General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Re: Well here's Naessens 'Diachromic' Condenser

Started by David Wright · · Last activity · 1 post · 731 views

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
29 June 2003
Last activity
29 June 2003
Original author
David Wright
Posts
1
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
731
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–1 of 1
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. In article said:


    "rb" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    "D. C. Sessions" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In <[email hidden]>, rb wrote:

    > Are you absolutely sure? Isn't there any other way or method to get


    the

    Quoted message said:

    > same results-(30,000 X magnification)-from an ordinary microscope?--rb

    Anyone who does will be a billionaire, as well as scoring
    a Nobel Prize.

    Why would the invention of such a device make that person a billionaire
    as well as win him a Nobel prize? It's still just a microscope for gosh
    sakes!--rb

    I think the economic motive has now been explained to you well
    enough. But there's one point I didn't see addressed, unless Tsu did
    it:

    Quoted message said:

    The Naessens Diachromic Condenser, although it does not directly
    enhance the resolution power of a light microscope, it does make very
    small particles appear clearly as brilliant objects on a magenta
    colored background (unique feature of the N.D.C.).

    See that word "resolution" in the second like of the quoted material,
    rb? That's the key word. "Resolution" in this case is the ability of
    optical device, like a microscope, to do things like show a very tiny
    object, *or* to allow you to see the distinction between two separate
    (close-together) objects.

    Not too many people own home microscopes, but you do see magnification
    scams with telescopes sometimes. They'll try to sell you a scope with
    gazillion-fold magnification, but a lens that's only a couple of
    inches in diameter. Doesn't work -- you can magnify all you want, but
    you'll just get a bigger version of the same image, you won't get more
    detail. You need a bigger lens to get more detail.

    With microscopy, you could probably enlarge the image as much as you
    want, but it'd be like enlarging a picture from a magazine (the kind
    that's made up of the little colored dots). Make it as big as you
    want; you still won't get more detail, just bigger dots.

    The reason the electron microscope is used is that you can get much
    shorter wavelengths with electrons than with visible light, and you
    can't see something smaller than the wavelength of the light you're
    using; the light just cruises by such an object, unperturbed.

    -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
    were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.