If you mean Oscar, I see him post enough good info that I don't care whether he has more than one account.

Same goes for Matt.

And If you mean me you're sorely mistaken, LOL!

(asked the "busy bee") <Just enough for a "King size honeycomb"> (answered the Queen) (sorry guys.... cough cough, I just can't help it here...rotf) no harm done... http://www.agr.state.il.us/programs/..._honeycomb.jpg
Now... bee good, don't sting and you'll live...
http://www.susanscustomcreepydolls.c...sting-doll.jpg OK, ok, ENOUGH's enough!!!

Obviously not.

Place your bets!!
 

Not to derail this thread, but, it's obvious huh? Betcha a hundred bucks right here in public that I can prove you utterly and totally wrong.

I'll call you and let my CA area code/number, and my name, pop up on your caller ID. Maybe you can even have Chris Hurd check my IP. It shows Ventura, CA. What a concept!

Get a grip on your paranoia.

Besides-

I ain't Matt: Matt's phone number is on his contact info on some website back east. And when I saw his offer to help people by divvying up some wax and shipping it on his own lunch break, I thought, Oh man, this guy is either naive, or a glutton for punishment... here come the posts saying he's ripping people off.

I ain't Jon: He uses way more lowercase than I do. And he's in Washington.

I ain't Oscar: Part of him still thinks I'm Jonathan. And he's in the Netherlands.

I ain't Dan: I'm not nice enough. And he's in Canada.

And I sure as heck don't care about what anybody on dvinfo.net thinks, so I have no need for alter egos. I'm here to learn and to share info, not care who thinks what of me.

Now email me your number so I can call you and you can send me your - sorry, MY - hundred dollars.



Back to the Matt's microwax thread....

Bill Houser is just making fun of me, I'm sure. But again for the record....I don't say Matthew is ripping people off. Not at all. I say that the price itself is too high this way for a piece of wax. I'm trying to help people here (obviously, because I have two working 35mm adapters for some time now).

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



;-)

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.

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

Matthew, you have been paypaled
 

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

Thanks again m8.

Cheers,
Wayne.

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

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

Thanks again,
Wayne.

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....

Thanks Matthew, I look foward to receiving it.

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

Wayne.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.)

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.

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