Talk:Fluorescence microscope

TODO:

Finish talking about the process and ways of making a Fluorescence microscope --Llbbl 23:44, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Definition of epifluorescence microscope

The definition of the epifluorescence microscope is only true for an upright microscope NOT an inverted one. --Kupirijo (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sub-diffraction imaging

This section is not clear at all! What they refer to as sub-diffraction imaging is NOT an optical technique but a signal and processing technique. There is also a strong commercial bias on this part of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.198.108.210 (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This page, the Christoph Cremer page, and the Verti SMI page sound like a series of adverts for Cremer and Verti SMI. Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a tool to trump up a group or product, not when there are many techniques and microscopes available, in a field with contributions from many groups. This is ridiculous. --131.215.159.156 (talk) 06:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually the section also takes a quite large part of the whole article. And features only a certain implementation very prominently. Also going to the single implemented microscope technique is much to specific for such an abstract topic. I will try to rephrase it more neutrally and with focus on the basic science now. -- Lexic 4712 (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The Vertico SMI is currently the fastest optical 3D nanoscope for the three dimensional structural analysis of whole cells worldwide.

I just restuctured the sub-diffraction section focusing on the two main cocepts, photoactivated localization microscopy. I was not happy with the way it was for several reasons. As a demonstration I copied one sentence. First of all a very specific implementation does not help much in such a general article. Also I can be highly doubted that it really is the fastest optical nanoscope worldwide. And finally, it does not explain much about the scientific basis. Thats way I left most of it out and instead focused on stimulated emission depletion and photoactivated localization -- Lexic 4712 (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

From current revision [1]:

In 1978 first theoretical ideas have been developed to break this barrier by using the 4Pi microscopy as a confocal laser scanning
fluorescence microscope where the light is focused ideally from all sides to a common focus which is used to scan the object by 'point-by-point'
excitation combined with 'point-by-point' detection.

Again I don't like where this is heading. 'point-by-point' detection and excitation is confocal microscopy and indeed steems from 1978 but from Tony Wilson. Additionally the mentioned theoretical ideas if correct proved fruitless for more than a decade. Is it then so important to mention them in an article about fluorescence microscopy or is it biased advertisement? I therefore reduced the exagerated impact of these things, since I find them rather lowering the quality of Wikipedia. I would like to delete them to improve the article but this might destroy a tiny bit of information... so I am undecided. Also:

Around 1995, Christoph Cremer commenced with the development of a light microscopic process, which achieved a substantially improved size resolution
of cellular nanostructures stained with a fluorescent marker. The principle of wide field microscopy was combined with structured laser illumination
(spatially modulated illumination, SMI)

The first sentence carries no usable information, the second is kind of similarly bad because all structured illumination schemes outside the confocal microscope are widefield based, aren't they? Its simply structured illumination and thats already mentioned earlier in the article.

-- Lexic 4712 (talk) 08:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fluorescence microscope. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141226071326/http://www.kip.uni-heidelberg.de/AG_Cremer/sites/default/files/Bilder/pdf_/cpu01077.pdf to http://www.kip.uni-heidelberg.de/AG_Cremer/sites/default/files/Bilder/pdf_/cpu01077.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)