PVS 5 questions - AR15.COM

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - PVS 5 questions (Page 1 of 2)

Posted: 7/18/2017 10:07:08 AM EDT

I have a few PVS 7 units, but I am looking into getting a binocular system. The Gen III stuff is above my budget right now, but would a good condition PVS 5 have enough gain to be able to operate a vehicle with IR illumination? Also, can a PVS 5 unit still be repaired, are there still tubes out there for them.

Posted: 7/18/2017 1:26:05 PM EDT

[#1]

I have two PVS-5s. They are fine for driving.
However, if you wear glasses the PVS-5 can be difficult to fit and keep from fogging.
I liked them in town too, where the darkest places aren't "rural dark" at all because of the indirect light that's almost always present.
Further, I have been in dangerous places when one side or the other fails, and having the second tube, independent tube, was a real gift.

Posted: 7/18/2017 3:04:09 PM EDT

[#2]

Sure PVS-5's can be maintained...

I recently converted a set I bought new in the 80's to the latest Gen 3 tubes...

I've always liked the head mount support...

Posted: 7/18/2017 7:16:00 PM EDT

[#3]

They are good to go especially with supplemental IR. Most likely you can go without. Maintence wise tubes are getting scarce and finding a matched one would likely be a problem. If i had one die id convert it to a mono.

Posted: 8/8/2017 1:17:15 AM EDT

[#4]

Get at Edward Wilcox

Posted: 8/8/2017 1:17:45 AM EDT

[#5]

Wilcox engineering and research

Posted: 8/8/2017 10:18:46 PM EDT

[#6]

Never intended to get involved with discussions. Might as well have this as a first post.

Having owned a PVS-7 and -14, among other NV devices, the PVS-5 is one of the best dollar to performance ratios out there for a binocular system if you can get it relatively cheap. Binocular vision has very obvious benefits, especially when driving, and I have had good experience driving with PVS-5 goggles in conditions just a hair above "rural dark" with no illumination. Of the two pairs that I have (and paid too much for), both are well matched between each eye and do the job. The PVS-5C is a better candidate but not required for an initial "wow" factor.

Posted: 8/9/2017 1:12:14 PM EDT

[#7]

I will also tell you to contact Ed. He has a ton of pvs-5 parts that he will sell. He mentored me and took the time to teach me me how to properly rebuild gen 2 and gen3 tubes, so I can say that replacing a bad tube requires onr to get a couple more dead tubes and have someone who is able tear them down to salvage the good parts and rebuild the tube. Matching two tubes can be done fairly easily by most knowledgable people who have alot of experience working with tubes and night vision devices.

Posted: 8/9/2017 4:52:47 PM EDT

[#8]

Is the Litton M909 a civilian version of the PVS 5?

Posted: 8/9/2017 6:33:56 PM EDT

[#9]

Quote History

Quoted:
Is the Litton M909 a civilian version of the PVS 5?

View Quote

Short answer is yes.

Longer answer from what I have written down in my notes I keep on any knowledge I gather about anything night vision related.

"M-909. Litton Electron Devices produces the M-909 which, while based on the PVS-5A, uses substantially improved objective lenses and higher-gain, brighter second-generation image intensifiers. This results in twice the system gain offered by the PVS-5A and a useful range increase of 33 percent."

Hope that helps.

Posted: 8/10/2017 11:58:03 AM EDT

[#10]

This brings me back..... PVS5 was the first night vision devices we sold back in the 90's.

Posted: 8/10/2017 8:36:52 PM EDT

[#11]

Quote History

Quoted:
This brings me back..... PVS5 was the first night vision devices we sold back in the 90's.

View Quote

I was just a todler and a little kid in the 90's, but I did use 9916 modules for practice to hone my skills and develop the techniques that i employ when rebuilding image tubes before moving on to rebuilding gen 3 tubes. 9916's are a lot cheaper than gen 3 so I used them to figure out all of the intricacies of rebuilding tubes and if I potted one and powered it on and a gigantic emission point was blinding me that wasnt there when I tested the bare module, it wouldnt be as depressing as if it occurred on a clean gen 3 module. It was still a little depressing tho. But they did what I was hoping they would as ive only had an emission piint form on one gen 3 module that I have potted and I have potted a lot of tubes. Still have some clan 9916 modules to now that I think about it. Now i hjust need a good reason to pot them. Haha

Posted: 8/10/2017 9:58:06 PM EDT

[#12]

I thought this might be a good place to post this pic of a very early pvs-5 MHA. its deffinitly something not a lot of peple have seen. There are some people who have, but im willing to bet the number of those who have is not a large group. Check out the eyepiece assembly with the lock ring and the ACME threads on the inside of the MHA. Pretty neat old part I think. I just hope the pictures are loading correctly so they can be seen.

Posted: 8/11/2017 2:38:28 PM EDT

[#13]

Quote History

Quoted:
Short answer is yes.

Longer answer from what I have written down in my notes I keep on any knowledge I gather about anything night vision related.

"M-909. Litton Electron Devices produces the M-909 which, while based on the PVS-5A, uses substantially improved objective lenses and higher-gain, brighter second-generation image intensifiers. This results in twice the system gain offered by the PVS-5A and a useful range increase of 33 percent."

Hope that helps.

View Quote

I know you got that off the web, the 909 was the litton version of the 5a, the part about better tubes is probably right if its a late 80s production model. Bu the lenses are the same as the 5a.

The 5b an 5c had better lenses. Litton made the 5b and ITT made the 5c. The 5b was marketed by litton for airborne ops, while the 5c was never flight rated (specifically prohibited actually).

Posted: 8/11/2017 4:21:37 PM EDT

[#14]

Quote History

Quoted:

I know you got that off the web, the 909 was the litton version of the 5a, the part about better tubes is probably right if its a late 80s production model. Bu the lenses are the same as the 5a.

The 5b an 5c had better lenses. Litton made the 5b and ITT made the 5c. The 5b was marketed by litton for airborne ops, while the 5c was never flight rated (specifically prohibited actually).

View Quote

Yes indeed I did get it off the web originally when I wrote it down. I write down anything I might liitke to have for future reference. Which is most new info I stumble upon. However I did own a litton 909 that had 5B objectives when I got it from the first owner. The pictures I posted above have a 5B objective on the early an/pvs-5 (without a suffix) MHA and obviously the objective isnt original to the housng and eyepiece pictures. And Im not saying that the 909 came that way, the first owner may very well have changed the objectives, even though he never mentioned it. I got the info about the 909 from a dowloadable pdf. Ill send it to your email if you want to check it out. it looks legit, but who knows it could be wrong. Lmk if you wabt the pdf sent to your email.

Posted: 8/11/2017 4:42:24 PM EDT

[#15]

So where does the Litton M915 fit in spec wise? I've heard it is better all around with Gen 2+ tubes. Is that correct?

Posted: 8/11/2017 5:43:56 PM EDT

[#16]

Quote History

Quoted:
So where does the Litton M915 fit in spec wise? I've heard it is better all around with Gen 2+ tubes. Is that correct?

View Quote

The 915 is similar to the PVS-5b which litton advertised specifically for aviation use, but it didn't have the 5B AA comparment. So, better tubes and better lenses. Also litton tubes of the era were generally better than ITT/Varo tubes of the era. The numbers for the F numbers on the lenses on the 5b's and C's are also pretty close, 1.09 vs 1.05 respectively.

The reason for the 5C being banned for aviation use had to do with its high light cut off feature; bright flash and the unit turning off in mid flight is a bad bad thing. But its a great feature for dealing with the issue of dumbass pvt snuffy leaving his NVG's on during the day.

Posted: 8/11/2017 5:59:51 PM EDT

[#17]

Thanks!

Posted: 8/11/2017 6:51:38 PM EDT

[#18]

Also the facemask was often altered by cutting off the bottom portion when used for aviation to achueve the ability to look at instruments by looking down where the bottom half of mask used to be. There is an aviation mount that was manufactured that held the MHAs and electronics that totally replaced the facemask with a more anvis like bridge set up that also flipped up like the Anvis. The aviation mount allowed pilots to "look under" at the instruments in the cockpit as well as allow use of corrective eye glasses which the original face mask did not accomodate. There were 2 versions made if I recall correctly. One for standard SPH flight helmets and also a second offset version for helmets that accomodated HSS.

Posted: 8/11/2017 6:58:00 PM EDT

[#19]

Quote History

Quoted:
Also the facemask was often altered by cutting off the bottom portion when used for aviation to achueve the ability to look at instruments by looking down where the bottom half of mask used to be. There is an aviation mount that was manufactured that held the MHAs and electronics that totally replaced the facemask with a more anvis like bridge set up that also flipped up like the Anvis. The aviation mount allowed pilots to "look under" at the instruments in the cockpit as well as allow use of corrective eye glasses which the original face mask did not accomodate. There were 2 versions made if I recall correctly. One for standard SPH flight helmets and also a second offset version for helmets that accomodated HSS.

View Quote

Correct on all counts. Historically speaking the cut off masks were only made AFTER several rather nasty Helo crashes in the late 70's and early 80's with PVS-5a's. You also had to relocate the battery compartment to the top of the unit rather than the bottom. Then in the late 80's the COBB mounts came out that interfaced with the ANVIS helmet mounts and there was the standard and then the offset models. My COBB mounted 5B's still get a moderate amount of use for driving etc.

Posted: 8/11/2017 10:10:02 PM EDT

[#20]

Quote History

Quoted:

Correct on all counts. Historically speaking the cut off masks were only made AFTER several rather nasty Helo crashes in the late 70's and early 80's with PVS-5a's. You also had to relocate the battery compartment to the top of the unit rather than the bottom. Then in the late 80's the COBB mounts came out that interfaced with the ANVIS helmet mounts and there was the standard and then the offset models. My COBB mounted 5B's still get a moderate amount of use for driving etc.

View Quote

Thanks for adding the reason behind the modified facemasks. I totally forgot to include the cause that brought about the modified masks. Since you use yours for driving, how do you have your setup? ANVIS ground mount on a ballistic kevlar helmet, bump helmet, or other? If you dont mind me asking. I havent ever set one up for ground use with the aviation mount, although can think of a couple ways to do it. I was just curious how you set yours up since you have experiennce with actually using the COBB for ground operations.

Posted: 8/11/2017 11:54:03 PM EDT

[#21]

Quote History

Quoted:

The 915 is similar to the PVS-5b which litton advertised specifically for aviation use, but it didn't have the 5B AA comparment. So, better tubes and better lenses. Also litton tubes of the era were generally better than ITT/Varo tubes of the era. The numbers for the F numbers on the lenses on the 5b's and C's are also pretty close, 1.09 vs 1.05 respectively.

The reason for the 5C being banned for aviation use had to do with its high light cut off feature; bright flash and the unit turning off in mid flight is a bad bad thing. But its a great feature for dealing with the issue of dumbass pvt snuffy leaving his NVG's on during the day.

View Quote

I agree with you about Ltton tubes being better than the ITT tubes of the era
Consider it my opinion, but Id go even further to say that litton/NGeos/L3 tubes no matter what era are better tubes when one is considering the overall build quality of the parts used to build the tube(tube module, power supply and the other consumable parts. The easiest example I can think of to show this is to simply compare an itt 11769 pigtail and an L3 11769 pigtail, while a not so easy way is to compare bare tube modules of the same era from eachnmanufacturer side by side. The difference in quality between modules can be seen very easily and the difference in durability of the tail is obvious just by looking at them side by side. And the fact that L3 thought to put the resistors physically on the 11769 power supply itself so if the tail was removed or damaged the chance of burning out the tube while running without tail is greatly reduced, where running an ITT 11769 without a tail is a sure way to make your tube output a very very noisy image until it it is permanently damaged after a short time if using it without the tail.

Anyways just wanted to agree with your statement about Litton tubes being better and need to refrain from straying too far off the subject of the thread. Haha.

Posted: 8/12/2017 10:33:20 AM EDT

[#22]

Quote History

Quoted:
Thanks for adding the reason behind the modified facemasks. I totally forgot to include the cause that brought about the modified masks. Since you use yours for driving, how do you have your setup? ANVIS ground mount on a ballistic kevlar helmet, bump helmet, or other? If you dont mind me asking. I havent ever set one up for ground use with the aviation mount, although can think of a couple ways to do it. I was just curious how you set yours up since you have experiennce with actually using the COBB for ground operations.

View Quote

Well, as you might have noticed I'm not into the Bro Bro uber Tacticool thing. I've got several ground models that I use just normally with their masks and headstraps. But for the Cobb mounted PVS-5 I run it just like my anvis, I'm just a lot less worried about breaking it. I've got a ground anvis adapter plate that fits onto my really old school skateboarding helmet, and also a Cyre Nightcap and the power supply for both is on the back of each one as counterweight.

Posted: 8/12/2017 2:09:20 PM EDT

[#23]

Quote History

Quoted:

Well, as you might have noticed I'm not into the Bro Bro uber Tacticool thing. I've got several ground models that I use just normally with their masks and headstraps. But for the Cobb mounted PVS-5 I run it just like my anvis, I'm just a lot less worried about breaking it. I've got a ground anvis adapter plate that fits onto my really old school skateboarding helmet, and also a Cyre Nightcap and the power supply for both is on the back of each one as counterweight.

View Quote

Ya I dont care so much about all of that either. If im not plasnning on heading into a warzone I dont really see the need to go out on a night hunt or land navigate in a complete head to boot set of IIIA ballistic armor and all sorts of shit that civilians will probably never need. A small item that most think they have to have are this LIF's. No civvy will likely ever encounter the type of laser that has a wavelength that those filters are meant to block out. Those lasers are highly restricted to military only. So basically civilians have themselves a fairly expensive sacrificial lens and thats about it. I use what works for the tadk im doing and dont care about all the fancy shit that for the most part gets in the way of the task at hand. I also have a Cyre Nightcap. They are pretty nice especially when having a bulky helmet on your head is not neccesarry. I find it to be stable and it work quite well. So it gets to stay in my gear safe.

Posted: 8/21/2017 5:00:40 PM EDT

[#24]

Can the COBB modification kits still be had? I did purchase the Litton 909 unit and I am happy with it, the tubes are in pretty good shape, but the face pad is shot. I would love to be able to convert it so I could use the Crye nightcap (I have two for PVS-7 units). The whole facemask setup is terribly uncomfortable.

Posted: 8/21/2017 5:51:31 PM EDT

[#25]

Check ebay for a spare face mask cover, or I think STANO might have some left. Way cheaper than a cobb mount. Last COBB I saw was north of 200, and then you need the anvis half of the interface and the battery pack, figure at least 100 for each of those, not to mention how to mount the anvis mount to something. You will pay more trying to mount your PVS-5 than you paid for it.

Posted: 8/21/2017 8:46:22 PM EDT

[#26]

Earlier this year, I think it was, Ed Wilcox had a huge lot of PVS-5 parts on Ebay for sale. It looked like he was getting out of the PVS-5 game.

Posted: 8/21/2017 9:17:04 PM EDT

[#27]

Quote History

Quoted:
Earlier this year, I think it was, Ed Wilcox had a huge lot of PVS-5 parts on Ebay for sale. It looked like he was getting out of the PVS-5 game.

View Quote

Ed still has all of his parts for the pvs-5. It was actually a steal of a deal with the auction price starting at 5,000 with no reserve. One bid would have got it and the winner would have got well more in parts value than what they paid for it. O well. Deffinitly contact him and ask him for quotes on what you need. He will be more than happy to sell you the parts. I am in contact with Ed several times a week on average and we talk alot about night vision in a non business sense and alot of technical and mechanical aspects of night vision among other stuff. From this, i know Ed is actually looking to retire altogether in the next couple years and im sure he wants these and other parts he has in his large inventory to go to others who are in need of them l. So deffinitly get in touch and request a quote for anything pvs-5 related and im sure you will get a goid price quoted as yes ud say he is deffinitly trying to get out of the pvs-5 game for sure.

Posted: 8/30/2017 8:59:59 AM EDT

[#28]

Here you can find my way of updating PVS-5. This is housing that I designed and will be 3D printed soon.

Posted: 8/30/2017 10:04:53 AM EDT

[#29]

Quote History

Quoted:
Here you can find my way of updating PVS-5. This is housing that I designed and will be 3D printed soon.
https://naforum.zapodaj.net/eba2f614f7cc.png.html
https://naforum.zapodaj.net/52eb5f0cb947.png.html
https://naforum.zapodaj.net/c81b797d6a75.png.html

View Quote

photos don't work.

Posted: 8/30/2017 2:59:22 PM EDT

[#30]

Haha seeing that design reminds me of a monocular I once built using a pvs-5 tube and MHA with eyepiece and objective, a switch assembly, a tripple A battery box I cut out of an old TV remote and a whole mess of JB weld to form it all into one self contained beater/loaner beater monocular that if something were to happen to it, no worries, id just make another one real quick. The thing sealed tight too so I was able to purge abd backfill with nitrogen. Check out the pictures and feel free to laugh out loud. I know I sure had a chuckle when I was reminded of it after seeing this design. It aint pretty but it work and works well fore what its intended as. Just be aware, the pictured unit has a US patent pending so dont even think about stealing the idea. Jk! Hahaha lol! Go ahead and steal the idea if you want a no thrills, durable beater/loaner mono you can build n the ultra cheap side of the financial scale. I dont mind one bit.

Posted: 8/30/2017 10:18:51 PM EDT

[#31]

Quote History

Quoted:
Haha seeing that design reminds me of a monocular I once built using a pvs-5 tube and MHA with eyepiece and objective, a switch assembly, a tripple A battery box I cut out of an old TV remote and a whole mess of JB weld to form it all into one self contained beater/loaner beater monocular that if something were to happen to it, no worries, id just make another one real quick. The thing sealed tight too so I was able to purge abd backfill with nitrogen. Check out the pictures and feel free to laugh out loud. I know I sure had a chuckle when I was reminded of it after seeing this design. It aint pretty but it work and works well fore what its intended as. Just be aware, the pictured unit has a US patent pending so dont even think about stealing the idea. Jk! Hahaha lol! Go ahead and steal the idea if you want a no thrills, durable beater/loaner mono you can build n the ultra cheap side of the financial scale. I dont mind one bit.http://i1361.photobucket.com/albums/r680/dts-blackout25/20170822_101347_zpsrjnacnnh.jpg http://i1361.photobucket.com/albums/r680/dts-blackout25/20170822_101922_zpsohxwfdzt.jpg http://i1361.photobucket.com/albums/r680/dts-blackout25/20170822_101737_zpsqhfiz6rv.jpg
http://i1361.photobucket.com/albums/r680/dts-blackout25/20170822_101538_zpss6wf2atx.jpg

http://i1361.photobucket.com/albums/r680/dts-blackout25/20170822_102131_zpsjllexbk9.jpg

http://i1361.photobucket.com/albums/r680/dts-blackout25/20170822_102221_zpsys8csryw.jpg

View Quote

LOL, BTBT

I used 2x AA for mine.... and a shitton of epoxy.

Posted: 8/30/2017 10:37:22 PM EDT

[#32]

Ya I would have used either AA or AAA. I just used the first salvageable battery compartment from the first broken electronic device i found haha. Wasnt looking to spend too much time searching for parts to make this beater. Just wanted something that would do the job and also be durable. I used JB weld because it is a close alternative to the stycast or 20/20 that was originally used to seal the hole where the tube's +- leads came through the MHA and the JB sealed the hole up perfectly. Were you able to purg/N2 backfill yours or attempted to pull a vacuum to see if it sealed up ok with the epoxy. It really doesnt matter being a beater and all but im just curious.

Posted: 8/31/2017 2:25:05 AM EDT

[#33]

I am sure your work just well. But it still is not a pvs-14 j-arm compatible :P and 3d printing is easier and give better results than JB weld ;).
I've got two sets to modify and I like them because PVS-5 optic is so much better than PVS-14. One is running decent MX9916uv nothing fancy but second one uses Photonos XX1940 43mm fat anvis tube and it is rally nice setup!

Posted: 8/31/2017 3:59:25 AM EDT

[#34]

No it doesnt do those things but was never really meant to do anything like that. Just a grab and abuse when needed kind of deal.

Posted: 8/31/2017 9:12:06 AM EDT

[#35]

Quote History

Quoted:
Ya I would have used either AA or AAA. I just used the first salvageable battery compartment from the first broken electronic device i found haha. Wasnt looking to spend too much time searching for parts to make this beater. Just wanted something that would do the job and also be durable. I used JB weld because it is a close alternative to the stycast or 20/20 that was originally used to seal the hole where the tube's +- leads came through the MHA and the JB sealed the hole up perfectly. Were you able to purg/N2 backfill yours or attempted to pull a vacuum to see if it sealed up ok with the epoxy. It really doesnt matter being a beater and all but im just curious.

View Quote

No purging, I live in a dry climate and don't usually bother with it.

Posted: 8/31/2017 9:14:44 AM EDT

[#36]

Quote History

Quoted:
I am sure your work just well. But it still is not a pvs-14 j-arm compatible :P and 3d printing is easier and give better results than JB weld ;).
I've got two sets to modify and I like them because PVS-5 optic is so much better than PVS-14. One is running decent MX9916uv nothing fancy but second one uses Photonos XX1940 43mm fat anvis tube and it is rally nice setup!

View Quote

As I recall David (CJ7 here) had a "mod" where he somehow modified a PVS-14 housing to wrap around a PVS-5 can and it worked so you could helmet mount it. Another dude use a set of PVS-14 dual ring mounts (n-vision maybe?) to make a decent set of dualies that were helmet mountable. Lots of ways to do it. Personally these days I just leave mine as is, someday they will be collectors items.

Posted: 8/31/2017 10:24:57 AM EDT

[#37]

Quote History

Quoted:

No purging, I live in a dry climate and don't usually bother with it.

View Quote

Ya im in a pretty dry climate for the most part too. Low humidity most of the year. I only wanted to seal mine up to be able to N2 purge becuse of the benefit it gives if purging procedure outlined in the -23&P is followed. It allows the lenses to rotate alot more smoothly for focus and diopter adjustments. Its not a huge deal tho. Its just kind of nice to have super smooth optics, but not neccessary. And guess now that im thinking about it wouldnt be doable without the purge adapter anyways.

Posted: 9/1/2017 10:06:10 AM EDT

[#38]

I built this tube a few weeks ago. Figured id post pics of it since it relates to the PVS-5.

Posted: 9/4/2017 3:24:28 AM EDT

[#39]

But it looks more like MX11769 than PVS5 gen2 glass input tube :)

Posted: 9/4/2017 1:35:26 PM EDT

[#40]

Quote History

Quoted:
But it looks more like MX11769 than PVS5 gen2 glass input tube :)

View Quote

It is a gen2 9916 module in an Itt autogated 11769 powersupply/body. The module must be modified by removing a good portion of the metal lip that the FO faceplate is sealed to with the indium, and since the modules FO inverter or "twist' output is slightly larger in diameter than a gen 3 10160/11769 module, the hole in the power supply that he FO inverter comes through must be enlarged, taking great care to not expose the electronic components that are encapsulated within the material. It needs to be done extremely close to perfectly as there is just enough material which can be removed while leaving the electronic components unexsposed. Its very easy to take too much material off and end up exposing some of the components. If that happens you will eed to re insulate them somehow, assuming you havent damaged anything. After potting you will likely have to adjust the pots on the pigtail to get the gain adjusted correctly. The most important part though is finding modules and itt 11769 power supplies that have close matching tube PC input and PSU PC output voltages.

ETA: So it wouldnt be untrue to say that it is an autogated, filmless green phosphor(P-20) tube.

Posted: 9/4/2017 2:08:08 PM EDT

[#41]

Quote History

Quoted:

ETA: So it wouldnt be untrue to say that it is an autogated, filmless green phosphor(P-20) tube.

View Quote

LOFL....

Posted: 9/4/2017 2:16:48 PM EDT

[#42]

Quote History

Quoted:

LOFL....

View Quote

I thought this would make you chuckle a bit. Haha. Just one of the many little tube projects I do when boredom strikes(which isnt too often because of all the little projects I think up or figure out how to do). I thought it would be a good post to get a few good laughs out of. Lol

Posted: 9/4/2017 5:04:47 PM EDT

[#43]

Quote History

Quoted:

I thought this would make you chuckle a bit. Haha. Just one of the many little tube projects I do when boredom strikes(which isnt too often because of all the little projects I think up or figure out how to do). I thought it would be a good post to get a few good laughs out of. Lol

View Quote

How would focus on that work, could you actually put it in a PVS-14 and not have a problem with the FO input vs a glass input?

Posted: 9/4/2017 5:39:11 PM EDT

[#44]

Quote History

Quoted:

How would focus on that work, could you actually put it in a PVS-14 and not have a problem with the FO input vs a glass input?

View Quote

I have it in a milspec 14 body with milspec glass at the moment and it works perfectly. the focal issue is non existant because, I think, that a 14 objective has much more focus adjustment and also because US gen 3 10160/11769 tubes and this one I made are all the same distance from the lens to the pc input. Now there will probably be issue with this one I built if was to, say, remove the pigtail, wire a resistor between the pins, slide into a sleevecadapter and intall it into a metal pvs-5 can with optics. It would have focusin issues probably just like gen 3 10160 format tubes would. The reason in my mind stems from the fact that OEM 9916 tubes have their fiber optic faceplate stickng out/protruding about 1/8" +/- from the face of the face of the plastic tube boot where gen 3 10160/11769 formats including this 9916 11769 custom gen 2 are actually recessed slightly from the face of the boot which flushes up against the inside surface at the front of a 14 housing. Which in terms of focus adjusments is actually quite a bit of difference in distance.

ETA: the OEM 9916 tubes also were adhered with stycast or milspec 20/20 adhesive that was dabbed around the front face of the plastic boot, from which rhe FO face plate protrudes, to adhere the tube to the metal can. This adhesive hardened and made the distance from the 9916' FO pc input to the objective lens element a bit further back, but still not enough to make up for the focal distance requirement on a gen 3 10160 tube with glass output.

Posted: 9/5/2017 2:35:18 AM EDT

[#45]

Wow that's really something new :). Could you post pictures of image generated by this tube? I read somewhere here that gen 3 power supply is beneficial for image quality of mx9916.

Posted: 9/5/2017 3:17:26 AM EDT

[#46]

Quote History

Quoted:
Wow that's really something new :). Could you post pictures of image generated by this tube? I read somewhere here that gen 3 power supply is beneficial for image quality of mx9916.

View Quote

Stand by for pictures. Will post them shortly

Posted: 9/5/2017 6:29:13 AM EDT

[#47]

Here are a couple pictures comparing the 9916/11769 custom tube to a omni 7 high performance milspec ITT mx-11769/uv. Lighting conditions in photos are full moon and slightly overcast skys. Wish conditions were a little more on the darker side of things for comparing the two tubes, but its what I had to work with a the time. Here are the picture of each tubes image while viewing closely similar scenes.

1) mx-9916/11769 custom gen 2 tube.

2) omni 7 11769 gen 3 tube.

3) mx-9916/11769 custom gen 2 tube.

4) omni 7 11769 gen 3 tube.

My camera isnt the best but this should give a good idea of what the tube is like . Also should note that the 9916 module has 2 semi-transparent spots in it's image.

Posted: 9/5/2017 8:05:51 PM EDT

[#48]

Not the greatest comparison, considering full moon conditions

But thanks for posting, perhaps you should follow up with 1/4 or no moon, you'd probably see some serious differences then.

Posted: 9/5/2017 10:38:48 PM EDT

[#49]

Quote History

Quoted:
Not the greatest comparison, considering full moon conditions

But thanks for posting, perhaps you should follow up with 1/4 or no moon, you'd probably see some serious differences then.

View Quote

i agree with that 100%. I know i would see deffinite observable differences at 1/4 moon or starlight. No question about that. However I did say i wished the conditions were on the darker side for that very reason. I will likely follow up with pictures taken during 1/4 moon and starlight conditions. To be honest my main reason for even bothering to post these pictures of full moon side by side comparison was to show that this 9916/11769 format tube does not experience any issues that are like the focusing issue experienced when trying to use a sleeved 10160 in a pvs-5 metal can. 14 optics will focus stars down to pinpoints when attached to this tube, as can be seen in the pictures.

Posted: 9/6/2017 2:19:51 AM EDT

[#50]

Dts-blackout25 thank you very much for posting these photos. It is a pleasure to see something new :)

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - PVS 5 questions (Page 1 of 2)

Armory » NV Tech Talk

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us