Talk:Optical microscope

Action

I have read through the talk at microscope to try and get something done about the future of this article. It seems that people agree on what should be done, it just needs doing!

Here is an outline of what I believe a sensible solution is for the microscopy, microscope and all other related pages:

• Microscope and microscopy should become portal style pages, with summary articles and links to pages on the individual types of microscopy (optical, electron, etc.) and pages on the physical principles of basic microscopes (ie. optics, resolution, electron optics, etc.)
• Microscope should be written from a physical viewpoint, ie. the physics and history of microscopes, as microscopes are the actual instrument. Microscopy should be written from a more practical viewpoint, ie. the usage and reasons for usage of the different techniques.
• Optical microscope needs its own page, similar to electron microscope. Relevant information on individual optical microscopy instruments and techniques need to be moved to this page.
• Each individual microscopy technique and microscope type (eg. phase contrast, scanning electron, etc.) needs its own page, no matter how short - it is better to have a stub for expansion than a long and confusing parent article.

Finally and most importantly:

• microscope and microscopy should be kept short and simple. They are introductory pages to what is a very wide and in depth region of science. Detail should be confined to more focussed articles.

You have a week to make your comments, and, unless there are any major complaints, im going to get started! Zephyris 20:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

---

This article, started originally by a couple of anonymous wags, has been developing parallel with Microscope. Although its intent is probably to be specific to "optical" microscopes, in fact that is the type that most people associate with microscope. Time to end the confusion and merge with the original article. - Marshman 00:37, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There has become a need for this article, in a similar style to electron microscope, although as this old comment very truthfully says, it should not become a parallel of microscope

Error in Picture

The picture under the title "How a microscope works" is wrong. The real image in the picture (between F2 and the Eyepiece) somehow bends the light rays. Seeyes 16:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

F2 ? I guess the image has been changed - the text still refers to an eye, but the image has a camera ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 02:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the stage #6?. #6 is the place you put glass slides to view them. If you tried "to hold the sample" at #9 you wouldn't be able to see it. #9 is the part that moves the slide clip (silver thing on stage) by using the handle under the number 9 in the picture. I think the frame refers to the whole main structure where the oculars, nosepiece, stage and light source are attached rather than just the slide clip mover but I'm not totally sure about that.

Sudggestion to change article name

The name of this article should be perhaps changed to transmitted light microscopy rather than optical microscopy Coolbrdr 19:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It includes stereo microscopes, which do not use transmitted light. I see the problem, though, that the article talks about light microscopes as if they are all transmitted light microscopes. I think the article needs written to correct for this problem rather than moved. There should be an article on optical light microscopes. Unlike in EM it is still common to have microscopes with both transmitted and reflected light paths. --Amaltheus (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

How to

I removed the How to section that someone put a notice on. The section was badly written and unreferenced and seemed pointless. IMO it was better to just get rid of it. --Amaltheus (talk) 03:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Stereo Microscope , Main article: Comparison Microscope

Doesn't this imply they are the same thing ?

2 Eyepieces <> 2 objects

"The stereo microscope should not be confused with a compound microscope equipped with binocular eyepieces." Also there are old brass microscopes with one objective and two tubes that diverge to two eyepieces. Doesn't that give a limited stereo effect due to using two small circles as apertures within the objective ? I don't know what's inside them ...

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

When there is only one objective, there is only one image generated. If a binocular eyepiece is used, then this image is duplicated: Both eyes see exactly the same image, thus there is no 3D effect. --Dietzel65 (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Historical images

Maybe someone wants to incorporate these "new" historical images in the article. Legends are on Commons. --Dietzel65 (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• 
  The microscope of Robert Hooke, 1665
• 
  Wilson's Screw Barel Microscope, 1761

McArthur microscope

I know nothing about the subject (I'm interested in the man!), but I've been finding out about John Norris McArthur's invention, a portable microscope "a revolutionary instrument incorporating the most radical innovation since microscopic design since Galileo" his obituary. I can't see it mentioned in any of the articles to do with microscopy - am I being blind or is this an inadvertant omission? More info here: [1] and here [2] and here [3]. Thanks. Jasper33 (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of examples of microscopes exceeding Abbe limit

Two examples were deleted. The Ergonom is a real product being sold today in Germany, so objections that this was sourced from rife.org are unfounded. Deletion of the Nemescope on the grounds of fraud is not proven, and a web search did not support this claim, but the claim that it is "not notable" is accepted, since this microscope was never produced and patent was dated 1964. Haiqu (talk) 11:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

John Nevard is claiming that this product doesn't actually exist. I'd like to refer him to http://www.microscience2006.org.uk/cgi-bin/press_view_details.cgi?press_id=erg49719053 which shows that this microscope was demonstarted at the Royal Microscopical Society's 2006 conference. Haiqu (talk) 09:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That the conference website shows the Grayfield press release only provides independent documentation that the company apparently exists and were to exhibit something at the conference. Everything else on that page is just PR from the company. The webhits from Rife websites, including those apparently connected to the company, don't count as independent sources. Nevard (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Clean-up

I have deleted several images which are marginal to the content and also cluttered the article. I have updated the text on digital microscopes. Peterlewis (talk) 09:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

What about the toolmakers microscope? 89.195.16.84 (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

medieval predecessors

In another wonderful example of pro islamic bias,some tendentious editor tells us the first magnifying glasses were invented by Ibn al-Haytham.This is,obviously,false. Magnifying glasses were known since ancient times.Evidence [4],[5],[6], Of course Ibn al-Haytham worked with magnifying eyeglasses.But he did nothing revolutionary or new about it.Much more important was the develpment of spectacles in Italy.--Knight1993 (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Overall Critique

I feel that this article though very informative and seems to have some good sources is lacking overall in its efficiency. There are many informative parts but the problem with this article is it lacks the proper amount of scholarly articles to back up its writing. The sources are very little and their seem to be some improper reporting in the site. The illustrations as I have seen in other comments really lack the backing they have from writing and need to be updated better. The subject of this article is good in that it is thorough in its information it just needs a few more very good sources to be hailed as a viable article. It seems as though the bad contributions to this page have been taken care of pretty well as the people giving the information are passionate about their topic. Overall this article does show some very promising signs but does need a little bit more information to really standout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hist406-10dfoit (talk • contribs) 21:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

New optical microscope

this story, about optical microspheres and extending the limits of optical microscopy, should probably be used as a source for a new subsection.(mercurywoodrose)66.80.6.163 (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)