Re: Just how much can we magnigy?
From: justbeats (steve_beats_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 02/14/05
- Next message: Phil C.: "Re: Just how much can we magnigy?"
- Previous message: Gordon Couger: "Re: Q: old diatom test slide designations"
- In reply to: Kevin Cunningham: "Re: Just how much can we magnigy?"
- Next in thread: Andy Resnick: "Re: Just how much can we magnigy?"
- Reply: Andy Resnick: "Re: Just how much can we magnigy?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 14 Feb 2005 01:09:01 -0800
Thanks Kevin, but I think you missed my point. I understand the
difference between detection and resolution. I just meant it to be a
question "in passing". I know it has little (or maybe no) practical
application.
However I don't believe the assertion that "detection without
resolution is useless" stands as a blanket statement. Ask any
astronomer!
And therefore, in a light microscopy context, I would have thought
detection of "something" could be useful too. With suitable CCD, image
calibration and calculation, an unresolved feature could yield
quantitative statistical data about it's area coverage in relation to
the Airy disk, or the Raleigh limit, or whatever? Total (reflected or
transmitted) photon flux is altered in deterministic manner, and could
be compared to a reference level, right? That's not wholly useless, is
it? There must be useful science available from statistical data of
that type.
So, to explore that idea, I asked how small a (lone) dot must be before
it is undetectable with a light microscope. This is clearly well below
the 0.2 micron resolution limit - but how far below?
Cheers
Beats
- Next message: Phil C.: "Re: Just how much can we magnigy?"
- Previous message: Gordon Couger: "Re: Q: old diatom test slide designations"
- In reply to: Kevin Cunningham: "Re: Just how much can we magnigy?"
- Next in thread: Andy Resnick: "Re: Just how much can we magnigy?"
- Reply: Andy Resnick: "Re: Just how much can we magnigy?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
