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: Juliania
- Registered: 2012-11-29
- Posts: 2,813
- Website

Hi;

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

"Double the fun, double the thrill, double the coolness" - Julianthewiki

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 14,845

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

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,710

Ever heard of the Dutchman Leeuwenhoek?

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

**Online**

**mathaholic****Member**- From: Juliania
- Registered: 2012-11-29
- Posts: 2,813
- Website

Yup, Anton van Leeuwenhoek.

"Double the fun, double the thrill, double the coolness" - Julianthewiki

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,710

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.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

**Online**

**mathaholic****Member**- From: Juliania
- Registered: 2012-11-29
- Posts: 2,813
- Website

So, Robert Hooke created the modernized style?

"Double the fun, double the thrill, double the coolness" - Julianthewiki

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,710

Yes, he used two lenses rather than one.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

**Online**

**mathaholic****Member**- From: Juliania
- Registered: 2012-11-29
- Posts: 2,813
- Website

Oh. Why two?

"Double the fun, double the thrill, double the coolness" - Julianthewiki

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,710

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

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

**Online**

**mathaholic****Member**- From: Juliania
- Registered: 2012-11-29
- Posts: 2,813
- Website

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.

"Double the fun, double the thrill, double the coolness" - Julianthewiki

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,710

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.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

**Online**

**mathaholic****Member**- From: Juliania
- Registered: 2012-11-29
- Posts: 2,813
- Website

Yes.

"Double the fun, double the thrill, double the coolness" - Julianthewiki

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,710

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

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

**Online**

**mathaholic****Member**- From: Juliania
- Registered: 2012-11-29
- Posts: 2,813
- Website

Oh. Maybe more improvements to the microscope?

"Double the fun, double the thrill, double the coolness" - Julianthewiki

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,710

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

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

**Online**

**mathaholic****Member**- From: Juliania
- Registered: 2012-11-29
- Posts: 2,813
- Website

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

"Double the fun, double the thrill, double the coolness" - Julianthewiki

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,710

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.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

**Online**

**mathaholic****Member**- From: Juliania
- Registered: 2012-11-29
- Posts: 2,813
- Website

Wow, big magnifications...

"Double the fun, double the thrill, double the coolness" - Julianthewiki

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,710

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.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

**Online**

**mathaholic****Member**- From: Juliania
- Registered: 2012-11-29
- Posts: 2,813
- Website

Okay.

"Double the fun, double the thrill, double the coolness" - Julianthewiki

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,710

This concludes our broadcast about microscopes.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

**Online**

Pages: **1**