Talk:Lens

message: Isaac Asimov said, “I don’t understand the ecstasy of lens grinding myself, but the history of astronomy is littered with peculiar people who would rather grind lenses than eat.”  (Source:  “Quasar, Quasar, Burning Bright”, by Isaac Asimov.  Doubleday, 1978, p. 196.)
Asimov identifies Alvan Graham Clark as the first notable American lens grinder in a field then dominated by British, French, and German practitioners.  However, there doesn’t seem to be any articles in Wikipedia on lens grinding.  As far as I can tell, it is only discussed in the article on Baruch Spinoza.  Would it fit into the history section here?    Psalm 119:105 (talk) 10:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Another possibility would be Fabrication and testing of optical components.--Srleffler (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Lens grinding

message: \frac{1}{S_1} + \frac{1}{S_2} = \frac{1}{f}  is listed as the Gaussian Lens Formula in my copy of Hecht (Hecht, Optics, 4th edition, 2002, pg. 158), not the thin lens formula.
--97.83.155.54 (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The formula has more than one name.--Srleffler (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misnamed Formula in "Imaging Properties" 

message: The "History" section stops at John Dollond in 1758. Obviously there is more that needs to be added. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a main history article. Why not use this? Tagremover (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Additionally camera lens covers a LOT. Tagremover (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We certainly can use the main history article, but this article's history section should contain a good, concise summary of the full history article. (See WP:Summary style.) The history of optics doesn't stop in 1758, and neither should the history section here.--Srleffler (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "History"

message: This article is a mess. It's unsuitable for most beginning readers, and is a tiresome repetition of advanced information that would already be understood by people with advanced coursework.
And how many readers will be interested in someone's 600 word shaky historical speculations, following the brief, banal opening?
It's an example of how "committee decisions" of "editors" can be worse than useless, in that they alienate most readers from understanding. The Britiannica does a far better job at describing the topic. This Wikipedia at its most pointless. Except, of course, lengthy articles about pop stars citing fashion magazines. 76.102.1.193 (talk) 05:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top.</br> The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).--Srleffler (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  An example of an almost completely useless wiki article 

message: The side-by-side diagrams and photos in Lens (optics)#Types of simple lenses are too wide in their tables to fit on mobile devices (typically 320px wide). These should be tweaked so they passively degrade to one-over-the-other on narrow screens; if nobody gets to it, this is a note to myself to poke at it later. :) --brion (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mobile/small-screen fix needed 

message: It just appears out of nowhere. Can someone provide the derivation for it? 137.54.11.202 (talk) 05:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The equation is given without derivation because Wikipedia is not a textbook. Derivations of equations are (often) out of our scope. This question is best handled at the Science Reference Desk (where you have already asked it).--Srleffler (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  No derivation for the lensmaker's equation? 

message: This article refers to "simple glass meniscal lenses", and gives a date of the 8th Century. This disagrees with 5th Century in the Glasses article. Which is correct? I added  to both articles. The other article was uncited. I don't know if the reference here can be looked up or if it includes that information. Thanks! Misty MH (talk) 08:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the tag here to "verify source", since the issue is not that a citation is needed, but rather that we need someone to go look up the cited source and verify that it says what is claimed.--Srleffler (talk) 03:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "simple glass meniscal lenses", 8th Century or 5th?  

message: Hi - I write for Wikiversity mostly, and am trying to bridge the gap between the completeness of many Wikipedia articles and the needs of first and second year college students.  I assigned a lab in which the students are asked to verify that this is called the "thin lens formula" after seeing that this name for the formula is omitted on the article Thin lens.  Some of my students are beginning to edit, and they will correct this on Thin lens.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need reference for "thin lens formula" 

message: The lens looks like it is evenly thick and would have little or no negative character. It would be better with an illustration where the negative meniscus was clearly thinner in the middle. Jeff tupo (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Illustration of negative meniscus lens is not clear

message: Article is currently written in a mixture of different forms of English, against WP:ARTCON. (For example, both centre and center are used in the article, and there are more such examples). Usually, the guideline would be to go back to the original language form used. That would be British English, by the way.
However, I'll readily acknowledge that's almost 13 years ago and the article has changed significantly since then, so instead of going boldly ahead, I'm asking here first if anyone has a problem with me bringing the article back into line with British English. Alternatively, if someone has a good reason for this article to use a different variation of English (such as American English) to be used that I have overlooked, please let me know. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: By means of the lack of response here, I am tentatively concluding there are no issues if I were to bring this article's language consistency back in line to British English. If there still has been no response in 36-48 hours, I likely will go ahead and just simply fix it. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. It's the right thing to do.--Srleffler (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language consistence 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Lens (optics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091123101108/http://www.optics.arizona.edu:80/OPTI696/2005/axicon_Proteep.pdf to http://www.optics.arizona.edu/OPTI696/2005/axicon_Proteep.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Lens (optics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140908111903/http://cmip.pratt.duke.edu/tomuri2009/sites/cmip.pratt.duke.edu.tomuri2009/files/pubs_purdue/2010_APB_MDC_Superlensing.pdf to http://cmip.pratt.duke.edu/tomuri2009/sites/cmip.pratt.duke.edu.tomuri2009/files/pubs_purdue/2010_APB_MDC_Superlensing.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160101061317/http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20070301.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20070301.shtml
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151016004906/http://www3.usal.es/%7Ehistologia/aplicacion/english/museum/microsco/micros01/micros01.htm to http://www3.usal.es/%7Ehistologia/aplicacion/english/museum/microsco/micros01/micros01.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Could one of our resident optics gurus add a paragraph or two about inverted cone lenses?  Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: They aren't lenses; they are reflectors.--Srleffler (talk) 05:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

text: The optical structures around light sources are sometimes called lenses.  These inverted cones are molded plastic that work by total internal reflection, converting the upward beam of the LED to a horizontal ring, with vertical spread corresponding to the original beam width. Not related to lenses that affect focus, which is what this article is about.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inverted cone lens? 

message: User:Srleffler, please do not revert edits without giving an edit summary, particularly whe the edit you are reverting did leave a summary.
The issue in question is a grammatical dispute over which form of the possessive to use with a name ending in an s. Should we have:
* Aristophanes' play The Clouds 
or
* Aristophanes's play The Clouds
Until recently we had Aristophanes'. An IP editor changed it to Aristophanes's with the edit summary "Fixed grammar". I reverted this with the edit summary " was not incorrect, see MOS:POSS, based in pronounciation". Srleffler has re-reverted, without an edit summary.
The guidance in the Wikpedia Manual of Style is at MOS:POSS. This says that there are two accepted styles when forming the possessive of a singular noun ending with one s. One style is to always add  's, the other style is to either add just an apostrophe or to add  's, depending on pronunciation. I favour the second style. It is unclear whether Srleffler favours the first style or if he or she would pronounce this differently.
When using the pronounciation-based style, writing Aristophanes's play implies that it is pronounced "Aris-to-fa-nees-es play". I would say "Aris-to-fa-nees play", so I would write Aristophanes' play. However, I would write "keeping up with the Jones's".
I am not attempting to impose my style on Wikipedia, but to resist "grammatical corrections" of things that are not incorrect. I will re-revert. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that. I'm not sure how I ended up reverting you. I agree with you. --Srleffler (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possessive apostrophes 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lens (optics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304054022/http://www.digitalartform.com/lenses.htm to http://www.digitalartform.com/lenses.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: what is the correct distances and adjusting to be able create your own properly ?
:This isn't really the right place to ask that kind of question. Wikipedia talk pages are dedicated to discussions related to how to improve the article. Wikipedia is not a "how-to" guide. Also, the general article on lenses is not the right place to look for information on a very specific type of lens.
:You might be interested in the article Dobsonian telescope.--Srleffler (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  dobsonian lens 

message: Uses of lenses 182.182.71.136 (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science 

message: As above 12.199.163.10 (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need liquid lens info 

message: I was looking for the formula that would give the ratio of angle of incoming rays to angle of outgoing rays, and in particular I'm interested in the case where the object being imaged is at an extreme distance (e.g. astronomical).  I would consider this to be "magnification", although I understand the definition of magnification given in the article.  There are basically two kinds of magnification when talking about lenses, spatial and angular magnification.  I believe when talking about a telescope's magnification, we would be talking about angular magnification? Tedwtoal (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several kinds of magnification. See Magnification for more on the topic, including angular magnification.--Srleffler (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Angular Magnification 

message: I wanted to be able to calculate the size (e.g. in meters) of the image at the focal plane. I think I understand how, but it might be good to explicitly show a formula. I am particularly interested in images of objects at astronomical distances.  What I THINK is the formula is: say we are talking about imaging a planet at distance D with diameter d in a telescope with focal length f where f << D; then the image size would be d times the magnification, or df/D (?). Tedwtoal (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if the planet is not too far away. If you're imaging a distant star or a planet around one, geometrical optics fails; the image size is limited by diffraction. When astronomers photograph stars, I don't believe the size of the spots on the film has any relation to the size of the star; it's entirely determined by the diffraction of the telescope and aberrations in our atmosphere. Astronomers look at the brightness of the spots and their spectrum, not their size.--Srleffler (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image size at focal plane 

message: Both are currently used in this article. 206.180.44.25 (talk) 14:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The correct possessive form of lens: lens's or lens'?