Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ π -¹ ² ³ °

You are not logged in.

- Topics: Active | Unanswered

Pages: **1**

**mathaholic****Member**- From: Earth
- Registered: 2012-11-29
- Posts: 3,251

Hi;

I am confused about the history. Can you tell me more about it?

Mathaholic | 10th most active poster | Maker of the 350,000th post | Person | rrr's classmate

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: Harlan's World
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 16,030

Have you checked the Wikipedia page on it?

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

The knowledge of some things as a function of age is a delta function.

Offline

**bobbym****bumpkin**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 109,429

Ever heard of the Dutchman Leeuwenhoek?

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.****If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.**** Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.**

**Online**

**mathaholic****Member**- From: Earth
- Registered: 2012-11-29
- Posts: 3,251

Yup, Anton van Leeuwenhoek.

Mathaholic | 10th most active poster | Maker of the 350,000th post | Person | rrr's classmate

Offline

**bobbym****bumpkin**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 109,429

The guy who first invented it but Robert Hooke gets the credit for the modern form.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.****If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.**** Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.**

**Online**

**mathaholic****Member**- From: Earth
- Registered: 2012-11-29
- Posts: 3,251

So, Robert Hooke created the modernized style?

Mathaholic | 10th most active poster | Maker of the 350,000th post | Person | rrr's classmate

Offline

**bobbym****bumpkin**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 109,429

Yes, he used two lenses rather than one.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.****If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.**** Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.**

**Online**

**mathaholic****Member**- From: Earth
- Registered: 2012-11-29
- Posts: 3,251

Oh. Why two?

Mathaholic | 10th most active poster | Maker of the 350,000th post | Person | rrr's classmate

Offline

**bobbym****bumpkin**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 109,429

The two lenses are called ocular and objective. When you use one lens as Leeuwenhoek did you get more distortion.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.****If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.**** Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.**

**Online**

**mathaholic****Member**- From: Earth
- Registered: 2012-11-29
- Posts: 3,251

Why?

By the way, I know the objectives:

Scanner 4x

LPO 10x

HPO 40x

OIO 100x

Then multiply by 10x to get the total magnification.

Mathaholic | 10th most active poster | Maker of the 350,000th post | Person | rrr's classmate

Offline

**bobbym****bumpkin**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 109,429

That is if you have a 10x ocular.

The 100x is an oil immersion and demands special techniques.

The reason you use two lenses is to cut down on distortion. Leeuwenhoek's idea was really strange and basically uses one very big ocular.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.****If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.**** Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.**

**Online**

**mathaholic****Member**- From: Earth
- Registered: 2012-11-29
- Posts: 3,251

Yes.

Mathaholic | 10th most active poster | Maker of the 350,000th post | Person | rrr's classmate

Offline

**bobbym****bumpkin**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 109,429

You rarely see oculars pf more magnification of 10x or 15x. His ocular was around 200x or 300x.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.****If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.**** Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.**

**Online**

**mathaholic****Member**- From: Earth
- Registered: 2012-11-29
- Posts: 3,251

Oh. Maybe more improvements to the microscope?

Mathaholic | 10th most active poster | Maker of the 350,000th post | Person | rrr's classmate

Offline

**bobbym****bumpkin**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 109,429

There are limits to what can be done with light or even ultraviolet light. The next advance was the electron microscope.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.****If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.**** Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.**

**Online**

**mathaholic****Member**- From: Earth
- Registered: 2012-11-29
- Posts: 3,251

The electron? So, the compound is two lenses, right?

Mathaholic | 10th most active poster | Maker of the 350,000th post | Person | rrr's classmate

Offline

**bobbym****bumpkin**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 109,429

Light has a certain wavelength. Things close to that wavelength or smaller can not be seen clearly by it. The best light microscopes have about 2000 X magnification or so. To get more you have to use something smaller than light. The electron is a particle we can control and it is much smaller than the wavelength of light. It requires more specimen preparation but magnifications of over 100000 are possible.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.****If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.**** Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.**

**Online**

**mathaholic****Member**- From: Earth
- Registered: 2012-11-29
- Posts: 3,251

Wow, big magnifications...

Mathaholic | 10th most active poster | Maker of the 350,000th post | Person | rrr's classmate

Offline

**bobbym****bumpkin**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 109,429

The difference though is that in the light microscope you can see the specimens alive, in the electron microscope they can only be viewed after lots of preparation and in a vacuum. So they are dead.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.****If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.**** Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.**

**Online**

**mathaholic****Member**- From: Earth
- Registered: 2012-11-29
- Posts: 3,251

Okay.

Mathaholic | 10th most active poster | Maker of the 350,000th post | Person | rrr's classmate

Offline

**bobbym****bumpkin**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 109,429

This concludes our broadcast about microscopes.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.****If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.**** Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.**

**Online**

Pages: **1**