User talk:Srleffler

Srleffler is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives
Oct. 2005–Mar. 2006 Mar. 2006–Jul. 2006 Jul. 2006–Dec. 2006 Dec. 2006–Mar. 2007 Apr. 2007–Sep. 2008

Hi, feel free to leave me a message. Kindly leave messages on new topics at the bottom of this page. Srleffler

Gordon Gould

If you want them to stay as references convert them to inline references citing a specific fact, they are 100% useless as "references", since no on can tie a specific fact to any of the reference works cited. Their only value is as "further reading" for someone who might want to read each book in it entirety and see if any of the facts cited in the article come from there. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Irish Mist (disambiguation)

I have proposed the deletion of this disambiguation page. It no longer seemed necessary as most internal links point to the drink article (as you previously observed), and that article has a hatnote to the book article. Weigh in if you see any issues.--Kubigula (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine with me.--Srleffler (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Myron Evans

Hello. You were concerned in the early stages of this article. It is now up for deletion for a second time here. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Solidus?

Hi Srleffler -- you commented on my talk page that multiple solidus in units of measurement is ambiguous. As a oftentimes computer programmer, I have to debate that point. Firstly, which is more ambigous: W/m/K or W/m·K? I think that people will find the first reads better (as in 'feet per second per second') but the second is cleaner on the page. If one observes systematically an operator precedence system '*' > '/' > '·' then there is no ambiguity. I think that many people prefer the exponential form for units because they don't appreciate that units like W/m·K can be perfectly explicit and unambiguous. Add to that the fact that kg/m² can be typed easily on any keyboard and is pure unicode, whereas Wm¯² isn't pure unicode, requires verbose HTML markup and is buggy when sent in emails. I think that engineering communication, at least, is clearer with the solidus! Rebuttal invited (and also interested to know where you got this 'rule' from, too) :-) Jdpipe (talk) 10:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Optical fiber

I responded to your reply regarding Talk:Optical fiber. I understand that you feel more specific information belongs in the branching main articles, but these articles also lack the exact same examples. Please see for yourself. These articles lack concrete examples, which divorces them from the general readership by: failing to indicate relevance, reduces comprehension, may reduce overall interest. For an encyclopedia, the public is best served with good common examples when possible. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Lens Clock edits accepted, yet missing references

The publishing of the article on lens clock has improved since it's original posting. The study appears to be the personal notes from the University of Houston College of Optometry on the mathematical models of Crown Glass refraction, and the conversion to a Flint Glass power as an example of how the lens clock is calibrated. These notes in particular are from the archives of Dr. R. Weldon Smith, and Optic Researches, Inc. a coorporation involved in the study of lenses, and lens systems. The original equations given are suggested to be from the Royal Society, London opticians historical archives, not well documented, and a rare find indeed. Wikipedia is fortunate to have this article put together, in my opinion, because the concept is somewhat ancient, and the practices are learned by few professionals specializing in providing better vision and the engineering that allows us to see better. Other than a verifiable URL that links to another similar article, I would post a reference to Dr. Smith's work at Optic Researches, Inc. This may involve researching his publications at the U.S. Dept. of Commerce. But, I'm sure the explanations were derived from former studies. StationNT5Bmedia (talk) 04:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. References have to be to published material. Unpublished personal notes are not suitable references for Wikipedia articles. It would be useful to know exactly where the material came from, but it sounds like you don't recall exactly.

I'm confused—are you the person who wrote this article, or are there several people sharing a single user account, or was this article written by someone else, and submitted to Wikipedia by you on his behalf?

The articles were hard to find topics that were considered unique. Know where else will you find such a complete exhaustion on these topics. The lens clock is a common bench tool for opticians, yet the commercialization of dispensing has made opticianry a little lower than selling shoes. If the shoe fits, wear it.

That isn't quite the case when trying to help someone half blind. Expertise in this field is needed, and can only be aquired with educational material, as is the example provided by the former practicioner and the aged old crafts.

I am quite interested in this article. I have actually used a lens clock many years ago, as a graduate student. Are these instruments no longer in common use? Your comment above seems to imply that. If so, the article should probably mention it.--Srleffler (talk) 04:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Aspheric lens edits

Popularity of the aspheric lens has declined with intra-ocular lens implants. Also, because of their high cost, and limited availability, aspheric lenses were never used widely as a corrective lens. They are, however, rarely available and beneficial in some cases. Please undo your deletion of these sections, as it is counter-productive to the extensive work done to put them together, and I get wary of hearing about the 3-edit rule when we undo each others work. The same goes for material you are editing out of the aspheric lens article opthalmic use section. I understand reversions of the astronomical use section, but not the eyeglasses.StationNT5Bmedia (talk) 11:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good thing to mention in the article. I think the problem with some of your past attempts have been mostly about wording, and partly about lack of sources. --Srleffler (talk) 04:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Finding remarks for the photographs could give some luster. Several comments were made last year about the article's lack of appeal. A little balance might help, but severe critism followed from trying to fit abbreviated text into box space. Once, shortening the word "renowned" would fit, but became a verb transitive. StationNT5Bmedia (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments on photographs are good. Photos usually should have a caption attached to them. Longer comments can appear in body text alongside. I shortened the description of the spectacles photo because I had problems with the text, and the resulting shortened text was short enough to be a caption rather than body text. The things that were wrong with the previous description were:

• Unencyclopedic tone: articles should not address the reader directly with phrases such as "notice that".
• Camera lenses are not afocal. Afocal does not mean the same as "out of focus". In afocal projection it is the telescope that is afocal (if anything is), not the camera.
• The phrase "targeting divergence from the concave asphere's centers" is unclear if not meaningless. The test pattern is out of focus because the camera lens is focused somewhere else. The aspheres bring the test pattern (almost) into focus.
• It was a bit too wordy. The compressed version is better.

--Srleffler (talk) 04:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

We're currently considering working out edits with User:Dicklyon to include links to corrective lens, but not to put references at risk on the world wide web from competition with asphere imports, a trend going on. They get enough junk email already. StationNT5Bmedia (talk) 02:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, references are published sources. Information obtained from private sources simply cannot be used, except in very special circumstances.--Srleffler (talk) 04:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ask any practitioner

An aspheric biconvex lens.

Info box comments about the aspheric bi-convex +15DS lens pertain specifically to this lens for asphakics without IOL implants. This is a health sciences practice going back 100's of years. The dispensing of the lens is declining with newer surgical proceedures. Ask an eye doctor, and you won't have to take my word for it. This info should have been included with the photo in the 1st place. It is an ambiguous diagram to the untrained eye without the clarification. Other diagrams have been removed from this article before for being awfully vague. StationNT5Bmedia (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Visit Ophthalmic Lenses and Dispensing, pg 178, fig. 13.10 found at "Opthalmic Lenses and Dispensing".

Lots of 3rd party published material without diagrams ie. www.aaofoundation.org, and the British Medical Journal relate to dispensing for aphakia. StationNT5Bmedia (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Without more information, I don't think you can tell what the lens in that diagram is. Aspheric lenses are used for many purposes, not just as corrective lenses. To my eye, that lens looks very much like the type of lens used to focus the read laser in a DVD player, or to couple a beam from a laser diode into an optical fiber.. Note that no indication of the diameter of the lens is provided, nor of the radius of curvature. It could be any size from 1 mm diameter up to many inches. Even if this were an ophthalmic lens, how can you be certain it is +15DS and not +14DS, for example?

This isn't a great diagram. I added it to the article only because I thought it was better to have a poor diagram than none at all. It's basically a place-holder until we come up with a better one.--Srleffler (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It could also be used in the lenticular lens article, a subrogate nomenclature used in older text. StationNT5Bmedia (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to have read what I wrote, just above.--Srleffler (talk) 09:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)