Frankenlarger; or, the Modified 23/45

[Sundowner]

I love the winter; it's the season for being under the weather just badly enough to not feel like getting anything done in the shop, which is the exact same level of infirmity that tends to make actual recovery something of a process because one doesn't feel badly enough to just rest. Thus, we end up on the couch for three days, playing with printer settings, learning how stepper motors work, and realizing just how terrible we are at Gran Turismo 7. All the same, small progress was made.

Pictured: ...just, you know, not here.

That's Version 3.-whatever of the carriage bracket, and is patently obvious from the lovely genuine-imitation faux leather pattern, I'm still working with settings to get the surface finish a bit better. I think it's some kind of basic heat setting, or perhaps something to do with the extrusion multiplier. I have an even further revision printing now, so we'll see what happens with that one.

In related news: the bushing material showed up, but it's rather useless until I get this next bracket printed, because there's nothing for it to be-bush. Thus, I'm setting that material on the backburner for now and instead focusing on figuring out exactly how Beseler originally arranged everything on the frame of the original 45H...and in order to do that most effectively, I'm going to cheat.

Pictured: "Of course; that would simplify everything."

Thanks to KHB for somehow having one of those on hand to scan, copy and print...and honestly, it's a nice little printing. Normally, I'm skeptical of this kind of thing, but the text and images are clean and clear, and the entire manual is about 8741% more legible than anything I've ever found on Scribd. This was totally worth the $10 it cost, and not just for the parts schematics that it contained...but on that note, did anyone else know that there were actually FOUR models of the Beseler 45H?

Pictured: Count 'em, Danno.

In case the text in the corner of Page Five is too small to read: the variants listed are 45HC, 45HA, and 45HR, and the booklet goes on to explain them on subsequent pages. A summary thereof is as follows:

• 45H - standard model for 4x5 usage.
• 45HC - standard model for 4x5 usage, equipped with a color filter drawer.
• 45HA - equipped with adjustable upper condenser housing (notice that this not present on the front cover or in the above image).
• 45HR - equipped with a Beseler Resistrol™

So, yeah...the standard 45H doesn't have an adjustable condenser stage; I must have looked at the front-cover image a hundred times, now, and I've never noticed that fact. I also didn't really see that it isn't equipped with a filter drawer but now that I see the variant 45HC image in the first schematic, the omission is obvious. Evidently, an adjustable condenser stage was an upgrade in the 1950's; Page Six shows the adjustable 45HA model in detail, along with the best explanation/diagram of adjustable condensers that I've ever seen.

Pictured: It's all so clear to me, now...

I honestly don't know when the adjustable upper stage debuted, but that drawing is a dead ringer for what I have sitting on the bench right now; it was actually something of a shocking revelation to see that they had a version of the 45 head without any sort of upper bellows, which was effectively identical to my first ideas for how to mount an LED head on the 45 negative stage. I may still go that route at some point, but since I have to make sure that whatever contraption I'm building can support the full weight of the heaviest-possible head - and that's probably going to be the standard 45 condenser assembly - I'm keeping it as-is for now.

The last variant to the 45H was the 45HR; it is detailed on Page Twenty, but from what I can tell it's simply a Resistrol™ stuck on the upper right corner of a 45HC. What's more interesting than the location of said dingus, however, is Beseler's explanation for exactly what it does.

Pictured: They misspelled "Kevin" though. Weird.

I don't know that I've ever seen any of those reasons for the existence of the Resistrol™ actually spelled out...but hey, there's a first time for everything. I don't plan to use a Resistrol™ in my own build, although a DC power supply with some adjusty-shaped knobs on it will almost certainly be included in the final product. I am mostly mentioning this because I've never yet found even a hint of these 45H variants, so it makes sense to get the information out there while I have a bit of space to do so and two or three people paying attention.

Moving on to the later part of the manual...

I had two main objectives for buying this book; the primary goal was to find the parts schematics that would hopefully show me the carriage/head interface in greater detail, but the secondary reason was to get a look at how the horizontal projection mechanism operated. I know that neither I nor anyone else has evinced any interest in horizontal projection, but I still wanted to know how they accomplished it...and boy, was I surprised at what I found.

Pictured: Dafuq..?

So, I don't know that I've ever heard of twisting a head sideways in order to do a horizontal shot; I'm wracking my brain and it isn't coming to me. I certainly see the idea behind doing it, but two things stand out to me when I look at those side-facing heads in the image above:

1. Introducing the capacity for rotation along the Y axis is novel, but if the head can still be adjusted for parallelism by means of an adjuster screw along that same axis, the new Y-axis rotation will complement the existing X-axis rotation capability that's needed by the adjuster screw and create a strange, divorced gimbal of sorts. There's nothing inherently wrong with this, but it complicates the head bracket immeasurably...so it's no surprise that when I look back through the parts schematics for this version of the 45H, I don't see the adjustment screw that we know from the 45M and onwards.
2. This is a bit unrelated, but what kind of Soviet-Russia-strength plywood is in that baseboard?? Seriously, that's like 6/4 material and it's 9 plies thick and that is completely insane.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the lefty-righty-twisty idea wasn't that great in practice, mostly because it seems like Beseler didn't continue it. In the few other images of 45H models I've found, it the head clearly tilts much like a later-style head would, making front-to-back levelling possible and maintaining a forward-facing wall-projection capability at the same time.

Moving on to Page Twenty-Two, we finally get to the detailed parts breakdown, which shows me what I've been looking for this entire time: the configuration of whatever Beseler used to connect the carriage to the head.

Pictured: Oh, you have to be kidding me...

Yeah...it's not there. At all. Nor are there any descriptions of what these parts are, so not only am I left still wondering how Beseler solved the carriage-to-head issue on the early 45H, but I'm likely going to be forever in the dark as to what a B.B.S. 1.2-69 does, or why a cummerbund is listed as part number C-4770...so, yeah: stay tuned.

 

[grahamp]

Many Durst 35mm/medium format enlargers used the rotate left/right method for horizontal enlargement. Alignment is not really an issue because these things don't really have any alignment adjustments in any orientation. I think Durst relied on solid castings for the head and machining flat surfaces at right angles. Something that works with smaller units.

It sounds like you are enjoying the research!

 

[ic-racer]

The first owners of my enlarger used it exclusively for horizontal projection.

I actually fixed the sag in the bellows once I was in possession. When not in use, I tipped it the other way. After about a year it was straight again.

 

[Sundowner]

Many Durst 35mm/medium format enlargers used the rotate left/right method for horizontal enlargement. Alignment is not really an issue because these things don't really have any alignment adjustments in any orientation. I think Durst relied on solid castings for the head and machining flat surfaces at right angles. Something that works with smaller units.

Interesting! I'm entirely unfamiliar with the Durst mechanisms; I've basically worked on Beseler stuff for my entire life, and supplemented that with a bit of Omega and Leica stuff. I should definitely broaden my horizons once I get further along with some of the upcoming Beseler projects. Speaking of which, there's a D2 available for not-too-much, locally; might be fun to see what I can do with one of those.

Also, now that you say that about the Dursts, I feel like there was another "D" name somewhere out there that used a horizontal tilt! Can't think of it, though; time to Google my fu.

It sounds like you are enjoying the research!

I really just got the instructional pamphlet to help me avoid re-inventing the wheel, but when that failed - no bracket diagram - I decided to go though it anyway and see what it had to say. Honestly, I found it quite interesting, and not just because I was standing in the kitchen reading sections of it aloud in Mid-Century PSA Announcer Voice.

 

[Sundowner]

The first owners of my enlarger used it exclusively for horizontal projection.

I actually fixed the sag in the bellows once I was in possession. When not in use, I tipped it the other way. After about a year it was straight again.

That's a very cool system! And I like the simple fix; bonus points for that.

 

[ic-racer]

That's a very cool system! And I like the simple fix; bonus points for that.

I appreciate you enthusiasm with your enlarger. I think it will pay off.

This is what I did to mine with about 3 years of ongoing repair and restoration work. Post #78 is how I found it at a defunct graphic shop and this is what it looks like now:

 

[MattKing]

did anyone else know that there were actually FOUR models of the Beseler 45H?

If anyone would, Kevin Brown (KHB) would.
Based on an email I had from him, it is always worthwhile to reach out to him and ask if he has an enlarger related publication that you need a reproduction copy of.

 

[Sundowner]

I appreciate you enthusiasm with your enlarger. I think it will pay off.

And I appreciate the vote of confidence; we'll see what transpires. I finished the third prototype of the carriage bracket this morning, and after looking at it...well, I still think it could be better. More on that in a minute.

This is what I did to mine with about 3 years of ongoing repair and restoration work. Post #78 is how I found it at a defunct graphic shop and this is what it looks like now...

That is one hell of a setup, and an amazing restoration overall. Very well-done, sir.

If anyone would, Kevin Brown (KHB) would.
Based on an email I had from him, it is always worthwhile to reach out to him and ask if he has an enlarger related publication that you need a reproduction copy of.

Solid point! I should have just emailed directly.

So, about the "still could be better" part of things...

Pictured: Version 3

Yet again: it's not so terrible...but I have a list of objections, nonetheless.

• First and foremost: this print takes a LOT of material, given its actual function. Essentially, it's four L-shaped brackets that hold some spacers and plates, and part of me thinks it would be more elegant and efficient to just make four brackets and some spacers instead of attempting to connect everything together. Reducing all of the excess would save a ton of complexity, material and printing time.
• Surface finish on the ABS is tricky. Even though I'm slowly dialing it in I still don't like the end result, and I've considered smoothing it down with acetone vapor but I'm not sure that I'm going to like that effect. Also, acetone smoothing can result in tolerance loss and deformation if you don't get the timing exactly right, and repairing that deformation - specifically, reaming the bushing bores back to the correct size - adds time back into the process. Normally, I wouldn't worry too much about this kind of thing, but since I'm trying to look at this project as a possible product I need to be concerned with both the production and results. Rather, what will work for me as a solution may not necessarily be acceptable as a product for someone else.
• Part warpage is actually minimal with this design, but it's still present...and it's just present enough to warrant concern. There's not much shrinkage, overall, but there's a tiny bit of deformation across the back that manifests as a .021" gap between the back of the bracket and the cross carriage face. That doesn't seem like a lot, but it's visible...and again: even if I could live with that gap, other people shouldn't have to.
• ABS is a cool material to work with, but I have some other projects coming up for this enlarger that are more suitably handled by a nylon filament...so, I'm wondering if I need to attempt to sort out that material in order to keep materials costs/changes to a minimum. I know that nylon will be strong enough for what I'm doing - I've seen submachinegun receivers built from it, by way of example - so even though it might not be an easy filament, if I can reduce the design to something less-stressed and more modular, my costs for prototyping and development wouldn't be severe.
• Lastly, I just think I can do a better job, here. It's good, but it's not right.

So, that's where I am with it, today. Decisions, decisions...and as always: any and all feedback and input is much appreciated.

 

[MTGseattle]

Is the part as pictured serving its function properly? If yes, I'd say maybe pull it apart and clean up the chatter on the 4 vertical surfaces (as seen in the picture), re-assemble and move on. If someone contacts you and says take my money and print me one well maybe that's the time to adjust?
Everything I have built and/or modified for my own use has been removed from the shop and put into service at something like 96% completion. I'm not proud of this, but the thought of emptying out my stereo/tv console cabinet and moving it back into a shop space just to apply finish to 4 edges is quite distasteful.
That being said, I do understand the drive for "making it right,' and certainly don't want to dissuade you from that path.

 

[Sundowner]

Is the part as pictured serving its function properly? If yes, I'd say maybe pull it apart and clean up the chatter on the 4 vertical surfaces (as seen in the picture), re-assemble and move on. If someone contacts you and says take my money and print me one well maybe that's the time to adjust?
Everything I have built and/or modified for my own use has been removed from the shop and put into service at something like 96% completion. I'm not proud of this, but the thought of emptying out my stereo/tv console cabinet and moving it back into a shop space just to apply finish to 4 edges is quite distasteful.
That being said, I do understand the drive for "making it right,' and certainly don't want to dissuade you from that path.

It'll be hard to tell if it's functioning properly until I have everything together, and the bracket is actually holding the weight of the enlarger head; until then this is admittedly all conjecture. I already know enough to say that this both can and will work, but any particulars past that point are still nebulous and undefined. My thoughts on a redesign are just that: thoughts...but they're based on a halfway-functional instinct and a modicum of experience, for whatever those are worth.

I think that there's a lot to be said for solving problems when they become problems, and not before; you aren't wrong about that. Even so, I also don't want to be the person that says "Sure, I'll make these available" without knowing that they're as good as I can make them...and even though that may be an iterative process that changes and evolves, I still want to be doing my best at any given time. I've been on the receiving end of "good enough" products before, and I don't want to be the person that causes that...and I don't think that's what you were encouraging in any way, for the record. I'm just trying to strike a balance between "best possible effort" and basic practicality, and that can be hard to do at times.

All this being said: I wouldn't finish those four edges, either.

 

[Sundowner]

...and now, we return to our regularly-scheduled program, already in progress.

Pictured: Is this the part where we cue the maniacal laughter of forbidden success?

At the risk of sounding like pretty much every YouTube shill on the planet: I really like the ability to draw up a complex design that I don't have the capacity to easily produce, yet still have it automagically appear on my work table a week or two later...and the fact that it gets packaged with candy makes things all the better. I mean, I'm excited about professionally-anodized parts at any time, but when they're paired with free Sour Punch? Fuhgeddaboudit, brah; that's the dream, right there.

Pictured: Such punchy. Many sourness.

Okay, that being said, I do have some honest feedback on the SendCutSend parts...and it's definitely worth reading, because out of all the YouTube shills that have convinced me that online-ordered laser-cut parts are the better-than-virgins-in-paradise solution to all of my fabrication woes, not a single one of them have mentioned any of the issues that I have with what came out of the package. So, let's talk about what I found:

• Heat deflection: there wasn't a ton of it, but if you need something to be as flat as possible you'll want to take the possibility into account; especially so with aluminum. When I order the next set of these - foreshadowing... - I'll opt for another cutting process, if possible; waterjet would probably do a better job of keeping the warp out of the plate.
• You know that little flattened, compressed surface that shows up on the edge of a plate/sheet when it's sheared? Well, those are on both of my parts; whatever nesting software was used placed the parts very close to the edge, and if this was a critical tolerance area it would have posed a problem. This particular piece isn't that critical so I don't particularly care, but it would be nice to not have to deal with it in future iterations.
• Edge quality and deburring; both were lacking, and that's actually a big problem because I had the parts anodized and there was enough loss of cut quality to keep both plates from properly fitting without taking a file to the worst of the areas. Naturally, filing through an anodized coating kind of defeated the entire purpose of having said coating in the first place, so out of the few issues that I found this was the only one severe enough to warrant an inquiry to SCS. To that end, I've sent an email and we'll see what they say; I have no issues with this being an acceptable tolerance on their end, but I do need to account for it on the next set and not pay for the deburring and anodizing if I'm just going to have to slice through it in order to achieve the correct tolerances. Personally, I think someone just didn't set up the laser correctly...but since I'm not an expert on this process, WTF do I know?

Pictured: Missed it by *that* much...

That little ridge at the start-finish point may not look like much, but its peak is about .030" above the edges on either side; the burr that's barely visible along the back edge is somewhere around .005" in height, and the overtravel error at the visible corner varies in height between .005" and .025"-ish. Those secondary issues were more uncomfortable than dysfunctional - I actually cut a finger on it the burr - but the start/end ridge made this part a non-starter until it was fixed. Also, the astute observer will note the incredibly-not-anodized holes in that plate; those are the source of a very funny story, which I will now tell:

Once upon a time in a magical land, I didn't allow any extra diameter in my fastener bores, and subsequently had to drill them out after finishing.

The end.

Pictured: Five minutes later, we ate Sir Robin's minstrels.

So, yeah...I can't fault them on the quality of those holes in any way: I drew them at .250" and by god they were exactly .250". On the next iteration of these plates - foreshadowing... - I'll give myself somewhere around .275" and be much happier. I'll also likely skip the anodizing entirely because 1) it's not exactly necessary, and B) I already know that I'll get neurotic over the edge quality regardless of what SCS does, and I'll end up chamfering everything anyway because chamfering is both good and proper and fulfilling and it makes us gleefully happy in ways that may cause others to question our sanity.

Pictured: Now? Do we do the maniacal laughter thing now?

Also, that's a terrible picture and I yet again apologize for the quality, but it does show the anodizing rather well...and it's so-so: not great, but not absolute garbage, which is what it would have been if I did it at home in my own shop. Overall, it's a decent and functional job with a few cosmetic imperfections that impact exactly nothing aside from my existential dread, so it's definitely acceptable for the cost. My only issue is having had to entirely negate it by way of the edge cleanup that was required, so anodizing will have to be an entirely-separate, after-I've-been-pedantic process from here forward...and yeah, after those small imperfections were cleaned up, the plates fit just fine.

Pictured: I really feel like there should have been some maniacal laughter by now.

If you look carefully, you can actually see a second set of ridges on the front edges of the plates; I have no idea why these are there - the laser's perimeter-cutting pass should have had exactly one start/finish point per part, not two - but I didn't remove them because there was no need; they neither inhibit function nor prohibit installation of the head, and because of that fact we can finally get to the point where the maniacal laughter happens.

Pictured: It's pronounced "Fronkensteen."

That, Dear Reader, is a fully-loaded Beseler 45 head happily living on a 23C chassis that is not the slightest bit bothered by it being there...and yes, there really was a burst of maniacal laughter upon stepping back and taking in the milestone. (In full disclosure: said maniacal laughter would likely still be taking place were it not for a concerned text from our neighbor that was received almost immediately, inquiring as to whether or not we were harboring escaped fiends, again. Answer: not that you know of, Heidi...not that that you know of.)

So, I have to admit: I'm actually pretty happy with this. It's a solid proof of concept, function and scope, and it immediately showed me exactly what needs to be added/changed, and - more importantly - what doesn't need any adjustment at all:

• The counterbalance springs aren't a problem at all; in the above image the carriage lock is fully disengaged and exactly nothing is taking place. With the full weight of the condenser head, the carriage moves downwards a bit easier than upwards, and with the light source removed the carriage moves upwards a bit easier than downwards. With an Aristo head installed the spring tension feels just about perfect; neither too much nor too little...so that may be the Goldilocks amount of weight. Either way: springs aren't a problem.
• There's a tiny amount of distortion in the bracket with the full weight of the head on it; exactly .004", to be specific. This may not be an issue depending on what kind of creep I can or can't expect from various filament options.
• Front-to-back (Y-axis) pitch control is easy to achieve because the pivot bolt at the top works exactly as I expected; I may have to modify the next set of plates a bit to make an adjustment screw easier to reach, but that's more of an ergonomic change than a functional one.
• Side-to-side (X-axis) pitch control is harder to achieve than I expected, because the single bolt holding the pivot bracket to the stage mounting bar acts as a pivot, itself...so the pivot bracket is a gimbal mount whether I want it to be or not. Thus, I'll have to work on a way to create and lock-in some fine adjustments to the head's alignment on the X-axis.
• The crush-preventing bushings work perfectly; when tightening fasteners, a slight compression occurs on the relevant areas of the polymer bracket before the aluminum sleeves inside the bores say "Nope" and the hardware snugs up nicely.
• The elevation scale on the right-hand chassis rail continues to be as useless as it is with the 23C head; I think a simple way to fix this is to just relocate the indicator arrow. That could be done with a sticker, to be honest; an easy solution is likely the best one, here.
• There's a ton of carriage/head height on this thing; I could likely drop the head from its current location in relation to the cross carriage and not really impact the enlargement capacity. I'll know more when I dig out a lens and start seeing what I'm getting; I suppose I could just do some math, but doing math involves doing math and I don't like doing math.

Overall, I would call this a win; it shows that a bolt-on conversion bracket for the 23 is not just a doable thing, but that a minimum of alteration to the chassis and carriage are all that's needed to achieve it...and that's promising not only for me, but for anyone else that might be interested in making this kind of modification.

There's only one tiny little problem: after getting the prototype all bolted together, I've belatedly realized that I've built the entire thing completely and totally backwards.

I'm serious about that, by the way. Remember how I said I felt like it could do this better? I was being serious about that as well, but I didn't see how I could do it better until I literally had this entire version together, in front of me. That's the real reason for the maniacal laughter abruptly ceasing; Heidi and the fiends hiding in the basement really didn't have much to do with it. Thus, I'm back at the drawing board and working on Version 2.1 ... 3.0 ... 4.whatever...but I'll still be using these parts for testing, so stay tuned for that and expect a major revision in the next few weeks. Even so: success is success, so it's time for a celebratory scotch and gummy bears.

 

[ic-racer]

I appreciate your commentary on the fabricated parts you received.

 

[Sundowner]

I appreciate your commentary on the fabricated parts you received.

Good timing on that; because I was just logging back in to follow up on that report.

SCS responded within an hour, so that's exceptional on their part. The short form of the story is this: everything that I received is normal. They can't deburr edges, and the additional entry/exit mark is actually a locating tab remnant; this is also normal. So, not a problem, but I definitely won't have the next sets anodized; I prefer a higher level of finish than this.

Overall: 7/10, would send .dxf files again.

 

[MTGseattle]

Your experience with the SCS parts reinforced my thinking that I am glad I never spent much time trying to get an LPL 6x12 negative carrier made (not to mention the Omega D series work around). They would have to be water jet cut. Flatness would be tantamount, and the finish could have zero flaws. Then there are the registration pins and the tiny little hinges. I think Saunders/LPL knew the market wasn't there, and the job can be done just fine 3 other ways.

I applaud your efforts thus far.

I think I saw the listing for the auction you mentioned a while back (source of the 23c) Were they ok to deal with?

 

[Sundowner]

Your experience with the SCS parts reinforced my thinking that I am glad I never spent much time trying to get an LPL 6x12 negative carrier made (not to mention the Omega D series work around). They would have to be water jet cut. Flatness would be tantamount, and the finish could have zero flaws. Then there are the registration pins and the tiny little hinges. I think Saunders/LPL knew the market wasn't there, and the job can be done just fine 3 other ways.

A negative carrier would be easier to make in-house, for me at least; the material thickness makes all of the rough cutting much easier, and it makes the final shaping very fast. I think I would just lay out the relevant parts on some flat sheet, drill where needed, connect the dots with a saw, and then file it all to shape. There would be no heat to worry about, with that method. Final finish could be anodizing or powder coating.

I applaud your efforts thus far.

Thank you. This isn't easy, but I'm getting there. Slowly.

I think I saw the listing for the auction you mentioned a while back (source of the 23c) Were they ok to deal with?

Yeah, they were fine overall. I think there were some more 23s listed, and for the price I thought about getting another one...but I just don't need it and don't want to deal with storing it.