Talk:Optical spectrometer

message: The article says:
When a material is heated to incandescence it emits light that is characteristic of the atomic makeup of the material.
Shouldn't blackbody radiation be mentioned on this place? --Abdull 5 July 2005 15:14 (UTC)
:Everything with any non zero temperature emits blackbody radiation.  To the first order, blackbody radiation is independent of the material. --150.203.177.218 06:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blackbody 

message: The Joseph von Fraunhofer page describes him as the inventor of the spectroscope. A search for spectrosocope redirects to spectrometer which is said to have been invented by Kirchhoff and Bunsen. No doubt relates to the confusion over the term spectrometer as described below by Andrewa.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.92.140.254 (talk • contribs) .
The Spectrometer page says it was invented in 1819, but the Fraunhofer page says he invented it in 1814.  I don't know which is right, but they ought to be consistent.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.194.140.28 (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fraunhofer or Kirchhoff/Bunsen? 

message: , please note that a spectrometer is not necessarily a optical device!!. For example, s nuclear spectrometer uses no optics. Someone, other than me, could fix that. :)
: I agree, and will make the change. Cfn137 (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rearding the first sentence 

message: .. radio and audio? audio isn't part of the EM spectrum.. is this true, does it need clarifying?
I agree, I removed it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.233.216.159 (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the first paragraph  -last sentence

message: This is an important article, that many other articles need to refer to -- and it needs a lot of work.  We need an article about just optic applications, either this one or some other -- all the acoustic etc other uses need to be separated.  We need lots of illustrations, some in color -- let's start with the ones from the Spectroscopy article.
Although the fancy versions of these instruments can cost thousands of dollars, let's also emphasize that any prism or diffraction grating can manifest these behaviors, and they are all around us, even the surface of a CD.  Edmund Scientific offers a variety of Spectrometers and Spectroscopes in their Light Analysis category for $1-50. They also offer info on:
* Build Your Own Grating Spectroscope
* How Diffraction Gratings Work 
These are interesting resources:
*Supplement: Build Yourself a Simple Hand-Held Spectrograph good sample spectra
*SPECTROSCOPY FOR THE SCHOOL build a simple spectroscope from a CD
-69.87.199.97 11:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Build Your Own 

message: Standard optical power spectrum plots are spaced equal-nm on the X axis.  The Y axis is some unit of power (if one is lucky enough to have calibrated data).  Does this result in equal-area power graphs?  If not, is there a standard way to distort the X or Y axis to obtain equal-area power graphs, and if so, what are such plots called.  (In other words, what we want is a graph that shows visually, vividly, obviously, what portion (half?) of the sun's radiation is in the visible spectrum, for example.  Are the plots in the Solar radiation article properly conveying such info?)-69.87.203.17 21:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  equal-area power graphs? 

message: I've noticed that somebody has been adding links to my spectroscopy website and somebody later removes them. For the information of both the adder and remover: When you add a link to my website, include my full name and specifics on what the website is added for. When you remove a link, keep in mind that I am not the one who adds the links. I have published links from my website to certain articles/sections, but I always sign with my name.
This idiocy must stop sometime. Galidakis 16:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Links to my website =

message: I just removed the following line from the beginning of the article:
:Simply, it turns white light into rainbow and vice versa.
It appears to me to be completely out of context and an outright wrong description (or at best a deceptively gross oversimplification) for most things that could be called a spectrometer (going by this sentence one would think there's no difference between a spectrometer and a simple prism, ignoring the fact that many spectrometers don't even deal with "white light", or even light at all) -- Foogod (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  White light and rainbows? 

message: The current introductory paragraph currently states:
The variable measured is most often the light's intensity but could also, for instance, be the polarization state. 
Measuring polarization as a function of wavelength/frequency is spectropolarimetry, and the device used is a spectropolarimeter.  I don't think this device should be called a spectrometer, but I don't heavily object either.  However this sentence dilutes the introduction, and spectropolarimetry is not mentioned later.
:If it solely measures the polarization per wavelength, then it is not a spectrometer. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 18:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is a spectropolarimeter a spectrometer? 

message: In the first scale comparison "A comparison of the three abscissa types typically used for visible spectrometers.", the wavenumber scale is obviously wrong, since wavenumber is proportional to energy and inversely proportional to wavelength.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.37.210.122 (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong wavenumber axis in the first comparison 

message: Guys, spectrometer now and for at least half a century is usually non-light spectrometer. Time of light spectrometry dominance are far behind. I demand (DEMAND) full definition and coverage of a subject not limited to old-fashioned light spectrometry. Stop hijacking the article! You are wrong, and IUPAC is not an authority in non-chemical field. Stop your light-loving editing! I do not insist my definition of a spectrometer is good, but it is better than nothing (and now there is nothing but light spectrometry: relatively narrow and obscure field in spectrometry).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vniizht (talk • contribs) 20:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt anyone would object to you expanding this article. Demanding that other people write things doesn’t really accomplish much though. –jacobolus (t) 03:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

text: I agree that spectrometer is commonly used to refer to instrumentation outside of just light spectrometers. Even IUPAC Gold Book, which is specific to chemical applications, also covers mass spectrometry and mass spectrometers, so it seems like we should be using some combination. I will try to find some references to support expanding the definition and that provide the more expansive language. ronningt (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

text: By all means expand the article, but please do so using reliable sources and give due weight to the light/"light+other techniques" viewpoints. I agree that IUPAC is not the only reliable source on the definition of spectroscopy/spectrometer, but it is a good starting point. Please provide some reliable sources for the broad definition and we can work toward expanding the article content to include it. --Kkmurray (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong definition, skewed text

message: Are non-optical techniques, like autocorrelator spectrometer, optoacoustical spectrometer, filterbank. Hobbema (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you know about these, please chip in more material! –jacobolus (t) 00:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing

message: In the comparison of different diffraction based spectrometers the third option depicted is 'fibre optics' - this type is not mentioned anywhere in the article, what's more I'm having a hard time finding anything about the concept using google either. Could somebody elaborate on what the image is depicting with a section?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norlesh (talk • contribs) 01:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fiber optic diffraction based spectrometer? 

message: What is the relationship between the terms "optical spectrometer" and "spectrograph"? In the lead sentence, the term "spectrograph" is implied as a synonym, yet there is a section below on spectrographs, linking to another article called Spectrograph. So are they the same thing and we accidentally ended up with duplicate articles? Or are spectrographs a type of optical spectrometers? Harej (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: #confusion surrounding the term Glrx (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Optical spectrometer vs. spectrograph 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Optical spectrometer. 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/20080926072418/http://gratings.newport.com:80/library/handbook/cover.asp to http://gratings.newport.com/library/handbook/cover.asp
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 14:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The lead of this article (Optical spectrometer) claims to cover Spectrograph. And yet we have a separate Spectrograph article. I am proposing to merge Spectrograph here but reducing the scope of this article would also be an option. Please review past discussion above. ~Kvng (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Merged ~Kvng (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge [[Spectrograph]]