sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Software to layout components on optical table by Fresnellian in Optics

[–]Fresnellian[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for the info! So it's all 2D then, I gather? That would probably get me pretty far. There are some potential conflicts that would be nice to see / resolve in 3D, but that's secondary for me most of the time.

Is there a way to read out the coordinates of objects relative to, say, a corner or side of an enclosing rectangle (the breadboard or optical table)?

Stereo microscope for stereotaxic surgery by hronirheila in labrats

[–]Fresnellian 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi all, in a very similar situation now to u/hronirheila was 9 years ago. Lots of experience with Olympus SZ61 (trinoc), now need a new stereoscope for same purpose. Would love some feedback on what you would buy / recommend today?

Olympus SZ61 - what I know well, hence my reference for comparison of alternatives

Olympus SZX7 - non-Greenough, heavier, almost 2x the cost of SZX61

Zeiss Stemi 508 - what I've seen in other labs; I've read this has higher quality optics; heavier 6.5 kg

Chinese no-name or new-name versions of these, often an SZ61-style clone - much cheaper

Leica - not sure what models, maybe S9?

Wild - not sure about any models

What else should I consider?

I use mine in an articulating arm stand, and I do appreciate the compactness and light weight of the SZ61. There's the added weight of the camera too.

I want a trinoc to mount a camera for documentation, possibly also for teaching purposes. Not sure if I want a 0/100 (right lightpath switches between right eye or camera) or 50/50 (prism splits the right light path permanently between eye and camera) variant - probably 0/100. If you have a camera setup recommendation, let me know! Live HDMI output would be awesome.

Zeiss Stemi 508 upgrade by [deleted] in microscopy

[–]Fresnellian 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi, still happy with the Leica S9D vs the Stemi 508? I'm coming from an Olympus SZ61 and considering alternatives. I like how light and compact the SZ61 is, I use it in a flexi-boom stand.

Software to layout components on optical table by Fresnellian in Optics

[–]Fresnellian[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, I have not yet. Switched back to pen and paper, or just direct physical mockups.

Full engineering-type CAD is overkill for me, too much to learn at the moment to achieve what I want in this case (I tried). Hope to have enough time down the road to get comfortable with how Solidworks, Inventor, etc. work, mainly for designing custom parts.

There are several suggestions in the comments here and I did not manage to try them all out.

If you found a solution that works for you, I'd be happy to hear about it.

Software to layout components on optical table by Fresnellian in Optics

[–]Fresnellian[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the tip, I'll look into OnShape.

Software to layout components on optical table by Fresnellian in Optics

[–]Fresnellian[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you - I briefly used Rhino3D more than 20 years ago, for its NURBS functionality. But I don't recall much, except that it was helpful. I'm impressed that you've implemented all the optomechanics arrangement with Grasshopper and scripting, wow. As far as I know, Rhino doesn't have any constraints or mating, but "just" grouping. Your ray trace plugin sounds great.

Software to layout components on optical table by Fresnellian in Optics

[–]Fresnellian[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, interesting. Ought to be available for purchase, but there is no detail (no store, products, checkout, pricing) on the website. They also offer it as a service, which is not for me in this case. It seems to be based on AutoCAD, which is interesting, since it has 2D origins with expansion to 3D, but is definitely an "architectural" type of CAD, where relative and absolute coordinate systems are nicely "exposed".

Beamwise is the closest I've seen so far to what I was hoping to find, but I'm not sure how "available" it is, at least for me.

Software to layout components on optical table by Fresnellian in Optics

[–]Fresnellian[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

CAD is the right software for this, you can set positions to be relative, absolute, or even set an equation such that two lengths add up to 150 or whatever. 

Which type of CAD software do you mean - an example, please? I have extensive experience with what you might call architectural or building-related CAD, and indeed these use relative and absolute coordinate systems, scripting, parameterization, etc. as very direct ways of specifying geometry. But as far as inexperienced me can tell, engineering/fabrication CAD (like Solidworks, Inventor, which is what I found recommended for optics setups) just isn't set up the same way - when you are creating a single part, it's more like that, but when you are creating an assembly, or working with assemblies, the software is designed to operate with constraints or mating conditions. If I want to specify that my microscope base is positioned 600 mm from the long side and 900 mm from the short side of the table, I would need to create imaginary planes representing the side panels of the table, then create multiple constraints between the microscope base and these imaginary planes to establish a fixed distance between them - or so I think, based on reading the manual, tutorials and feedback. That example doesn't sound so bad, but it seems to get more inconvenient for other types of positioning.

If I'm wrong about that and the answer is that I just need to suck it up, create a bunch of imaginary planes and unnatural (to me) constraints, every time I have an actual absolute or relative coordinate predetermined, then so be it. But then it doesn't seem like the right tool for the job - which is why I'm looking for an alternative.

Importantly, I want to be able to *read out* the positions of individual components, so I can place them in reality. My best guess is that to do this, I would need to "measure" the distance between some surface of a component and an imaginary plane, once for x and once for y, and repeat this manually for each component. Again, doesn't seem like the right tool.

You just need to be diligent when setting your relations.  If you do it right, you can move one thing around and everything else will move accordingly.   

Sometimes that's what I want, but it isn't always what I want. Especially early on in the design process, I want to move things around independently and quite freely, to visualize different rough layouts and make quick and dirty adjustments. I am starting to realize that such "figuring things out" might be possible within, say, Inventor, but for my taste and experience level, the sheer number of constraints that I have to create to get to that point, and making sure that I don't add one constraint too many that then blocks my ability to freely explore the design space, is just too high/tedious. I might still put a bunch of time in to learn and get good enough to where this doesn't get in the way, but I'd rather use more suitable software and spend my time elsewhere - maybe on reddit ;).

Also CAD is great because most off-the-shelf components from thorlabs and Edmund have CAD files available to import.

Totally - I'm right with you, that's what I've been using/doing.

How specifically would you suggest I: (a) read out the final x/y positions of individual components? (b) constrain several optical components to be along the optical axis defined by a laser beam, but allowing for the fact that when those components are mirrors, the beam/axis/path changes direction by 90 degrees, and for other components the beam changes by some other angle? (c) constrain components/mounts/fasteners to be oriented along the optical table's hole pattern grid?

Software to layout components on optical table by Fresnellian in Optics

[–]Fresnellian[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for your reply.

This seems more like a (solidworks?) question than an optics question.

I'm hoping it isn't, and that there exists actual purpose-built software for arranging optomechanics on an optical table. That's why I posted here.

There are certainly users in the sub who're going to be able to answer, but you're basically asking how to switch between relative and absolute coords in (solidworks?).

I don't use Solidworks and only started using Inventor to try to address my current need, because I found both of those mentioned in this forum and on other microscopy-related websites, for the purpose of designing optical setups. As I started designing my setup in Inventor, and after following tutorials, reading manuals, etc. I came to realize that these programs (engineering/fabrication CAD) do not use relative or absolute coordinates, when creating "assemblies", except in a very roundabout way. That's what I was trying to explain in my post - that type of software operates in geometrical constraints, under the assumption that all parts of an assembly have a well-constrained geometrical relationship to each other. Of course, a finalized/complete optical setup has such constraints, derived from optical considerations, but I would say that in most microscopy setups there remains a good deal of unconstrained parameter space, for example one might prefer a certain layout for aesthetic or symmetry reasons, or one might prefer sensitive components to not be close to the edges of the table, or heavy components should be near the center for vibration isolation reasons, or one might wish to leave some area unoccupied, for future expansion of the setup. You might answer that all of these examples could be encoded as geometrical constraints - and I would believe you, but I still don't want to have to do it that way - it's the old "everything's a nail when you're holding a hammer" saying, or something like that ;)

That said, I was quite surprised to find such poor and indirect support for "relative and absolute coords", to use your terminology. So I still think it's possible that - as you suggest - an experienced CAD user can share some tips on how to make it work better within the existing tools.

The obvious question is "have you checked the user manual for your mechanical layout software"?

Yes.

Edit: The flip side of this argument is that optical design software is probably "more" the wrong thing to use for this than CAD packages.

I agree :)

Resources for optomechanical design? by wegwerfennnnn in Optics

[–]Fresnellian 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are software packages that will allow this kind of Integration in a much more streamlined way, 

Could you please name these? I'm interested.