Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Optical Nanoscopes


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Optical Nanoscopes
Unsourced personal pseudoscience. Author disputes prod. Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I am disputing the pseudoscience comment not the author. To consider either claim requires verification, not opinion? I have several websites with observed cellular structures that could not be otherwise seen without nm magnification. www.microscience2006.org.uk/cgi-bin/press_view_details.cgi?press_id=erg49719053 which is the press release at the Royal Microscopical Show at Excel London 2006. www.grayfieldoptical.com - a company who sell the nanoscope and have video records. www.improvision.com/products/rtm/ - who sell the Richardson version of the nanoscope with resolutions down to under 100nm. Yes, as a Graduate Physicist, I was more than sceptical of the claims knowing of the 300nm wavelength resolution limit of light. But there are references from the 1940's where respected institutions (articles available if required) considered there might be ways around them. When my son was diagnosed with Diabetes last month I began to search for causes and a cure. This led to the Rife claims which were initially preposterous. However digging up all the literature (I do mean all including Court Cases!) led to a simple premise. How could he have obtained his images? How could his frequency methods work on Lymes disease where antibiotics fail? ("When antibiotics fail--Lyme disease and rife machines" by Bryan Rosner). There are numerous unsupported claims for his machines but surely the real proof would be to reproduce his high powered microscope? To this end I decided to view the Rife #5 microscope (Ex Dr Gonin of University College, London) to try to understand it better. Hours of research on the internet led to the Erganom microscope of Kurt Olbrich which was synchronistically on show in London the following week! You can see 30nm data spacings on the new DVD discs live. Astonishing! So I think the evidence for optical nanoscopes is very strong. It is also very important that the data on Wikipedia is accurate. Let me know what more evidence is required? If you just think about it for a moment the medical possibilities are revolutionary. At the moment the electron microscope sample has to be dead and in a vacuum. The optical nanoscope allows one to see live cellular phenomena down to viral sizes. I have not put it in this article but you can see the action of cancer causing particles as described by rife. How slightly alkaline blood reduces their mobility. You can also see the destruction of pathogenic cells. Even more importantly you can see where Rife was wrong! With modern equipment you can see viruses evading frequencies and needing multiples, so all in all a remarkable discovery that the world needs to know about. There is even perhaps some mileage in a possible cure for type 1 diabetes. Two patients have been cured using retrodifferentiated stem cells with ongoing research at Cambridge University. I cannot be bothered with the hassle of placing a challenged article but I am following the research closely. There is currently one (yes one!) nanoscope in use in the UK which to my mind could actually show how the body destroys pancreatic beta cells? Is this sort of work important? Of course it is and accurate articles on Wikipedia will help the process. Regards Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris500 (talk • contribs)
 * I think having the nanoscope on display at the Royal Microscopical Society Show at Excel 2006 in London is very good evidence. Mr McWalter needs to distinguish between his personal biases and the methods of science ie. observation and record. It will discredit Wikipedia to disallow verifiable data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris500 (talk • contribs)
 * Attacking me isn't going to help your case. You need to provide evidence in accordance with WP:VERIFY. We're simply not going to take your word for it. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for now. May change if verified. Please provide sources. Preferably a peer reviewed scientific paper.--Nick Y. 23:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just 1 GHit here. We need a source that it was well received not just that it was exhibited. BlueValour 23:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Those press releases are interesting but not sufficient. Every reference to "nanoscope" that I can find in the scientific literature refers to Atomic force microscopy. I also noted that none of the press releases contained the phrase "optical nanoscope". For a new scientific instument I think we need a peer reviewed article. I would suggest pubmed, sciencedirect, scirus etc. for your searches.--Nick Y. 00:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Perhaps this relates to Confocal laser scanning microscopy but it is hard to tell from the marketing mumbojumbo. Which you may have been taken in by. It seems like this stuff is real but perhaps by another name. We can;t call the personal computer a "Dell" and say it is real, look at all the press releases. Remember it is up to you chris to give sufficient support.--Nick Y. 00:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Lacks verifiable sources. Gerry Ashton 01:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be genuine confusion over this new topic. A microscope magnifies to micrometers with a max effective resolution of x2000 limited by wavelength optics. A nanoscope magnifies to nanometers. Most nanoscopes use smaller wavelengths to achieve this (X rays, etc) but this destroys live cells. An electron microscope also shows nanometric sizes but has it's own category. An optical nanoscope breaks the conventional light wavelength barrier and allows the observation of live cells. (At nm levels viruses can be seen). The literature on this subject is sparse (but I will find some) because it is considered impossible in Physics Books. Now you have the logical description of the products? This is not how they are described! The high resolution optical microscopes that show nanometric sizes should then be called nanoscopes. They are not. They are still called microscopes due to their historical method. Confusing or what! The Erganom 500, used at University College, is still called a microscope when surely the correct term is a nanoscope? I take your reasonable point that hard evidence is required before insertion. This will be provided. Thanks

The concept for this nanoscope (which is called a microscope) was developed in the 1970's. Perhaps understandably, but regrettably, it was decided by users that secrecy outweighed scientific knowledge. However letters confirming it's qualities are as below: Institute for Immunology, Witten University, Germany. www.grayfieldoptical.com/microscience/e500/expertise.pdf. Dr Greenberg, University College, London. www.grayfieldoptical.com/microscience/e500/greenberg.gif. Professor Gerd Binning, Nobel Prize winner 1986 for electron microscope. www.grayfieldoptical.com/microscience/e500/Binning.pdf. This is quite good verification but presumably not enough! Let me know what else is required! I will obtain originals if that is what is required.


 * Delete. Also continue reverting the efforts to support this in the Royal Rife article, and the one on Erganom.  A paper in Nature would produce a different response, and if the claims made appraoched performance a paper in Nature would be the least I'd expect out of it. Resolution is a size not a multiplication, there isn't a barrier to "break"  and this 2004 discussion is relevant to the devices and individuals involved.   http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.techniques.microscopy/2005-01/0003.html  It doesn't look to me like ignorance or confusion, it looks to me like an effort to use WP to support a scam for commercial gain.  Of course since Chris500 has not disclosed any indication of his affiliations or background I am only in a position to speculate. Midgley 10:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair comment. Please check the latest updates including a verified article from Science 2004 on the work of Dr Brinkmann of the Max Planck Institute on Neurophils. Also there is a letter from a Nobel Winning physicist Professor Binnig. It doesn't come any better than that!? Yes, you are correct there is some laxity in the use of terms for microscopes (or nanoscopes and whatever else they might be called). There is resolution and magnification and how the human eye detects these. Magnification is the multiplication of the original objects size and is often referred to lenses. You can magnify an image on a photocopier but you don't increase the definition, or resolution. The key measure, as you say, is the resolution or the size of the smallest two points that can be distinguished. This is defined in the classic Richard Feynmann Physics text (Lectures on Physics Vol 1:27-8) as distance "d = lambda(wavelength of light)/nxsin(theta). The smallest things that we can see are therefore approximately the wavelength of light", or 400nm. If you can see objects smaller than this then that theory must be wrong? That is the method of science. This wavelength 'barrier' is the limit that has been broken and now allows the observation of live cellular phenomena. Coincidentally it also opens up the new field of electromagnetic medicine to scientific experiments. To me it is more than strange that human and animal electrowhatever phenomena have not been clinically examined. They exist. They are powerful. They are a part of what makes us think.

Quite correctly you question my motives. It's simply the only one you can ever have. Truth.

Is there a real result in these new optical nanoscopes? I think so and appreciate your questions to show evidence. It is not even clear at the moment what they are called!

You might sense that I am pretty well pissed off with the Medical Establishment. My son was diagnosed with Type 1 Diabetes just before his A levels. This marvellous and costly Health Service of ours didn't know what caused it and considered it incurable. Bollocks! Get off your overpaid complacent fat arses and find out why. Do I really need to do it!!!????

I am a trained Theoretical Physicist from Imperial College and have spent my lifetime solving problems that were considered impossible by those too feeble to look. I know the limits of science and nature. You don't get any more fundamental than the observational limits of Quantum Mechanics. Everthing else is just detail, including the human body. I look, and I mean really look with a passion that brooks no obstacle, and I find that a Drugs Based medical establishment oversees most research and is not looking for cures but ways to make billions of dirty dollars. Disgusting. Tell that to a 5 year old with daily injections. Tell that to a Food Industry that knowingly sells products containing damaging cheap products to children. I hope to see the day when it is considered a crime.

I find that a billion sheep with two legs blitley believe the pseudoscience tag of rife WITHOUT the brains to examine it. EXAMINE IT STUPID!!! Simple logic indicates a measurable phenomena. Have a look. Prove or disprove the results. It couldn't be simpler really. As Jeremy Clarkson so aptly says "why are people so stupid and slow!".

You look and find that you can see these phenomena, and it has been known for 30 BLOODY YEARS! F***ing ridiculous!!

Next time you are in hospital just think how many illnesses could be solved by such technology. Then ask yourself what you are doing about it.

SOD ALL.
 * "a trained Theoretical Physicist from Imperial College". Not a lawyer and correspondent in the BMJ's rapid response columns as well by any chance?  Physicists were well ahead in moving their references on to the Web, and it would not be surprising to see even a BSc easily giving precise references to Science articles and letters.  I'm unconvinced.  I'm also unimpressed with either the invective, or the discussion of a child with type 1 diabetes, which as is comonly known was rapidly fatal until Banting and Best sorted out the durg that provides extra decades of life, and is a classic piece of "drug based" medicine now.  Midgley 19:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Lyme disease is anmed after Lyme County in New England, not after a person - Lyme, not Lyme's - and the Borrelia SPirochaetes are treatable effectively with antibiotics. There is a considerable overlay of rubbish on Lyme disease, and I don't doubt a fertile overlap with Rife apologists.  Midgley 19:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete for now. Also check out Erganom Nanoscope. There are indeed new microscopic techniques that break the wavelength/resolution constraint: for instance, SNOM (aka NSOM) and the JPL's FANSOM. The generic term optical nanoscope is used for these. But this article looks like an attempt to retrofit the concept to the Rife mythos. Tearlach 12:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. It may not be obvious from the article or this discussion, but the "microscope" in question is of the same design as that proposed by Royal Rife in the 1930's.  I would advise anyone interested in contributing here to read the Rife article beforehand. Tevildo 12:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.