Oh nice! sadly that’s not the right one. I have that and like 5 other mounts from amscope and none of them “work”. that one screws onto the camera but there’s no way to lock it or screw it into the microscope. I’ve found adapters that screw to the trinoc port but they don’t accept that c-mount to mount the camera. Idk if i need to get a different ~$500+ camera 
or what. Been frustrating to say the least but its been my only gripe with it/amscope.
3 Likes
Hah oh shit. You’re right. I remember messing with it when I first got it and was flabbergasted at the amount of things that just sit in and don’t screw it. Big reliance on the microscope not being moved. I’m not even sure my camera is screwed on if I think about it. Pretty sure it just sits in a fairly tight little track but there’s nothing holding it firm.
3 Likes
The camera has a .5 reduction lens and it’s 23mm, 30mm, 30.5mm, and C-mount adapter. I slide the camera down into the trinocular tube, but it will fit in any of the 3 lens tubes. It’s definitely not screwed on. usb 3 etc. I bought the microscope 20 years before the camera, but they standardized the tube sizes back in the 1800s.
4 Likes
Yeah, that’s been the issue with my phone and the clip-on zoom lens thing, is that those photos look like I’m swinging the phone around while I’m snapping pics or something. Horribly blurry. I know we have a tripod here, my girl uses it for her “fitness exercise photographs” haha. Maybe I’ll check that out. Thanks!
4 Likes
Tirah valley is looking… different? lol! It’s got really short and small trichomes, so I’m really interested in seeing how it pans in the end.
9 Likes
hrrrmmm You know, my human eye might be better than the counting method. The trichomes are looking really strange! Like ok I’ve seen trichomes like this before, but not all over the calyx. There is also some kind of color to the pistils. I’ll explore that later!
8 Likes
The trichome stalks are odd too.
Rather ‘cone’ shaped,
Cheers
G
4 Likes
hah hah ok admission time… You see, someone arrived at the door with a laser printer. Eventually I’ll crank off a high resolution image Just like Momma Ustah Make!
1 Like
Fucking crazy print, eh? Looks like a photo to me. Except the fuck-ups from the resizing of the image. Probably print better if I used a real program.
3 Likes
ok well the trichome count places it at 2 percent. My human eye agrees, but with a caution:
You don’t know the final size of the trichome caps.
Trizzler in in the greenhouse autoflower study.
5 Likes
Two percent of what? Is two percent good? Haha.
1 Like
To percent hash extracted from the buds. There won’t be enough yield to test though, because it’s a really small plant.
1 Like
Cap 1: color change.
Cap 2: resin joining two caps.
Cap 3: really bent over, like the hunchback of notre dame.
Cap 4: more resin goo.
Cap 5: notice the really thin part of the trichome stalk near the cap.
Things aren’t going to improve from here. Only go downhill! day 54!
6 Likes
What was the “suggested” flowering time on that one? More or less than 54 days? Which one are we looking at, anyway? Haha. I’ve forgotten. Wasn’t it some sort of GMO something or other?
1 Like
Tirah valley hash plant. I was given no expectation of bloom time, but the buds started to stack up faster than the meat breath. I’m going to keep checking on it, but it won’t be too much longer before the chop. This plant will test my human eye judgement vs the trichome counting scheme.
7 Likes
The human eye wins, suckers!
3 Likes
Haha, what do you mean?
1 Like
I’ll give a detailed explanation, and we’ll see if it makes sense.
I was using the baseline method of determining the hash yield from the plant. I would take a photo in all stages of growth and then compare that to the unknown one so I could see if it had more or less trichomes as determined by the human brains ability to judge “more” or “less” at just a glance. Even a dog can do that kind of thing. So is it more or less than 1%, 2% and 3% images I have already taken, and that is my estimate of future hash yields. The human eye tech.
Then I read the study about trichomes, where they were counting the number of trichomes per 500000 microns, so I was like hmmm I wonder if that method of counting in veg is better than the human eye at judging. I did a number of counting ones where I made a 250000 micrometer square and then counted the trichomes inside. I was looking at it while I was counting and the count got high, as high as a 2.5% yield.
- But my human eye said that was bullshit.
So it was a perfect opportunity to see if empirical data I could scrape off the veg plant would be better, or worse than my human eye’s ability to judge it from all the images I had seen. It may seem chaotic now, since I already have the trichome at the end of bloom counting method that works, but I’m just doing trials to see if I can determine the yield in veg right after I see it’s female. The best part is I’m not actually guaranteed to dig out any results that have any meaning. I could be completely wasting my time!
2 Likes
That is Fockin Wild @JoeCrowe!
Science and human cognition joined into a useful tool. You’re a human AI neural net Joe.
-Grouchy
PS, what is the actual yield? (or did you say already?)
3 Likes