Talk:Lens clock

Purpose of this rare article

After digging for info about the dispensing tools used in optical laboratories, the obvious thing to do was publish the results on Wikipedia for encyclopedic content. The instrument itself seems to have origins in clock mechanisms, but falls more closely in the category of jeweler's bench equipment. Fascination with the refraction of optical lenses still leaves want to find more developing in the field of vision, and engineering devices that help us to see. StationNT5Bmedia (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I reversed the edits you made today. You seem to have misunderstood. The cleanup tags {{Inappropriate tone}} and {{wikify}} are not criticisms of the article's value. They are part of the process of improving the quality of an article. Tagging for cleanup marks articles or sections that have good material, but need further work. In this case, the sections I marked contain good information, but are written in the wrong style for an encyclopedia article, and the equations aren't typeset. These things are easily fixed. The tags are a request for an editor to come and improve the section. (I plan to do this myself, but haven't gotten around to it.)

You seem not to have understood the way references work on Wikipedia as well. Articles do not contain authorship credits, because this would be impractical. Mature Wikipedia articles are the product of many authors and editors working together over time. The work of these individuals is, however, recorded in the article's history log, which records every contribution, and the user who made it. The fact that you started the article, and your contributions to it will be recorded there forever. The "references" section in an article is for recording external, published sources that were used in preparing the article. Web sites can be suitable references, but the link has to be to a specific page that contains relevant information, not to a site's home page. The links to the University of Houston College of Optometry and Corning Museum of Glass were removed because they just linked to the organizations' home pages, not to any specific content. (I did search for information on lens clocks on those sites before removing the links.)--Srleffler (talk) 03:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Adding to the above: if there are published sources that you used in writing the article (books, articles, websites, whatever), it would be tremendously valuable if you could add a list of them to the article. If specific facts in the article come from particular references, footnotes are a good way to mark that. Don't worry if you don't know how to do footnotes or know Wikipedia's bibliographic style. I can help you with formatting the references in Wikipedia's "house style".--Srleffler (talk) 04:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Srleffler, you seem to miss the point of the article. It is educational for those interested in using the lens clock, a common dispensing bench tool for well practiced opticians. It is also a historically interesting article, because it involves the technical revolution of the 16th century, the processes discovered for higher refractive index glass (supposed to be your "Specialty" as a Physicist), and the known mathematical equations used in the function of limitations for curvature. Stop being such a self-proclaimed gignoskein and let Dr. R. Weldon Smith 's lesson alone. He's showing how the lens clock is used in a clinical environment. I'm a journalist at StationNT5Bmedia (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand. The problem is that Wikipedia is, by policy, an encyclopedia not an instruction manual or textbook. This policy constrains both the writing style and the content of articles. Walking the reader through an example problem with second-person text ("Plug in the variables we set aside above, and you get...") is appropriate style and content for a textbook, but not for an encyclopedia. This was the reason for the "inappropriate tone" tag. This is a critical problem, that must be fixed. Retaining the existing text is not an option.

In my edit, I simplified the example greatly, but the important details were still all there. Note that I previously added a section above the example, which explains the formulas Dr. Smith used in greater detail. This allows much of the explanation to be removed from the example since it is already covered. I'll take another look at it when I have a chance, to see if the example can be rewritten in some other way that doesn't compress it quite as much as my last version. In the meantime I fixed a few minor problems with your last edits, but left the example alone. Please do not remove the cleanup tags again until this section has been edited. Note also that red links should not be deleted. They mark topics for future articles yet to be created.--Srleffler (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I anticipated you would accuse this article of being just that, ie. not encyclopedic content. I also have observed that you are removing a lot of material contributed to the purpose of the Wikipedia, that exists in memory, and adding a lot of gobbledeegook retorts stretching computer memory resources. These comments do in fact get crawled by internet search engines, and occupy cyberspace around the world. You should consider more closely the purpose of publishing your comments, removing good article content, and expressing authority. Like Kevin, you may have many doppleganger screen names, as do other administrators to communicate multiple initiative. But, despite the good nature of the Aussie's meteorological and defense department's massive memory contributions, the text files of this administrative overhead nature seemingly overbear the encyclopedic content of the Wikipedia, which exists in cyberspace, not on printed material. StationNT5Bmedia (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The raw material is fine. Lens clocks are certainly a good topic for an encyclopedia article. The issues are mainly with getting the correct writing style (encyclopedia, not textbook or lecture). I'm not sure what you mean by "gobbledeegook retorts". I have tried to explain what I am doing and how Wikipedia works, so that you will understand and become a better editor. It seems that I am not getting through to you, however. I don't know how to help you with that.

We are not particularly memory-limited here. Text is cheap to store, and I am not aware of any concern that Wikipedia might run out of storage capacity anytime soon. The article discussion pages are an important part of the project. Memory used for them is well spent. Search engines can look after themselves. I have only one screen name on Wikipedia. I don't know who you mean by "Kevin". --Srleffler (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference removed

I removed the website reference that was cited regarding the use of lens clocks to measure the thickness of contact lenses. Besides being an unreliable source, the site contained some errors in its discussion of the subject. I left an abridged version of the section in the article, however, since it seems like a viable application of a lens clock. Other editors could remove this uncited section if they feel it is inappropriate.--Srleffler (talk) 04:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi-Lites of the Lens Clock article

Lens clocks use clock mechanisms to figure dioptric power of lenses with known refractive index, and are a common optician's bench tool. The first use of the lens clock in glass making would be inferred by an industrial revolution of the late 17th century, and scarcely documented by clockmakers for the Royal Society, London opticians, 1675, during a period of time that the practice of lens peddlers were discontent with the quality of glass, and glass sellers were discovering new techniques for producing different refractive indices with molten ingredients.

The craft was susceptible to political influence, and accusations of witchcraft, and sorcery existed from prior ages leading to public executions, burning at the stake, hangings, and decapitations. It does seem counter-productive to the invention if restoring eye sight was considered as "putting a spell" on someone. Societies in London evolved so the craft could survive, and the practices of providing improved visual acquity for patients became more commonly accepted as a health science.

Search the phrase "restored sight to the blind", and you may find a cache of names elevated to Sainthood, Chinese Dynasties, and references to ancient Egyptian apothecarie's "sun" glasses, used to start fire, 3000 BC. You will find the lens clock is a fairly late invention in the evolution of glass manufacturing.

Today vision care providers are mingled among professions: Ophthalmology, Optometry, and Opticianry. Lens products from manufacturers are inspected for defects before shipping, and by these practitioners before being dispensed as prescribed to patients.

It is logical that lens clocks at some point in the history of vision care were used to function like the lensometer, and vertometer to measure dioptric power. It is also logical that a lens clock could be used in the absence of other calibrated laboratory equipment to measure lens power within a reasonable tolerance. StationNT5Bmedia (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. What do you mean by "The first use of the lens clock...would be inferred by..."? Are you speculating about when lens clocks were first used, or are you trying to say something else? It would be great to have some material on the history of the lens clock in the article, but the article can't contain speculation. It would also be good to have a comment in the article, on the extent to which lens clocks are used (or not used) today.

Some of this information looks like it might be useful over at History of optics.--Srleffler (talk) 23:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

the link between languages ​​is wrong

the link between languages ​​is wrong. Dioptre is different Lens clock Dnu72 (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I removed the bad interlanguage links.--Srleffler (talk) 03:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)