Anyone want to buy some microwax?

[Bill Porter]

Yup. You ain't half bad, Oscar. Especially for a sculptor!



;-)

[Kyle Edwards]

Originally Posted by Bill Porter

WOOD

Seriously man, you are dense. I WAS AGREEING WITH YOU! I wasn't saying you were two people on the boards. Man.

Back to wax.

[Bill Porter]

I found the link to the $1.79 for 1/4 lb wax:
http://candles.genwax.com/do_not_ind...___Z40M75W.htm

It's not listed so you gotta contact them for it in that quantity.

I also found this in my notes:

http://www.artstuf.com/waxes.html

1 lb for $4 for white.

Hopefully this gets Matt out from under the hassle of having to orchestrate it and hoof it. But good on ya for trying to be nice, Matt. Next time you'll think twice before offering to help your fellow man though! LOL

Wish I were kidding...

P.S., Kyle, you still owe me the hundred bucks

[Wayne Kinney]

Matthew,
Just to let you know I have paypaled you the $12 for the micro wax.

Thanks again m8.

Cheers,
Wayne.

[Matthew Wauhkonen]

I checked my paypal account and got it. I'll ship tomorrow.

[Wayne Kinney]

Thanks Matthew,
I look foward to receiving it and sharing info on here.

Thanks again,
Wayne.

[Matthew Wauhkonen]

It's been shipped, should be about 4-5 days unless customs decides it's a block of cocaine or something.

Shipping cost 9 dollars, by the way. There's got to be a cheaper way....

[Wayne Kinney]

Thanks Matthew, I look foward to receiving it.

9 Dollars to ship? Have i paypaled you enough to cover all the costs?

Wayne.

[Matthew Wauhkonen]

Yes, it's just enough to cover cost, so no worries about that. The wax itself (as you can see from those links) is very inexpensive, just sometimes hard to find.

[Wayne Kinney]

I have received the wax this morning, Matthew.

Thanks alot, it arrived very quickly to the UK.

I have ordered 50 microscope slides that I will be using as glass, hopefully ill have something by the end of the week.

I'll post my results on the microwax thread.

Thanks again,
Wayne.

[Matthew Wauhkonen]

Glad to hear it arrived so quickly and sorry I couldn't send more--the block fit poorly into the envelope as it was.

I've been doing some work with slides and have gotten pretty good results so far. The oddest issue I've encountered is that if the layer of wax is too thin, there appears to be far more grain than if it's thicker. Using slides and double sided scotch tape, capillary action works very well, but you have to heat the glass up considerably, especially if you use thicker spacers. I've tried Oscar's method and haven't had much luck with it--maybe since slides are so small as to be a pain to work with, although his results are definitely better than what I've gotten so far (simply because they exhibit less grain.)

[Wayne Kinney]

Matthew,
the amount of wax I received was just what I expected so no worries.

You say the thinner the more grain, but what about hotspot and diffusion? Do you notice more hotspot and lessdiffusion/more ariel image become greater with a thinner layer of wax?

I am only concerned with creating a glass which losses as little light as possible and still diffuses well, grain to me is not a problem as I will have a vibrating setup (if the wax can handle being vibrated). I know the main reason of microwax is for static adapters with the fine grain, but im more concerned with its other properties of minimum light loss.

Also, as im also going to use microscope slides, im interested in using the capillary action method. Im curious, as in your other thread you say it won't work with slides? How did you manage to get it working? Was it a matter of getting the glass slides hot enough?

I would be interested to know.

Cheers,
Wayne.

[Matthew Wauhkonen]

In terms of grain, my best results were with a thick layer of beeswax (oddly), which was virtually grainless but lost so much light it wasn't really usable, but if grain's not a concern, you can do quite well with a very thin layer. I suppose there's a bit more of a hotspot with extremely thin wax, but it's really not that bad at all and I think a condenser would fix it even if my own experiments with condeners have been problematic. The image is definitely sharper with a thinner layer, too, and the diffusion isn't so pronounced.

I don't know why I said capillary action doesn't work with slides earlier since it's working great now very consistantly, but it may have been the heat issue. Unless you heat the glass, it doesn't work at all since wax solidifies around the opening which it needs to flow through. In fact, the thicker the layer of wax you want, the hotter you need to keep the glass, since otherwise it will cool on its way up, which causes all sorts of issues. My current method is to use two sided scotch tape, fold it over on itself so it's twice as thick, and place it on two edges of a slide so that center of the "slide sandwich" has an empty area as thick as the spacers where the wax can flow. (I'll post pictures--it's very simple.) Then I heat the wax (in a small custard bowl) and the glass to about the same temperature, though I think heating the glass a little more would help, then place an open edge of the slide sandwich into the liquid wax so that the opening is not touching the bottom of the bowl but is also submerged completely. The wax will then start to rise, and if the seal is good, will reach the opening at the top with no bubbles. This is a pretty easy trick to replicate, but cooling is an issue since wax is free to slide out both the top and bottom while it cools (although it usually only slides a bit out the top.)

[Wayne Kinney]

Matthew,
I appreciate your reply and detailed explaination.

If you could please post photo's detailing the process more clearly, that would be even better. Thats something that is missing mostly from this board, detailed tutorials of working methods.

I look forward to trying this out as soon as my slides arrive (maybe tomorrow)

Cheers,
Wayne.

[Matthew Wauhkonen]

I'm kind of busy today, but I'll post a few pictures if I get the chance.