PhotoRate PhotosLocality Edit ReportCoordinate Completion ReportAdd Glossary Item
Mining CompaniesStatisticsUsersMineral MuseumsClubs & OrganizationsMineral Shows & EventsThe Mindat DirectoryDevice SettingsThe Mineral Quiz
Photo SearchPhoto GalleriesSearch by ColorNew Photos TodayNew Photos YesterdayMembers' Photo GalleriesPast Photo of the Day GalleryPhotography
╳Discussions
💬 Home🔎 Search📅 LatestGroups
EducationOpen discussion area.Fakes & FraudsOpen discussion area.Field CollectingOpen discussion area.FossilsOpen discussion area.Gems and GemologyOpen discussion area.GeneralOpen discussion area.How to ContributeOpen discussion area.Identity HelpOpen discussion area.Improving Mindat.orgOpen discussion area.LocalitiesOpen discussion area.Lost and Stolen SpecimensOpen discussion area.MarketplaceOpen discussion area.MeteoritesOpen discussion area.Mindat ProductsOpen discussion area.Mineral ExchangesOpen discussion area.Mineral PhotographyOpen discussion area.Mineral ShowsOpen discussion area.Mineralogical ClassificationOpen discussion area.Mineralogy CourseOpen discussion area.MineralsOpen discussion area.Minerals and MuseumsOpen discussion area.PhotosOpen discussion area.Techniques for CollectorsOpen discussion area.The Rock H. Currier Digital LibraryOpen discussion area.UV MineralsOpen discussion area.Recent Images in Discussions
Mineral PhotographyCold Light unit.
24th May 2012 17:26 UTCStephen Eglinton
Most units that i have seen pictured show only 1, or 2 at best.
Steve.
24th May 2012 21:45 UTCEugene & Sharon Cisneros Expert
The most common fiber optic sources have one output port, but two port units are available. (see attachment) The goosenecks are only available with one or two light guides.
From my experience, single port sources, with single goosenecks, are easier to position from any angle. Also, having just checked our dealer catalogs, I see that two port sources are more expensive than two single port sources. Go figure....
eBay is a good source for used sources and goosenecks.
Gene
24th May 2012 22:14 UTCKelly Nash 🌟 Expert
24th May 2012 22:19 UTCEugene & Sharon Cisneros Expert
Gene
25th May 2012 01:51 UTCStephen Eglinton
As i am looking to use the lighting for macro purposes (on specimens up to 5 cm), i was supposing i would require three points of light. Hence three goose necks. I can't see where one or even two would do the job on sizes this large.
I would not have thought this form of lighting would be so difficult to use Gene, as in "positioning". Especially when compared to Flash, which is what i am moving away from... just too difficult.
The German photo company Novoflex made a cold light unit ( called the Macolight Plus) with 3 light guides. I thought... "GREAT!", but it operated using flash, where as i am looking for constant lighting. Also, they have now discontinued it, so that's settled that.
Steve.
25th May 2012 09:41 UTCHarald Schillhammer Expert
I once had a look at this system. It combines permanent light for positioning and can be switched to a Xenon flash for actual photography.
I wrote to them for further information and never received a reply so I opted for something else - the sugarcube offered by EdmundOptics which is incredibly bright but unfortunately also uses only two-armed fibre optics.
Cheers
25th May 2012 11:48 UTCBart Cannon
They have a lovely 16 inch goose neck pure white LED illuminator.
FOR TEN DOLLARS !!
I bought four of them.
Bart
25th May 2012 11:56 UTCHarald Schillhammer Expert
-------------------------------------------------------
> Go to IKEA..
>
> They have a lovely 16 inch goose neck pure white
> LED illuminator.
>
> FOR TEN DOLLARS !!
>
> I bought four of them.
>
> Bart
Same here :). These Jansjö LEDs are great - if you have a rather vibration free working environment. In addition, manual white balance is mandatory. Virtually all my micro images on mindat have been taken with those lamps. But once I start to go for larger magnification ratio (20:1) I want brighter illumination.
I recently tested the new Nikon D800E, which at a ratio of 10:1 acts like seismometer, and I found out that for my working environment this camera is too sensitive AFA vibration is concerned. Despite the 36 Mpix I have no gain in resolution compared to the 12 Mpix of my D3 but triple file size unless I can achieve an illumination which allows me to work with shutter times of 1/800 or shorter.
Cheers
25th May 2012 14:18 UTCStephen Eglinton
SO WANTED the Visionary system, but for two problems... never heard back (as well), and they do not bring it into Australia. Would have been perfect! Regardless, my thanks for your advice Harry.
The IKEA is brilliant, but simply not bright enough for the size i am shooting. However, i am still considering it for the few mm size specimens i have... yes, i think we all have them. Who's to quibble over IKEAs tiny price. Thanks Bart for the tip. It would work tremendously with my Jeffrey mine Grossular.
I was looking at the Leica LED today... NICE!!!, but again, underwhelming light output for any larger magnification. And the price... OUCH!
Any way, SO tired of trying to put together an appropriate, lighting system, i have ordered a Leica 150W system (with only two light guide arms). It was interesting to learn that to add a third light guide goose neck to a cold light unit means a drop in light intensity. The nice thing about the system is that light focusing attachments can be added. This sold me over Schott and Volpi. My Nikon D700 is still unused, sitting in the box for the last year. Maybe now, once the Leica arrives, i can finally start to upload pics to Mindat.
Cheers guys.
Steve.
25th May 2012 15:11 UTCKelly Nash 🌟 Expert
I now shoot most specimens up to 5 or 6 cm. using a dual gooseneck microscope illuminator ($99). For thumbnails especially, it works well. I spread the light with pieces of frosted mylar taped to the ends of the tubes. A third light source would be nice, but not critical, two on either side of the camera pointed directly at the specimen are usually plenty. I have moved away from using my gooseneck halogens much because I got tired of burning my fingers and heating up the room.
25th May 2012 20:08 UTCEugene & Sharon Cisneros Expert
LED lamps that I have used do not have sufficient output for high magnification shots. Ikea type lamps are also problematic due to heat and low light output.
Gene
3rd Jun 2012 09:27 UTCStephen Eglinton
Just got back. Thanks for your advice. Noted your experience with LED.
I have been given two choices with the Leica Cold Light fiber optic: 150W Halogen and 150W LED. I have seen the Halogen... 150W really puts out a lot of brightness. So i'll see how much their 150W LED produces, when it arrives.
Steve.
5th Jun 2012 02:59 UTCEugene & Sharon Cisneros Expert
After reviewing a number of articles on the current state of LED illuminators, it is apparent that the technology has rapidly evolved and is overtaking the Halogen illuminators in light output. Two major advantages for LED lighting, of course, are efficiency and long life. These new units appear to be far better than the units that I have tried. Unfortunately, the high output LED illuminators are still very expensive.
Can you give me details on the unit that you are getting? I would be interested in the specifications. Until such time that I win the lottery, I must resign myself to using my several surplus Halogen units.
One last note. I don't agree with some of the advertizing statements that manufacturers make for the LED illuminators. Several companies advertize 150W LED fiber optic illuminators and that is inconsistent with their specifications, which state a power consumption of 18 W. If they could get 150W out of a device which has a power consumption of 18W, I would be among the first to buy their stock! If they would say "light output equivalent to a 150W Halogen", it would be more appropriate.
Gene
6th Jun 2012 08:46 UTCStephen Eglinton
I will get in touch with the dealer so as to get the full run down on the LED model, and get back to you probably in a day or so.
Hope you do win the Lottery mate... judging by the obscene US Lottery pay out figure, you could afford to shout me the LED system:)-D
Steve.
9th Jun 2012 07:52 UTCStephen Eglinton
Here's a copy of my discussion with the Leica dealer-technician, in regards to your query:
On 08/06/2012, at 1:10 PM, wrote:
Hi Steve,
Regarding the specs for the Leica 150W LED cold light source, I haven’t got much to give you since Robert is away for another 2 weeks and I’m quite unsure of which he had ordered in for you to look at. But hopefully it will come soon.
On Gene’s email in the last note part, he was spot on and I agree that it should be made clear to customers that a light source consuming 18W can give “light output equivalent to a 150W Halogen”. Since we all know that we can only get out (at best) what we put in, so to say getting 150W out of 18W in is not correct.
These energy saving lamps and LED lamps are much more efficient at producing light without creating much heat, which is the main energy waste in the Halogens .
Hope this help,
Quang.
Thank you Quang for your reply.
I look forward to the specifications on the Leica 150W LED... as soon as you are able. I would access the specs if i could, but to obtain them from the Leica website is an impossible exercise... i don't know how long i was chasing them, eventually came away with nothing.
Staying tuned,
Steve.
I'll get the specifications to you Gene, as soon as i receive them myself.(tu)
Very best,
Steve.
9th Jun 2012 20:17 UTCEugene & Sharon Cisneros Expert
As I mentioned before, I tried a few FO illuminators in the past and then resigned myself to the idea that they were not as good as Halogen illiuminators. Now that you have revived the subject, I am having second thoughts. Unfortunately, after a half a day researching the subject, I cannot reconcile which actually has more light output. It is clear that Halogen bulbs produce greater luminous flux than current LEDs, but there are other considerations such as coupling efficiency to the FO conduits. Here are the numbers.
Quartz Halogen efficiency = 24 lumens/watt So, 24 lumens/watt x 150 watts = 3600 lumens
LED efficiency = 100 lumens/watt So, 100 lumens/watt x 18 watts = 1800 lumens
(300 lumens/watt is the theoretical limit for LEDs, but because of the problems with keeping the LED junction cool, the practical limit is currently 100 lumens/watt.)
The above would lead one to believe that Halogen wins by a factor of two. However, to further complicate matters, one manufacturer states the following.
I am skeptical of the manufacturer's claims. My engineering experience tell me that it is theoretically possible, but perhaps it is not yet a reality. Ganging LED, through some type of optical coupler and efficient cooling methods would be necessary to beat the current output of the Halogens. Perhaps someone has solved the problem...
I also searched for information on Leica LED 150W sources and found nothing, even on their website. So, now you have me really curious as to what may be available. BTW, the LED "150W" illuminators that I have found range in price from $600 to $1300.
When I win the lottery, I will buy two of them for you. But don't hold your breath, because I don't buy lottery tickets. :-D
Gene
10th Jun 2012 15:41 UTCStephen Eglinton
Read your message with much interest, and thanks. Yep, it is very involved!
Will get back to you with the specs, after i see the technician on Tuesday.
That manufacturers quote you presented, "Photonics" is mentioned. Along side Leicas' own equipment, Schott and Photonics both make FO & LED for Leica... with the Leica name stamped on them. It is the Photonics equipment i am looking at... the CLS range. Do not try searching for it, you will be wasting your time... i am not surprised you have found nothing. This was my experience as well.
I am now waiting for the LED kit to arrive to visually and photographically compare the two differing light types. Think i'll try both on a Dioptase, that will give them a challenge!
BTW: i can give you some prices:
The Photonics Halogen CLS 150 X (with mechanical & electronic brightness control AND separate constant & adjustable colour temperature): $Aust 1,171.
The Photonics Halogen CLS 150 XD (same, but with the colour temperature displayed on a meter... and a few other niceties): $Aust 2,126.
The Photonics LED CLS 150: $Aust 1,496.
I just found some earlier notes from the dealer:
"The CLS150 LED outputs about the same light as a standard halogen CLS with a daylight filter.
Remember however that the LED version has a blue color ie 6000K
Standard CLS halogen is 3400K
Standard CLS with a daylight filter is 5000k"
Oh, and Gene... a beer will suffice then.:)-D
Bye for now,
Steve.
10th Jun 2012 16:15 UTCReiner Mielke Expert
13th Jun 2012 11:40 UTCStephen Eglinton
Isn't asia the source for everything now days!!!
Steve.
13th Jun 2012 11:47 UTCStephen Eglinton
Hope this download works!
Steve.
13th Jun 2012 17:23 UTCOwen Lewis
That's a path to the desktop folder on your PC. Interesting but not a lot of use :-) If you can e-mail a copy privately to Gene, perhaps he would be so kind as to put it on his site and post a URL to it here?
It's an interesting thread. I've also pondered for a while on the (in)efficiency of coupling in my 150W halogen light box. I think it unlikely that the coupling can be more efficient than about 20% :-( If that's about right then the lower output LED approach should clearly deliver more payload onto the target.
13th Jun 2012 17:26 UTCOwen Lewis
13th Jun 2012 19:34 UTCHolger Klapproth
I came across the problem of not getting enough light out of the IKEA LED lamps on an excursion. We sorted that by fixing a 10x lens in front of the lamp to focus the light more tightly. That worked really nicely and may be the cheapest option to illuminate micromounts. As we were on excursion we just used sticky tape - and we had a well focused light beam that enabled us to see tiny things with our old excursion microscope (that just sucks up light...).
Best Regards
Holger
14th Jun 2012 03:45 UTCJames Christopher
29th Nov 2012 06:09 UTCGreglee
29th Nov 2012 10:37 UTCOwen Lewis
That said, some cold light gooseneck systems (like one of mine) do not transmit the light via a single fibre but rather through an approx 5-6mm bundle of such fibres.
None of the systems I use (QH(2) and Xenon arc (1)) utilises a lens system to improve the efficiency of light capture, using no more than elliptical(?) reflectors. Accordingly, all are quite lossy. They do the job though.
Mindat.org is an outreach project of the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
Copyright © mindat.org and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2024, except where stated. Most political location boundaries are © OpenStreetMap contributors. Mindat.org relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters. Founded in 2000 by Jolyon Ralph.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us / DMCA issues - Report a bug/vulnerability Current server date and time: May 10, 2024 00:05:35
Copyright © mindat.org and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2024, except where stated. Most political location boundaries are © OpenStreetMap contributors. Mindat.org relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters. Founded in 2000 by Jolyon Ralph.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us / DMCA issues - Report a bug/vulnerability Current server date and time: May 10, 2024 00:05:35