Srleffler

Archives
Oct. 2005–Mar. 2006 Mar. 2006–Jul. 2006 Jul. 2006–Dec. 2006 Dec. 2006–Mar. 2007 Apr. 2007–Sep. 2008 Oct. 2008–Nov. 2009 Jan. 2010–Aug. 2011 Aug. 2011–Nov. 2013 Dec. 2013–Dec. 2015 Jan. 2016–Dec. 2017 Jan. 2018–Dec. 2020 Jan. 2020–Dec. 2023

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

You are correct

I really should have linked the discussion I was referring to avoid confusion. I’ll have to remember this for the future when talking about behavior; I should also try to write things a little more earlier than midnight ;) (When I woke up after that night I had to edit a lot if clumsy grammar mistakes I made). Wolfquack (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

P.S. My post was more directed towards the editors who participated in that “consensus”, which is why I didn’t think I needed to add the link. Definitely a mega oof. Wolfquack (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hi Srleffler! I've seen so many people come and go over the years. I'm glad to see you're still around. Your help on optics and laser articles is always appreciated. I just wanted to wish you a Merry Christmas! I hope the coming New Year brings you happiness and joy! Zaereth (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you too, Zaereth!--Srleffler (talk) 05:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

On Google books URLs

Hello Srleffler, I hope all is well.

I'm about to engage in a new round of laser-related edits, and, since I'll be citing sources, I'd like to know whether I am to include URLs to Google books or not — a matter previously discussed here, albeit without a conclusion having been reached.

Think about it and let me know. Thank you. L'Orfeo^{Son io} 12:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

It's probably better to include it, especially if you can link to the actual page where the information is. Srleffler (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you for your feedback! L'Orfeo^{Son io} 23:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Nodal points and EFL

Thanks for your edits in the nodal point section, and about efl. This is fundamental to optics, but it was never really clearly rationalized. The response of Zemax seems to have been to remove any definition for EFL, rather than to clearly state what it is. In the 60s or so, Kingslake said just use "focal length" (but only considered lenses in air), but Warren Smith started using efl, and it seems like Welford had dealt with lenses for bubble chambers, which may be why his equations were particularly clear. And there have been terms like "reduced power". And Arizona had a different definition, which might be the biggest issue. The thing about the n=1 comment is that if the object and image media are different, something else happens (and a paper editor spelled it out with a worked example, but it is not published anywhere yet). Anything that makes this crystal clear will help. Regards. Mike Simpson YesYes42 (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the trouble is the concept of focal length itself. Everyone gets attached to it because it's the first thing you learn about lenses, and for an ideal thin lens in air it has a simple, intuitive physical meaning. The problem is that once you move beyond that the concept of "focal length" becomes less physical. For the general case of a thick lens or a multi-element optical system with differing media on each side the EFL is the only thing you could call "the focal length" of the system. It isn't a distance from anything to the focal points, but it is the inverse of the optical power of the system so it does have a clear physical meaning.--Srleffler (talk) 04:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)