h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Microscopes - A633980
Author: Hell - U171578

This entry is a part of an entry complex on microscopy. It can perfectly stand alone.

I am aware of the University, nevertheless I prefer to submit this to peer review. The links will have to be added after the (potential) inclusion to the guide.

HELL

OK, even though there's obviously no-one interested in this entry I picked some nits myself. It's now a little more readable.

HELL

Hi, Hell!

I'm actually very interested in this set of entries - but they deserve the kind of concentration and attention I hadn't the time to give earlier (how's that for an excuse?)

I think that if this entry is intended as a general introduction, you could lighten the tone in the first paragraph a bit - it ends up repeating the word 'microscope' a bit too often. Where you say:

'Normally, when talking about about microscopes people by default think of 'optical microscopes' which is the most common type of microscopes, very well kown from the biology classes. Many people don't even know that there are more types of microscopes.' You could rephrase a little, like this:

'Normally, when talking about microscopes, people think only of 'optical microscopes', the common type which are well known from biology classes. Many people don't even know that there are other kinds.'

I wouldn't use the WYSISWG abbreviation - not everybody recognises it. 'The main advantage of optical microscopes is that what you see is what you get' would be clearer.

'Half the wavelength of the used light' sounds odd - 'half the wavelength of the light used' would be better.

I think you'd be better off with a simpler description of electron microscopes here, which should make the distinction between Transmission Electron Microscopes and Scanning Electron Microscopes more clearly, on the lines of :
'Scanning Electron Microscopes will give an image of a surface, but only if it is covered with a thin conducting layer. Transmission Electron Microscopes will give a view through objects, but only if they have been sliced incredibly thinly and treated with conducting metal. Neither type is suitable for looking at cells that are still alive.'

Whew! that's enough Deep Thought for today - I'll try and look at the other microscopy entries over the weekend.


Azara

Hell,
I don't frequent Peer review often enough, or I would have been here before.

I like it, good quality and so on.
Just one typo:
In Electron microscopes you say tousands. Should probably be thousands.

For me it is ready for the scouts

Heloo... Relax, sit down, have a .

WYSIWIG: Originally I had the sentence spelled out, but then again I saw the 'WYSIWIG' entry in the edited guide, then I thought 'well if I link to it, it'll be OK...' After all, why is there then an entry in the EG entitled 'WYSIWIG'?

I'll do them other changes in a minute.

Marijn... Er... Marjin... (BTW: Why not Margin?) Nice seeing you around, glad you liked it. Of course you found the 'hidden typo'. One point for you.

Cheerio,

HELL

Hi HELL,

Great entry .

There are a few things that I wondered about, but take them or leave them as you wish. As ever they are only minor observations on a generally excellant entry.

1) "The interior of any transparent body" can be viewed by optical miocroscopy. But, of course, you can use a microscope in reflection mode without requiring a transparent subject. You can also view "invisible" things by using polarisation etc. I don't know whether that is beyond the scope of this overview.

2) "The resolution of an optical microscope is ... 300-400 nanometres". I'm sure you're right on that but I think that's only for a very good microscope used by someone who knows what they are doing. I would just put "The resolution of a _good_ optical microscope...".

3) You sort of give the impression that no sample preparation is used in optical microscopes, whereas you might well want to increase the contrast in whatever you are viewing by staining, fluorescence etc. Again this may be deeper than you want to go in this piece.

4) (footnote) "That's where the particle character of electrons come into the way. Electrons are reactive and big compared to photons. For that reason the volume affected by the impact of an electron is much bigger than the volume it should address were it as unreactive and massless as a photon. This is equivalent to a loss in resolution."
I think this could be made a little clearer. Perhaps "That's where the particle character of electrons starts to interfere. Electrons are big and reactive in comparison with photons. For that reason the volume affected by the impact of an electron is much bigger than the volume it should 'see' if it were just a photon with a much shorter wavelength. This is equivalent to a loss in resolution."

5) "This tremendous improve in resolution" should be "improvement"

6) By introducing reflecting mode optical microscopes above, I think the difference between the two modes of EM will be more apparent. You might want to make the analogy.

Now I'll go off & read the individual entries - and no doubt find all the above addrressed in them!


Ugi

Exactly: Most of the points you mentioned above are in the individual entries.

The 300-400nm resolution is already a little worse than what can be achieved with top-notch state-of-the-art microscopes operated by extremely smart microscopists. So it's OK to leave that figure in there as a reference.

I'll correct the misspelllings and the rest ASAP. Thanks a lot for reviewing Ugi.



HELL

Hi Hell,
I waited some time to be able to get the entry back up from the deep.

Not much new to say, just that in the "scanning probe Microscopes" you hid some "nonometres"...

Hi Marjin,

Thanks for scooping it up from the depths of PR. Seems no-one really cares about microscopy these days .

BTW: No-no-metres are a very rare measuring unit used only by a very select minority of Brazilian folks living in Germany who do microscopy. I'll replace it by Nanometres for clarity, though.

Have you ever heard of the Groucho-meters and Harpo-metres?

Maybe I should link the entry to the units-entry.

See ya,

H

Scout!

Hello all you boys and girls... I just noted that by mistake the entries 'Scanning Force Microscopy' and 'Electron Microscopes' had the 'Not for PR' box activated. They're now back in PR. Here their threads: Electron: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/F48874?thread=175087 Scanning: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/F48874?thread=175088 We apologise for the inconvenience. H

Hello all you boys and girls... I just noted that by mistake the entries 'Scanning Force Microscopy' and 'Electron Microscopes' had the 'Not for PR' box activated. They're now back in PR. Here their threads: Electron: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/F48874?thread=175087 Scanning: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/F48874?thread=175088 We apologise for the inconvenience. H

Rats, double-post.

Sorry,

H

WOAH!

I must be insane!!! They've been accepted already, I just had forgotten!!! Forget those posts above.

SORRRY!!!

HELL

You should check your words with a microscope

Eh?

Spellcheck by Marjin?

Wotz wrong?

H

Nothing wrong. Just a to your previous set of posts.

Headache

Hey, Marjin - BTW - do you know the hacker jargon file -P?

?H?

Hi, Hell!
It seems odd that most of the more technical of your microscopy entries have been accepted, and this one, which is the general introduction, is still here! Since some of the others will be too detailed for the casual reader, I think it's important to get this one in too.


Azara

Yep, but I think it's a technical thing, so that the links can go in in the right order.

But then again there are the links back to the general entry...

Well, well... I guess it's just a metter of time.

HELL