User talk:CelsoWellington

Welcome!
Hello, CelsoWellington, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --Srleffler (talk) 01:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Spherical aberration
Hi, I reverted your edit at Spherical aberration. González-Acuña and Chaparro-Romo's work is already mentioned in the article. Their work is not important enough (yet) to mention in the lede. In particular, their work does not really "solve" the problem of spherical aberration. That problem was solved decades ago by numerical simulation. Modern lenses are designed to be free of spherical aberration all the time. Finding an algebraic expression for correcting spherical aberration of a singlet lens is a nice theoretical achievement, and kudos to them for doing it. It's not going to produce real lenses that are any better than those that have been available for years based on numerical simulations. The quality of aspheric lenses is limited by the difficulty of fabrication, not by our ability to calculate the correct form.

Another issue with extending coverage of their work right now is that it is a little too new for us. Wikipedia coverage is based on reliable secondary sources. Before we write too much about González-Acuña and Chaparro-Romo's work, we need other scientists to write more about it, preferably in review articles and books. Their work has not yet had much of that type of coverage, although I expect that will change quickly. Give it a year or so.--Srleffler (talk) 01:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)