The Microscope. Its History, Construction, and Application 15th ed.: Being a familiar introduction to the use of the instrument, and the study of microscopical science — John Shaqi
The Microscope. Its History, Construction, and Application 15th ed.: Being a familiar introduction to the use of the instrument, and the study of microscopical scienceHogg, Jabez
History
The Microscope. Its History, Construction, and Application 15th ed.: Being a familiar introduction to the use of the instrument, and the study of microscopical science
Hogg, Jabez
Microscopy; Natural history
The confusion into which the aperture question at this period had
lapsed was no doubt due to the fact that its opponents had not yet
grasped the true meaning of the term _aperture_. It was believed to be
synonymous with “angular aperture,” much in use at the time. It will,
however, appear quite unaccountable that even the older opticians
should have confounded the latter with the former; and so entirely
disregarded the fact that the angles of the pencil of light admitted by
the objective cannot serve as a measure of its _aperture_, and that
high refractive media can greatly reduce the value length of waves of
light.
When the medium in which the objective works is the same as air, it
is not that a comparison can be made by the angles of the radiant
pencils only, but by their sines. For example, if two dry objectives
admit pencils of 60° and 180°, their real apertures are not as 1 : 3,
but as 1 : 2 only. Aperture in fact is computed by mathematicians by
tracing the rays from the back focus through the system of lenses to
the front focus, the front focus being the point at which the whole
cone of rays converge as free as may be from aberration. If the front
focus be in air, no pencil greater than 82°, “double the angle of
total reflection,” can _emerge_ from the plane front of the lens; and,
obviously, if no greater cone can emerge to a focus one way, neither
can any greater cone enter the body of the lens from the radiant. This
angle, then, of 82°, must be regarded as the limit for dry lenses or
objectives.
This limit, it will be seen on more careful examination, is very nearly
the maximum angle that can be computed for a lens to have a front
focus in air. This can be proved by the consideration of the angle
of the image of rays, as they are radiated from the object itself in
balsam: for although this angle of image rays viewed as nascent from a
self-luminous object capable of scattering rays in all directions, may
be 180° in the substance of the balsam and cover-glass, of the 180°
only 82° of the central portion will emerge into air--all rays beyond
this limit are internally reflected at the cover-glass. This cone,
then, of 82° becomes 180° in air, and a large part must necessarily be
lost by reflection at the first incidence on the plane front of the
lens. But with a formula permitting the use of a water medium between
the front lens and the cover-glass, the aperture of the image rays may
reach 126°--double the critical angle from glass to water; and with an
oil medium, the aperture will be found to be limited only by the form
of the front lens that can be constructed by the optician.
To sum up, then, the effect of the immersion system, greatly assists
in the correction of aberration, gives increased magnification and
angular aperture, increase of working distance between the objective
and object, and renders admissible the use of the thicker glass-cover.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account