Bino Book--the never-ending saga (1 Viewer)

Hi Guys:

Not having the time to write a personal letter to folks who have shown an interest in my taking-forever bino book, I’ve chosen the broadcast method—sorry about that.

Originally conceived to simply address the MANY misconceptions about binocular performance and the bino industry, I diddled with writing it over a 13-year period, while dealing with personal, employment, familial, church, and naval responsibilities. On retiring, it was a priority to get the sucker done and out the door.

I even had a contract with a competent and established publisher. However, remembering other books on binoculars from days gone by, it seemed that MY book that HE was publishing was rapidly becoming HIS book that I was writing. I tried to convince the gentleman that being inside the instruments and industry, every day for decades, I had a little more to offer than the freelancer who will write about fishing gear today, car stereos tomorrow, and the best pizza in town on Friday.

I totally understand and respect it that a publisher has the greatest need to decide on projects have the best shot at making money for the publishing company. Still, after giving tidbits away for so long—seeing Billisms (credited and not credited) all over the Internet—and having received such praise for my contributions, I felt I had a pretty good idea of what the people wanted and in what manner they would like it delivered. Thus, we were at a continuous impasse.

Working with others and modifying the book, so as to jump through the hoops set forth by other publishing houses, it kept changing format and growing in size. And with each iteration of the book proposal, my goal of giving the observer direct, hard-hitting information kept being watered down by the addition of more traditional (read: boring) data . . . again, presented as someone else wanted.

Now, in talks with a publisher known for their science stuff and which has an astronomy series, I find I had to direct my thoughts to the astronomy audience—leaving out allusion’s to bird watchers, hunters, navigators, and others. But it seem it was that or nothing. I don’t want to keep this sucker growing in size and shrinking in impact. On the other hand, I don’t want the headaches of self-publishing, either.

So, unless this company continues to place more hoops before me, it looks like I will go with them. Then once published, I will direct birders to the book. The editor has said good things about my experience and credentials. And, as a wise man once said—or maybe he said it twice—“flattery will get you . . . everywhere.”

More later--sorry about that.

Bill

Bill,

Good Luck! with Springer (it’s Springer, isn’t it?). I once pitched a book idea to a Springer editor on the history and future of amateur telescopes. I’m not a telescope expert, but we have experienced ATMers in my astro club, and being in charge of the guest speakers for the Black Forest Star Party for several years, I was able to recruit notable speakers from the astronomy community such as Ed Ting, Leif Robinson (former editor of S&T), and Sue French, among others. We also had John Dobson as a a keynote speaker one year (the old coot lived to be 98!)

I worked on this when I wasn’t busy writing about “fishing gear today, car stereos tomorrow, and the best pizza in town on Friday.” Actually, I’m the "regional business analyst" for a business newspaper that covers 22 counties in Pa. and also eastern Ohio and southern NY, so my themes are broader and more in-depth than those local stories. After 22 years experience as a business journalist, I have developed some competence in the subjects I write about.

One of the club’s ATMers was going to provide the technical expertise for the book (he still had his old Criterion Dynascope from the 1960s and knew ATMers who had developed cutting edge technologies that were being licensed to leading telescope companies). My role was to provide the writing chops. One thing about experts, they may know their stuff, but not all of them know how to write an intelligible English sentence, and even some who do don't necessarily have the time or patience it takes to write a book. As I recently learned on the Leica sub-forum, not everyone knows how to read an intelligible English sentence without misunderstanding it over and over again. So it works both ways.

When my collaborator learned that Springer would take 90% of the profits from the book, and that he would have to share half of the remaining 10% with me, well, that was the end of the project. Nobody writes a Springer book to become rich (though Patrick Moore probably did okay with his series), but rather to make your mark by putting your years of expertise down in book form, which could open other doors such as speaking engagements and offers to write articles in national magazines.

You’ve written extensively about astronomy binoculars on Cloudy Nights, but I hope that the editor will give you enough leeway to include information about smaller aperture binoculars that have multiple applications including birding such as your beloved 8x32 SE.

As long as your gruff, curmudgeony personality comes through in your prose and doesn’t suffer too many strikethroughs by an editor’s heavy hand, it should be a very informative and enjoyable read. Keep us apprised.

Brock

Ringo's in Southern California, Paul is in Florida and New York, as is Jeremy Clyde, and Chad Stewart (actually Stewart Chadwick) is in Idaho . . .

Curmudgeon will be back when I finish a lengthy project.

Bill :C Humbug . . . Bah!

Bill,

In the early 1990s I wrote 25 bi-monthly Silver Buckle Collector articles for the now defunct magazine Basically Buckles. (Note that my current Nom de plume is elkcub; 'buckle' spelled backwards.) Since I retained the copyrights (righto, the magazine publisher wasn't all that smart), and the articles covered everything including Amerindian, Cowboy, Elizabethan, British Nurses, Rodeo, Mexican, Dutch, and so forth, one would think (at least I did) that it would be a no-brainer for some publisher to pick up on a fantastic collector's reference book. After all, these guys compete to publish collector books on everything from glass marbles to trading cards. But, my supposition was incorrect. The problem lay in the fact that there already were books on glass marbles to paper trading cards and pet rocks. Got it? My book would have been unique (or so it was thought), and, hence, too risky. Anyway, having more important things to do at the time, the book never got off the ground (and except for high-end cowboy buckles in Robert Brandes' fantastic collection, nothing else has since appeared that's worth a spit). Nowadays, because of the Internet it's even harder; originality and hard work are expected to be given away for free.

I feel your pain.

Best regards,
Ed

Hi Brock & Ed:

Bill,

Good Luck! with Springer (it’s Springer, isn’t it

--Give Brock a kewpie doll!

I once pitched a book idea to a Springer editor on the history and future of amateur telescopes. I’m not a telescope expert, but we have experienced ATMers in my astro club, and being in charge of the guest speakers for the Black Forest Star Party for several years, I was able to recruit notable speakers from the astronomy community such as Ed Ting, Leif Robinson (former editor of S&T), and Sue French, among others.

--I suppose you know Leif was more of a birdwatcher than an astronomer. He was never far from his Zeiss 10x40s. We were chatting about astro-things, behind the clubhouse at Riverside ’95, when he spied a bird he was interest in (preposition at the end and all). Well, the conversation got pretty choppy after that.

We also had John Dobson as a keynote speaker one year (the old coot lived to be 98!)

--Sadly, I never was enamored with John as many of my friends or amateur astronomy as a whole. There is no doubt at he did wonders for amateur astronomy AND amateur telescope making, and I appreciate and respect that tremendously! But in the times I met with him, he seemed a little over the top for me.

--At TMSP, in the early 90s, I gave him all the back issues of ATMJ and a couple of ATMJ T-shirts. One of the issues had the layout of a Stevick-Paul on the cover. As I presented my hard work and expense to John, he grabbed that issue, turned it to his doting audience and said: “This is what I mean; we don’t need all this stuff.” And, he continued to extol the Dobsonian as being the beat-all/end-all of telescopes. Did he thank me for the $20 in magazines, or the $20 in T-shirts I had just given him? He didn’t even acknowledge my presence.

--As a proponent of telescope making from my early teen years, and one who knows a bit about the development of stress in a substrate, I was also appalled with his video, in which he drives a nail down in a picnic table with the edge of a mirror blank. I know what he was trying to say; that I applaud. But, that kind of thing can have severe consequences—especially in times of even moderate temperature changes.

I worked on this when I wasn’t busy writing about “fishing gear today, car stereos tomorrow, and the best pizza in town on Friday.”

--Then you know, what I said is true . . . doncha? ‘Cmon, admit it . . . doncha? I sure do, I’ve written for 18 marine magazines! I would like to get a steady gig with a birding mag, but as one noted ornithologist shared with me:

--“Magazine editors have heard the same old stuff for so long, they think they’ve heard it all; they just don’t know what they don’t know.”

--Even so, I was shot down by Birdwatching—again—just last week. But I’ll keep trying.

Actually, I’m the "regional business analyst" for a business newspaper that covers 22 counties in Pa. and also eastern Ohio and southern NY, so my themes are broader and more in-depth than those local stories. After 22 years experience as a business journalist, I have developed some competence in the subjects I write about.

--Wow! You’re covering 1/3 of the state—my wife’s family is from Johnston.

One thing about experts, they may know their stuff, but not all of them know how to write an intelligible English sentence, and even some who do don't necessarily have the time or patience it takes to write a book. As I recently learned on the Leica sub-forum, not everyone knows how to read an intelligible English sentence without misunderstanding it over and over again. So it works both ways.

--I received my first rejection notice at 15. I didn’t submit anything, anywhere! Unbeknownst to me, my English teacher submitted an assigned short story to Reader’s Digest. I switched from Broadcast to Print Journalism during my last year in College.

--The stroke has REALLY messed me up. I chose the wrong word, leave out a word, or two, or three in a row. Of course, the brain told me they were there; I only catchem during one of my 5 or 6 hundred proofing passes. That’s very bad. But, hey, it’s an old guy who’s had a stroke thing. (I originally typed “stroked think” )

When my collaborator learned that Springer would take 90% of the profits from the book, and that he would have to share half of the remaining 10% with me, well, that was the end of the project. Nobody writes a Springer book to become rich (though Patrick Moore probably did okay with his series), . . .

--I think they are looking at mine for his series. Also, I would rather have 10% of a lot that 50% of very few.

. . . but rather to make your mark by putting your years of expertise down in book form, which could open other doors such as speaking engagements and offers to write articles in national magazines.

--I’m already IN national magazines—two articles in Cruising Outpost last month, one coming up in War Cry next month, and another in Sea History, when I can get the m/s to them. It’s getting back to the articles and rebuilding my writing and lecturing business that keeps taking lumps as Springer puts more hurdles before me.

You’ve written extensively about astronomy binoculars on Cloudy Nights, but I hope that the editor will give you enough leeway to include information about smaller aperture binoculars that have multiple applications including birding such as your beloved 8x32 SE.

--If they don’t, I’ll self-publish. I have made several concessions, already. I’m gonna hafta aim the sucker at amateur astronomers. I’ve already told them I would. But, I will personally promote it the birding community as well. After all, the book was started to help people—not make money.

--Following is a piece from the book:

--12 FOCUSING CENTER–FOCUS BINOCULARS: THE ORDER OF OPERATIONS

Fallacy: When focusing a binocular, you always focus your dominant eye first.
Fact: You must focus the instrument the way it was designed to be focused.

Center-focus binoculars must be focused in the order were designed to focus. With the majority the left telescope is focused first. Yes, there are some notable exceptions. Still, on more than 98% of all center-focus binoculars, the left side must be focused first; for good imagery, it’s not optional!

A customer once told me her optometrist said she should focus her right eye first because she was right-eye dominant. While I’m sure this doctor was qualified for his profession, and his observation would have worked fine for individual-focus instruments, he was very wrong in what he told his patient. Thus, based on “expert advice,” my customer had spent years using her expensive Leica binocular to produce images of lower quality than could be expected of many $50 drug store special, all the while believing there was something wrong with her eyes.

A one in a million situation? Sadly, no. From years of working with the general public, I estimate 20-25% of birding group members don’t know how to correctly focus their binocular.

As long as your gruff, curmudgeony personality comes through in your prose and doesn’t suffer too many strikethroughs by an editor’s heavy hand, it should be a very informative and enjoyable read. Keep us apprised.

--Look! You left the “L” out of curmudgeonly! I just told you of my textual problems. Now what are you doin’, trying to horn in on my handicap!!! Some people!!! Anyway, I don’t recall giving you this address!!! Leave me alone!!!

--How’s that? Oh, I’m certain they’ll force me to smooth of some of the edges. Considering it’s a book for everyone, not just those who know my sick humor, I will do so—to a point. I like the people I’m working with. However, if they want me to remove all the Billisms, personal philosophies, observations, and methods of delivery, I will have to give up on the project. They know how to sell books, but I know how to reach the reachable, and help them remember.

Ed:

--Yes, I know what you mean. Some people read MUCH faster than they think. ATMJ was a project for a retired person with discretionary money. I didn’t have that luxury. I loved telescope making so much, I worked it out with Richard Berry to pick up the reigns after TM bit the dust. I made it abundantly clear, to anyone who could understand what they were reading, that the Journal came as part of a membership in the ATMA. I wanted folks to realize we were ALL in it together.

--Here I was, working 40+ hours a week, dealing with an 80-mile a day commute in the nation’s 4th worst traffic, trying to juggle a young family—one member with special needs—Navy Reserve, church, and other responsibilities, between 10 pm and 2am . . . for 10 YEARS!!! (Thinking has never been my strong suit.) I would have hoped that those I was trying to help would have had a little mercy on me. The FEW who WOULD NOT took all the pleasure of helping the friendly masses—bellyaching about the “subscription” they didn’t have, as they would have KNOWN had they bothered to have read ANY of my editorials.

--ATMJ cost me over $20,000 and my health. But, I did the best I could!

--Cheers,

Bill

elkcub said:

Bill,

In the early 1990s I wrote 25 bi-monthly Silver Buckle Collector articles for the now defunct magazine Basically Buckles. (Note that my current Nom de plume is elkcub; 'buckle' spelled backwards.) Since I retained the copyrights (righto, the magazine publisher wasn't all that smart), and the articles covered everything including Amerindian, Cowboy, Elizabethan, British Nurses, Rodeo, Mexican, Dutch, and so forth, one would think (at least I did) that it would be a no-brainer for some publisher to pick up on a fantastic collector's reference book. After all, these guys compete to publish collector books on everything from glass marbles to trading cards. But, my supposition was incorrect. The problem lay in the fact that there already were books on glass marbles to paper trading cards and pet rocks. Got it? My book would have been unique (or so it was thought), and, hence, too risky. Anyway, having more important things to do at the time, the book never got off the ground (and except for high-end cowboy buckles in Robert Brandes' fantastic collection, nothing else has since appeared that's worth a spit). Nowadays, because of the Internet it's even harder; originality and hard work are expected to be given away for free.

I feel your pain.

Best regards,
Ed

Click to expand...

Ed:

Good of you to explain your forum name. I had thought you were about
Elk, and then I saw the cub, and I was confused.

Now we know the story, good of you to post about that.

Jerry

NDhunter said:

Ed:

Good of you to explain your forum name. I had thought you were about
Elk, and then I saw the cub, and I was confused.

Now we know the story, good of you to post about that.

Jerry

Click to expand...

Elk Cub . . . I thought he was a mad scientist.

Bill

Bill:

Best wishes with a book deal. I have enjoyed everything I have
seen you post, no matter how you or others judge it.

I like how you can get right on point.
I suppose that is an important thing, being in the military.
When repairing or judging optics, there is only one way, and that is
the right way.

Jerry

NDhunter said:

Bill:

Best wishes with a book deal. I have enjoyed everything I have
seen you post, no matter how you or others judge it.

I like how you can get right on point.
I suppose that is an important thing, being in the military.
When repairing or judging optics, there is only one way, and that is
the right way.

Jerry

Click to expand...

Hi Jerry:

You’re too kind. Nope it’s not military. I just have a penchant for the truth. Honesty is not the best policy, as some say; it is the ONLY policy. That has cost me, financially, throughout my life, and is the reason why I was kicked off Cloudy Nights for 13 months and counting. |8||

With my time at the bench and sales floor, I can spot a self-serving egotist from a mile. And when I see newbies and non-English speakers being subjected to stuff designed to accumulate an adoring following, my frustration meter gets pegged out. :C

People who disagree with me on optical matters can be very helpful to the community—they cause the thought juices to flow. But when people try to build themselves a fiefdom by dropping names and terms they’ve only READ about, and the moderators refuse to force them to divulge what verifiable work experiences, or academic credentials, they have that allows them to make outrageous claims that might cost the newbie time, money, or both, I just get wrapped around the axle. |=@|

I believe that if everyone who was highly experienced in his field would step to the plate to defend the new guy, there would be a great decrease in “shuck and jive” in every arena. :t:

Cheers,

Bill

Pileatus wrote:

“Bill,

“. . . Now that you piqued my interest, please explain to everyone why the left side should be focused first and exactly how this is performed by the user. Also, a complete chapter might be stimulating for you and your BF audience.

John . . .”

Before I continue that section from the book, I want to reiterate that if the bino is individual-focus, it doesn’t matter. However, realize that when you turn the center focus wheel, you're focusing BOTH SIDES. Thus, if you focus the right side first (on MOST binos), you will be DE-focusing it when you focus the left side.

The following is a continuation of point 12.

*****

. . . What to do? First, understand the center-focus mechanism actually focuses both sides. Initially, you need only pay attention to one side — almost always the left.

When the chosen target is in sharp focus, shift attention to your right eye and focus it by rotating the right diopter ring (focus mechanism) while viewing the same object. If you don’t focus on the same object, you haven’t accounted for the differences in your dioptric strengths and the instrument won’t be properly focused.

With the right eye now in sharp focus you may return to the center-focus wheel (or lever) for focusing at various distances until the instrument is used by another observer or until one of the adjustments has been inadvertently moved.

For optimal image quality, please remember these two additional points. First, just stare and let the binocular do the work.

Our tendency is to want things in focus, quickly. Thus if you’re not careful, the brain will force the ciliary muscles around the eyes to stretch and compress the eyeball to bring the image to focus. This can only be done at the expense of eyestrain, especially over long observing sessions.

Secondly, be aware that the lever-type center-focus mechanisms that some people believe be to a feature are really the bane of good imagery. If you or a friend own one of these binoculars, you may prove this to your own satisfaction.

Set the eyepieces all the way out with the lever. Then, place the lower axle on the end of your second or third finger, with your thumb on the extended upper end.

Now squeeze gently. See how easily the mechanism moves? When you focus the left eye (or the right eye on those designs), this weakness can cause it to defocus with just the pressure of holding the binocular against your face while trying to focus the other eye. The result? This design weakness may cause you to refocus incessantly in the hopes of maintaining a reasonable image.

WJC said:

Elk Cub . . . I thought he was a mad scientist.

Bill

Click to expand...

Arguably all scientists are mad. :flyaway:

Bill,

That sounds like a mess, and I hope you persevere and get a book out. It sounds like you have retired from proper work. This will surely furnish the aggravation that you are conditioned to.

I look forward to it. Your experience in the optics "real world", and the not quite "real world" of telescope making should combine to make a very interesting book. You write excellently, when you're not being deliberately obfuscationary!

Ron

ronh said:

Bill,

That sounds like a mess, and I hope you persevere and get a book out. It sounds like you have retired from proper work. This will surely furnish the aggravation that you are conditioned to.

I look forward to it. Your experience in the optics "real world", and the not quite "real world" of telescope making should combine to make a very interesting book. You write excellently, when you're not being deliberately obfuscationary!

Ron

Click to expand...

WHO'S obfuscationary? I take Ex-Lax twice a week! You must try to be more succinctimoneous.

Bill

WJC said:

WHO'S obfuscationary? I take Ex-Lax twice a week! You must try to be more succinctimoneous.

Bill

Click to expand...

I was going to respond to your honesty quote above,
but this is just as good

So many just want to hear what they want to hear
to confirm that you agree with them
that they were right all along

just too stressful to hear a different opinion

edj

edwincjones said:

I was going to respond to your honesty quote above,
but this is just as good

So many just want to hear what they want to hear
to confirm that you agree with them
that they were right all along

just too stressful to hear a different opinion

edj

Click to expand...

People have been very kind with the things they have said about me, as you have seen on CN. My favorite is one I'm proud to try to live up to:

"Bill Cook doesn't tell you what you want to hear; he tells you what you need to know." |=)|

You can't make a cake without breaking some eggs.

Bill

Okay guys, I’m tired. This is a first rough draft of section 20. Any comments before it becomes “soup”?

20 “I NEED TO HAVE THE OBJECTIVES PROFESSIONALLY CLEANED.”

The Fallacy: Good lens cleaning is an art beyond the capacity of most observers.

The Fact: In the immortal words of Aristotle: “Bull!”

A STORY (Caring too much causes stress; stress causes a lack of confidence and dexterity; a lack of dexterity can cause optics to be damaged.)

Ten or twelve years ago, a fellow brought in his 4.25-inch telescope mirror for a “professional” cleaning. He carefully unwrapped it handed it to me with the warning, “Be careful.” As I held it up to inspect from different angles, “Be careful,” sounded again, as it did two or three more times, as I walked to my nearby office—the customer glued to my heels.

He obviously had a greatly exaggerated view of his “precision optics”—a ¾-inch chunk of soda lime plate glass.

I only mention this as a warning; because I find more overly concerned personalities damage their optics by attaching unrealistic attributes and value to them, and creating over-the-top cleaning techniques, than they would treating them reasonable care.

But then, just as there’s rarely a quantifier for “better or best,” each observer has his or her own view of what constitutes “reasonable care.”

But just what is the “best” chemical ingredient for cleaning lenses?

This topic comes up frequently on binocular forums, and usually runs on page after page after page, as those heavy on opinions, but often light on practical experience, vie to see who can pee the farthest!

WHAT DID I USE?

Because I was a “professional,” I frequently encountering those who wanted to know what I used in my everyday work with optics. I had to admit I had no expensive, secret formula for cleaning optics—only convenience and common sense. I subscribed to Theodore Roosevelt’s mantra of: “Do what you can, where you are, with what you have.”

When I found it necessary—usually out of a customer-driven need for speed—I might clean a lens over a sink, washing it with a mild hand soap, and drying it off with soft toilet tissue or a scrap of clean, used tee shirt, saved for just such a duty. Sacrilege . . .? Hardly.

1. Blow off loose particulates with a manually operated, atmospheric pressurizer . . . an air bulb! Or . . .

2. Use a camel hair brush to gentle wipe away dust. By the way, camel hair brushes may consist of squirrel, horse, ox, goat, or even bear hair. However, they’re never made of . . . camel hair. Or . . .

3. Use a shot or two of canned air! Hold the can upright—8 inches or so from the workpiece, and gently move it over the surface. If you shake it, move it too quickly, or don’t hold the can erect, you run the risk of spraying propellant on the element. That’s not the kiss of death, as some believe—especially if you take care in removing it. Still, it can cause problems, later. So, unless you’re confident, leave canned air out of the equation.

Optical cleaning solutions and techniques come with all sorts of formulae and recommendations. You’ve seen them: Mix 1% this with 3% that, and then add . . . These can take 300 words to describe and be confusing to some. Such formulas may be useful for medical applications, or in some aerospace environs, but are incredible wastes of time for, even the most critical binocular observer.

I found three off-the-shelf cleaning solutions to be the most practical.

The first is a light ammonium hydroxide mixture, known to the more scientific among us as NH4OH. To make this chemical, you start with 4 ounces of household ammonia, to which you add 16 ounces of rubbing alcohol, and add 1 tsp of dishwashing liquid. After this, add enough water to fill up a 1-gallon container.

To those lacking in spare time, or don’t care about besting their neighbor’s secret formula, I would recommend buying it off the shelf; it’s commonly called Windex®. Windex has been around since 1933, and has part of the S. C. Johnson family of products since 1993. The chemical giving Windex its blue color is called “Aqua Tint.” It’s not necessary, but filled an important marketing role; it showed homemakers they were buying something other than water. Aqua Tint, not being readily available, you may use a few drops blue . . . foot dye.

The second product I found indispensable was De-Solv-It, made by Orange-Sol. Sold in about 60 retail chains in the U.S., it can be found in most leading grocery stores. But, if you already Windex, why do you need anything else? Because different stains and films require different cleaners. De-Solv-it (also around since the ‘30s, although originally sold under a different name) will quickly remove certain stains acetone will struggle with, just as acetone will remove things De-Solv-it won’t touch.

THE PLOT THICKENS

The final product I use is acetone—(CH3)2CO. As pointed out earlier, acetone is NOT the culprit in the removing of lens coatings, nor is it, despite the urban legends, a carcinogen!

Even so, there are some important cautions that should accompany its use.

1. Acetone will dry your hands quickly. Thus, skin cream or baby oil should be applied, if you get even as much as a teaspoon of it on your hands.

2. Dissolving some plastics instantly, caution should be taken when working around plastics or foam of any type. A former co-worker once dropped a touch of paint on my new HP printer, and thinking he would quickly wipe it off with a rag doused acetone, before it had time to set. Within less than three seconds, he had the tiny drop of black paint speared over the side of my new printer and fibers, from the dirty red cleaning rag imbedded in the, now soft plastic, as well. Further cleaning was forever out of the question; I could only learn to appreciate the printer’s new artistic look.

3. Acetone was my most useful solvent. It dries quickly—although not nearly as quick as ether, which also has a place in cleaning precision optics. But, that was part of the problem. ACETONE is hydroscopic, and will draw water from the air. Special reagent acetone is not called for; the hardware store chemical is just fine. To use on optical surfaces, however, it must be “dry.” A cotton swab, holding a drop of acetone, that would perform its job wonderfully, would be worse than useless should you wait even 15 seconds to use it. Why useless? Because, being hydroscopic, it would just cause a move sheen around. You would grow old trying to clean, and exceed only in making a bigger mess!

So, to use this godsend (small “g”) chemical, you should touch the swab to the acetone, wipe the surface, in swirling motions—starting at the center—and discard the swab, forever, by the 8th second—5th would be even better.

When speaking of cotton swabs, I mean surgical swabs (~$10.00 per 1,000, 2014 price), with a wooden applicator. If you try to use a “Q-tip®,” with its soft plastic applicator, you will immediately melt the plastic and make a terrible mess on the workpiece. Urban legends notwithstanding, acetone is safe and efficient to use, as long as it’s mixed in equal portions with common sense.

THE TISSUE ISSUE

As a student at the Navy’s Opticalman “A” School, I had several cases of fresh lens tissue at my disposal.

Joining the fleet aboard USS Grand Canyon, in Mayport, Florida, the first thing I noticed on stepping through the hatch of my new shop, was the workbench and the rolls of toilet paper (White Cloud or Charmin, of course) that sat in front of each toolbox. I had now joined the REAL world. You should, too.

One thing concerning lens cleaning that I do find important relates to the type of lens tissue most often used.

Starting with its use in ophthalmic dispensing, many people think you must have lent-free lens tissue to do a proper cleaning job. That’s not so. Sure, it may be lint-free, but it’s not very absorbent and, that lack of absorbency, is prone to cause scratching.

The lint-bearing tissue is thicker and softer. You can, therefore, feel embedded particulars and remove the pressure often before any damage is done. Of course, it will leave lint. Even so, the more adventuresome of observers, can return to the air bulb, a ¼-second shot of canned air or, heaven forbid, a puff of human breath. Technical? No. Efficient?

Do what you can, where you are, with what you have!

Bill,

That reads well, and also sounds like you. Odd combination huh!

I never felt comfortable with "lens tissue". That stuff seems hard as a rock despite its lack of lint. But the acceptance of toilet tissue by optical pros is surprising. I can see that particulates from the lens have more places to bury out of harms way in the soft and fluffy material. But, I have read that although it may feel soft to the touch, it contains tiny silicate particles, or some such evil lens scratcher, and should be avoided for that reason. You might add a clause to specifically dispell that myth if indeed it isn't a worry.

Ron

Hi Ron:

Thanks for the response.

When you say "professionals," keep in mind we're talking about NAVY personnel, most of whom didn't have my sick love for optics. To most, it was just a job.

The soft stuff DOES allow particulates to "bury" out of the way. But, that way you can feel them. And yes, from a nitnoid standpoint, the fibers can scratch. But then, have you ever seen the micro-ripple on a telescope mirror or lens. Practical people have to draw the line somewhere.

Again, I THANK YOU for your comments.

Bill

If you get to the point where you might want to self-publish, that's extremely
reasonable now, and the books are very high quality and have a low per-unit price.
I've used "Blurb". If you do your own editing, the set-up charge is technically free.
I use their editor.

You may be more renowned in your forums and with review sources than the publisher
could whisk together. Just speculating, but this is a bad time for paper publishers.
Much consolidation and downsizing. You've been right in the middle of your best
audience, though.

Interesting notes on the acetone. As for health risk, acetone is a common metabolic
by-product in humans, so it is not as hazardous as other ketones (like mek).
The body knows what to do with it.
I use it on stubborn grease films. I try to avoid plastics..

Hi ON:

As a former publisher and, current freelancer, I am very aware of self-publishing. And, more than likely, that’s the way I will be going. The Internet and self-publishing is, in large measure, what sounded the death knell for ATM Journal. Believe me, I know about how print journalism is dying; I see examples in my work, every day.

The people at Springer were VERY courteous and, in so many other situations, I would have gone with them, in a heartbeat. However, everyone wanted my book to be something I didn’t want it to be. I realize EVERY writer needs an editor to save him or her from themselves. However, they were looking for at least 10 chapters of at least 10 pages each.
I just didn’t want to jump through so many hoops, just for the opportunity to turn my little book into something I didn’t want it to be. I already have two books, half a dozen monographs, and nearly 300 articles to my credit. I don’t need to see my name in print just for the sake of seeing my name in print. And, never did I feel the direction I was taking would produce a masterpiece. I just wanted to share some thoughts with my friends. That’s why it’s written in my non-professional “Billism” style.

Yes, not only have I used a couple of DRUMS of acetone in my day; I have checked with a leading cancer specialist. He, too, verified, that people have long been giving a bad rap based on worse information.

You may sent stuff to me, at [email protected]

Cheers,

Bill :bounce::bounce: