Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Clearing thorium yellowing
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2018 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visualopsins wrote:
Works on which lens(es)?


Minolta MC W.ROKKOR - SI 2.5/28


PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2018 9:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And, of course, which lens(es) does it not work?


PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

visualopsins wrote:
And, of course, which lens(es) does it not work?


I can't answer your question, I only have experience with the Minolta.


PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2018 2:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well it's Thursday and I was waiting until Friday because that would mark 20 straight days of uninterrupted trial, as of this moment the rear group is removed and the Ikea lamp with the little acrylic lens removed (with or without does not matter, same result = noda) and there is no change, no effect ...20 straight days = noda

Last edited by Wonder Lens on Sat May 05, 2018 12:11 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2018 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What do you want me to say? Like I said, it worked for me and still does. You are welcome to visit me anytime you like and see for yourself! Wink


PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2018 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is well known some 1:1.4/50 Super-TAKUMAR yellowing clears completely while others clear to various degrees and some not at all.

I had 5 of these. Two cleared completely. Two partially. One no effect.

I used Skylight which has lots of uv and blue.

So having one Minolta clear and another example no effect is no great mystery. The mystery is why? Perhaps length of time left yellowed affects ability to clear. Perhaps a variation in glass formula. Who knows?


PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2018 7:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Most likely it's the glass - depending on the UV cutoff of the glass it can let anywhere from all to none of the required wavelength through.


PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2018 9:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DigiChromeEd wrote:
What do you want me to say? Like I said, it worked for me and still does. You are welcome to visit me anytime you like and see for yourself! Wink


You assumed I asked you, I was responding to comments out of context by another post


Last edited by Wonder Lens on Sat May 05, 2018 12:11 am; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2018 11:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good Lord, Wonder Lens, give it a rest.
Whether it works for you or not, it's not conclusive.

You're fighting against what doesn't work for you.
If it doesn't work, find something else.
Stop beating this this dead horse; you're only
repeating yourself.


PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2018 12:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SkedAddled wrote:
Good Lord, Wonder Lens, give it a rest.
Whether it works for you or not, it's not conclusive....





If I'm beating a dead horse then your piling on just for the sake of piling on, otherwise what do you offer? Personal attacks and ordering people around like a bully makes your point valid I suppose? Your way or what you punch them? Belittle them and make them appear weak tactic...nice.

I'd welcome your opinion in this matter if you had one or presented one that is relevant to doing this cure, there's always room for more information and to learn.

I'll be in Michigan along the left coast this late August, we should hang out?


fyi, my first post

"I know I'm not the only one who scoffed - but find out for yourself if you want?

I'm not saying it doesn't work, I'm saying it didn't work when I tried it ...not even a little
"


PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2018 2:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Perhaps sunlight treatment will clear your lens Wonder Lens.


PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2018 12:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Laughing


https://www.google.com/search?q=ikea+led+thorium+lens+yellow&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4118603

http://forum.mflenses.com/mc-rokkor-si-28mm-f-2-5-radioactive-repair-attem-t76092.html

http://forum.mflenses.com/fast-lens-de-yellowing-without-a-uv-lamp-t68896.html

http://forum.mflenses.com/you-can-use-any-ikea-led-for-yellow-glass-treatment-t69095.html

http://forum.mflenses.com/canon-550d-and-super-takumar-50mm-f1-4-t37601.html

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/291674-ikea-lamp-takumar-lens.html

https://mbphotox.wordpress.com/2015/09/25/removing-the-color-cast-in-radioactive-lenses-results/


PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 11:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Ikea lamp was a total bust. I'll stand by this 100% on the Minolta 28 2.5, and warn you in advance ....I had no success at all. I'm not running around to prove it doesn't work, I ran around because I hoped it worked. I proved I gave it incredible time? I'm sure I was drawing a lot of bizzare defensive attention and this "well it worked for me" is just not really a constructive defense is it? A defense of it working should include a process or systematic way for me to go back and try something different? How do you go back and rework with "well it worked for me" ?

So? I changed my own process

I started using a chain Hardware store Grow Lamp, a LED type that looks like a regular light bulb $12.97. I've read post scattered all over with warnings and comments regarding how grow lights won't work they are not UV and UV will kill plants, they are only IR light only won't work...... outdated old advice or just more unreliable reporting...you be your own judge?

Well the facts are this is a full spectrum LED light source, UV and IR blended and instead of using one LED, it uses banks of them...exact same LED as in the Chinese made Jansjo lamp I have, but more of them ...plus other LED's. BTW, The LED in the Jansjo lamp is commonly used in UV LED lighting packages as well, if you look it up on the manufacturer's website?

After all this time I believe I have some success starting to show, a bit early to conclude anything though ???

Time will tell, for those who actually have a lens and try that is? My goal is and still is, to show a "cleared" lens and having no mistake about how it was accomplished....(if that doesn't work then I should lie or not say anything at all? who does that serve?)


....not having a lens or a lamp and just chiming in to support someone who claims it works is evidence of something though I suppose?


PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 1:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The proof you ask for is shown in at least two of the linked pages provided above.

Some yellowed Minolta 1:2.5/28 clear with IKEA led lamp; some do not.

At this point unknown is if lens that is not cleared by IKEA lamp can be cleared another way.

I've never seen any proof uv light is required, regardless almost universal assumptions.


PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2018 12:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

visualopsins wrote:
The proof you ask for is shown in at least two of the linked pages provided above.

Some yellowed Minolta 1:2.5/28 clear with IKEA led lamp; some do not.

At this point unknown is if lens that is not cleared by IKEA lamp can be cleared another way.

I've never seen any proof uv light is required, regardless almost universal assumptions.





"The PROOF is Shown and it's UNKNOWN" seriously?

Did you conduct the experiment, "no". Do you want to challenge me, "yes". Please participate in the experiment or just continue trolling and picking arguments?

SCIENCE REQUIRES COMPLETE STRANGERS TO DUPLICATE EXPERIMENTS "in order" TO CONFIRM THE EXPERIMENT ACTUALLY WORKS

If this offends you, or you are offended by being challenged,....than you are not scientific minded




I know the LED used, the DC converter, and integrated regulator on the LED board, the nature and characteristics of that particular LED and it's capable spectrum which...btw, no where did I say uv was required or necessary and based on you universally agreeing with the hearsay you read...who's assuming again?

The troll, like they all do


Last edited by Wonder Lens on Sat May 19, 2018 1:13 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2018 1:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wonder Lens wrote:
visualopsins wrote:
The proof you ask for is shown in at least two of the linked pages provided above.

Some yellowed Minolta 1:2.5/28 clear with IKEA led lamp; some do not.

At this point unknown is if lens that is not cleared by IKEA lamp can be cleared another way.

I've never seen any proof uv light is required, regardless almost universal assumptions.





"The PROOF is Shown and it's UNKNOWN" seriously?

Did you conduct the experiment, "no". Do you want to challenge me, "yes". Please participate in the experiment or just continue trolling and picking arguments?

SCIENCE REQUIRES COMPLETE STRANGERS TO DUPLICATE EXPERIMENTS "in order" TO CONFIRM THE EXPERIMENT ACTUALLY WORKS

If this offends you, or you are offended by being challenged,....than you are not scientific minded




I know the LED used, the DC converter, and integrated regulator on the LED board, the nature and characteristics of that particular LED and it's capable spectrum which...btw, no where did I say uv was required or necessary and based on you universally agreeing with the hearsay you read...who's assuming again?

The troll, like they all do


It works for some people; not for others. For some lenses not for other examples of same lens.

You are welcome to your opinion about the unknown. I don't understand given so many reports, some of success, some of failure.

I keep open mind.

There is some question of trolling mflenses under multiple user names. Smile


PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2018 1:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

visualopsins wrote:


It works for some people; not for others. For some lenses not for other examples of same lens.

You are welcome to your opinion about the unknown. I don't understand given so many reports, some of success, some of failure.

I keep open mind.

There is some question of trolling mflenses under multiple user names. Smile



"It works for some, not for some" That is not proof of anything, it's more a warning to the wise that it doesn't work in nature? Logically speaking, people in general have no real motivation to say something did not work and it's far more probable (in general) for people to boast or exaggerate, including making false claims and hype. Still this is meaningless because it's all "hearsay" anyway, hardly factual so it has no bearing. Actually being involved and committed with a record of continual reporting, including results and images? 15 second posted comment never to be seen or heard from again ? That counts? That's a credible effort applied? So no effort counts equally to long drawn out hard efforts? Lending credibility I believe has a heck of a lot more to with than making broad assumptions everyone is correct?

I do understand this, far too few people invested a dime in trying and way too many people commented that haven't invested a nickel

Having questions is one thing, but choosing to believe a side in this without being practically involved or invested is pretty ludacris logic I can't comprehend


"There is some question of trolling mflenses under multiple user names"

I do not understand the nature or intent of this comment? You have entered into a discussion and taken a side against someone without participating or being involved in this matter , that's exactly a TROLL = you. If you had a lens and lamp, conducted an experiment and shown something to illustrate your involvement to at least appear credible, I wouldn't question you. However you just jumped in so how is that fair to people (regardless of their results) who are and were committed and involved? How does you coming to one sides rescue with your opinion and no commitment or involvement fair to others who had no success? I really don't understand your participation in this discussion? All you are is an echo machine....repeating the hearsay of others as if your agreeing with them lends credibly to them?

So who is the troll, troll?


PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2018 5:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wonder Lens wrote:
visualopsins wrote:


It works for some people; not for others. For some lenses not for other examples of same lens.

You are welcome to your opinion about the unknown. I don't understand given so many reports, some of success, some of failure.

I keep open mind.

There is some question of trolling mflenses under multiple user names. Smile



"It works for some, not for some" That is not proof of anything, it's more a warning to the wise that it doesn't work in nature? Logically speaking, people in general have no real motivation to say something did not work and it's far more probable (in general) for people to boast or exaggerate, including making false claims and hype. Still this is meaningless because it's all "hearsay" anyway, hardly factual so it has no bearing. Actually being involved and committed with a record of continual reporting, including results and images? 15 second posted comment never to be seen or heard from again ? That counts? That's a credible effort applied? So no effort counts equally to long drawn out hard efforts? Lending credibility I believe has a heck of a lot more to with than making broad assumptions everyone is correct?

I do understand this, far too few people invested a dime in trying and way too many people commented that haven't invested a nickel

Having questions is one thing, but choosing to believe a side in this without being practically involved or invested is pretty ludacris logic I can't comprehend


"There is some question of trolling mflenses under multiple user names"

I do not understand the nature or intent of this comment? You have entered into a discussion and taken a side against someone without participating or being involved in this matter , that's exactly a TROLL = you. If you had a lens and lamp, conducted an experiment and shown something to illustrate your involvement to at least appear credible, I wouldn't question you. However you just jumped in so how is that fair to people (regardless of their results) who are and were committed and involved? How does you coming to one sides rescue with your opinion and no commitment or involvement fair to others who had no success? I really don't understand your participation in this discussion? All you are is an echo machine....repeating the hearsay of others as if your agreeing with them lends credibly to them?

So who is the troll, troll?


You