Skip to main content
Log in

Microscope Stands

  • Letter
  • Published:

From Nature

View current issue Submit your manuscript

Abstract

THE discussion on microscope stands will do little good if it is directed towards the production of a universal type of instrument. As a maker of microscopes, I come into close contact with many branches of work the requirements of which are totally different. To make but one form would be a fatal mistake. The metallurgist cannot use the instrument which is best suited for the bacteriologist, neither will the Rosenhain metallurgical microscope suit the biologist. The Dick petrological microscope is quite unsuitable for the entomologist, and the binocular instrument, which demands long tubes and a great range of focus for the use of the lowest powers, will not satisfy the chemist. For the use of botanists, zoologists, and bacteriologists there is a certain similarity of requirements, but even here it would be unwise to endeavour to make all microscopes on one model. The work of the student in the botanical laboratory is totally different from that of the research worker who is making photomicrographs with the highest power immersion lenses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

BECK, C. Microscope Stands. Nature 88, 480–481 (1912). https://doi.org/10.1038/088480b0

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/088480b0

  • Springer Nature Limited

Navigation