Talk:Microscope

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks!
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article is on a subject of Top-importance within molecular and cellular biology.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.	Physics Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article is on a subject of High-importance within physics.
This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Microscope is either included in the Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Microscope article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

Contents 1 Action 2 Stereo microscope 3 Simple optical microscope 4 Microscope Objectives 5 Timetravler or missunderstanding? 6 Merge with Microscopy 7 Slicky post 8 NOTE 9 Layout and order 10 Expansion 11 Sections, techniques? 12 Problem 13 Suggestion: "Observing tools" common template

[edit] Action

I have read through the talk here 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 20:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This would greatly reduce the content of the microscope page and move large portions of it to the optical microscope page. Personally I think this is a good idea, but may upset the Wikipedia CD Selection and WikiProject on Physics projects...

[edit] Stereo microscope

I don't think a stereo microscope is the same as a binocular microscope. In a typical binocular microscope the light passes through a prism which splits the light. This would make each image to each eye-piece identical and not provide stereo vision.--Rjstott 11:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Good point and should be added to the article. However, I am not sure that "binocular" does not also include "stereo" microscopes which would require two oculars. Industry termionology is not very disciplined, but I like your explanation - Marshman 17:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Simple optical microscope

This article doesn't clearly explain how a simple (single lens) optical microscope works and *why* it makes things look bigger than they really are. I wish I knew...!

It needs a drawing to show that, such as those presented at lens (optics) - Marshman 17:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I've been studying microscopes and, from what I've seen, the image formed by the objective is REAL, not virtual. The eyepiece then forms a vitual image, which is focused at around 25 cm, not at infinity. Can someone check this info? Luke poa 13:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The image viewed by the eypiece is a virtual representation of the specimen being examined. Effectively the eypiece is examining an aerial image that is only made real if projected onto a screen. As there is no intermediate screen in the tube of the microscope, the image within the tube is referred to as a virtual image. Velela 13:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Microscope Objectives

From my experience with optical microscopes, I have heard of 200x objectives, giving up to ~2000x zoom, and do not have to be oil immersion (you do not need to alter your sample... at least this is true for the 100x lens I often use). I think the objectives section should be modified, perhaps into another section, as there are a lot of different kinds of objectives and properties (working distance, numerical arpeture, depth of field, immersion type, etc). muie!!

[edit] Timetravler or missunderstanding?

"He developed an occhiolino or compound microscope with a convex and a concave lens in 1609. Galilei´s microscope was celebrated in the ´Lynx academy´ founded by Federico Cesi in 1603." So his microscope was celebrated befor it was invetned? --213.67.162.238

[edit] Merge with Microscopy

I would oppose any merge with Microscopy. A microscope is the instrument or the tool with which work is done. Microscopy describes the techniques for which a microscope is used. It would be like merging Automobile and Driving
Velela 17:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur with, second, and whatever other sort of formal grace is appropriate, Velela's opinion and conclusion.

--Erielhonan 05:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I oppose too. Microscopy should eventually be split into the various techniques much as welding has been (e.g., TIG welding, MIG welding, etc.). Right now there isn't quite enough material for that, but really DIC, fluorescence, confocal, two-photon, FRAP, FRET, etc. should get a full discussion on their own page. —BenFrantzDale 02:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that they are two different subjects and should not be merged. Merge template removed in line with general opinion. Snowman 11:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

So, consensus seemed to be to oppose merge and remove template - yet the template is still up.... Reversion of Snowman's edit by User:Sarah Ewart seems to be the "how" part - any one know the "why" part? (I suppose I could just ask the user who reverted - nah, too easy). MarcoTolo 02:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The history of the microscope reads like a thriller novel. You definitely must not merge with anything else! I agree that separate stories should be filled out about the various optical instruments created by van Leeuwenhoek and others. The great thing about van Leeuwenhoek was that he invented the thing to look at his own sperm! The British society was extremely jealous and kept asking for his microscope because his drawings were so cool. Jane 15:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slicky post

Okay so i tried to cover some of the available microscopes and listed them. It is pretty useless to make articles for them all so i recommend to link them with appropriate good inet articles, and perhaps in addition wikipedias articles. Guys foremost wikipedia should be about giving knowledge, thus make sure u provide the best available sources to others, that is either make a damn good specific microscope article or link to a damn good article on the web. Thanks. Slicky 18:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NOTE

Note: This article covers many techniques, which however contrary to possible belief, still only represent an excerpt of the microscope designs/techniques/principles that exist, and thus cannot be seen as a summary or comprehensive overview.Slicky 09:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Slicky - I'm not sure what this note means, or where it should be posted.... Could you help a slow editor (i.e. me) and interpret? -- MarcoTolo 17:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this article is intended to cover every conceivable sort of microscope, every technique used with any microscope, and the principles of operation of every microscope. You could write entire books on the subject. As an encyclopedia article, this is supposed to give the reader an overview and understanding of the subject in a fairly general way. Frankly, I think the article needs to be pruned down and reorganized. eaolson 18:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• "Hear, hear!" The entry is exceptionally long and needs a good trim. I assume that Microscope will end up as a "portal" entry, eventually, with a number of short decriptions and a Main article <here>–type format—at this point, however, the article is extremely unwieldy. That said, I don't have any concrete solutions to offer (I probably should of thought of that before I started writing, eh?). -- MarcoTolo 18:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Excellent stuff MarcoTolo, eaolson and Bookofjude this had become a sorry apology of an article. For what it is worth, I believe that further pruning is worth doing with the specilaised methods in their separate articles. I would restrict this to Conventional optical Microscope and its common variants together with Electon microscope and list all the rest in 'see also...

Velela 19:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I aggree with eaolson und velela, either there will be another article with somewhat like scientific use of the microscope or better yet an wikibook covering that topic. In the end wikipedia ain't really the right place for articles but merely for encyclopedic entries.Slicky 07:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Layout and order

There seem to be a lot of confusing and often contradictory editing of this article. My proposal is that:

1. It should start with a simple introduction (as we have) about the simple optical and the compound optical microscope, its history , how it works and a link to microscopy, all accompanied by the images relevant to those sections.
2. We should then have a section about the limitations and constraints of the optical microscope (including the optical limits on resolution) which can lead into topics on other types of microscope.
3. Detailed discussion of other types of microscope be limited to the Electon Microscope with only references to other types and links to other articles where practicable.

In this way we can create a high quality article of reasonable size that provides a robust introduction to the microscope and provides the links for the more intrepid enquirer. At present we have a mixture of leading edge research, images unmatched to text and little coherence. For a non-specialist reading this it makes little sense and the images in partuclar are most confusuing in their current context. Does this make sense? Comments and other suggestions welcomed. Velela 15:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

As I proposed above, and there being no adverse comments, I have greatly simplified this article. I have removed all the text and images relating to non optical microscopes and dumped it on the discussion page of Electron microscope which already dealt with many of the issues in the excised text. I would propose that the text on the discussion page is merged appropriately with the article Electron Microscope. The Microscope article is now much clearer and understandable but provides the appropriate link to the non optical microscopes. It also ensures that the relevant images accompany the appropriate text. Velela 20:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Good edits, I agree that the microscope article should cover only a general selection of information. Just to note that there is some info on the material to moved over to Talk:Electron microscope that isn't necessarily to do with electron microscopes - this may need a look? Mushin^talk 21:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't entirely disagree, but I think the article should at least cover non-optical microscopes. Perhaps in a fairly general way, but they should be here. I'd suggest the non-optical categories to include would be (a) electron, both scanning and transmission, and (b) scanning probe (AFM, etc.) Fairly broad descriptions with pointers to more specific articles would be sufficient. eaolson 21:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Despite my rather draconian edit, I do agree. However, I couldn't see the wood for the trees and would welcome some well measured inclusions of other types and/or links to other articles providing more detail.

Velela

I have reverted the reversion that Slicky made back to the readily understandable artic le concentrating on Optical Microscopes. There is a perfectly good article at Electron microscope that might benefit from additions, but the latest version by User:Slicky, is unccordinated, text is unmatched by images, and much makes too little sense. Please don't revert again without good reason and without a serious attempt to improve the article. Velela 16:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Slicky - articles have to be trimmed and cleaned regularly. To do this is not to 'destroy', it is a necessary part of keeping articles on wikipedia readable and concise. Mushin^talk 18:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion

Look you guys i appreciate your input, but we cannot ignore the technological breakthroughs that have undergone. In reality the nanoscopes are what matters today, and push the envelope further each and every day. Without them my graduate research project as well as any technological forthcoming would be futile and we shouldn't ignore the fact that the classical optical microscopes belongs in a history section and be it even an own article. That is not to say that the principle shouldn't be explained but a page stuck full with 17 century photos doesn't belong to microscopy. Moreover microscopy is interchangeable with microscope whereas the first one refers to the underlying technique that is employed. Please give me your input on that matter. Sure WP should not be a crystal sphere or about orginial research but it should not be stuck in a 17th century knowledge-base either. Slicky 11:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

@Velela et al. If you cannot live with the article including recent information, and others feel the same way, then we will need another article. I suggest nanoscope, etc. But it is more reasonble to have a history of the microscope page instead. What i do not get is what bothers you so much about the site that you don't want to improve it. To me a microscope should be a survey of microscopes. Lemme know what you think. Also i put a lot of research into that matter, ultimately because i myself as a grad student in molecular biology have been working with SEM/TEMs at the university of vienna for quite some time and whilst it should not, i am of course a bit prejudices, so i apologize for that. What i had in mind is to give a survey to anyone who looks up the page, preferrably researchers/students and find about about the microscope that is best suited for their task. Sure there are better ways/ideas, but please lemme know of them and i sure will help you the best i can. In a way i also understand your worries, in that the average wikipedian looking up the term doesn't want to be overwhelmed with all that stuff and instead just wants to learn about the classic microscope that he or she may have at home. But wikipedia should also be for professionals, i mean just look at the math pages. Slicky 11:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Slicky - firstly you need to understand that you cannot just revert an article back to a previous state once more edits have been made. Even if the decision is made to merge this excised information back into the Microscope article, it must be done without throwing away edits made between the last revision and now. I have reverted your edit because of this.

Secondly, you say that wikipedia should also be for professionals and not just the 'average user'. However, wikipedia articles should never contain indiscriminate collections of information. In this case, a large list of unexplained technical data and specifications would be confusing to most readers. Therefore it is unacceptable in the present form; with no introductions or explanations, to be part of the article. Even if this information is put into the article, it needs to be cut down and simplified, with explanations of what these lists actually mean.

I quote the following from What is a good article?. "A good article is well written:

• it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to a non-specialist reader;
• where technical terms or necessary jargon appear they are briefly explained in the article itself (or, at the very least an active link is provided);
• it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together coverage of related aspects. Where appropriate (particularly for lengthier articles) it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is segmented into a proper system of hierarchical sections."

Please bear this in mind before making revertions based on what you think should constitute a wikipedia article, rather than what the vast majority of the wikipedia community thinks. Articles should be accessible to all levels of reader. By all means they can go into technical detail, as long as this detail is fully lead into and explained for the layman. As it is, the information you reinserted was not. Mushin^talk 14:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid I agree with Mushin. Reading this article isn't supposed to make one a microscopist. Filling it with huge amounts of jargon and acronyms for highly specialized microscopy techniques (I mean, friction force microscopy?) isn't useful for this article. Maybe the article is being visited by a kid from a third-world country that's never used a microscope before. It's necessary to start generally, and then get specific. The work that Slicky went to in his edits is appreciated, but they were highly uncategorized, rather unorganized, and the information was far too specialized for this general article. eaolson 04:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Correct and thus i myself placed a marker for cleanup and proof reading. I simply didn't have the time to do everything myself. However i agree with you at second thought that the microscope article itself should fit non-scientific and scientific people, especially science a scientist isn't likly to end up at the section microscope, considering that what he expects to find in this article is exactly what eaolson and others strongly and reasonable argued about.Slicky 07:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sections, techniques?

Should Darkfield, Brightfield, phase contrast, oblique illumination, DIC etc. be included? And why does optic microscope redirect to microscope? Fad (ix) 00:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem

Some chav keeps inserting crap about elves, probably more, so should we protect the page, or not? --4.246.36.162 04:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've put this article on my watchlist. I'll try to keep tabs on it for a while. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 04:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion: "Observing tools" common template

There are lots of interesting stuff which allows to observe object optically and electrically, on different level of magnifying up to nanolevel - Atomic force microscope, Scanning tunneling microscope. It would be incredibly useful if all of them share the same template which would range all the possible devices from most-magnifying to least-magnifying; probable, there may be several levels/rows, to distinguish between optical ones and other kinds. Honeyman 19:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)