X hits on this document

Word document

Archives of an email list on the history of binoculars. - page 105 / 150





105 / 150

cups (which are black bakelite).  There are no markings that I could find except for GE (General Electric) logos on the inside of the body.  The optics are also in good shape although the prisms and objectives do not appear to be coated (the eyepiece lenses are).

The IPD measures 65mm on this sample.  I wonder if they ever produced the 62mm and 68mm versions.  It does look kind of like it is possible to mount the prisms in different orientations but I will have to take a closer look (I haven't tried to remove the prisms yet).

I hope someone can do a talk on the plastic 6x42 for the meeting in Tucson.  I am already busy with the P-61 binocular presentation and I'm sure one of you is more qualified.




From: "Steve Stayton" <sstayton@___ink.net>

Subject: RE: Univex

Fan, is it possible that the porro prism cluster is arranged to go in three different positions in the objective body to accommodate the three different IPD values with the same prism cluster? This could be accomplished by rotating the prism cluster around the objective lens axis (opposite rotation for right side vs. left side). This would allow for a common front housing and common prism clusters with the IPD value set only by the top (eyepiece) end housing design and the rotation position of the prism cluster in the front housing. Just a theory on my part, maybe you can tell by looking at the prism plate design details. Can't tell in the pictures.

Of course, the IPD variation could also be accomplished by having different porro cluster sets with different arrangement of the prisms on the prism plate.

And a special thanks is in order to Cynthia Repinski for researching and writing the Univex history so that we know what this unusual binocular is!

Steve Stayton


From: gordiray@___t

Subject: Re: reproduction head cushions

I made one version such that the cushion can be flexed inward or outward relative to the temple of the head.  I never attempted to make the hard rubber pieces which touch the cheeks  in the original setup.  The cushions are much more comfortable than those which were used on the Busch 10 x 80  or on the various U. S. Navy 20 x 120 Mk.3(in which the eyepiece housing touches most noses, unless filed thinner, incidentally.  Odd that the Navy never fixed these problems.  Closure of the Naval Gun Factory was a big optical mistake)

.......About making repros:   How many?  When? I would need an original for a while.  What is a price that would be acceptable in the event I were to make 10 or 20?   Is it one-piece ?  I copied only the cushon portion of the 25 x 100. Never tried the hard rubber pieces which touch the cheek.  That does not mean that it could not be done, but the draft angles are rather small, so I did just the cushion .   They can be made quite flexible, and can be spread in or out to suit varying face widths, and locked in the chosen position.

Since this would be repro of the Leitz, would a repro of the Zeiss shape be semi-acceptible?Being primarily a user or wannabe user, I am not sure of the nuances of the repro desirability heirarchy .  I have seen photo of the same basic Zeiss shape in many WW II contexts, from land armored vehicles to Naval sights.   I have sold the WW II U. S Navy rangefinder rubber masks since the early l970's.  This is the same shape as the Baker or Rivkin offerings.  They can be stretched more or less, depending upon the material chosen

Document info
Document views525
Page views525
Page last viewedWed Jan 18 08:37:08 UTC 2017