our micro wasp

The first insect that I took under my photomicroscopy setup is this little guy that I found on our patio. First I thought that it’s a kind of fly. But after seeing it’s eyes and mouth I realized that it’s not a fly and updated my guess as a small bee or a flying ant. It turned out to be that it’s a kind of a small wasp. According to the wikipedia the definition of wasp is:

The term wasp is typically defined as any insect of the order Hymenoptera and suborder Apocrita that is neither a bee nor ant“.

So it was a very close guess but a wasp never occurred to me. I think this guy is a member of the Lysiphlebus testaceipes family, not sure though. Please note that this little fellow is a cruel parasitic creature who lays its eggs inside the living bugs with a following chestburster hatch. Does it sounds familiar? Well of course in the nature there is no cruelty, it’s just the nature as is, this little guy tries to live just like all of us do.

Before continuing with the pictures probably I should warn you that those are “very” close-up pictures which some people may find disturbing or scary. So if you have a kind of Insectophobia (Entomophobia) you may consider before proceeding the rest of the post. Images are not gross, just close-up head pictures which I find pretty interesting.

Continue reading »

 

This year my birthday present was a microscope; Celestron 44104. Işıl knows that I’m interested in macro- and micro-photography (the correct terms are photomacrography and photomicrography but oh well) so it was a perfect gift indeed.

It’s a basic compound microscope but more than enough for a starter, it has exchangeable objectives, oculars (eye pieces), pretty robust frame, focus and axis knobs, sub-millimeter scale for x, y, and z axes even an Abbe condenser.

Visualizing and seeing the world in a way which lie outside of my eyes’ capability range always excited me; seeing the very slow/fast events, seeing the very small/large objects, seeing the things in non-visible light spectrum, seeing very dim objects etc. So here I’m with the device which will let me to see the very small. I’ve spent many days checking out the samples that came with the microscope; a set of 100 pre-prepared slides. Işıl taught me the basics and also explained me the different types of human cells etc. I’ve also read a lot about microscope technologies and how to use them. There are two very extensive online resources for microscopy, www.olympusmicro.com and www.microscopyu.com . They are from two big microscope manufacturers; Olympus and Nikon and are curiously similar to each other. I’ve learned the basics of many microscopy techniques, such as dark field, phase contrast, confocal, objective design goals, optical trade-offs, eyepiece designs etc etc. Very fun stuff to learn. Check those sites out if you are into optics.

Seeing the internals of cells and such is fun, but I know that a bigger fun would be checking out the 3D objects. Since microscopes have a very shallow depth of field (few micrometers), viewing thick objects with high magnifications usually gives you nothing but a blurry image with a very narrow sharp-focused band. Something like this (even shallower)

Although still very interesting, seeing the whole thing in sharp focus would give you better ideas about the tiny thing’s form. Fortunately enough there is a computational method called focus stacking which combines many shallow depth of field images to generate a single deep focus image. So I had to find a way to attach my camera to my brand-new microscope so that I can try focus stacking.

You can take a photograph by pointing your camera through the eyepiece opening but there are many problems with this approach. First you can’t keep the camera stationary and the image is very sensitive to camera position, thus each image shows different sections of the specimen. Second, if your camera has a lens which is not very small in diameter, the image doesn’t fill the frame; image will be visible in the frame as a small cropped circle, rest of the frame will be black. The reason is that the normal eyepieces are designed for your eyes which have very small lens diameter and can go very close to the eyepieces.

There are digital eye pieces that you can insert into the microscope tube instead of a normal eyepiece but they are not cost-effective in my opinion. Cheap ones are toy-like providing only 640×480 pixel resolution and still around $100. Probably their optics are not the best either. There are of course good ones but they are starting from $400; too expensive for a new hobbyist. I already have a decent camera (Canon G10), I want to use that with my microscope if possible.

There are some other (potentially cheaper) methods for photomicrography

1- Use a camera with small objective diameter with a normal eye-piece.

2- Use a camera with normal objective diameter but use a tele-lens so that the small cropped circle fill the whole frame.

3- use a special photo eyepiece which will project the image directly on you camera’s CCD; you don’t need to use a lens. Well this works with cameras which have removable lenses (e.x. SLRs). Mine is not removable.

All of the above solutions require two adapters:

A- mechanical adaptation so that you can “attach” your camera to the microscope tube.

B- optical adaptation so that the image is formed on your camera’s sensor

I’ve bought few cheap mechanical adapters for canon G10, the lens attachment kit with 58mm thread, an 58mm to 42mm (T-Mount) step down ring and a T-mount eyepiece holder. Although when combined they let me to achieve the mechanical adaptation, it failed on the optical one. The camera lens can’t come close enough to the eyepiece. I guess the eyepiece holder is for photo eyepieces, not for normal ones. Gah! Anyhow most of those mechanical adapters are useful for other tasks too, I’ll use them somewhere.

So my remaining options are: I could buy a tele-converter (option 2) for my G10 and try that but it’s a not a guarantee that it’d work, it’s jut a 1.4x tele. I could also buy a photo eyepiece (option 3) but they are expensive and still no guarantee there either. While searching the web for solutions I come up with many old setups where people used Nikon Coolpix 995 camera with their microscope using various mechanical adapters. Since CP 995 has a very small objective diameter (28mm), it’s a good solution indeed (Option 1). Guess what? I still have my old CP 995 which I kept using until 2 years ago. I knew I would re-use that.

The camera is 10 years old, its sensor is about to die, half of the pixels are dead/stuck and even in its best days it had very bad light gathering capabilities compared to today’s cameras. But well it will let me to try the basic ideas, such as focus stacking. If it becomes a more serious hobby, I can definitely seek and buy better stuff as this setup will teach me what I need.

I purchased a very cheap ($5) 28mm filter set and super-glued one of them to one of my eye pieces. The eyepiece is still usable for looking through with naked eye. So this concludes the very cheap and dirty v1.0 of my photomicroscopy setup:

Next: I’ll post some cute and creepy creatures. Stay tuned…

 

On May 22, 2010 Martin Gardner, an American mathematics and science writer, died at the age of 95. I didn’t know his name until I heard his death from several science blogs and tweets, looks like I’ve missed a lot.

When I learnt that he run a very successful corner in Scientific American for many years and readers requested his return for many years after his quit, I realized that I may have heard about this guy. What I remembered is Douglas Hofstadter‘s book “Metamagical Themas“. He explains the name of the book in the introduction section; it is actually the name of the corner he wrote for a magazine from which the book’s articles are compiled. The magazine asked him to prepare a corner to replace the current one, and he found the task very very hard as the current corner was a very successful one. So he somehow wanted to keep the name; as an anagram of the old corner’s name. Old corner was named “Mathematical Games”. This is all that I remember, since I read that book more than 10 years ago I don’t remember other details.

And yes, that hard-to-be-replaced, beloved author of the Mathematical Games corner turned out to be Martin Gardner. I’ll definitely buy and read some of his 70 books.

Here is a great quote from him that I heard today in Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe podcast.

“Biographical history, as taught in our public schools, is still largely a history of boneheads: ridiculous kings and queens, paranoid political leaders, compulsive voyagers, ignorant generals – the flotsam and jetsam of historical currents. The men who radically altered history, the great scientists and mathematicians, are seldom mentioned, if at all.” Martin Gardner

 

The Blind Watchmaker I’ve just finished reading this 1986 book (from Penguin Books) by Richard Dawkins. Although the book is more than 20 years old, some of the information in it was new to me (Well I need to say that I’m a regular science reader and documentary watcher just like any other geek). The book expresses the importance of the “natural selection” theory and suggests (with lots of solid examples as well as deep theoretical discussions) that it’s the only theory so far that explains the adaptive complexity of the living organisms on the Earth (and possible somewhere else). Although the “natural selection” theory has been the most plausible explanation for me, after reading this book, I’ve realized that I had been giving the chance factor (aka mutations) too much credit. Dawkins gives solid numbers and calculations which persuaded me that random events have less affect in evolution than I was thinking.

Dawkins is a natural teacher, he knows how to explain things and like all good teachers he knows the pitfalls the reader may fall into and pulls them up at the exact moment they are about to fall into those. He’s quite aware of the misunderstandings his sentences may cause and immediately clarify those in the next paragraph or so. So you can follow him quite easily without getting lost in your “but what if….” like train of thoughts. He is a good mental guide ;)

The book is, thus, quite easy to follow and quite educating… well, until the last few chapters where Dawkins switches from the education mode to the argument mode. To tell the truth, I get bored while reading those chapters since I get the feeling that Dawkins is not talking to us but argues with his colleagues who has opposing theories. Those chapters are educative too but the smooth information and idea flow that’s present in the previous chapters are unfortunately no longer there.

In sum; I’ve found this book quite educative and fun to read. He gives lots of analogies between biology and computers which made the discussion extra interesting for me.

After searching internet a bit, I found an applet which is quite similar to BioMorph program that Dawkings wrote and used to create examples in this book. While looking for the BioMorph software, I came across with another neat java applet: Ant Viewer. It’s an interactive applet with parametric ant colonies and resources where ants wander randomly and use pheromones (and sun location) to mark the path between resource (food) and the nest. Try it, it’s fun to play.

 

Mulksuzler

Today I finished reading Ursula Le Guin‘s famous book “The Dispossessed” (Turkish: “Mülksüzler”). This book was in my todo (toread) list for quite a while. I’m glad that I could finally read it and I’m sorry that I haven’t done it before. It’s more a political/social book rather than (Hard) Science Fiction as it’s always been in Le Guin’s books.What stroke me first is the interlaced timeline of the story. The book starts with the most important event which is the right middle of the story and events before and after that are followed in interlaced manner. This makes the story more interesting.

Different people may get very different messages (or so to say; may enjoy very different aspects). Besides the SciFi part, you can find analysis of politics, regimes and their impact on people. Also the author shows the barriers between individuals and between ideas, shows how difficult to see the world as other people see thanks to differences in principle ideas that are injected into our brains by the society and environment.

Anyhow this is one of the very best SciFci novels I’ve read, It forces the reader’s empathy and vision skills.

© 2012 Notes to Shelf Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha